Well, I didn't see andy DVDA/CD hybrid disc too and I don't think there are any. If you want to stay with your audio equipment, then DVDA disc aren't interesting for you. In such case hybrid SACD is better.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Libor2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There are hybrid DVD players (they can play SACD, DVDA and of course CD audio). If you choose Pioneer, Denon or Marantz (among others), they all have acceptable sound quality even for Audio CD.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I sure as hell don't plan on listening to my music through my DVD player, for the simple reason that I have a very good cd-player, that not only performs much better than all DVD-players I've tried, but was expensive enough at the time for me to want to keep it for a while longer. Because 'acceptable' is certainly not good enough when it comes to listening to good recordings!
Yeah, but I sure as hell don't plan on listening to my music through my DVD player, for the simple reason that I have a very good cd-player, that not only performs much better than all DVD-players I've tried, but was expensive enough at the time for me to want to keep it for a while longer. Because 'acceptable' is certainly not good enough when it comes to listening to good recordings!
"A dead format?"
Surely not!
David Gilmour's upcoming "Live In Gdansk" release, which has no less than FIVE different editions(!), has two editions which has his "On An Island" album remixed in 5.1, included as a DVD-Audio disc (yes, you read right.....not SACD!)
http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/latest/david-gilmour-live-in-gdansk-details-confirmed.html
Surely not!
David Gilmour's upcoming "Live In Gdansk" release, which has no less than FIVE different editions(!), has two editions which has his "On An Island" album remixed in 5.1, included as a DVD-Audio disc (yes, you read right.....not SACD!)
http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/latest/david-gilmour-live-in-gdansk-details-confirmed.html
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Yeah, but I sure as hell don't plan on listening to my music through my DVD player, for the simple reason that I have a very good cd-player, that not only performs much better than all DVD-players I've tried, but was expensive enough at the time for me to want to keep it for a while longer. Because 'acceptable' is certainly not good enough when it comes to listening to good recordings![/QUOTE]
Yes, I understand your point. I prefer my CD player for playing Audio CDs too, on the other side, my Marantz DVD (cca 1200$) plays audio CDs pretty good also.
But I didn't say that it's the best way to use these universal machines instead of CD players. It's better to add it to your audio equipment as another player. And the sound of SACD or DVDA is definitely better than the same on Audio CD.
All I want to say, is that these audio formats (SACD, DVDA) aren't dead end. Not for me. The only one problem with them is unwilingness of music industry to use them (because it'd cost money and people in mp3 era don't want any sound quality and don't buy them).
Why should EMI or Warners bother with something so expensive if they can throw some mp3 on web and people are happy anyway...
Yeah, but I sure as hell don't plan on listening to my music through my DVD player, for the simple reason that I have a very good cd-player, that not only performs much better than all DVD-players I've tried, but was expensive enough at the time for me to want to keep it for a while longer. Because 'acceptable' is certainly not good enough when it comes to listening to good recordings![/QUOTE]
Yes, I understand your point. I prefer my CD player for playing Audio CDs too, on the other side, my Marantz DVD (cca 1200$) plays audio CDs pretty good also.
But I didn't say that it's the best way to use these universal machines instead of CD players. It's better to add it to your audio equipment as another player. And the sound of SACD or DVDA is definitely better than the same on Audio CD.
All I want to say, is that these audio formats (SACD, DVDA) aren't dead end. Not for me. The only one problem with them is unwilingness of music industry to use them (because it'd cost money and people in mp3 era don't want any sound quality and don't buy them).
Why should EMI or Warners bother with something so expensive if they can throw some mp3 on web and people are happy anyway...
THAT'S the problem, isn't it? Clear as day in that above post. People want MP3's and don't seem to care much about quality. That idea scares me because it goes against everything I believe about music, i.e. that it should be experienced in the best way. The Ipod generation kinda kills the vibe in that sense. The good thing it does is get a lot of music to people.
Adam.
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]THAT'S the problem, isn't it? Clear as day in that above post. People want MP3's and don't seem to care much about quality. That idea scares me because it goes against everything I believe about music, i.e. that it should be experienced in the best way. The Ipod generation kinda kills the vibe in that sense. The good thing it does is get a lot of music to people.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It's a double-edged sword in that regard.
Unfortunately for a lot of musicians, iTunes and digital downloads are the way to go in addition to the usual CD/Vinyl/High-Def releases if you have any hope to make some sort of an income.
I hate MP3's really. I can tell them apart from lossless audio, and have been able to do so for 6-8 years at least.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It's a double-edged sword in that regard.
Unfortunately for a lot of musicians, iTunes and digital downloads are the way to go in addition to the usual CD/Vinyl/High-Def releases if you have any hope to make some sort of an income.
I hate MP3's really. I can tell them apart from lossless audio, and have been able to do so for 6-8 years at least.
Luckily, analog recordings (i.e. vinyl) are increasingly popular, so there is still hope. And let's face it, the sooner this generation (which is not very pleasant, considering the degree of violence, apathy and booze) is overtaken by the next, the better.
Funny you mention analog recordings, I think it may be time to seek out the Queen vinyl releases. I remember hearing a recording on here and thinking it had a nice vibe about it!
Adam.
Adam.
My old vinyl of Queen I sounds miles better than the CD release. Really kick-ass album.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Funny you mention analog recordings, I think it may be time to seek out the Queen vinyl releases. I remember hearing a recording on here and thinking it had a nice vibe about it!
Adam.[/QUOTE]
LOL. I bought "Live Killers" used vinyl for about $3 earlier today, speaking of seeking out vinyls.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
LOL. I bought "Live Killers" used vinyl for about $3 earlier today, speaking of seeking out vinyls.
ThomasQuinn wrote:
I support binaural stereo. We have only two audio inputs (ears), and there is nothing six channels can generate that can't be generated better in the form of binaural stereo.
You may only have 2 ears but us humans are able to process 360 degree sound imformation and locate it's direction. 5.1 gives a more rounded sound putting you in the middle rather than the sound being projected from one side.
All DVD player downmix 5.1 to stereo for headphones.
I support binaural stereo. We have only two audio inputs (ears), and there is nothing six channels can generate that can't be generated better in the form of binaural stereo.
You may only have 2 ears but us humans are able to process 360 degree sound imformation and locate it's direction. 5.1 gives a more rounded sound putting you in the middle rather than the sound being projected from one side.
All DVD player downmix 5.1 to stereo for headphones.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TheAmazingEvent wrote: [/QUOTENAME]All DVD player downmix 5.1 to stereo for headphones.[/QUOTE]
...Right after the "sound editor" of a dvd remaster has upmixed the sound from the original stereo master. :P
...Right after the "sound editor" of a dvd remaster has upmixed the sound from the original stereo master. :P
[QUOTE]
[b]Tero wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.[/QUOTE]
How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;)
[/QUOTE]
Pink Floyd made EMI re-think about SACD when they released Dark Side of the Moon on Hybrid SACD in 2003. EMI (Capitol here in the US) were surprised at the success of the DSotM 5.1 Hybrid SACD that it opened the door for EMI to issue David Bowie, Roxy Music's Avalon, Bryan Ferry's Boys and Girls and Genesis' albums in 5.1 SACD. Warner Music in the US didn't support Hybrid SACD so hence why Genesis got CD and DVD packages here in the US.
[b]Tero wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.[/QUOTE]
How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;)
[/QUOTE]
Pink Floyd made EMI re-think about SACD when they released Dark Side of the Moon on Hybrid SACD in 2003. EMI (Capitol here in the US) were surprised at the success of the DSotM 5.1 Hybrid SACD that it opened the door for EMI to issue David Bowie, Roxy Music's Avalon, Bryan Ferry's Boys and Girls and Genesis' albums in 5.1 SACD. Warner Music in the US didn't support Hybrid SACD so hence why Genesis got CD and DVD packages here in the US.