SACD & DVD-A

[nick4433]

Uh, sorry for the ignorance on these formats Q but my processor does not have 5.1 analog ins so I guess I have to go without it but the positive side is it saves me the expense that I would have incurred! (LOL)

[Woochifer]

I trust the people that USE both formats on a daily basis, not the people who write about it. IMO journalists always seemed to have an alterior motive, especially when they are trashing something. I am also concerned when they write negative things about a format, and my own hands on experience doesn't mirror their comments. I do not believe Sony's hype, nor do I trust the anti Sony crowd either. Just like with Dts, if the engineers(the people who use it everyday)sing the praises of a format, then it must be good. They don't have an allegiance to anyone but their clients.

T -

Good to hear a voice of reason on topics that seem to generate more nonsensical polarization than anything. My demos thus far with SACD and DVD-A have convinced me that either format would be an improvement over two-channel CD. As for the merits of one versus the other, I'm not quite as concerned since either way the listener gets a jump up in resolution, along with (in most cases) improved mastering, and multichannel surround to boot.

It is interesting though that your impression is that audio journalists are solidly behind DVD-A because TAS and Stereophile seem to favor SACD. Just as an example, Shane Buettner, one of Richard Hardesty's proteges at TAS, has done several articles on the two formats and probably reviewed more DVD-A, SACD, and universal players than anybody; and he generally favors SACD, though he doesn't trash DVD-A in the process. If anything, I see DVD-A marketed more as a mass market format, and SACD marketed towards the audiophile market, which is ironic considering that SACD's hybrid disc capability makes it more suited to the mass market.

The current issue of TAS has a pretty good article on the status of both formats. Supposedly, the wave of recent SACD/CD hybrid releases from the likes of Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones have bottled up the manufacturing capacity for the hybrid discs, and they're pretty much selling as many as they can make. SACD can win this format war, or at least force the market towards universal players, if Sony and its SACD partners decide to standardize all of their new releases around the hybrid disc format. But, supposedly that can't happen until more capacity comes online, and Sony lets go of the idea that they can successfully keep SACD viable as a niche audiophile format and charge premium pricing.

Right now, I favor DVD-A simply because I can play them back on my regular DVD player! Even with just the backup DD soundtrack, I can already hear what the multichannel mixes do, and with the backup DTS soundtracks, I already pick up sound quality that audibly rivals the CD versions, multichannel or not. Higher resolution would be gravy. In the end, I think the advent of universal players will render this whole debate moot, and for now I'm still waiting for the right model to hit my price point.

[Woochifer]

BTW, I don't appreciate being paired with "Bose-basher" (Wooch) and "grasshopper" (Q) as The Three Stooges

Hey Smoke, what makes you think that T was referring to "Stooges" rather than "Stogies"? And besides, why am I am Bosebasher? I'm merely a truthseeker! Does that make me an angry person? Just don't ever invite me over with that Wave music system infomercial on the tube ... I'm liable to ... uh ... permanently reshape some material items around the living room if that happens.

[GaToy]

My biggest gripe is the lack of newer music for either of the formats. If the music companies have dumped this much money into something you would think they would make more music to support it. I don't want to hear the Beatles in 5.1. Nor do I listen to classical music. Why can't they put out music that appeals more to the younger generations. They are 90% of all music sells. I think this is one of the key factors that is killing both formats. The same thing happened to Mini Disk. Noone wanted to get Top Gun on Mini Disk they wanted newer music. And they didn't want to have to order it.

~C.C.~

[Geoffcin]

My biggest gripe is the lack of newer music for either of the formats. If the music companies have dumped this much money into something you would think they would make more music to support it. I don't want to hear the Beatles in 5.1. Nor do I listen to classical music. Why can't they put out music that appeals more to the younger generations. They are 90% of all music sells. I think this is one of the key factors that is killing both formats. The same thing happened to Mini Disk. Noone wanted to get Top Gun on Mini Disk they wanted newer music. And they didn't want to have to order it.

~C.C.~

I've got a couple of DVD-Audio disks from newer groups and they are the ones that suck. It was a waste of bandwith in my opinion. The worst part is I cant even listen to them in the car, the one place where there lack of fidelity woudlnt matter!

[kexodusc]

I've got to agree with the earlier post about the titles that are being remixed into SACD or DVD-A. They seem to be older albums that I already have...and while I appreciate the higher resolution, it'd be nice to see more selection.
At the same time, there's only a half dozen albums that were purchase worthy last year, and probably none of these artists or their labels could afford investing in a newer format.
I really hope the universal players that are becoming more accessible solve this problem and encourage progression.
Good reference to MiniDisc, hopefully Sony's learned from that mistake...premium pricing, and poor marketing destroyed an extremely innovative product (though there has been a recent surge in the portable media area).
If anyone's wondering, I've found that Europe seems to be ahead of North America in terms of SACD and DVD-A selection, including several popular releases by American artists. Unfortunately, the cost of shipping and currency conversion destroys most of the incentive to purchase these.

[Quagmire]

Quag,
Since things are slowing down for me, I took the opportunity to do some reading and research on this topic. First, I haven't seen formats that created this kind of controversy since DD and Dts. Just like those formats the audio community is deeply divided about which is more sonically superior. First you have the audio journalist who are much more DVD-A oriented(and much more supportive of DD by the way), and the audio engineers which have a much stronger SACD leaning(and tend to be big Dts supporters)

Audio journalist and naysayers.

This group tends to have NOTHING good to say about SACD. I mean NOTHING!! They point out the DSD process as mangling transient tails, siblants on female vocals, and inverting phase above 8khz. In this area many write that notes(there are no notes to speak of above 8khz, only harmonics) sound frazzled with a very trashy like distortion. The constantly comment that the entire system is based on flawed theory that 64 times oversampling coupled with a 1 bit converter is enough resolution for high fidelity audio. They claimed that both Sony and Phillips built this technology on a platform that is 4 times worse than 16/44.1khz PCM. They claim that DSD relies heavily on averaging a waveform, and PCM does not and follows every curve of the waveform exactly. Cymbals, triangles, gongs which have very high frequency harmonics are poorly handled in the DSD stream because of its inability to cleanly process signals above 8khz. I read about 8 different reviews of the DSD system by various audio journalist(or scientist. One particular journalist reports of a direct comparison between 24/192khz DVD-A, SACD and a live violin(which is not a fair comparison at all really 24/192khz has a much larger bandwith than SACD) which he describes 24/192khz as trashing SACD. I personally do not beleive this at all because this just does not square with my experience with both formats. No differences I have heard in my career(with the exception of a comparison between 16/44.1khz CD vs SACD) ever really arises to a trashing(a subtle improvement is more accurate). He claims that the 24/192khz data stream sounded exactly like the live violin, while the SACD bitstream sounded like "someone put a blanket over the violin and played it". I tend to discount journalist who use inflammatory words like "trash" and "night and day", Doing a little research on this person, he primarly writes articles on room acoustics, not equipment or format reviews. Also of note, the sponsers of this comparison have come forth as VERY early supporters of DVD-A. So much for objectivity and journalistic ethics.This journalist also claims that Sony's mastering facilities truncates the CD layer of the hybrid SACD disc from 16 bits down to about 12 bits just to emphasize the superior sonic abilities of SACD over redbook CD. I am highly doubtful of this one, but I also understand that Sony and Phillips have sunk big R&D money into DSD and SACD, and cannot really afford to lose the format battle. I seriously doubt however that they would sabotage the CD layer because it is relatively easy to find this out.

Engineers
I could not find even ONE engineer to support the above mentioned journalist assumptions and comments. NOT ONE. The engineers that have come out in support of SACD are numerous from what I gather. Some noteables include Jack Renner and Michael Bishop of Telarc, Tom Jung of mobile fidelity, George Massenburg of Gataway mastering facility, grammy award winning David Chesky of Chesky Records, Chuck Ainley, Eliott Scheiner, Alan Parsons, Al Schmitt, Jay Newland & S. Husky Höskulds, Dave Russell, Phil Burnett & Roger Nichols, David Bianco, Jim Scott, Richard Dodd & Stephen McLaughlin, and the list goes on and on

I have found in my own experience that I do not agree with the audio journalist that was passively mentioned above. Both formats represent a HUGE improvement over the CD redbook standard. I think they should both co-exist just like DD and Dts do. Manufacturers should hurry up and get universal players on the market for the benefit of both formats.

I do not think that the potential of either SACD or DVD-A has been reached yet. I believe that ALL consumer products on the market right now that have DVD-A or SACD playback capabilities degrade both formats because of filter problems, and sub-par A/D D/A conversion. I do not know even one DVD player(even the high end models) that has a true ability to decode 24 bits(its more like 18-20 bits accurately). However, I have found MANY high end dedicated CD players that do better(but are not perfect)at this than DVD players.

My conclusions on this are for the current state of each format. Both have the potential to sound better than they currently do. For live recordings that require no, or minimal editing and sweetening, I would go with DSD/SACD. For studio projects and projects that require extensive editing and sweetening, I would go with DVD-A. The post production tools for DVD-A are more extensive, easier to find, and cheaper than with SACD(this is from a engineers perspective)

So this is what it looks like so far, journalist love DD and DVD-A, recording engineers like Dts and SACD. I think its probably too early to tell which REALLY sounds better. We certainly won't know until some profound improvements are made to DVD and SACD players.

T-man,

Thanks for the insightful reply. It is nice to get some feedback about these two formats from someone on the inside. It's unfortunate that so much BS seems to swirl around this subject - it's hard to know what or who to believe. That's why, as an end user, I have decided to make my judgment based upon my own listening experience and as I've already pointed out, at this point I'd have to give the edge to SACD in terms of sound quality. Note that I used the term "edge" which denotes that the differences are narrow and small - not "night and day" as the journalist you cited would have us believe. I think anybody who claims to hear huge sonic differences between these two formats is either self delusional or trying to promote a particular agenda. I'm not saying that folks shouldn't be allowed to express a preference for one format or the other, just as I have done, but I believe to claim such huge sonic differences does more to discredit their position rather than bolstering it.

No, for me the issues which make it easier to decide which format I prefer are the convenience and usability (a word?) of the end product. This is where SACD definitely pulls ahead in my book. IMO if SACD had been launched from the beginning in the Hybrid form, this so called "war" would be over by now. But even this late in the game, If those backing SACD would make a commitment to make all future releases Hybrid and increase the number of discs released with multichannel mixes, I think they can still go along way in capturing most of the market share for "High Rez" music. Personally, I don't want to see both formats existing side by side. I'd rather that one or the other become widely accepted so that we can see a real push in software availabiltiy. It sucks to want to buy a product which is simply not available - we need more titles! It also sucks to think that you may be investing in a format which may die soon. I'm sure this has hampered sales to some degree. I know I own a few discs from both formats but I am hessitant to purchase too many of either format until this thing shakes out a little more. I think it is possible that many others are hedging on their commitment to either format until they see a clear winner too. I do have to admit that competition between the two formats has at least brought prices down a little; something which probably would have occured more slowly without the war. Gotta look for those silver linings!

Q

[Quagmire]

Uh, sorry for the ignorance on these formats Q but my processor does not have 5.1 analog ins so I guess I have to go without it but the positive side is it saves me the expense that I would have incurred! (LOL)

I hear ya, Nick. You know what's funny is that until they finally start to come out with some good combo players, even those of us who have 5.1 analog inputs have to choose a player which support one or the other format, or buy two different players and change out the wiring each and every time. This is what I have done... bought two inexpensive players to compare the formats. Well in all honesty, I needed a good progressive scan DVD player anyway, so I just found one that included DVD-A as an additional feature. I already had an entry level Sony CD/SACD player, so the expense wasn't that great but the inconvenience of both players needing the 5.1 inputs on my pre/pro is a PAIN IN THE A$$!

Good to hear from you!

Q

[TinHere]

Thought some might be interested in this.

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/....flipdisc.html

[woodman]

As you can see, there is more that I like about SACD than what I don't like about the format. It is my hope that SACD will succeed and that DVD-A will fail, although I make no predictions about how it will all shake out. I just don't believe that both formats can successfully co-exist, or that it is desirable for them to co-exist. As it is right now, there are some titles that are available on one format but not on the other... What a pain the the a$$! If people want more software to choose from, I think one of these formats needs to come away a clear winner and the other needs to go bye bye. Like I said, if it were up to me, I'd choose SACD, but that's only my preference.
Q

I'm at a total loss to understand your POV, Q. Why do you want one of the two formats to FAIL? Why do you think it necessary for that outcome to happen? I also don't understand your criticism of DVD-A as being "tied to the video display" ... it can certainly be played without the TV set being turned on, can't it?

For what it's worth -based upon my many, many, many, many years of experience within the industry - here's what I think will be the outcome of this so-called "format war":

... both will survive and co-exist, for there is no possible reason why one of the two MUST fail. With the introduction of "universal players" which can handle both formats, there is no longer any need for consumers to choose one format over the other, nor does it make any sense for them to have to choose.

The success (or lack thereof) of both formats will be inextricably tied to the availibility of the software that people want and are willing to pay for. With both formats co-existing in the marketplace, and an increasing number of consumers having the ability to play either format at home, the amount of available software automatically increases ... this can only be a good thing that will contribute to the viability (and therefore, the longevity) of both.

[Quagmire]

Woodman,

Let me explain my POV. I want one of the two formats to fail because then all support will be firmly placed behind the winning format - hardware and software alike. I want High Resolution Multichannel Audio to be successful because I don't like the trend toward lesser quality formats like MP3 displacing CD's. I may represent a minority "nitch group" but I really do care about the sound quality of what I listen to. I'd rather see the complete success of one format and the complete demise of the other rather than live with the lackluster success of both.

Even though I agree with Sir Terrence the majority of the time, I don't see his comparison of SACD & DVD-A to DD & DTS as being quite applicable in this case. DD and DTS do exactly the same thing, although at arguably different levels of excellence, and can exist side by side on the same disc: Not so with SACD and DVD-A. They may be vying to claim the same Hi Rez mulitichannel audio market, but their approaches to how to fulfill this role are very different - one is A/V based and the other one isn't. I know that this may seem like a small difference, but it really isn't. When I say that DVD-A is tied to a video display I don't mean that you have to listen to it and watch it at the same time, but you do need a video display in order to navigate through the menu options just like you do with DVD-Videos. The format presupposes that the disc is going to be played in a DVD player and so there is a reliance on using the display to navigate through the menu items. Not so with SACD. These discs play just like the CD's that we've become accustomed to over the years. You can actually have a system, just for listening, which contains nothing more than an SACD player, a receiver (or seperates), and speakers. What's more, this system will still play all of the redbook CD's you've purchased over the last decade or so.

You said: "...an increasing number of consumers having the ability to play either format at home..."

But what if you aren't "at home"? What if you're at the beach, sitting on a patio or deck, riding a bike or jogging, camping, or anywhere else that you don't have a video display but would like to enjoy music? With the move to Hybrid discs, this isn't a problem.

Look at it this way... Say SACD had been issued as Hybrid Multichannel to begin with and it had gotten a fairly good foothold. Why would there be a need for DVD-A? Both formats are Hi Rez and Multichannel so why the need for duplication? There really isn't a need for both in my opinion. So what if DVD-A begins to include a CD layer on the flip side as TinHere pointed out? You still couldn't listen to the high resolution tracks in an "audio only" system like the one I described above; but putting that aside for a moment, why would you need SACD anymore? I believe it is inevitable that at some future date there will be a point of acceptance for one format and the ultimate dismissal of the other. I just think that the sooner this takes place, the better for all concerned. Universal players may forestall this inevitability for awhile but they can't prevent it altogether IMO. It also doesn't bode well that even expensive universal players being released now don't have the reputation for doing an equally good job at both formats.

I don't expect you to agree with it, and I know I could be wrong, but that's my POV still the same. By-the-way, love the Steven Wright quote. He is so cool.

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Woodman,


Even though I agree with Sir Terrence the majority of the time, I don't see his comparison of SACD & DVD-A to DD & DTS as being quite applicable in this case. DD and DTS do exactly the same thing, although at arguably different levels of excellence, and can exist side by side on the same disc: Not so with SACD and DVD-A. They may be vying to claim the same Hi Rez mulitichannel audio market, but their approaches to how to fulfill this role are very different - one is A/V based and the other one isn't.
Q

Q,
When you think of it really, the SACD and DVD-A comparison to DD and Dts is quite applicable.

Dts and DD represent a major breakthrough in film sound over Dolby Stereo.
SACD and DVD-A represent a major breakthrough in music reproduction over redbook CD

Just like DD and Dts, SACD and DVD-A were developed, and released within a relatively tight timeline.

Just like DD and Dts SACD and DVD-A have VERY vocal supporters and detractor.

Just like DD and Dts an insuing format war is hurting the reputation of both parties.

Just like with DD and Dts the DVD-A supporters are accusing Sony of botching the CD layer of their hybrid discs just to make the SACD format sound better on the same disc. Does anyone remember Dolby not sharing information with Dts in regards to lowering the surround channels 3 db when transferring theatrical prints soundtrack to DVD's. After not sharing the information they accused Dts of "cooking" their soundtracks to make them sound better.

Just like with DD and Dts the press has largely(but no fully) come out supporting DVD-A. They also supported DD, with one home theater magazine refusing to even listen or review the Dts soundtrack when it was released. And just like with Dts audio engineers have fully supported SACD.

I see so many simularities between all of these formats and the reaction to them it is frightening.

I hope both audio formats survive just like I did with DD and Dts. I like choice. I do not want to be stuck with one format that one party controls. Competition leads to innovation.

[Quagmire]

Terrence,

I see the similarities, but only to a point. Unfortunately, where this comparison between the hi rez music formats and the discrete movie formats diverges is at the most important link - the end user. For those titles which make it available, DD and DTS movie soundtracks can be accessed ON THE SAME DVD DISC so that the choice of which track to listen to is simply a menu selection. There are of course titles which only offer the DD soundtrack or the DTS soundtrack but those are becoming more the exception and not the rule. More frequently, both soundtracks are available side by side on a disc; especially with the advent of "special edition" and "extended version" releases. Also, since these soundtracks are associated with the video information contained on the disc, it is not perceived as an inconvenience that a video display is needed for their viewing/listening. But how happy do you think most folks would be if the CD's they've been listening to for years suddenly required a video display to navigate through track selections? I venture to say that this would be perceived by most as an unnecessary complication and a nuisance.

By contrast with the DD & DTS comparison, the choice between which hi rez musical format one prefers MUST BE made at the checkstand. This has to be decided at the time of purchase and if one want both versions of a particular release (don't know why anyone would accept to make critical comparisons) they must be purchased seperately which will of course cost you double. Even the arrival of universal players does not gurarantee the success of both formats or eliminate the need to choose one format over the other: I haven't heard of any plans to include both formats on a single disc such as they have with DD and DTS. So it is possible for someone to buy into one or the other of the formats only to have it fail... and ultimately, I do believe that one of these formats will fail or become such an niche market as to make its costs very prohibitive. Why do I believe that one format will fail? Because as I've just described, folks must choose between them and in essence place their vote for one or the other with their dollars at the checkstand. In the end, the industry will get behind whichever format receives more "votes" because that's where the money is. That's why, for now, I'm placing my votes for the musical format that still offers the most flexibility for those of us who want to maintain high quality music only playback systems. Backers of both formats are taking steps for compatibility with redbook CD but DVD-A must still be tied to a video display to enjoy the high resolution tracks - not so for SACD.

I'd like to be wrong about this whole issue: Nothing would make me happier than for both formats to be equally successful; but as a practical matter, I just don't think that's possible. As a curiousity, T-man, do you own more DVD-A's or SACD's?

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence,

I see the similarities, but only to a point. Unfortunately, where this comparison between the hi rez music formats and the discrete movie formats diverges is at the most important link - the end user. For those titles which make it available, DD and DTS movie soundtracks can be accessed ON THE SAME DVD DISC so that the choice of which track to listen to is simply a menu selection. There are of course titles which only offer the DD soundtrack or the DTS soundtrack but those are becoming more the exception and not the rule. More frequently, both soundtracks are available side by side on a disc; especially with the advent of "special edition" and "extended version" releases. Also, since these soundtracks are associated with the video information contained on the disc, it is not perceived as an inconvenience that a video display is needed for their viewing/listening. But how happy do you think most folks would be if the CD's they've been listening to for years suddenly required a video display to navigate through track selections? I venture to say that this would be perceived by most as an unnecessary complication and a nuisance.

By contrast with the DD & DTS comparison, the choice between which hi rez musical format one prefers MUST BE made at the checkstand. This has to be decided at the time of purchase and if one want both versions of a particular release (don't know why anyone would accept to make critical comparisons) they must be purchased seperately which will of course cost you double. Even the arrival of universal players does not gurarantee the success of both formats or eliminate the need to choose one format over the other: I haven't heard of any plans to include both formats on a single disc such as they have with DD and DTS. So it is possible for someone to buy into one or the other of the formats only to have it fail... and ultimately, I do believe that one of these formats will fail or become such an niche market as to make its costs very prohibitive. Why do I believe that one format will fail? Because as I've just described, folks must choose between them and in essence place their vote for one or the other with their dollars at the checkstand. In the end, the industry will get behind whichever format receives more "votes" because that's where the money is. That's why, for now, I'm placing my votes for the musical format that still offers the most flexibility for those of us who want to maintain high quality music only playback systems. Backers of both formats are taking steps for compatibility with redbook CD but DVD-A must still be tied to a video display to enjoy the high resolution tracks - not so for SACD.

I'd like to be wrong about this whole issue: Nothing would make me happier than for both formats to be equally successful; but as a practical matter, I just don't think that's possible. As a curiousity, T-man, do you own more DVD-A's or SACD's?

Q

Q, I guess I am pretty much split in half. I like jazz and classical and it seems that SACD has more titles released in these genre. However, I also like R&B and funk and it seem that DVD-A offers more of these. I love both of these formats and would like them both to make it.

I think personally they can co-exist. Sony and Phillips have a huge cache of classic titles in two channel stereo that can(very easily)be repurposed to multichannel(its nothing more than pulling whatever ambience trails you can find in the mix rearward with a little added delay or GOOD reverb). There is just too much music already out there, and to be created which can support both formats. I think DVD-A is perfect for studio projects that require heavy cutting and editing, and SACD is perfect for live, low edit performances. I think that each(with the introduction of iniversal players) can find a niche that propers them both.

[snodog]

I agree! I think a short ways and maybe a turn or two down the road cds, dvds, and all the rest will be layed to rest. Actually, everyone's parents will still have them and continue to look for them complain at christmas that they cant find those dvdvds any more??? Anyhow I think it will be a whole lot of music like mp3s with a menu you can select songs from and create playlists and such and have a media player too....hmm kind of like the windows player except for home theatre.

[sofsoldier]

I have yet to hear SACD, but I do have DVD-A and I have to say I am very impressed with the formats ability to bring music closer to its analog cousin - the LP. That said, I think the market for SACD and DVD-A will remain since there is a sub-culture that is already aware of their sonic capabilities and will more likely be sold in specialty shops only - that is if MP3 music takes over.

In my opinion, it was the consumers hearing a difference between CD's and LP's (on standard consumer gear) that allowed CD to become so succesful. The same should be true with DVD-A and SACD but everyone seems to be focused on MP3. To be honest, there is very little sonic difference between CD and MP3 (that point can be argued for sure), but the hope is more affordable "universal" DVD players will be released to allow the consumer to finally experience the sonic quality of SACD and/or DVD-A.

[TinHere]

Update..Dual discs are being test marketed.

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/

[jamison]

My biggest gripe is the lack of newer music for either of the formats. If the music companies have dumped this much money into something you would think they would make more music to support it. I don't want to hear the Beatles in 5.1. Nor do I listen to classical music. Why can't they put out music that appeals more to the younger generations. They are 90% of all music sells. I think this is one of the key factors that is killing both formats. The same thing happened to Mini Disk. Noone wanted to get Top Gun on Mini Disk they wanted newer music. And they didn't want to have to order it.

~C.C.~

Personally, i would love to hear some of the beatle music in 5.1 sacd or dvda
sgt peppers or abby road would be killer, my biggest complaint is the quality of music these days, most new artists are producing material that is only worth the bandwidth of mp3 let alone cd or sacd or dvda.
i grew up on seventies and eighties music and i say now WHERES THE BEEF!
lets start putting out music worthy of these new formats. i was an avid rock and roller and very few albums sound unique these days, everything seems to have a grunge sound to it/
thank god my musical taste has expanded quite a bit. i now enjoy jazz classical, blues, pop and easy listening.

[kexodusc]

Personally, i would love to hear some of the beatle music in 5.1 sacd or dvda
sgt peppers or abby road would be killer, my biggest complaint is the quality of music these days, most new artists are producing material that is only worth the bandwidth of mp3 let alone cd or sacd or dvda.

Hear, Hear!!! Amen to that...as a musician, I have to agree with this statement wholeheartedly...too much crap is being produced because too many people are buying albums for 1 song.
But to be fair there are still a few good artists out there...personally I can't wait for Norah Jones' new album, and I think Rush is working on something new as well. Pearl Jam's still putting out quality material.
Speaking of Pearl Jam, what the hell is this Creed nonesense all about? Who the hell buys their albums, why have they sold millions? I don't know anyone who owns one.

Lots of good music in the vaults, it'd be real nice if we could see some more SACD/DVD-A releases!!!

[GaToy]

I don't have to like what you like and if it was still popular thats what they would still be making. Most all of those people are dead. That was music from your generation. This is music from mine. I personally would love to see some of Michell Branch's stuff on SACD. Oh and by the way, I love the grunge stuff you hate so much. Its kind of funny you would mention the Beatles. Didn't they change the face of music much the same way Nervanna did. I can't believe you could even try to throw the eighties in there. Most of the music from the eighties was crap. Don't get me wrong. There was alot of good artists then too. It's just a shame you can fit ever good song in those ten years on a ten disk set. Which brings me to your other statement. One hit wounders, the seventies and eighties are ruled in this department. Like I said, if you don't get newer music out there for these formats they will be put on the shelf just like Mini Disk. So sit in your basements and cuddle your Rio Speed Wagon and Gratefull Dead albums all you want. Change is iminnent.

~C.C.~

[GaToy]

I happen to love Creed and would much rather hear it than CCR.

~C.C.~

[jamison]

by one hit wonders do you mean groups like Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd,Fleetwood Mac, Van Halen, Journey,Eagles, Eric Clapton, AC/DC ? I think these groups changed the face of music way more than nirvana or creed did. dont get me wrong i do like some of nirvanas songs but i dont think they are revolutionary. as far as most of these groups most of them are still around with a few exceptions. (John Bonham, Bon Scott etc). by the way what happened to nirvana or creed? you dont hear much about them either. lets see what people think about the music you are listening to now in 25 years.I think they will know more about groups like led zepplin or Pink floyd than they will about creed or nirvana. and i don't sit in my basement either, i listen to music in my living room with a 10k sound system that i have paid for by working 65 hour work weeks for 15 years.

[kexodusc]

I don't have to like what you like and if it was still popular thats what they would still be making. Most all of those people are dead. That was music from your generation. This is music from mine. I personally would love to see some of Michell Branch's stuff on SACD. Oh and by the way, I love the grunge stuff you hate so much. Its kind of funny you would mention the Beatles. Didn't they change the face of music much the same way Nervanna did. I can't believe you could even try to throw the eighties in there. Most of the music from the eighties was crap. Don't get me wrong. There was alot of good artists then too. It's just a shame you can fit ever good song in those ten years on a ten disk set. Which brings me to your other statement. One hit wounders, the seventies and eighties are ruled in this department. Like I said, if you don't get newer music out there for these formats they will be put on the shelf just like Mini Disk. So sit in your basements and cuddle your Rio Speed Wagon and Gratefull Dead albums all you want. Change is iminnent.

Listen up, SON, I'm 25 years old and hardly removed from the 90's. In fact that IS my generation...the problem is, since 96 music's been so watered down and derivative there's been few bands to peak any interest. In fact, you could argue the entire 90's was based on "Retro-everything" and didn't have its own sound.
Creed? A group that admitted to starting out as a Pearl Jam cover band. Godsmack (read Alice In Chains) Korn...great at first, but now they put out records like they're going out of style to milk money of the 13 year old "hard core" kids that buy that crap...and the 786 bands that SOUND JUST LIKE KORN...blech!!!
I saw Nivana live twice (not sure who Nervanna is)...Grunge died almost 10 years ago when a drug-addicted idiot put a bullet in his head. "I'm rich and famous, my life sucks-I'm so depressed, I need heroin -BANG!!!"
on Nirvana's greatest day, multiplied by a factor of 1000 times, they don't even come close to breaking the ground that the Beatles did. And they were finished before I was born.
Before you go knocking some of these "dead artists" remember that they paved the way for really crappy "Puddle of Mudd" bands to get airplay and have survived the test of time.
Led Zeppelin still rules. Who the hell was Slipknot?
Music today is more about image than sound...how much goth make-up can we wear? How far do we have to go to shock our parents? How depressing can I make my lyrics sound? How low can I drop the tunning on my guitar? Hardcore? I could kick the crap out of most of these goofs.
Before you go bashing the past, I suggest you sample a bit more of it, then you'll realize why we "old folks" from generations passed find Creed and todays other headliners to be such a copy of credible musicians that it's insulting to us.
There are a few good rock bands left. Dream Theater comes to mind, you've probably never heard of them because MTV doesn't like them.
One hit wonders: I'll name a few bands from the 90's who's name begins with the letter "S" that the world has long since forgotten, the entire alphabet wouldn't fit on this forum...even 1 hit wonders from the 70's and 80's still get airplay
Seven Mary Three, Slipknot, Soul Asylum, Silverchair, Stabbing Westward, Sponge, Savage Garden, Screaming Trees, Seal, Sloan, Spin Doctors...anyway you get the idea.

The reason very few of the bands from today are releasing high rez formats is because nobody would buy them.
REO Speedwagon and The Grateful Dead? You watch too many sitcoms, kid. Hardly representative of any generation of music. Someday you'll kids will want to know what you listened to growing up...and when you tell them Nickelback (AKA Theory of a Deadman, AKA Bush, etc) they'll ask you "Who?"

[GaToy]

I happen to be 30 years old. This just shows how little you know and quick you are to overlook the facts.

Listen up, SON, I'm 25 years old and hardly removed from the 90's. In fact that IS my generation.

Don't make me laugh. I have been watched bands come and go long before you. And for you to say that there is no music out there anymore shows just how closed minded you really are.

and i don't sit in my basement either, i listen to music in my living room with a 10k sound system that i have paid for by working 65 hour work weeks for 15 years.

And I think that is very sad. I listen on my 7K system that I have paid for in 5 years working 10 hrs a day 7 days a week. So I don't think you have anywhere neer the comitment to music I do.

(not sure who Nervanna is)...

Yeah that's real funny. You know damn well what I meant.

I for one love Bush, Sound Garden, Savage Garden and many others that have come out in the last 10 years. But do we have any of them on SACD. NO! Alanis Morricett ( I know I didn't spell it right) Pearl Jam, Enigma, NO. All the Music for SACD right now is classical or jazz. So remember, I have seen bands come and go long before you were able to get enough allowance from your parents to go out and buy it.

~C.C.~

And SON I think you need to sit down and check you attitude before I have to put your ass in time-out.

[kexodusc]

Oh jeez...you are threatening to kick my ass from behind your computer screen.
Get real, tough guy...next you're going to tell me your a millionaire ninja too?
Whatever kid, come back when you graduate from high school.

"and i don't sit in my basement either, i listen to music in my living room with a 10k sound system that i have paid for by working 65 hour work weeks for 15 years.

And I think that is very sad. I listen on my 7K system that I have paid for in 5 years working 10 hrs a day 7 days a week. So I don't think you have anywhere neer the comitment to music I do."

Jesus man, you are so full of bull****, these 2 consecutive sentences(that means back to back, junior) clearly contradict each other catching you in your stupid lie.
Not only are you a liar, you're stupid, too! LOL!

I don't give a damn how old you are, boy, you are clearly overmatched here.
Go listen to Creed, you lost everyone's respect when you confessed to liking them.