SACD & DVD-A

[Quagmire]

Just thought I'd offer up a topic for discussion to those who are interested...

At this point, how do you all see the "format war" between SACD and DVD-A shaking out? Is it really a format war at all? Can both formats successfully co-exist and gain enough market share stay viable? Can either format be successful? Which format do you prefer?

I'm interested to know...

What things you like about SACD and what things you don't like?

What things you like about DVD-A and what things you don't like?

Have fun!

Q

[hmmmm]

I'll keep this short. I think they both sound great. I can't tell the difference in quality between the two but I prefer DVD-A because I like having the extra videos and on screen commands and photos etc on my big screen. When we have friends over it just looks kind of cool when the music is playing. I don't know if either will survive but I sure hope at least one does.

[JSE]

I don't have any experience with SACD but I do have a DVD-A player and love it. Unfortunately, I don't think either format will make it. I think they will be eclipsed by some form of "E-Music" like MP3 or something web based that can be downloaded to a hard drive. It's like APS film, APS has advantages over 35mm for most consumers and it should have been a hit for the average consumer but digital cameras came into the mix and now APS is fading fast as will 35mm in the near future. DVD-A and SACD are great formats that offer superior sound in most cases but it's come to late and the avg. consumer which probably makes up 99% of the market does not care to have the "best" sound but rather the "convenient" sound. I give these formats another year or two and they will fade.

JSE

[hmmmm]

I give these formats another year or two and they will fade.

JSE

Please don't say that, you'll make me cry.

[JSE]

"Please don't say that, you'll make me cry."

Hmmmm,

I am right there with you. I love DVD-A. I only have a few but man, they sound awesome. I am amazed by the Blue Man Group DVD-A. This has to be one of the best out there in terms of sound and "coolness". I really hope I am wrong but I fear these formats are shortlived. If they do stay, then I guess DVD-A would have an edge due to the video, like you mentioned.

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't have any experience with SACD but I do have a DVD-A player and love it. Unfortunately, I don't think either format will make it. I give these formats another year or two and they will fade.

JSE

Dude! You get the wrong wrong bad answer award for this day. First, all of the large music companies have supported both formats. Secondly they have spend HUGE sums of money upgrading facilities to high resolution 5.1 I know many a engineer that has had to go back to mixing school(figure of speech by the way) to learn how to mix in 5.1.

I do not think anyone within the music industry expected DVD-A and SACD to take off like a rocket. I also do not think they did a very good job of rolling out the hardware, and coodinating the roll out with manufacturers(i.e lack of bass management and digital output)

You know, they said the same thing about Dts, and look what has happened ten years later.

[Smokey]

I also do not think they did a very good job of rolling out the hardware, and coodinating the roll out with manufacturers(i.e lack of bass management and digital output).

Hey TT

I believe that is where the torn lies within flower. It all comes down to compatibility and convenience.

IMO, DVD-audio will eventually take over SACD for average consumers and SACD will only be targeted toward high end audio. This trend already have started by DVD players being able to play DVD-audio also, and it is selling for dirt cheap....which again goes back to the issue of being more convenience for consumers

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

[kexodusc]

I have an SACD player with a few titles, but I've recently been turned on to DVD-A since receiving a few for christmas. Comparing audio quality, I can't tell any difference if one does exist, but if you search yahoo or google for scientific comparisons, you'll find most agree DVD-A is theoretically better. However, both haven't reached their full potential yet.

I seriously doubt that DVD-A will fade. More manufacturers are starting to produce compatible players. Most major music manufacturers have also identified DVD-A in their annual reports to shareholders as being the largest opportunity for growth in the music industry in the next 5 years due to improved quality and increased protection against piracy. If their willing to dump millions into these formats and promote them, I'm sure they'll be available for awhile.

We should keep in mind that both these formats are still in their introductory stage and have yet to progress to the growth stage, though I feel that will likely occur in the next year or two.
We all know Sony (boo) is going to fight to keep SACD alive.

I love the fact that there are "universal" players that support both formats.

I also love the fact that SACD's have CD audio tracks to play in standard CD players, and similar for DVD-A where the Dolby Digital or DTS tracks are a nice plus.
In the last year I've found the price in both drop substantially too, so this is a good sign.

I do agree that one day, a superior sounding internet based digital product will be available for consumers, but I doubt the world will make a complete switch...at least not soon.
MP3's have already started to decline in popularity, I think this coincides with SACD, DVD-A, and DVD video music titles increasing in popularity, as well as piracy litigation fears. Lots of people just love the packaged good, album art, liner notes and all...something a computer file will not be able to offer as well.

But, I'm open to the possibility another format will emerge soon that will replace both, creating the next laser disc phenomenon, leaving us all wondering, "what if?"

[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.

[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.

[Quagmire]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. I had hoped this topic would generate some interesting discussion and I haven't been dissappointed. I wanted to wait for at least a few replies before I chimed in with my own opinions and preferences... so here goes.

First of all, I think both formats sound awesome, but if I had to choose one over the other based soley on sound quality, I'd have to give the edge to SACD. Of course this is totally a subjective opinion based on a relatively limited exposure to both formats, but again, if I HAD TO choose, I'd choose SACD.

Things I like about both formats:

DVD-A: When good judgement and attention to detail is exercised, the surround mixes can sound stunning. I like some of the extra's included on the discs, like: GUI for speaker setup, onscreen menus to select tracks from Surround Playlist's and Stereo Playlist's, lyrics and artist bios; music videos, etc... I also like that most all DVD-A discs have surround mixes of the music and that they can be enjoyed in DD or DTS by those owning standard DVD Video players.

SACD: When good judgement and attention to detail is exercised, the surround mixes can sound stunning. I like the convenience of the CD format. Personally, I think it was a mistake to launch this format without ALL releases being Hybrid discs. I think if they had done this to begin with, the format would be much further along in gaining widespread acceptance than it currently is. Be that as it may, most new titles coming out are Hybrids. I like that this format is not tied to a video display so that if one wants to, one can use it in a music only system or not be required to fire up the television just to listen to music. I like the portability of the format - like I said, at least with Hybrid discs, all of the conveniences we have become accustomed to with redbook CD's remains intact.

Things I dislike about both formats:

DVD-A: When poor judgement is used in the creation of the surround mix, the results can be aweful. I don't like the format being tied to a video display or AV system where it cannot be enjoyed in a music only system. In a strange way, I see DVD-A competing more with its DVD-Video conterpart than with SACD. What I mean by that is, I would personally rather watch James Taylor in concert "Live at the Beacon Theater" in Dolby Digital surround than listen to a DVD-A of that concert with still images. However, I wouldn't mind listening to that concert if I could just walk over to a CD player, pop in the disc, hit play and enjoy.

SACD: When poor judgement is used in the creation of the surround mix, the results can be aweful. I don't like that all discs aren't Hybrid and I don't like that all discs don't offer a surround mix.

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

[Crunchyriff]

I just bought Peter Gabriel's "SO" on SACD. (it's) My 1st SACD.

This disc doesn't appear to be in anything than stereo format. (my 5.1 isn't picking up anything, and I've double -checked all my settings and connections) I'm getting 2 channel stereo here. No sub, center, anything else. (bummer) Running the Pioneer DV-563 into an Onkyo TS-DX777 with the multi-input selected.

That being said, my first impression of this format:

OH MY....

[recoveryone]

I just bought Peter Gabriel's "SO" on SACD. (it's) My 1st SACD.

This disc doesn't appear to be in anything than stereo format. (my 5.1 isn't picking up anything, and I've double -checked all my settings and connections) I'm getting 2 channel stereo here. No sub, center, anything else. (bummer) Running the Pioneer DV-563 into an Onkyo TS-DX777 with the multi-input selected.

That being said, my first impression of this format:

OH MY....

I pick up the Peter Gabriel Shake the Tree SACD and had the same results. I feel the SACD format is maybe best used with larger (floor standing) fronts. No love for ths sat & sub setup

[Geoffcin]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. I had hoped this topic would generate some interesting discussion and I haven't been dissappointed. I wanted to wait for at least a few replies before I chimed in with my own opinions and preferences... so here goes.

First of all, I think both formats sound awesome, but if I had to choose one over the other based soley on sound quality, I'd have to give the edge to SACD. Of course this is totally a subjective opinion based on a relatively limited exposure to both formats, but again, if I HAD TO choose, I'd choose SACD.

With the DVD-A MLP encoding there is no loss of signal information during playback. Quite litereally it is a perfect clone of the original.

A quote from Robert Stuart of Meridian Audio Ltd., developer of Meridian Lossless Packing;

“When the final master is ready, it is the job of MLP to deliver it exactly. To guarantee this, the MLP workflow includes a proofing step, which establishes bit-accuracy. Furthermore, the player actually checks that the transfer process from master to output is lossless. This ability, to actually deliver the full master quality, is unique to DVD-Audio.”


"And how good is PCM packed with MLP? “The coding space provided in DVD-Audio with 96kHz and 24bits is rectangular, with a dynamic range of 144dB that pertains over the entire 48kHz audio bandwidth. This means that the finest musical nuances can be delivered on the disc without the need to compromise by either chopping off high-frequency information or swamping it in a wash of noise. No other music carrier can approach this. Certainly single bit coding can’t; its range is only 120dB up to 20kHz and less than 60dB up to the player roll-off of 50kHz! This, and jitter sensitivity, are the very reasons the high-end gave up using bitstream conversion ten years ago. So, DVD-Audio’s coding space is huge, and to be able to fit six of these channels onto a disc is a spectacular achievement.”

SACD is very good, but there can only be one "Best"

[kexodusc]

Excellent post Geoffcin. I do agree that DVD-A technically has more potential, unfortunately not all studio mixing takes advantage of this yet. Live and learn I suppose, some early CD and vinyl recordings were quite poor as well.
I dont have a preference for one format over another. And I'm not worried about either format becoming obsolete. If such an occurance happens, I'll assume there's something even better available, or one format is dominating and more titles are readily available. A definite plus in either situation. Plus, I still enjoy my vinyl collection, and as long as we have working players, there's no reason we can't continue to enjoy SACD and DVD-A long into the future.
If the SACD's are all sold as hybrids, I think it may have a competitive advantage over the DVD-A format in that mass distribution could be possible with out any added costs to retailers. In fact, it's not impossible to think that all CD's from now on could be hybrids to offer a competitive advantage, meaning stores wouldn't have to set up new shelves for SACD's or keep track of more inventory. And people wouldn't need to buy another player. I hope companies realize this.
On the other hand, a few DVD-Video concerts (Norah Jones comes to mind) come packaged with studio albums on CD's for a dollar or two more than the standard version DVD title, something DVD-A should be able to provide as well...That would be excellent, one for the car, one for home.
Personally, I still find 2 Channel stereo at high resolution (192/24) is the way to go for ultimate detail...I'd put it ahead of my turntable anyday if the recordings are done well, CD didn't even come close. However, I'm fast becoming a fan of 5.1 audio, something I was rather adverse to originally. I even prefer a good DVD-video concert over the same recording on CD, it just seems to sound better (though with Dolby Digital or DTS compression, I don't think it should technically, any comments?)
Can't stress enough that both formats are extremely young still and I'm sure the best is still well into the future from both. The shift to 5.1+ systems has really only taken off in the last 3-4 years.

[Geoffcin]

Personally, I still find 2 Channel stereo at high resolution (192/24) is the way to go for ultimate detail...I'd put it ahead of my turntable anyday if the recordings are done well, CD didn't even come close. However, I'm fast becoming a fan of 5.1 audio, something I was rather adverse to originally. I even prefer a good DVD-video concert over the same recording on CD, it just seems to sound better (though with Dolby Digital or DTS compression, I don't think it should technically, any comments?)
Can't stress enough that both formats are extremely young still and I'm sure the best is still well into the future from both. The shift to 5.1+ systems has really only taken off in the last 3-4 years.

Thanks for the kind words!

Interesting that you compare Hi-Rez 2 channel to vinyl. That's EXACTLY what I thought the moment I hooked it up. It might also have been that some of my first DVD-Audio titles were the Grateful Dead, the Doors, and the Doobie Bros. All three of which were beloved records in their time for me, but long ago lost to scratches, wear, and the apathy of setting up my cranky TT. Was I on for a shock when I put them on in DVD-Audio. It was like hearing them for the first time. You can hear right to the sonic floor of the master tape!

Concerts DVD's are another story entirely. I find them very enjoyably, and I don't think the DD, or DTS encoding takes away at all. I just got the Santana Supernatural concert on DVD, and the DTS encoded audio is very impressive. As compared to CD I don't know, but we are talking about a total AV package, and to that a CD can't be compared.

I am resisting 5.1 audio in a big way. I have a decent dedicated HT system, and a rather expensive 2 channel audio system. The only gear that is used by both is my DVD player. That being said, the quality of the new mulit-channel high-rez formats can't be denied, and I may have to reevaluate my dedication to "2 channel audio only" in the near future.

[kexodusc]

Concerts DVD's are another story entirely. I find them very enjoyably, and I don't think the DD, or DTS encoding takes away at all. I just got the Santana Supernatural concert on DVD, and the DTS encoded audio is very impressive. As compared to CD I don't know, but we are talking about a total AV package, and to that a CD can't be compared.

I am resisting 5.1 audio in a big way. I have a decent dedicated HT system, and a rather expensive 2 channel audio system. The only gear that is used by both is my DVD player. That being said, the quality of the new mulit-channel high-rez formats can't be denied, and I may have to reevaluate my dedication to "2 channel audio only" in the near future.

So, you'd recommend the Santana DVD?
I was like you, resisted the 5.1 audio at first, but it's really grown on me, even on DVD videos there's intimate about the sound that CD never quite captured. I do think DVD-A and SACD are better in 2-channel, partly because mostartists record albums with 2 channel play back in mind, and 5.1 processing was more of an afterthough. Though I admit, a few artists are opening their eyes (and ears) to the 5.1 possibilities. Diana Krall's 5.1 performances on DVD-A are incredible.
Eventually I'd like to see artists writing and recording music with 5.1 audio in mind.
For example, in one of Diana Krall's performances (the name of the song escapes me) her band is situated on stage, with a full symphony accompanying her in front of the seating area...the recording mikes must have been in between the two groups because the symphony is dedicated mostly to the rears at a lower volume while her band plays up front. The effect is quite stunning. It really reproduces the sound in 3 dimensions.
On the other hand, a few rock DVD-A's I've heard try to dedicate symbals, drums, guitars, and bass to different channels with mixed results.
As more and more artists (and maybe engineers) experiment, the results will probably improve. Well, I hope so anyway.

[Quagmire]

Geoffcin,

You said that sound quality is recording driven and I certainly don't disagree. Thus far, I prefer the sound of what I've heard on SACD over that which I've heard on DVD-A, but as I said in my earlier post, I came to this conclussion by totally subjective means. As should be obvious by the bulk of my earlier post, much of the reason I prefer SACD has to do with the convenience of the format coupled with what I believe to be extraordinarily good sound. Make no mistake, I want one of these two formats to succeed and the other to go away, but at this point I prefer the total package that SACD has to offer.

Thanks for all of the technical information. I take it for granted that your preference is for DVD-A, but I'm curious to know how you feel about some of the "inconveniences" of that format which I identified in my post. Perhaps you don't see them as inconveniences at all? I'm curious to know what you think of the format as a whole - sonics aside. Care to elaborate?

Q

[Geoffcin]

Geoffcin,

You said that sound quality is recording driven and I certainly don't disagree. Thus far, I prefer the sound of what I've heard on SACD over that which I've heard on DVD-A, but as I said in my earlier post, I came to this conclussion by totally subjective means. As should be obvious by the bulk of my earlier post, much of the reason I prefer SACD has to do with the convenience of the format coupled with what I believe to be extraordinarily good sound. Make no mistake, I want one of these two formats to succeed and the other to go away, but at this point I prefer the total package that SACD has to offer.

Thanks for all of the technical information. I take it for granted that your preference is for DVD-A, but I'm curious to know how you feel about some of the "inconveniences" of that format which I identified in my post. Perhaps you don't see them as inconveniences at all? I'm curious to know what you think of the format as a whole - sonics aside. Care to elaborate?Q

Actually, all technical benefits aside, my personal preference for DVD-Audio comes from the fact that I got it pretty much for free when I bought my JVC XV-SA70 DVD player. For me, inconvenience in use is an understatement, as I don't/can't have it hooked up to play the 6 channel DVD-A encoding, but rather use it's 2 channel output to my Audio setup. I was rather angry that the player doesn't have a digital 6 channel DVD-Audio output, until I discovered that NONE of the DVD-Audio player do. This "design flaw" was intentional so that you couldn't not digitally copy the disk. SACD has a similar design in this respect, as they were both designed for copywrite protection.

Another reason I don't like SACD is that I DON'T want to buy another CD player. I've already got a good one, and I don't need to spend more money!

DVD-Audio sound quality is easily better than most of the redbook CD's that I own. This doesn't mean that I'll never buy a CD again, as I still do almost every week. Until the selections are more numerous, and they engineers have figured out a way to use the format up to it's formidable capabilities CD's will be a viable format. For me at least.

[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

[TinHere]

Thought some might be interested in this.

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

[TinHere]

Update..Dual discs are being test marketed.

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