DualDisc: the end of SACD and DVD-A?

[Woochifer]

Come on,when i say multi-channel audio,DVD-A and SACD,you know that. We all know the Sony story and the general consumer could care less about what we are talking about on here. So when the consumers like us have more then one format and might me confused,we get both. The electronic companys know that and milk this stuff and us along to get every dollar they can. I totally disagree about the under 30 being enamored as anyone about 5.1. I would bet most dont know what that means. Maybe they know it means better sound but to explain the 5 and the .1,not likly. LP had to be the format for 30 years. It was radio,reel to reel and LP's. Not much else to use. It had to win. Under 30 are far more into car audio,mp3 and ipod. I could take 100 under 30's,put on a VHS movie and maybe 5 would as about why no DVD,imo of course. I work around mostly under 30's,around 80 staff and i can talk about this stuff with 3 or 4 and thats it and they get bored real quick. Also when i go into the BB here,most are under 30 and almost never in the DVD-A/SACD section,never. Qusetion,take 1000 under 30's off the street and i'm betting,oh 20% might know about multi-channel audio and less,a lot less about Dual Disc. They just have a different look on this stuff, its not important.

Why do you say that the consumer could care less about what we're discussing? The people on this board are the ones who are most likely to adopt these formats. The problem with how Sony launched SACD was that they sent mixed signals into the market, which is suicide when launching a new format.

If DVD-A or SACD were marketed properly, there would be no confusion, no format war, no divided camps among the record companies and hardware manufacturers, no unnecessary market resistance. The fact that there are so many barriers to adoption with those formats is exactly why you don't see people buying the discs. I've been waiting for an appropriate high res multichannel format since I made the jump to multichannel, but I still don't own a player because I can't pick one format over another, and the universal players have so many flaws to them that I would need to reconfigure my system to play it right. If there was one high res multichannel format from the get go and it could be fully integrated into the same digital connection as the DD and DTS audio, then I would be fully on board with high res multichannel by now. But, so long as there are so many issues and divisions in the market, I'm not going to climb on board. And that's the problem with DVD-A and SACD -- they jammed so many restrictions down consumers' throats with the copy protection and the format war that even quality-driven consumers who WANT high res multichannel are not adopting.

Multichannel is not exclusively a DVD-A/SACD thing, which is why a lot of us talk about DualDisc with mixed feelings. It's nice that multichannel music will likely gain a wider audience, but the DualDisc will very likely use Dolby Digital as the format for those multichannel mixes, which is a step backwards. DVD-A/SACD are high res multichannel formats, Dolby Digital is not.

Multichannel has already caught on, high res might not. No matter what resolution is used for the multichannel music soundtracks, that does not change the overall market movement to multichannel. The fastest growing segment in car audio is the in-dash DVD player with 5.1 audio. Mini-systems are quickly going multichannel. Computers went multichannel a long time ago. The majority of these listeners haven't even heard a multichannel music disc yet -- whether through a DTS music disc, DVD-A, SACD, or even the Dolby Digital soundtrack on a DVD-A disc. With DualDisc, more of them will get to hear multichannel music on their systems, because it will come with a regular album purchase. If that helps prod more people to consider buying an album rather than just downloading MP3s, then obviously DualDisc will have done its job.

As I said before, DualDisc is viewed as a replacement for the CD, not something that requires carving out a new section at the local BB. It doesn't matter if you don't see anybody in the DVD-A/SACD section, a person who wants the new Matchbox 20 album when it comes out WILL buy it in DualDisc. Why? Because that album will NOT be available as a regular CD. If this pattern becomes the norm for other new releases, then DualDiscs will make their way into your library whether you want them or not.

If you think people under 30 don't care about multichannel audio, try talking to a gamer sometime or go to a college student apartment where home theater setups have replaced the old school stereos with the big floorstanding speakers. Between the gaming consoles and PC games, the soundtracks are now largely in multichannel. The gaming PCs that you see from companies like Dell and Alienware are sold with 5.1 and 7.1 soundcards and speaker systems.

And the people that you refer to, why would any of them have even heard of DualDisc? As I keep saying, it's been out only about a couple of months and the big product launch hasn't even started yet. Even if they don't hear about DualDisc, they'll probably wind up buying them anyway if the new releases start standardizing around DualDisc.

[shokhead]

General Consumer. I dont consider most of us on here as general consumer of A/V equipment. Thats for sure,better marketing would have made a world of difference. I just dont belive the under 30 sits in front of a A/V center thats set up right and watches a movie. More likly to throw it in a dvd player straight to a tv. In fact the 3 guys i work with,one has a 50" big screen and a VHS player and could care less about a DVD player. The other has well over a 1000 LP's and just got a DVD player but just a reciever,2 channel and a set of speakers. The other guy has a dvd player and a regular 25" tv. No music other then a boombox. My boss just got a $8000 big screen and has zero clue about DD,DTS,DVD-A or any of that stuff. Even the guys i grew up with that was into this as much as you could be in the mid 60's, i'm the only one with any real A/V setup. Most just have big screens. I think that except for the ones on this forum,this stuff is just very low on the list and would rather spend money on something else. If my wife knew what my stuff cost,she would sh$t. Now all the people i talked about have nicer stuff in there cars then there homes as far as music goes. I will say this. If more people sat in a real house and watched a good DVD on a nice mid level setup,i think they would be suprised at the sound.

[Woochifer]

General Consumer. I dont consider most of us on here as general consumer of A/V equipment. Thats for sure,better marketing would have made a world of difference. I just dont belive the under 30 sits in front of a A/V center thats set up right and watches a movie. More likly to throw it in a dvd player straight to a tv. In fact the 3 guys i work with,one has a 50" big screen and a VHS player and could care less about a DVD player. The other has well over a 1000 LP's and just got a DVD player but just a reciever,2 channel and a set of speakers. The other guy has a dvd player and a regular 25" tv. No music other then a boombox. My boss just got a $8000 big screen and has zero clue about DD,DTS,DVD-A or any of that stuff. Even the guys i grew up with that was into this as much as you could be in the mid 60's, i'm the only one with any real A/V setup. Most just have big screens. I think that except for the ones on this forum,this stuff is just very low on the list and would rather spend money on something else. If my wife knew what my stuff cost,she would sh$t. Now all the people i talked about have nicer stuff in there cars then there homes as far as music goes. I will say this. If more people sat in a real house and watched a good DVD on a nice mid level setup,i think they would be suprised at the sound.

If you're going to talk about the "general consumer", the average household spends less than $100 a year on music, less than $200 a year on audio and video equipment. Irregardless of format, the "average" consumer does not spend a whole lot on AV to begin with. But with that said, even the bottom end of the market has gone multichannel. Somebody's buying all of these sub-$200 HTIB systems that you see at WalMart and the local drug store. They might even be clueless about the various formats, but pop in a DVD, hit play and more likely than not, it will play back in 5.1, even if the person has no idea what 5.1 is. All that they will notice is that the sound is all around them just like in their local movie theater.

Going around this board, some of the most confused people I've seen about the multichannel formats are people used to two-channel analog listening. Multichannel's a different animal, and for people who have not shopped for new audio gear since the mid-90s, the audio market has dramatically changed.

If anything, it's the 30 and under set who understand how all this technology works, generally picking it up quicker than the old school hi-fi hobbyists. Most of my friends in that age range live in apartments or homes with a home theater system of some kind. Some of them are the Bose or HTIB variety, but they want the big sound with their movie viewing. They or their roommates might not have set it up optimally, but they got the requisite speakers all around plus the subwoofer.

The gamers I know setup 5.1 systems because when they play first-person shooter games online, they want the floor to shake when something blows up and they want the sound coming at them from all around. Of course, that entails a system with a bigass subwoofer.

You're right in that a lot of people just watch stuff through the TV and don't spend much on their audio equipment. But, that's nothing new. The key difference now though is that even the cheapest stuff out there is now multichannel, and there is a growing awareness that those DVD soundtracks are capable of a lot more than what gets piped through the TV speakers.

[Mr Peabody]

I realize I am the minority here but I have no interest in multichannel music. I thought the idea of an audio system was to reproduce as closely as possible the original performance of the music. I have yet to go to a show where they have a musician in each corner of the venue or a surround sound PA system. I also prefer to keep my computer and audio system separate. I would have enjoyed a portable music storage system like an I-pod but I don't know of any that connects directly with your stereo. I'd have to use my computer to rip & burn. So I guess I'm status quo until a higher quality stereo playback is available or like I think Q or Kex mentioned someone makes an album with MLP in mind from square one and it impresses me.

I think the industry is going to keep coming up with ways to get you to buy old albums over and over until some one (consumers) wises up. Look at how many versions of one album you can get, you can starte with the original CD, buy it re-mastered, then in SACD or DVD-A and now dual disc and I'm sure I missed a couple possibilities. The industry also needs to do some wising up as well because it is the copy guard protection/greed that is killing many audio and video new technologies before they get off the ground. Copy guard is the most stupid thing I have ever seen because it kills consumer electronics while those who are into computer can download DVD's before they are available for sale and can copy CD's all day long with no henderence. I did digress, just strike the copy guard stuff from the record and pay attention to my other nonsense.

[kexodusc]

I understand what you're saying here, but there's an element of outdated reasoning behind your statement.

I realize I am the minority here but I have no interest in multichannel music. I thought the idea of an audio system was to reproduce as closely as possible the original performance of the music. I have yet to go to a show where they have a musician in each corner of the venue or a surround sound PA system

There are two problems with your assessment here:
First, maybe at one point in history the "traditional" layout of a live venue was always in front of a crowd, but I can assure you that many modern artists are being more creative with 3 dimensions. Not only that, haven't you ever been at a concert with a performer and a band or orchestra playing in support? Often they are separated by the most expensive seats in the house...that's where I'd love to be!!!
Second, more and more music is becoming increasingly artistic and doing more with 3 dimensions, and no longer is the objective to make the recording sound like the old fashioned "band-all-in-front-of-you" layout...Some of my favorite newer artistic/progressive rock recordings are written with a "surround sound" effect in mind...much new age, electronica, world music, etc is as well. My comments were more about how these new formats need a true "revolutionary" recording by an already recognized artist with selling power to give the mainstream reason to buy into the concept. Music has been progressing for centuries (with ups and downs admittedly), it's time to take another step. The point here isn't to sound like a band on the front stage, because these artists have found that music can sound even better once these limitations are removed. New media make this experience possible, and recreating it in live performance becomes much harder. The truth is, an aweful lot of music, even the traditional "band-in-front" layout just sounds better when polished in a studio than live music ever could. Media formats capture this.

Second, I have to question how many DVD-A's or SACD's you've actually heard? Many of mine don't place instruments at all in the corners or other positions of the room. Instead they use the surround channels for ambience and other cues. Many of these cues enhance multi-channel soundstaging, enhancing the detail and response of instruments in the virtual soundstage. What this does is creates an even wider soundstage with more accurate detail, far more life like than 2-channels could ever dream of being. Imaging is brought up to a new level as well. What's even better, the experience is more forgiving to listeners who aren't sitting in the "sweet-spot". The multi-channel concept isn't new, engineers and artists new back in the 70's that at least 3 speakers would go a long way towards creating a more realistic reproduction.

I get really disappointed when I hear the "instruments flying out of all corners" argument. It's basically judging the multi-channel experience by the minority of poorly remixed albums that were never meant to be delivered like that, or it's an objection to artistic style which not everyone will agree with 100% of the time anyway.

Give it time Mr. Peabody, don't judge multi-channel music by its worst.

I think the industry is going to keep coming up with ways to get you to buy old albums over and over until some one (consumers) wises up. Look at how many versions of one album you can get, you can starte with the original CD, buy it re-mastered, then in SACD or DVD-A and now dual disc and I'm sure I missed a couple possibilities.

Yeah, you are right about this, the industry does re-hash a lot of selections. But I have a different take on it. I consider myself a wise consumer...I'm not being dupped by the "big, bad industry". I've bought Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon 4 times now, LP, 2 CD's, and SACD remaster. Each time I bought this album, I conciously chose to part with my money for the intrinsic value of the good. And I'm so glad I did. I started with an old CD...then a CD Remaster, then the LP (just to see what it was like when released in the day) and then the SACD. The SACD makes one of my favorite albums that much more enjoyable. And this is a case where surround sound is used well. Yeah, they made a ton of money off me, but each time I bought this album, it was worth it to me because of the joy it provided.

The industry also needs to do some wising up as well because it is the copy guard protection/greed that is killing many audio and video new technologies before they get off the ground. Copy guard is the most stupid thing I have ever seen because it kills consumer electronics while those who are into computer can download DVD's before they are available for sale and can copy CD's all day long with no henderence. I did digress, just strike the copy guard stuff from the record and pay attention to my other nonsense.

Actually, this needs to be said more...I wish my universal player had a 1 cable does it all setup like HDMI or something instead of 7 f'n cables...I've got enough of a mess back there. What's more, I have a bunch of pirated music, but it hasn't decreased the amount of money I've spent on music. If anything, it's exposed me to new artists and increased that amount.
Wooch summed it up already, piracy isn't to be blamed for the Industry's woes, disposable incomes that have remained stagnant, and new products that have emerged to compete for your entertainment dollar are. Quit investing money into copy-protection, and start investing it into value added.

[kexodusc]

General Consumer. I dont consider most of us on here as general consumer of A/V equipment. Thats for sure,better marketing would have made a world of difference. I just dont belive the under 30 sits in front of a A/V center thats set up right and watches a movie. More likly to throw it in a dvd player straight to a tv. In fact the 3 guys i work with,one has a 50" big screen and a VHS player and could care less about a DVD player. The other has well over a 1000 LP's and just got a DVD player but just a reciever,2 channel and a set of speakers. The other guy has a dvd player and a regular 25" tv. No music other then a boombox. My boss just got a $8000 big screen and has zero clue about DD,DTS,DVD-A or any of that stuff. Even the guys i grew up with that was into this as much as you could be in the mid 60's, i'm the only one with any real A/V setup. Most just have big screens. I think that except for the ones on this forum,this stuff is just very low on the list and would rather spend money on something else. If my wife knew what my stuff cost,she would sh$t. Now all the people i talked about have nicer stuff in there cars then there homes as far as music goes. I will say this. If more people sat in a real house and watched a good DVD on a nice mid level setup,i think they would be suprised at the sound.

Shockhead, you seem to think that for anything to survive, it has to be accepted by the majority of the population, the mainstream. I can assure you this is not the case. Ever hear of Rolex, Ferarri, Versace, etc...Most people I know don't own $10,000 speakers either, but this niche market exists and thrives. There's no reason why these companies can't continue to release DVD-A, SACD, and DualDisc to niche markets and make money doing it...I have no doubt they're profitting off of the SACD's and DVD-A's released to date...if they weren't, or weren't at least on pace with were they wanted to be, they would have given up already...they are being selective in which releases get the hi-rez treatment though, because let's face it, 13 year old girls probably aren't going to listen to Hilary Duff in 5.1 hi-rez, so no need to SACD that. But they haven't abandonned either format.

Thousands of products thrive in niche markets without ever crossing into the mainstream. There's no rule that says they have to. And if DVD-A and SACD never outright replace CD, I argue they don't have to in order to be successful.

[Feanor]

The DVD standard states(and I believe that goes for DVD-A also) is that a DD soundtrack must be included on every DVD.
... DD for music? yeck!

What is the bit rate for DD? Is DD a compressed format? Do you always get a stereo version on DVDs? How about DualDiscs?

Perhaps it is the state of my ears, (I'm 60 and can hear anything over 10kHz). Perhaps it's the state of my system, (which you can check out if you like). Whatever it is, the real problem for me (with regards to stereo) is in the art of the recording, not the distribution media. That is, the best produced/engineered CDs sound good enough for me and as good -- in practical terms -- as the best SACDs, but very, very few meet that standard. So what about DD vs. CD? How bad is it really?

As for multi-channel, it will be a very long time until I get my M/C system up to the same standard as my stereo. Whatever the format, I want a stereo track that is at the same technical quality level as the M/C.

[shokhead]

Shockhead, you seem to think that for anything to survive, it has to be accepted by the majority of the population, the mainstream. I can assure you this is not the case. Ever hear of Rolex, Ferarri, Versace, etc...Most people I know don't own $10,000 speakers either, but this niche market exists and thrives. There's no reason why these companies can't continue to release DVD-A, SACD, and DualDisc to niche markets and make money doing it...I have no doubt they're profitting off of the SACD's and DVD-A's released to date...if they weren't, or weren't at least on pace with were they wanted to be, they would have given up already...they are being selective in which releases get the hi-rez treatment though, because let's face it, 13 year old girls probably aren't going to listen to Hilary Duff in 5.1 hi-rez, so no need to SACD that. But they haven't abandonned either format.

Thousands of products thrive in niche markets without ever crossing into the mainstream. There's no rule that says they have to. And if DVD-A and SACD never outright replace CD, I argue they don't have to in order to be successful.

I never used the words accepted ot survive but if any of these formats are to,its up to us,not the general consumer. I really think your way off and even backeards on what the under 30 knows and uses. The under 30,married,both working full time and looking to upgrade other then A/V stuff,ie cars,housing,vacations. Also the under 30's are far more less of a home body type people. Also this stuff is so dirt cheap to make,and for what they charge for it,they only need a smaller niche to make a nice profit off of us. Oh,buy the time we are done talking about this,there should be another format out for us to buy. LOL

[kexodusc]

I never used the words accepted ot survive but if any of these formats are to,its up to us,not the general consumer. I really think your way off and even backeards on what the under 30 knows and uses. The under 30,married,both working full time and looking to upgrade other then A/V stuff,ie cars,housing,vacations. Also the under 30's are far more less of a home body type people. Also this stuff is so dirt cheap to make,and for what they charge for it,they only need a smaller niche to make a nice profit off of us. Oh,buy the time we are done talking about this,there should be another format out for us to buy. LOL

I don't recall discussing the under 30 demograph with you at all, but I'll chime in because this is the most difficult concept I have with your statement.
I'm under 30, I have a brother under 30, a cousin under 30, and many friends under 30 - all of us very much "into" the latest and greatest a/v offerings. We've been into this stuff since high-school, the only thing that changes is my disposable income over time...which allows me to improve my system, not necessarily my demand for a better media format. I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the home theater/multi-channel audio market is under 30, and would very much appreciate the value added that DualDisc, SACD, DVD-A all provide. Problem is they've been marketed at a snail-like pace, and we haven't left the "early adopter" phase of the product's life cycle.
When I look at people in my office above 30, they're every bit as in love with Ipods and MP3's as the below 30 crowd...the difference - they have more money, family's, careers, mortgages, etc already established and have an easier time prioritizing a/v equipment and media.
I bet in their 20's they were more worried about student debt, getting a job, buying a car, making rent, etc...I don't see this changing. With Xbox and other video games teaching the younger crowds the benefits of 5.1, dobly digital, etc, I'd be willing to bet they'll be more in tune with this stuff when they reach 30 than the previous generation. As Wooch mentioned, car DVD players are exploding in that market...and they're not going into mini-vans and soccer mom's SUV, they're going into used Honda Civics, Cavaliers, Sentra's, etc...all the kids who beef up their ride's stereos. And they don't just buy all this stuff to have it...they want the media to go with it.

In home, I'm quite confident that most people under 30 or so have ALWAYS been lagging the over 30 crowd...for stereo, home theater or whatever...think about it...early in life, less disposable income, etc...this group could probably never justify prioritizing a/v stuff as highly as the over 30 crowd for the most part anyway. I don't think the record companies were oblivious to this.

[kexodusc]

What is the bit rate for DD? Is DD a compressed format? Do you always get a stereo version on DVDs? How about DualDiscs?

Perhaps it is the state of my ears, (I'm 60 and can hear anything over 10kHz). Perhaps it's the state of my system, (which you can check out if you like). Whatever it is, the real problem for me (with regards to stereo) is in the art of the recording, not the distribution media. That is, the best produced/engineered CDs sound good enough for me and as good -- in practical terms -- as the best SACDs, but very, very few meet that standard. So what about DD vs. CD? How bad is it really?

As for multi-channel, it will be a very long time until I get my M/C system up to the same standard as my stereo. Whatever the format, I want a stereo track that is at the same technical quality level as the M/C.

I think Sir Terrence is more of an "anomoly" as a consumer...his career experience with the latest studio technologies puts him very much in the know. He's probably listened to more master tapes of the finest audio quality than most of the rest of us put together. So when mentions the downfalls of Dolby Digital, try to put into perspective that he's fine wine connoisseur commenting on the cheap stuff you and I buy.

Before I moved last year, the small a/v club in Bangor, I use to have coffee with, talk a/v with etc, did a lot of experimenting with DVD-A's, and Music DVD's vs CD's of the same recording. The general conclusion that we all agree upon was what Dolby Digital lacks in finer resolution, it quite often makes up for with multi-channel capability over Red Book CD. Long story short, I posted a thread here way back when about my results, and Sir T was kind enough to explain to me how DD and DTS can sound better than Red Book CD if done properly. I'm with Sir T all the way that if we had to move to one, DTS should be it...but DD alone would be small step forward if it got the world finally hooked on multi-channel audio, so I'm not going to complain about the bare minimum quality of the DualDisc format, though I will admit it's disappointing when artists use decide to release albums on a medium with so much potential , but resort to the oldest and poorest 5.1 format available.

[Feanor]

I think Sir Terrence is more of an "anomoly" as a consumer...his career experience with the latest studio technologies puts him very much in the know....
The general conclusion that we all agree upon was what Dolby Digital lacks in finer resolution, it quite often makes up for with multi-channel capability over Red Book CD. Long story short, I posted a thread here way back when about my results, and Sir T was kind enough to explain to me how DD and DTS can sound better than Red Book CD if done properly. I'm with Sir T all the way that if we had to move to one, DTS should be it...but DD alone would be small step forward if it got the world finally hooked on multi-channel audio, so I'm not going to complain about the bare minimum quality of the DualDisc format....

I appreciate your comments and I'll see if I can find your thread.

Also, I do hope Sir T will chime in as well.

[shokhead]

I think Sir Terrence is more of an "anomoly" as a consumer...his career experience with the latest studio technologies puts him very much in the know. He's probably listened to more master tapes of the finest audio quality than most of the rest of us put together. So when mentions the downfalls of Dolby Digital, try to put into perspective that he's fine wine connoisseur commenting on the cheap stuff you and I buy.

Before I moved last year, the small a/v club in Bangor, I use to have coffee with, talk a/v with etc, did a lot of experimenting with DVD-A's, and Music DVD's vs CD's of the same recording. The general conclusion that we all agree upon was what Dolby Digital lacks in finer resolution, it quite often makes up for with multi-channel capability over Red Book CD. Long story short, I posted a thread here way back when about my results, and Sir T was kind enough to explain to me how DD and DTS can sound better than Red Book CD if done properly. I'm with Sir T all the way that if we had to move to one, DTS should be it...but DD alone would be small step forward if it got the world finally hooked on multi-channel audio, so I'm not going to complain about the bare minimum quality of the DualDisc format, though I will admit it's disappointing when artists use decide to release albums on a medium with so much potential , but resort to the oldest and poorest 5.1 format available.

Oh,i'm a big DTS music disc guy,way love it but everytime i talk about it{maybe not on this forum},i get ragged on about multi-channel is far better and all the other stuff. Many more consumers would have a better chance to slap a DTS Disc into there HT and play it then a DAD-A or SACD. I think DTS Music Disc's sound great. One drawback, they wont play in most cars and cd players,most are'nt dts. Don Henley's The end of innocence is great. I belive some of the DVD-A disc's are DTS also,not sure about SACD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What is the bit rate for DD? Is DD a compressed format? Do you always get a stereo version on DVDs? How about DualDiscs?

It is pretty difficult for me to look at DualDisc as a new format. What I see is two old formats slap together in a fashion that everyone can get into. The crowd that owns a CD player can play it, and if whether you have a DVD-A decoder built in or not, you can still play this disc on any 5.1 system. This is an attempt to push two different types of consumer together(the digital 2 channel crowd, and the 5.1 DVD-V crowd).

While Dolby has come out with DD+, what appears on DualDisc is their core technology, regular old Dolby Digital with its 14:1 compression rate, and 448kbps data rate. It is a VERY compressed format. With DD you can get anything from mono to 5.1. It takes much more than 448kbps to code transparently.

Perhaps it is the state of my ears, (I'm 60 and can hear anything over 10kHz). Perhaps it's the state of my system, (which you can check out if you like). Whatever it is, the real problem for me (with regards to stereo) is in the art of the recording, not the distribution media. That is, the best produced/engineered CDs sound good enough for me and as good -- in practical terms -- as the best SACDs, but very, very few meet that standard. So what about DD vs. CD? How bad is it really?

I fully understand your perspective. However, the distribution system has a profound effect on the art of recording. Think of it, why create a excellent master tape, only to find that the distibution system dropped, or coloured what you mixed. Let me give you an example. Let's take a recording with various acoustical instruments(as opposed to explosions and dialog), wide dynamic swings, and some soft instruments playing in the same frame as louder instruments. With redbook CD(as imperfect a format as it is) much of that performance, with the exception of the spatial representation will be perserved intact. With Dolby digital's profound reliance on perceptual encoding, some instruments(usually the softer ones) will get lost(or dropped altogether) from audibility. It is not a format that emphasizes fine or micro detail like SACD and DVD-A, and to a lesser degree full bit Dts. Redbook CD does much better at this than DD. DD throws away 90% of the information found in the analog or digital master. It also channel joins, dialog normalizes, and does bit sharing. All of these take a toll on sound quality. In place of all of this, it add three channels, and a dedicated LFE channel. So when comparing CD to DD, its a matter of trade offs. DD gives compressed multichannel sound, CD gives uncompressed front loaded sound.

I think Kex has really summed things up nicely. All of my opinions are based on my experience in the studio environment, which is a environment that 95% of the pubic will never experience. I have worked enough with DD, Dts, PCM(not enough of DSD yet) to recognize their strengths and weaknesses. I hear things from each format that very few people will hear. I know what a recording sounds like before being encoded with DD and Dts. Both DD and half bitrate Dts degrade the sound compared to the master. Full bit Dts's only audible losses is a bit of air around instruments, but everything else it there full force. There is a reason why there are over a hundred(or more) Dts music disc(notice I didn't say CD's), and none(or very few) with DD as the prominent format. Dts is better at resolving fine detail than DD is. That is just my opinion.

As for multi-channel, it will be a very long time until I get my M/C system up to the same standard as my stereo. Whatever the format, I want a stereo track that is at the same technical quality level as the M/C.

I think it is all about where your priorities are. I don't have seperate music and HT system. I made damn sure my system does both equally well. As far as a stereo mix having the same quality as a M/C mix, eh, that is a matter of perspective and taste. I will always choose a multichannel mix over a two channel mix unless the two channel mix is far superior in terms of sound quality. Two channel is a compromised to fit a format, and is not a optimized at all. Multichannel is the way we hear naturally, in 3 deminsions, not two. The idea that two channel is the holy grail of sound is rediculous from jump street. It is loaded full of spatial errors, and is a VERY narrow pipeline to shove alot of information through. Most of the time two channel requires alot of post processing to get to sound good. Multichannel requires far less.

Lastly, DD can sound pretty dang good with stuff that is non acoustical in nature. That means film soundtracks. Film soundtracks are made up of a bunch of limited frequency, limited dynamic range pieces fitted together in a way that presents a whole package with good fidelity and a wide dynamic range. Dialog is usually compressed, music's overall volume ebbs and flows with the picture, and keep in mind, the picture is a great distraction from the audio. When the mind processes audio alone, it pays careful attention to the detail of the sound. When a mind is processing video alone, you see seemingly everything. When the mind has to process both simultaneously, it averages both together not giving dominance over either. That is what makes lossey formats so effect with film soundtracks. Take away the picture, and compare the lossey sound against the printmaster and the degradation becomes pretty glaring.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I realize I am the minority here but I have no interest in multichannel music. I thought the idea of an audio system was to reproduce as closely as possible the original performance of the music.

This is not to be taken as a negative confrontation. However when two channel advocates say these kinds of things, it freezes my blood cold. Two channels in reference to capturing the original performance is a complete and utter fallicy. With thousands of reflections of varying amplitudes coming from every direction at different times within 360 degrees around you, two channel is a failure. A concert hall performance is not strictly a front loaded affair like two channel is. In a live performance the audience is to the sides and behind you, not in back of the orchestra where two channel present it.

I have yet to go to a show where they have a musician in each corner of the venue or a surround sound PA system.

There is more than one way to approach music mixing these days. There is the straight forward live recording way , and the artistic studio recording(all studio recordings are artistic in different ways). Without the assistance of phase manipulation devices, it is somewhat impossible to do a artistic recording in stereo. With multichannel you can do many different types of recording. That is a step up from the old school approach. Keep this in mind, over the years all kinds of techniques have been develope to squeeze more spatiality out of the two channel medium. SDA introduced by Polk, crosstalk eliminating boxes, dynaco matrix, bipolar and dipolar speakers, and mono everywhere by Bose. All of this is totally not necessary with mutlichannel.

I also prefer to keep my computer and audio system separate. I would have enjoyed a portable music storage system like an I-pod but I don't know of any that connects directly with your stereo.

Your idea of music reproduction is a little schitzy for me. On one hand you want a purist mixing approach, but you would settle with listening to that on a lossey, bit starved format that alters timbre and phase. Can you explain this apparently divergent ideaology

I'd have to use my computer to rip & burn. So I guess I'm status quo until a higher quality stereo playback is available or like I think Q or Kex mentioned someone makes an album with MLP in mind from square one and it impresses me.

MLP is not a musical format, but a way of losslessly compressing audio to fit a narrow pipeline. You cannot record directly to MLP, and MLP cannot be directly accessed for music reproduction. You use MLP to squeeze several different bitstreams on to DVD.
There are quite a few albums already created with multichannel in mind. Alan Parson has created several on the Dts discs. Alot of albums created during the quad era are easily adapted to multichannel as they already have at least 4 discretely recorded channels. Many older classical recordings on the Mercury label where created with four discrete channels mixdown to two.

I think the industry is going to keep coming up with ways to get you to buy old albums over and over until some one (consumers) wises up. Look at how many versions of one album you can get, you can starte with the original CD, buy it re-mastered, then in SACD or DVD-A and now dual disc and I'm sure I missed a couple possibilities. The industry also needs to do some wising up as well because it is the copy guard protection/greed that is killing many audio and video new technologies before they get off the ground. Copy guard is the most stupid thing I have ever seen because it kills consumer electronics while those who are into computer can download DVD's before they are available for sale and can copy CD's all day long with no henderence. I did digress, just strike the copy guard stuff from the record and pay attention to my other nonsense.

I am going to say this. If each reissue did not improve the sonics over the last, then the public that is after quality won't buy it. If each sucessive reissue improves on the sonics of the last, then it will sell. Any record company marketing person knows this. The film industry is more guilty of this than the record companies. At least the record companies release their reissues on different platforms, the film industry does reissues on the same platform with usually the same quality paid to the film, and the only additions are added value material. I used to have three different copies of the same movie. A original release(not many extras), then a special edition(with tons of behind the scenes stuff but no better audio or video) and a superbit version that has no extras, but DD, Dts, and video with a higher bitrate attached. This is a go to hell sin as far as I am concerned.

You raise a great point with copy protection. Let's outline the formats that have gone under behind copy protection issues.

DCC-Because of the ability to copy between decks, no consumer software was produced by the record companies for fear that massive digital copying would cut into sales of existing CD's. It was the first digital lossy format introduced in 1992, and gone by 1996. Philips produced a few DCC recordings, but without the support of the other record companies, the format was doomed in four years. The fears of the industry were unfounded as data errors were introduced after the first copy, which made this format unsuitable for copy pirates to use.

DAT- Another high quality tape based format that could interface directly with a CD player to make copies. It was introduced in 1987 by Sony, and was immediately under fire by the record companies because it could reproduce perfect copies of CD. It was finally subjected to SCMS(serial copy management system) which allowed only one generational copy. All of the controversy, and this system finally killed the format amoung consumers, and prevented widespread use amoung professionals.

SACD and DVD-A-Both of these formats could have been widely popular to consumers. But copy protection issues prevented both from outputting data through a digital connect already in all recievers. This prevented the implementation of internal bass management and delay, both needed to optimized the format for proper reproduction. The manufacturers answer that equation by providing bass management from the player level. But it was inadequate for most setups, and Sony didn't even bother to release DSD based bass management and delay. That means to do delay and bass management, the signal has to be converted to PCM. This defeats any sonic advantage that SACD would have over DVD-A.

IMO, copy protection is the single biggest issue that has kept the average consumer from enjoying the benefits of high rez audio.

[Quagmire]

It is pretty difficult for me to look at DualDisc as a new format. What I see is two old formats slap together in a fashion that everyone can get into. The crowd that owns a CD player can play it, and if whether you have a DVD-A decoder built in or not, you can still play this disc on any 5.1 system. This is an attempt to push two different types of consumer together(the digital 2 channel crowd, and the 5.1 DVD-V crowd).

While Dolby has come out with DD+, what appears on DualDisc is their core technology, regular old Dolby Digital with its 14:1 compression rate, and 448kbps data rate. It is a VERY compressed format. With DD you can get anything from mono to 5.1. It takes much more than 448kbps to code transparently.



I fully understand your perspective. However, the distribution system has a profound effect on the art of recording. Think of it, why create a excellent master tape, only to find that the distibution system dropped, or coloured what you mixed. Let me give you an example. Let's take a recording with various acoustical instruments(as opposed to explosions and dialog), wide dynamic swings, and some soft instruments playing in the same frame as louder instruments. With redbook CD(as imperfect a format as it is) much of that performance, with the exception of the spatial representation will be perserved intact. With Dolby digital's profound reliance on perceptual encoding, some instruments(usually the softer ones) will get lost(or dropped altogether) from audibility. It is not a format that emphasizes fine or micro detail like SACD and DVD-A, and to a lesser degree full bit Dts. Redbook CD does much better at this than DD. DD throws away 90% of the information found in the analog or digital master. It also channel joins, dialog normalizes, and does bit sharing. All of these take a toll on sound quality. In place of all of this, it add three channels, and a dedicated LFE channel. So when comparing CD to DD, its a matter of trade offs. DD gives compressed multichannel sound, CD gives uncompressed front loaded sound.

I think Kex has really summed things up nicely. All of my opinions are based on my experience in the studio environment, which is a environment that 95% of the pubic will never experience. I have worked enough with DD, Dts, PCM(not enough of DSD yet) to recognize their strengths and weaknesses. I hear things from each format that very few people will hear. I know what a recording sounds like before being encoded with DD and Dts. Both DD and half bitrate Dts degrade the sound compared to the master. Full bit Dts's only audible losses is a bit of air around instruments, but everything else it there full force. There is a reason why there are over a hundred(or more) Dts music disc(notice I didn't say CD's), and none(or very few) with DD as the prominent format. Dts is better at resolving fine detail than DD is. That is just my opinion.



I think it is all about where your priorities are. I don't have seperate music and HT system. I made damn sure my system does both equally well. As far as a stereo mix having the same quality as a M/C mix, eh, that is a matter of perspective and taste. I will always choose a multichannel mix over a two channel mix unless the two channel mix is far superior in terms of sound quality. Two channel is a compromised to fit a format, and is not a optimized at all. Multichannel is the way we hear naturally, in 3 deminsions, not two. The idea that two channel is the holy grail of sound is rediculous from jump street. It is loaded full of spatial errors, and is a VERY narrow pipeline to shove alot of information through. Most of the time two channel requires alot of post processing to get to sound good. Multichannel requires far less.

Lastly, DD can sound pretty dang good with stuff that is non acoustical in nature. That means film soundtracks. Film soundtracks are made up of a bunch of limited frequency, limited dynamic range pieces fitted together in a way that presents a whole package with good fidelity and a wide dynamic range. Dialog is usually compressed, music's overall volume ebbs and flows with the picture, and keep in mind, the picture is a great distraction from the audio. When the mind processes audio alone, it pays careful attention to the detail of the sound. When a mind is processing video alone, you see seemingly everything. When the mind has to process both simultaneously, it averages both together not giving dominance over either. That is what makes lossey formats so effect with film soundtracks. Take away the picture, and compare the lossey sound against the printmaster and the degradation becomes pretty glaring.

Sir TT,
In regards to some of the losses which would be experienced with DD music mixes; isn't Dolby Digital (AC3) somewhat related to Dolby's earlier work with "Noise Reduction". In other words, aren't the technologies related? Just curious.

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT,
In regards to some of the losses which would be experienced with DD music mixes; isn't Dolby Digital (AC3) somewhat related to Dolby's earlier work with "Noise Reduction". In other words, aren't the technologies related? Just curious.

Q

Q,
The two are not related. AC3 is a codec originally intended as the audio delivery system for HDTV. It was used first on film in 1992. Dolby's noise reduction work goes back to the 70's

[Feanor]

...
I think it is all about where your priorities are. I don't have seperate music and HT system. I made damn sure my system does both equally well. As far as a stereo mix having the same quality as a M/C mix, eh, that is a matter of perspective and taste. I will always choose a multichannel mix over a two channel mix unless the two channel mix is far superior in terms of sound quality. Two channel is a compromised to fit a format, and is not a optimized at all. Multichannel is the way we hear naturally, in 3 deminsions, not two. The idea that two channel is the holy grail of sound is rediculous from jump street. It is loaded full of spatial errors, and is a VERY narrow pipeline to shove alot of information through. Most of the time two channel requires alot of post processing to get to sound good. Multichannel requires far less.
....

Thanks very much, Sir T., for your explaination of the shortcomings of Dolby Digital. Clearly these shortcoming have been what I've been trying to overcome in my 30 years of listening.

Lest I left a different impression, I enthusiastically agree that multi-channels has a greater potential for realistic reporduction than stereo. But I have the following practical consideration that many people share I suspect.

First and most importantly, after decades my stereo system has finally got to the level of quality I have wanted. I'm not willing to give up any quality. So now to added at least three more high-quality speakers and amplifiers, (center and rears), is financially prohibitive.

Secondly, placing a pair of speakers in a given room can be a big challenge, never mind placing 5 speakers.

Thirdly, there isn't enough software to buy mainly multi-channel. Most of what I want to hear is available only on stereo CD.

Fourthly, it hard enough to find excellent stereo recordings. Given record producers and engineers typically fail to get really good 2-channel quality, how can we expect them to get really good M/C? My guess would be that it's hard to do the multi-channel than stereo. If the opposite were true, I'd be glad to know it!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First and most importantly, after decades my stereo system has finally got to the level of quality I have wanted. I'm not willing to give up any quality. So now to added at least three more high-quality speakers and amplifiers, (center and rears), is financially prohibitive.

I personally think that having multichannel is worth the expense and effort. If you think stereo sound good, wait till you hear a good multichannel mix. Telarc, Nimbus, Delios and several other boutique record companies are turning out excellent stuff.

Secondly, placing a pair of speakers in a given room can be a big challenge, never mind placing 5 speakers.

People like you and I are setting up 5.1 system correctly everyday. While it takes more work to set them up correctly(you are adding three more speakers) it is not impossible to do if you spend a little time at it.

Thirdly, there isn't enough software to buy mainly multi-channel. Most of what I want to hear is available only on stereo CD.

If you are into jazz and classical like I am, there is plenty of stuff out there that makes going multichannel financially feasible.

Fourthly, it hard enough to find excellent stereo recordings. Given record producers and engineers typically fail to get really good 2-channel quality, how can we expect them to get really good M/C? My guess would be that it's hard to do the multi-channel than stereo. If the opposite were true, I'd be glad to know it!

I realize there are bad recording out there, but that is not the majority of recording produced. There are alot of catalog reissues being produced in multichannel, but if you are a fan of classical music, they are putting out some great sounding stuff right now.

You would be rather surprised to know that the engineer is not always at fault when a bad recording comes out. I know I did a really good mix one time, and when I got the first production run CD, it didn't even sound close to what I had mixed. I do not know what the problem was, but it was definately not in the mix.

[shokhead]

I still havent found to much to buy from DTS and SACD's. Blues and Rock for me.

[Mr Peabody]

Sir T, to clarify what I was saying, I would not use an I-pod type product for my home stereo. I was looking for something portable to use on my public transit trips each day. And I agree two channel is far from a perfect format for capturing a live show but I have yet to hear multi channel recordings being used to capture those reflections you are talking about. In addition I have read articles that criticize engineers for using those old Quad techniques and not moving forward to experiment or exercise the multi channel ability.

Kex, you mentioned products kept alive by the minority, what about mini disc? The I-pod may eventually kill it but Sony's mini disc has hung on for a lot of years.

I think for multi channel music to really take off it will have to follow the same path as 5.1 did when it was brought to movies. Maybe that's not such a good example because 5.1 was delivered with superior picture and all on a handy dandy disc. But everyone involved was on board with it and in sync. And you have to agree that new Dolby Digital or DTS movies sound much better than any remaster of a Pro Logic. Though Lucas came close. DVD came to market with the audio manufacturers offering the players and receivers that were made to connect to each other, although there are different surround formats they all play in the player, you just have to make sure the player decodes it, the player worked with your TV, the movie companies were pumping out movies in 5.1 like crazy, it was a cohesive penetration into the market. Nothing since has had that unity amongst the various industries or manufactures. I always try to keep an open mind but this is an era where I excercise more caution.

[kexodusc]

Mr. Peabody: Good point about the Mini-disc...it never caught on in North America, but when I was in Europe about 5 years back EVERYONE seemed to have one of these things...I don't think it was a bust for sony at all...just not North America's thing, maybe.
What I did like about Mini-Disc was that Sony's proprietary encoding format was much better than MP3...much better! Or lossless if so desired!