People keep starting thread after thread here asking about random surround sound (video) stuff.

I think it's a sad statement -- not about the people posting, but about the industry and how they ruined SACD and DVD-A.

It's not other people's fault they don't know about it (although it is their fault for not reading).

I love my surround discs, and it's sad that it's a dead or dying format.

I disagree, while the industry is partially responsible for the poor sales of Hi Rez music, the bottom line is people don't want it.
If they did, vinyl wouldn'y out sell it, not to mention the Ipod generation.

Awareness of it by the mass market in Australia is practically zero. There have been no noticeable advertising campaigns. No mass media promotion, no billboard advertising, no in store posters and advertising, in fact, most stores don't even know what a DVDa or SACD is. Those that do usually have their DVDa titles amongst the regular DVDs and the SACD's are usually confined to a tiny section of the shelf under 'audiophile' or some such ambiguous category.
That is the problem. I do not believe for one minute that people do not want these discs.
The other thing necessary for hi res to get a move on is for some new releases to be made exclusively available as SACD or DVDa. Both can be produced with the ability to play in a regular CD player or a hi res player.

People don't want or buy something they:

1) Don't know exisits
2) Can't see in a store
3) Don't hear about on TV
4) Is to hard to use (No digital connection)
5) Doesn't work with their stuff (Need 6 ch in/out equipment)

In some respects, the DTS CD did more for surround than SACD & DVD-A, in that the average Joe with a surround video system could plop one in his player and listen in surround. If he went home with an SACD, he was stuck without buying a new player, a new receiver, and 6 cables. Too much work to listen to "The Stranger" in surround.....

People don't want or buy something they:

1) Don't know exisits
2) Can't see in a store
3) Don't hear about on TV
4) Is to hard to use (No digital connection)
5) Doesn't work with their stuff (Need 6 ch in/out equipment)

In some respects, the DTS CD did more for surround than SACD & DVD-A, in that the average Joe with a surround video system could plop one in his player and listen in surround. If he went home with an SACD, he was stuck without buying a new player, a new receiver, and 6 cables. Too much work to listen to "The Stranger" in surround.....
I particularly agree on points 1,2 and 3.
4 and 5 are less of an issue given that most home theatre amps produced in recent years have discreet inputs.
Considering that SACD and DVDa can both contain formats playable on almost any player (DVDa can have DTS and DD and red book CD as a hybrid, dual sided disc) that too would not be an issue if the record execs would pull their fingers out and release some new stuff exclusively on one of these formats (preferably DVDa).

People don't want or buy something they:

1) Don't know exisits
2) Can't see in a store
3) Don't hear about on TV
4) Is to hard to use (No digital connection)
5) Doesn't work with their stuff (Need 6 ch in/out equipment)

In some respects, the DTS CD did more for surround than SACD & DVD-A, in that the average Joe with a surround video system could plop one in his player and listen in surround. If he went home with an SACD, he was stuck without buying a new player, a new receiver, and 6 cables. Too much work to listen to "The Stranger" in surround.....
I am betting that #4 is a big factor for many people. If an SACD player output surround through a single cable as DVD players do, I bet sales would increase substantially.

I am betting that #4 is a big factor for many people. If an SACD player output surround through a single cable as DVD players do, I bet sales would increase substantially.
I'm sorry but I don't buy that for one minute. If people have a 5.1 setup, they will have had to place and wire up 5 speakers and a subwoofer with cable runs all around their room, connect all the components of their theater including DVD player, CD player, TV / projector, possibly turntable and cassette deck (they still exist!!) and any other components. They will be wiring up many components with a multitude of different cables. Adding six more is a minor task. A few people will be utilising HDMI or s/pdif (or both) but they will still be running speaker cables and other cables.
Add to that the task of configuring speaker sizes and bass management, along with input modes on amplifiers and video modes on displays and DVD players and suddenly adding six simple RCA cables is something a six year old could do!

It is the lack of publicity and releases that is the problem.

Perhaps Blu-ray and HD DVD could hold some promise for the future of multi-channel audio better than 44/16.

From what I've seen, it has never really been pushed, except for artist like Neil Young.
The local BB got a shippment of DVD-A and SACDs when the store first opened 3 years or so ago and NEVER brought in any more titles. As time went on the choices got fewer and fewer.
Most of my collection I've bought off the internet.
Likewise, the store never promoted hi-res players, even after the combo players came out.

From what I've seen, it has never really been pushed, except for artist like Neil Young.
The local BB got a shippment of DVD-A and SACDs when the store first opened 3 years or so ago and NEVER brought in any more titles. As time went on the choices got fewer and fewer.
Most of my collection I've bought off the internet.
Likewise, the store never promoted hi-res players, even after the combo players came out.

Same story at my Bestbuy. They setup 2 racks, 1 for SACD and 1 for DVD-A way back when..... The selection dwindled over time.... About a month ago I went to take a futile look for anything new... At first it looked as though the section had been restocked! but on closer inspection they merely collapsed the SACD's and DVD-A's into a single rack... :(

I'm sorry but I don't buy that for one minute. If people have a 5.1 setup, they will have had to place and wire up 5 speakers and a subwoofer with cable runs all around their room, connect all the components of their theater including DVD player, CD player, TV / projector, possibly turntable and cassette deck (they still exist!!) and any other components. They will be wiring up many components with a multitude of different cables. Adding six more is a minor task. A few people will be utilising HDMI or s/pdif (or both) but they will still be running speaker cables and other cables.
Add to that the task of configuring speaker sizes and bass management, along with input modes on amplifiers and video modes on displays and DVD players and suddenly adding six simple RCA cables is something a six year old could do!

It is the lack of publicity and releases that is the problem.

Well it certainly caused me problems and I consider myself somebody who is up with the play on HT. My problem as my AVR didn't have 6 analogue inputs (was purchased at a time when DD was known as AC-3 and before DVD). So for me to get into hirez surround sound, I had to purchase a new DVD player and AVR. That held me back for a long time

Other people's experiences I am sure are quite different.

I agree that if all you had to do was purchase a new player and 6 cables, then it should be a no brainer

Well it certainly caused me problems and I consider myself somebody who is up with the play on HT. My problem as my AVR didn't have 6 analogue inputs (was purchased at a time when DD was known as AC-3 and before DVD). So for me to get into hirez surround sound, I had to purchase a new DVD player and AVR. That held me back for a long time

Other people's experiences I am sure are quite different.

I agree that if all you had to do was purchase a new player and 6 cables, then it should be a no brainer
That is a fair point. I guess that is yet another reason why I see DVD-Audio as a much more appealing format. DVD-A is not subjected to the same rediculous paranoia that Sony has with SACD and the prevention of digital copying and can, therefore, be output through HDMI. No hi res, multichannel uncompressed signal can be transferred via a single s/pdif connection because the protocol does not allow it. Lightpipe connections can transfer multichannel PCM data through a single connector digitally though.

SACD can be output through HDMI. The Sony PS3 and Oppo SACD players convert to PCM, and HDMI 1.2 permits transmission of the native DSD. The latest Marantz and Yamaha receivers support this, but we're still waiting for players.

And consumer TOSLINK optical connections don't support multichannel PCM.

SACD can be output through HDMI. The Sony PS3 and SACD players convert to PCM, and HDMI 1.2 permits transmission of the native DSD. The latest Marantz and Yamaha receivers support this, but we're still waiting for players.

And consumer TOSLINK optical connections don't support multichannel PCM.
I am not surprised that Sony players can output SACD digitally. That is what they want, an advantage over everyone else so they sell more players.

While the TOSLINK specification does not allow MC, the lightpipe connector does. All that is required is a minor addition to the hardware to allow ADAT and similar protocols. The one lightpipe connector can be switched between s/pdif optical and MC optical via software in the player.

Doh - missed the name "Oppo" from that post... Edited it now. This isn't a Sony specific thing.

What is a little odd though is that what with DSD being very much Sony's baby, the PS3 apparently doesn't support DSD output over HDMI. Presumably the dedicated DSD signal paths have been left out for cost reasons.

And there's not much effective difference between SACD and DVD-A when it comes to encrypted protection - DVD-Audio discs usually don't permit unencrypted output either. HDMI 1.1 had to add audio encryption to support DVD-Audio.

So DVD-Audio output would not be permitted over ADAT lightpipe if, as I understand, it is unencrypted. :(

And on the subject of paranoia, are you not aware that DVD-Audio discs have their sound watermarked to interfere even with analogue copying? You can't record the analogue output of a DVD-Audio player and burn it to a new DVD-Audio, as it will detect the watermark and refuse to play...

I think both formats are paranoid in their own way. Where Sony takes it further is that they don't even permit stereo low-res output over S/PDIF. I suppose at least that helps ensure that people get their connections right - when The Beatles' "LOVE" was released, it became apparent that a lot of DVD-Audio owners had always been just playing the DD/DTS tracks over S/PDIF...

Same story at my Bestbuy. They setup 2 racks, 1 for SACD and 1 for DVD-A way back when..... The selection dwindled over time.... About a month ago I went to take a futile look for anything new... At first it looked as though the section had been restocked! but on closer inspection they merely collapsed the SACD's and DVD-A's into a single rack... :(

The section has completely disappeared at my local BB.

Adding to the problem, the top online retailer doesn't have their site setup good either. Just do a search for "Pink Floyd SACD" on Amazon.com. Sure, you'll get the 30th Anniversary edition of Dark Side, but the title says nothing about SACD. You have to click on the description to see that it is SACD. So, if you KNOW a release is out there, you can find it. But if you try to browse SACD or DVD-A, you can't.

What kills me is that at this point, it still takes hours to download a DVD via torrent, so releasing titles on hi-res makes sense from a copyright protection standpoint.

Artists like Nine Inch Nails (all new releases in multi-channel, plus blu-ray/hd-dvd concerts), Depeche Mode and Neil Young seem to get this, but the studios don't.

And on the subject of paranoia, are you not aware that DVD-Audio discs have their sound watermarked to interfere even with analogue copying? You can't record the analogue output of a DVD-Audio player and burn it to a new DVD-Audio, as it will detect the watermark and refuse to play...

Actually, I own and run a professional mastering facility which includes DVD-Audio creation and there is NO watermarking of the analog audio. There is an option to select what features and how many times they can be copied digitally which can also be turned off but there is no interfering with the analog audio in any way.

I think both formats are paranoid in their own way. Where Sony takes it further is that they don't even permit stereo low-res output over S/PDIF. I suppose at least that helps ensure that people get their connections right - when The Beatles' "LOVE" was released, it became apparent that a lot of DVD-Audio owners had always been just playing the DD/DTS tracks over S/PDIF...
True that.... and I must say I the Beatles 'Love' DVDa is brilliant. It is one of my favourite hi res discs. :)
I really hope they remix Abbey Road and Sgt Peppers for DVDa too. That would be awesome. I just love the fatness and warmth of those recordings and, of course, the creative brilliance :D

.......Artists like Nine Inch Nails (all new releases in multi-channel, plus blu-ray/hd-dvd concerts), Depeche Mode and Neil Young seem to get this, but the studios don't.
and that is just one of the things I love about DVDa. I am an artist and engineer and I do not need to spend a fortune on Sony DSD hardware and I do not need a commercial pressing house to create a playable master. :)

Actually, I own and run a professional mastering facility which includes DVD-Audio creation and there is NO watermarking of the analog audio. There is an option to select what features and how many times they can be copied digitally which can also be turned off but there is no interfering with the analog audio in any way.
You may not watermark them in your facility, but as far as I'm aware DVD-Audio has the capability, based on the Verance system, and I've seen posts from people seeing the results. One example here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t41945.html

The watermark is incorporated, allegedly "inaudibly", into the digitised audio waveform itself before it is packed and encrypted onto the disc, and the player has a detector to spot its presence. If it sees the "no copies allowed" watermark on an unencrypted disc, it deduces that the disc is a unauthorised copy and it refuses to play the disc, as the above poster found.

What I'm not aware of is how many discs actually include a sonic watermark, as well as all the other encryption guff.

No one has mentioned that music no longer is viewed as something that should be done sitting down. In order to appreciate surround (or stereo) music, one has to sit down and be in the "sweet spot". Unfortunately, especially in the last decade, music has become audio wallpaper to vast majority of the consumers out there. Just witness the success of iPod/mp3 players. People don't care about minute nuances of surround mix; they want the music as background soundtrack to their lives.

Except, of course, a lot of people do a lot of their listening in the car, where the listeners are totally captive. It seems very peculiar that all these cars with many speakers fitted so rarely have a proper multichannel sound system.

Interestingly, the first in-car multichannel SACD player was announced this month. About time too... (There are already a few DVD-Audio players around, and some Acura models come fitted with DVD-Audio).

I'm sorry but I don't buy that for one minute. If people have a 5.1 setup, they will have had to place and wire up 5 speakers and a subwoofer with cable runs all around their room, connect all the components of their theater including DVD player, CD player, TV / projector, possibly turntable and cassette deck (they still exist!!) and any other components. They will be wiring up many components with a multitude of different cables. Adding six more is a minor task. A few people will be utilising HDMI or s/pdif (or both) but they will still be running speaker cables and other cables.
Add to that the task of configuring speaker sizes and bass management, along with input modes on amplifiers and video modes on displays and DVD players and suddenly adding six simple RCA cables is something a six year old could do!

It is the lack of publicity and releases that is the problem.

Yes, but you have to spin back 5 years, when these formats were appearing with regularity in stores. I know many folks who wanted to get into 5.1 music, but were not about to buy a new receiver with 5.1 inputs just to play an SACD in 5.1, and if they got the DVD-A, they could only play the DD/DTS.

If these HiRez formats originally worked via the consumers existing TOSLINK or COAXIAL surround connection they already had for DVD and LaserDisc, the music would have gotten more attention.

In the days of MP3, DVD-A and SACD were too much "work" for the average Joe. The fact that today someone can go out and buy ANOTHER NEW RECEIVER with HDMI 1.3 and a player with the same and listen to SACDs that were released 4 years ago does little to motivate them to do so.

It's a missed opportunity, I am afraid.

No one has mentioned that music no longer is viewed as something that should be done sitting down. In order to appreciate surround (or stereo) music, one has to sit down and be in the "sweet spot". Unfortunately, especially in the last decade, music has become audio wallpaper to vast majority of the consumers out there. Just witness the success of iPod/mp3 players. People don't care about minute nuances of surround mix; they want the music as background soundtrack to their lives.

Amen to that. As a life-long pro musician (guitarist/singer) I can attest to that. It is impossible to play louder than an American audience can talk. Live music is largely background in the USA, a "white noise" employed to soften the awkwardness of social interaction and inane conversation ("Hey baby, you come here often? I SAID DO YOU COME HERE OFTEN?"). It should be remembered that the U.S. invented the three-ring circus: the crowning insult to any act is to feature TWO OTHER acts performing with you simultaneously (the more is better syndrome).

As to being a "captive audience" in a car, it's not quite the same is it? There's the job of keeping the vehicle on the road, dodging other cars, engine noise, eating, making phone calls, reading, putting on makeup, shaving, worrying about the sales meeting, etc. etc.

The folks who don't listen don't know what they're missing. Give an entertainer your attention and he'll work his heart out for you. Sit down in a home theater, dim the lights, shut your mouth, open your ears, insert SACD/DVD-A and prepare to be transported. My wife and I take our listening time just as seriously as our viewing time.

No one has mentioned that music no longer is viewed as something that should be done sitting down. In order to appreciate surround (or stereo) music, one has to sit down and be in the "sweet spot". Unfortunately, especially in the last decade, music has become audio wallpaper to vast majority of the consumers out there. Just witness the success of iPod/mp3 players. People don't care about minute nuances of surround mix; they want the music as background soundtrack to their lives.
Funny thing is, I would rather listen to silence than background music. I only listen to music when I am prepared to sit down and give it my full attention. I think of listening to music as a self-sufficient activity, not as an adjunct to something else. This is why I am so passionate about my speakers.

Amen to that. As a life-long pro musician (guitarist/singer) I can attest to that. It is impossible to play louder than an American audience can talk. Live music is largely background in the USA, a "white noise" employed to soften the awkwardness of social interaction and inane conversation ("Hey baby, you come here often? I SAID DO YOU COME HERE OFTEN?"). It should be remembered that the U.S. invented the three-ring circus: the crowning insult to any act is to feature TWO OTHER acts performing with you simultaneously (the more is better syndrome).

I hear you! My father-in-law recently played guitar/sung at a local coffee shop, backed up by a good friend of his on percussion (hand drums). They played well-known/"classic" popular songs, and did them really well. They weren't playing especially loud, IMO (and I was sitting 5 feet from the stage), yet a group at a table in the back asked twice for the volume to be turned down, so they could talk. :rolleyes:
Even worse: my father-in-law took a break, and a relief act stepped up to play a few songs. This character played some very obscure renditions of songs, centered around his 'unique' vocal stylings and his mastery of the Pan flute (worn on an apparatus similar to that used for hands-free harmonica playing). He played much louder than the main act, but nobody said a word. :eek: I'm guessing they were afraid to. :p

I hear you! My father-in-law recently played guitar/sung at a local coffee shop, backed up by a good friend of his on percussion (hand drums). They played well-known/"classic" popular songs, and did them really well. They weren't playing especially loud, IMO (and I was sitting 5 feet from the stage), yet a group at a table in the back asked twice for the volume to be turned down, so they could talk. :rolleyes: Well, I avoid coffee shops and pubs with live music because I go there for other reasons. Live music at such places is a distraction unless played at a level that makes it no advantage over background. In fact, I find music, live or reproduced, in restaurants annoying and have asked to have it turned down, that I be reseated or, if necessary, that the musicians move away.

I'd feel the same way about someone serving burgers and fries at a symphony concert.

The funny thing is that if someone knows you're into the intricacies of music reproduction, they'd think you are a weirdo.

The funny thing is that if someone knows you're into the intricacies of music reproduction, they'd think you are a weirdo.So, we don't usually tell them. :cool:

Hmmm... sounds like the US is significantly different as far as live music goes.
I live in Melbourne and it is not uncommon for one of the busiest food / shopping / entertainment areas here to have live acts playing in restaurants, on the beach, on stages on the grass around the area and in a few of the pubs.
It is just awesome to go for a walk down one of these streets on a Sunny Saturday afternoon and become part of a bustling and vibrant culture alive with music, food and entertainment. It is just one of the things I truly love about this area and it would be a sad day indeed if the live music was driven out!!
Even better is having the opportunity to perform on one of these days. That is a huge buzz and much more satisfying than typical drunken (patrons, not me!!) pub gigs from the past!!!

Actually, one of my ideas for a project is to take my location surround recording rig to some of these events and produce a DVDa of the local talent performing live. There's some truly awesome original music being performed on some days and it would be perfect to record the whole scene complete with the vibrance of the activity in 5.1 :cool:

People don't want or buy something they:

1) Don't know exisits
2) Can't see in a store
3) Don't hear about on TV
4) Is to hard to use (No digital connection)
5) Doesn't work with their stuff (Need 6 ch in/out equipment)

In some respects, the DTS CD did more for surround than SACD & DVD-A, in that the average Joe with a surround video system could plop one in his player and listen in surround. If he went home with an SACD, he was stuck without buying a new player, a new receiver, and 6 cables. Too much work to listen to "The Stranger" in surround.....

I think they are all valid points.

#1-#3 are quite clear, #4 is valid because most people are not like those that frequent here - with regard to AV/HT, anyway. #5 is similar to #4 - far and away most people I know do NOT have multi-channel AV/HT setups - but they do have some sort of stereo or boom box.

#5 is similar to #4 - far and away most people I know do NOT have multi-channel AV/HT setups - but they do have some sort of stereo or boom box.
That is a valid point. However, hi Res MC media is really not aimed at those with boom boxes and basic stereo systems. They would not notice the difference between RBCD and Hi Res stereo on such systems.
Hi Res is (or should be) marketed towards those who at least have some interest in MC audio and / or decent sound quality. They tend to be people who are familiar with 5.1 systems and how to set them up.

Hi Res is (or should be) marketed towards those who at least have some interest in MC audio and / or decent sound quality. They tend to be people who are familiar with 5.1 systems and how to set them up.

The problem is that very few people are interested in MC music and or/decent sound quality (relative to MP3s).

Over here in the States, homes that are being offered for sale hold "Open Homes" on Sundays. Whenever I visit these homes, I always check out any of the owners' sound systems (I know....it's a sickness :D ). 99% of the time, the sound system consisted of some kind of boombox and/or home-theater-in-the-box deal. Rarely do I ever see a component-oriented system.

Strange priorities. Spend a bazillion dollars on a car that you're in at most a couple of hours a day then scrimp on home entertainment equipment--where most log in far more hours (old or small screen TVs, cheap stereos).

I spent around twelve grand on my HT equipment and one year later I marvel nightly at the best toy I've ever owned: jaw-drop movies on a nine-foot screen and HD music that is astonishing in its depth and clarity.

Rocket 760s, 200, 300 speakers; SVS NDP 12/2 sub; Denon AVR-4306; Denon DVD-3910; Toshiba HD-A1; Hitachi HDPJ52; Vutec 103" screen

Strange priorities. Spend a bazillion dollars on a car that you're in at most a couple of hours a day then scrimp on home entertainment equipment--where most log in far more hours (old or small screen TVs, cheap stereos).

I spent around twelve grand on my HT equipment and one year later I marvel nightly at the best toy I've ever owned: jaw-drop movies on a nine-foot screen and HD music that is astonishing in its depth and clarity.

Rocket 760s, 200, 300 speakers; SVS NDP 12/2 sub; Denon AVR-4306; Denon DVD-3910; Toshiba HD-A1; Hitachi HDPJ52; Vutec 103" screen
Nice setup and I totally agree with your philosophy! :cool:
I am about to spend another 30 grand on my system (Protools HD upgrade with 192 io). My business is also my passion and my mastering studio and monitoring is also my HT / HD music rig too. :)

No one has mentioned that music no longer is viewed as something that should be done sitting down. In order to appreciate surround (or stereo) music, one has to sit down and be in the "sweet spot". Unfortunately, especially in the last decade, music has become audio wallpaper to vast majority of the consumers out there. Just witness the success of iPod/mp3 players. People don't care about minute nuances of surround mix; they want the music as background soundtrack to their lives.
Amen. Yes, I listen to music in the car, (low volume, usually) as I commute some
distance.
Real listening is when I sit down in the "sweet spot" and just enjoy the music
without other distractions.

I broke a friend into MC last weekend. I played the first track of "Love" on my Toshiba XA1 in two channel stereo. Then I switched over to the MC DVD-A on my Pioneer and played the same track. He just sat there with his mouth open !! He said " I had NO idea ---- " We were there for another 4 hours. He kept saying " What else do you have !! It was fun.


Bill

One more convert down. Now all we need is an additional 25,000,000 willing to buy a couple of albums a year. That's a lot of 4 hour fun sessions...

:(

the more people that get into ht it seems will slowly get an urge to
try mc music now would be the time to market the music a lot
then we might not have to listen to record companies complaining
no one is buying music give us what we want and we will buy it.

I love MC music, but don't have the time to really sit down and enjoy it that often. I assume that the majority of the public with family, work, etc. have a reduction in leisure time. I believe the US is lacking in vacation and leisure time compared to many European countries.

I am betting that #4 is a big factor for many people. If an SACD player output surround through a single cable as DVD players do, I bet sales would increase substantially.

Well, SACD and DVD-A players DO have a single cable option for audio... it's not helping (;

Well, SACD and DVD-A players DO have a single cable option for audio... it's not helping (;Because it's so uncommon.

Well, SACD and DVD-A players DO have a single cable option for audio... it's not helping (;
For high resolution audio output you have to use the 5 channel analog, at least for sacd. Even dvd-a you don't get the full resolution over coax or optical.
Unless certain brands have a proprietary link on both their dvd-a/sacd players and their receiver.

4DHD, there's HDMI and i.Link as standard connections, and then there are the proprietary solutions.

4DHD, there's HDMI and i.Link as standard connections, and then there are the proprietary solutions.Too little, too late. HDMI 1.2 is a ghost as it was outdated before it appeared and most manufacturers are going directly from 1.1 to 1.3, when and if. As for iLink, it, too, is too limited in its market penetration. Both are "standards" but neither is standard. :cool:

Ya, I've got HDMI on one of my dvd players, but not on my receiver, so its useless until or if I get a newer unit.

Because it's so uncommon.

That's my point, even if someone is really impressed by a demo, they lose enthusiasm when they find out they need a new receiver and a new DVD player to get the HiRez surround tracks (from either SACD or DVD-A) [Assuming they do not have a receiver built after 2000 - which is not hard to believe, as the average Joe is not like those of us here] :D

I love MC music, but don't have the time to really sit down and enjoy it that often. I assume that the majority of the public with family, work, etc. have a reduction in leisure time. I believe the US is lacking in vacation and leisure time compared to many European countries.


I have a different problem. When I have the time to listen, I get told off by my wife for having the music too loud! Sort of defeats the purpose not to have realistic sound levels!

I've (partially) soundproofed my room so I've not had that problem (I anticipated it beforehand, though). Worth all the effort.

I broke a friend into MC last weekend. I played the first track of "Love" on my Toshiba XA1 in two channel stereo. Then I switched over to the MC DVD-A on my Pioneer and played the same track. He just sat there with his mouth open !! He said " I had NO idea ---- " We were there for another 4 hours. He kept saying " What else do you have !! It was fun.


Bill
That's awesome!! I played the DSOTM SACD to one of my best friends two days ago and she just sat there in a trance with her jaw open!! :D :D

That's awesome!! I played the DSOTM SACD to one of my best friends two days ago and she just sat there in a trance with her jaw open!! :D :D

There is a trend here. If you can find friends who have an interest in music and play for them MCH hi-res audio of artists they are familiar with, I am sure they will be impressed!

I just had my daughter and son sit down and listen to a DVD-A of Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto. (age 13 and 8 - both learning the piano). They were so engrossed in the music itself that they did not think about surround sound or stereo - it was as if they were in a concert!

That's what a good and enveloping audio experience should do

Larry

There is a trend here. If you can find friends who have an interest in music and play for them MCH hi-res audio of artists they are familiar with, I am sure they will be impressed!

I just had my daughter and son sit down and listen to a DVD-A of Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto. (age 13 and 8 - both learning the piano). They were so engrossed in the music itself that they did not think about surround sound or stereo - it was as if they were in a concert!

That's what a good and enveloping audio experience should do

Larry
Absolutely! That is great :)

Can you recommend any really good recordings of Mozart? I am particularly fond of his Requiem but just love the 'too many notes!' playfulness of all his work. ;)

Hi Titania, thanks for the PM, I'll respond shortly.

Try "Mozart's Violin Concertos 1, 2, and 5" featuring the extraordinary violinist Julia Fischer on the Pentatone label. http://www.pentatonemusic.com/ You can't go wrong with Ms. Fischer, imo. Pentatone has become my favorite label. The recording quality is exquisite and I love their use of surrounds--mainly to capture the hall acoustics. The music is always front-loaded yet you get the spacial acoustic ambiance via the surrounds. Personally I find the overly-hot mixing of the surrounds (an exception, not the rule) to be the biggest drawback of 5.1. A lighter touch on the sides, with the majority of the music on the front three, floats my boat. This could be because my home theater/listening room is so narrow (11 ft.) and the nearest surround (from my chair) is three feet from my right ear. I want that lead vocal or instrument in front of me, not to my right (or worse, detectable in the front and right surround speaker simultaneously).

I can't imagine a musician on the face of the earth who would not, if given the choice, want their work released in a high definition audio format.

I knew about SACD and DVD-Audio since about 7 years ago, but didn't buy because:

1) Can't rip it to a computer and build playlists, or rip them to a portable player. I don't want to have to buy the same album in multiple formats so I can have one for my home system and another for my car. I also don't like listening to one album from start to finish; I want to listen to one or two songs from one artist then another song from another artist, without having to change discs.

2) It needs 5.1 analog inputs. Yes, my receiver has those, but they're already being used by my computer. Well I should say they were being used by my computer, but now with Dolby Digital Live that is no longer necessary. But guess what, an HD-DVD player will soon be connected to the 5.1 inputs. So I should get a switch box for the multiple 5.1 sources? Are you nuts ... a dozen more freaking cables? Have you seen the mess of cables I have already? Just for something for which I won't buy more than 5 or 10 albums, because it would be too cumbersome to own a large collection due to point (1) above?

I knew about SACD and DVD-Audio since about 7 years ago, but didn't buy because:

1) Can't rip it to a computer and build playlists, or rip them to a portable player. I don't want to have to buy the same album in multiple formats so I can have one for my home system and another for my car. I also don't like listening to one album from start to finish; I want to listen to one or two songs from one artist then another song from another artist, without having to change discs.


There is something to that. But it can be done. Most SACD's I understand have a red book layer so that can be ripped as a normal CD. DVD-A OTOH are a bit harder. While there are published hacks for ripping the MLP data, it's much easier to rip the DD data stream if it exists. There is easily available software that will rip the DD layer into a downmixed wav file. From there (though it's a bit fiddly) you can edit out each track (the rip tends to create one large wav file with all tracks on it) using freeware wav edit software and encode them into your choice of compressed audio. Of course you will have to manually add the tag information to each track. Now straightforward but you only do it once and saves having to have a duplicate catalogue

Larry

The point of these formats is to take advantage of the home theaters that people built in the 90's through today. Why spend the $$ on a SACD and then listen to it on an iPod?

You have HDMI in your username, players such as the Oppos use the HDMI cable to transmit the multichannel, so you won't have to worry about 6 extra cables. My receiver doesn't have a 5.1 input, so I currently listen to DVD-As in Dolby Digital or DTS via my optical cable (until I replace my receiver). You mention HD-DVD, those audio signals will be tranmitted over HDMI too.

I don't mean to dismiss your concerns, they are valid. I just think that these formats were intended as something extra people can get from their home theaters rather than a new format to build a music collection on (such as mp3s).

The point of these formats is to take advantage of the home theaters that people built in the 90's through today. Why spend the $$ on a SACD and then listen to it on an iPod?I wouldn't buy an SACD just to listen to it on a portable player. I want to listen to it on a high quality setup when at home, AND on whatever else is available when outside the house without paying for it twice.

I don't have an HDMI receiver, but I have multiple HDMI devices, with more to come (like the HD-DVD player). So I will be getting an HDMI receiver soon. If SACD plays over HDMI that makes it more palatable to get into the multichannel game. Or if the other components are hooked up via HDMI then maybe it's not such a problem to let the SACD player use the 5.1 analogs.

When I was moving last summer, the box with all my cables weighed over 50 pounds. If I just could set up my equipment and let it stay unchanged for years, I wouldn't care so much about the cables. But almost every month I'm buying or borrowing something, that I'm fed up with becoming a contortionist to reach behind there to wade through the spider web of cables to connect and disconnect stuff. An SACD player sharing the 5.1 analogs with something else would mean 12 extra cables, not just 6.

I was wrong... I guess the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players pass on their sound via 5.1 inputs until newer receivers come out that can handle the newer sound format natively.

DVD-A and SACD (usually via conversion to PCM--not nearly the disaster some would have you believe) can be carried via HDMI from a number of players (including inexpensive Oppo players). Moreover, except for a few early releases (mostly from Sony), SACDs have a CD layer that is easily ripped to mp3 (or other format).

I agree, I also love my surround music formats. but i think its going away slowly. I have a friend,that listens to mp3 on hes ipod. and i had him listen to one of my multi channel music cds. i ask him which one sounds better to you. mp3 or multi channel?
he said mp3. but,they need to do something to get these kids off the terrible mp3 music and onto really good quality multi channel audio music.! its sad that this format is dying. hope they can bring it back to life. :D

its sad that this format is dying. hope they can bring it back to life. :D
I think that a big part of the reason it is dying is that there are many people who, like me, just don't get that much out of it. I have heard surround recordings after hearing the same songs in stereo, and it didn't really add a lot to the experience. Much of this has to do with the fact that, when I see a live concert, all of the music is coming from in front of me because that is where the musicians are.

I think that a big part of the reason it is dying is that there are many people who, like me, just don't get that much out of it. I have heard surround recordings after hearing the same songs in stereo, and it didn't really add a lot to the experience. Much of this has to do with the fact that, when I see a live concert, all of the music is coming from in front of me because that is where the musicians are.
Everything being equal, read 5 identical, good quality speakers, I can hear instruments that are drowned out in the stereo recording.
As for the sound coming from all around it also depends on how they decided to use all channels, and like someone else has already said, its like listening to the music, while on stage. I like it, but I also like to listen to vinyl on a quality setup.

It has nothing to do with lack of advertising or anything related to marketing for that matter. This country loves it's 128kbps MP3's. Surround formats, improve the quality of the music, it's evident by listening to what they are downloading on itunes that sound quality is not a concern.

Some of you are missing the boat. The under 25's dont do one thing that you need to do to enjoy surround. Sit in one place. They are on the move and so mp3's work for them. I'm betting most of them sitting down and listening to a well setup system with some music they like and they would think its cool. Then get up and go about there day.{with the player stuck back in there ears}

The under 25's

??? But I do sit and listen to music!!!!!!! :D In my car, in the boat, while eating lunch in the woods while I'm fishing....

If you want to enjoy surround music,most listeners{maybe 98%} sit in there chair and listen to it. Most under 25ers dont sit in one place very long so surround wouldnt be of much value to them.

timming is everything the more people getting into ht with
better music scores of late the more interest in 5.1 music
this is being observed through customer base.

oztech,

You hit the nail on the head. I think that the saving grace of 5.1 music will be the people that are getting the surround systems to go with their new HDTV's. I bought a new center speaker at the Magnolia store in The Woodlands Saturday. While I know that the clerk is employed by BB, he at least had a little knowlege of DVD-A and SACD in surround. One would think that if there was some advertising or maybe a surround set-up in the stores, people would want it. While I was auditioning the center with the " Love " CD, another customer came in and was asked what the best speakers were. He obviously had money and no clue of what he wanted. The Yamaha I was listening to was set to Neo-6 and he kept turning around to listen. I hope the clerk explained what he was hearing . Not Hi-Rez surround, but close enough for starters.

Cheers,


Bill

Oatech and Wjg,

I agree with both of you :)
I definitely think that home theater is making the biggest impact into 5.1 setups and paving the way for 5.1 music.
At the end of the day, if artists are capable of producing 5.1 content, there is a market for it with HT. The main thing that varies is the available surround formats and the commonly available one is DD and DTS on DVD. While these are compressed formats, they do sound better (particularly DTS) than mp3 by a long shot and are in most peoples HT systems natively.
The great thing about DTS Master Audio is that it is backwards compatible with regular DTS decoders (albeit at regular DTS quality, not full master). That means that studios can create content ready for almost any current and future media without needing to create multiple masters. :)

Oatech and Wjg,

I agree with both of you :)
I definitely think that home theater is making the biggest impact into 5.1 setups and paving the way for 5.1 music.
At the end of the day, if artists are capable of producing 5.1 content, there is a market for it with HT. The main thing that varies is the available surround formats and the commonly available one is DD and DTS on DVD. While these are compressed formats, they do sound better (particularly DTS) than mp3 by a long shot and are in most peoples HT systems natively.
The great thing about DTS Master Audio is that it is backwards compatible with regular DTS decoders (albeit at regular DTS quality, not full master). That means that studios can create content ready for almost any current and future media without needing to create multiple masters. :)

Artists have very little to say about it being in 5.1 i'm guessing,its all about the studio/label.

I agree with both of you
I definitely think that home theater is making the biggest impact into 5.1 setups and paving the way for 5.1 music.

This is how it started with me....

First, I purchased an HDTV (JVC LCOS) and D* HD. Then I read about all of the 5.1 content on D* HD and realized what I was missing. So, I slowly started building my system.

I started with a center channel to match my existing stereo bookshelf pair (Paradigm mini monitors and a cc350) and a receiver. Then I added a subwoofer (HSU STF-2) and surround speakers. Then I added an inexpensive universal player (Pio 578) and now I enjoy music and movies at a level I never thought possible and for a modest cost. But, it all started with the HD display.

Just my two cents :).

Buck

Artists have very little to say about it being in 5.1 i'm guessing,its all about the studio/label.
That is true in the case of most of the throwaway top 40 crap you hear on the radio. Most of the quality artists who are in for the long haul have a much greater say in things like this. Take Peter Gabriel as an example. Have a listen to his 'Secret World Live' DVD and you will see and hear what I mean. He is in control of most of the production stages of his work and it makes a massive difference to the quality and context of the content from a musical and a production perspective. :)

That is true in the case of most of the throwaway top 40 crap you hear on the radio. Most of the quality artists who are in for the long haul have a much greater say in things like this. Take Peter Gabriel as an example. Have a listen to his 'Secret World Live' DVD and you will see and hear what I mean. He is in control of most of the production stages of his work and it makes a massive difference to the quality and context of the content from a musical and a production perspective. :)

It was also true that Peter Gabriel caused the delay in the release of Genesis' SACDs due to him wanting "adjustments" in the surround mixes. On the other hand, PG has recently equipped his own studio for 5.1 surround sound production. Maybe he will remix his albums to surround sound?

Mark Knopfler and Pete Townshend both are directly involved in the multi-channel remixes of their work.

People don't want or buy something they:

1) Don't know exisits
2) Can't see in a store
3) Don't hear about on TV
4) Is to hard to use (No digital connection)
5) Doesn't work with their stuff (Need 6 ch in/out equipment)

In some respects, the DTS CD did more for surround than SACD & DVD-A, in that the average Joe with a surround video system could plop one in his player and listen in surround. If he went home with an SACD, he was stuck without buying a new player, a new receiver, and 6 cables. Too much work to listen to "The Stranger" in surround.....

Introducing SACD in the end of XX century was like swimming upstream, an audiophile format (even in stereo beats anything else hands down) in times of markets move toward downloads, IPODs etc etc... Not the first time though, anybody remembers Video2000? How about Beta?
There is a niche market for SACD (just check all classical/audiophile releases) but that's not enough to sustain mass production of players. Pop music drives the market and since pop listeners could not care less, busy downloading from Itunes store, SACD is DOA... I hope however, that with milions of players out there, there will still be some renegade labels releasing audiophile and pricey SACDs in the future. Also, studio and live recodings are still made in high resolution DSD/ or PCM, so some day someone will release them this way in high-def, this format or another...

oztech,

You hit the nail on the head. I think that the saving grace of 5.1 music will be the people that are getting the surround systems to go with their new HDTV's.
Bill


Ufortunately the same people will claim there is no audible difference between SACD 5.1 and DTS. Sonic quality of most home theater systems is terrible to say the least.

Ufortunately the same people will claim there is no audible difference between SACD 5.1 and DTS. Sonic quality of most home theater systems is terrible to say the least.
That is why 5 good quality speakers are needed for DVD-A/SACD. The run of the mill 5.1 system w/speakers so small you can barely see them are junk.

Dr. Floyd E. Toole, Vice President Acoustical Engineering for Harman International has written, in a white paper.
"The challenge is to get people into situations where they can hear good demonstrations of multichannel entertainment, using good equipment. The entry-level in-wall/in-ceiling systems, and systems with inadequate tiny surround speakers can be impressive if one is easily impressed. However, those of us in the business need to show customers that much better sound is posssible, and sometimes for only modest cost increases. Good in-wall speakers exist, but they are not inexpensive. Ceiling speakers are for background music systems in stores (I exaggerate, but only slightly). Ceiling speakers should NEVER be used for front channels, and used for surround channels only in homes that I am never invited to."

I could not agree more.

I disagree with the poster that said advertising has nothing to do with 5.1 music.

I have never been able to afford a hi-end music system, and had never heard of SACD or DVD-A.

I also got turned on to hi-res audio by first exploring these forums while researching my first HT. I hope that HT does lead others to exploring 5.1 music also.

Can someone clue me in to the sonic difference between SACD 5.1 and DTS? I have read posters saying that they love the Eagles Hell Freezes Over, and I had understood that was a DTS recording. I had hoped that DTS might help save 5.1 music.

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, it is laughable that anyone could say their ipod sounds better than a SACD recording. I love my ipod, but now that I have a listening room, I may never be able to listen to "Downward Spiral" on my ipod again. And it is not even a 5.1 recording.

SACD and DVD-A are 5 full range lossless channels, thus need 5 identical speakers for best possible sound. DTS can be almost as good (DTS 96/24).
But the majority of my DVD-A/DTS discs I prefer to listen via the 6-channel direct mode(lossless) DVD-A.
The only people who don't think that dvd-a or sacd aren't better(assuming they have heard it) are the people who have only heard it on a cheapo 5.1 system that I wouldn't put in my water closet.

That is why 5 good quality speakers are needed for DVD-A/SACD. The run of the mill 5.1 system w/speakers so small you can barely see them are junk.

Dr. Floyd E. Toole, Vice President Acoustical Engineering for Harman International has written, in a white paper.
"The challenge is to get people into situations where they can hear good demonstrations of multichannel entertainment, using good equipment. The entry-level in-wall/in-ceiling systems, and systems with inadequate tiny surround speakers can be impressive if one is easily impressed. However, those of us in the business need to show customers that much better sound is posssible, and sometimes for only modest cost increases. Good in-wall speakers exist, but they are not inexpensive. Ceiling speakers are for background music systems in stores (I exaggerate, but only slightly). Ceiling speakers should NEVER be used for front channels, and used for surround channels only in homes that I am never invited to."

I could not agree more.
Great post :)

Perhaps Blu-ray and HD DVD could hold some promise for the future of multi-channel audio better than 44/16.

Don't hold your breath here.
These formats are vastly expensive - and authoring is also vastly expensive.

The main problem is lack of publicity.
When the REM Box set was available, and their compilation album was also out on DVD-A & a DVD-V with DTS, the TV adverts in the UK made mention of the CD, but nothing - not a word - about the High Rez & Multichannel.

You could almost believe that certain companies actually WANTED it to disappear.

lots of advertising here in houston this month on blu-ray
tv and mag add's.

Great post :)
Thanks, for more than two years I've been back on tract homes, after a long absence from them, installing straircases.
And what I've seen from some home builders is exactly what Floyd Toole was talking about.
These clowns are using in-ceiling speakers for what is supposed to be the HT area. To make matters worse they will have a fireplace right next to the wall recess where the tv and gear go. The fireplace is in the center of the wall, with recess off to one side.
Then they spread the front, in-ceiling speaker array across the entire width of the room and the surrounds also not symmetrical to the screen.
And then you will see posts on this forum, from people who buy such homes, complaining how bad the sound is in their HT.

I disagree with the poster that said advertising has nothing to do with 5.1 music.

I have never been able to afford a hi-end music system, and had never heard of SACD or DVD-A.

I also got turned on to hi-res audio by first exploring these forums while researching my first HT. I hope that HT does lead others to exploring 5.1 music also.

Can someone clue me in to the sonic difference between SACD 5.1 and DTS? I have read posters saying that they love the Eagles Hell Freezes Over, and I had understood that was a DTS recording. I had hoped that DTS might help save 5.1 music.

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, it is laughable that anyone could say their ipod sounds better than a SACD recording. I love my ipod, but now that I have a listening room, I may never be able to listen to "Downward Spiral" on my ipod again. And it is not even a 5.1 recording.


1) There are a lot of misconceptions about HD. 1) HDTV public is lead to believe that to experience HD you need a $3k plasma when you can buy a $400 30 16x9 CRT with quality surpassing most plasmas ( at least CRTs natively support 1080i unlike most plasmas) 2) public is lead to believe that you need cable / satellite subscription for HDTV while OTA HDTV is available for a long long time. 3) we need BlueRay or HDDVD for HDTV while Divx (and WMV) made it possible to fit HD material on a standard DVD taking advantage of more efficient codec: MPEG4

2) HD Audio - blue ray offers TrueHD? 1) Eureka, lossless compresion in XXI century while lossless compresion has been available for a few years now. Google for wavepack, monkey audio and flac. 2) With 40% compression over PCM you could easily fit two extra channels on a average CD, given that most audio CDs do not contain more than 45 min of audio... We could easily have MCH audio CDs w/o a need for a lossy compression (like DTS).

3) Ipod may sound as good as SACD, especially on these tiny ipod headphones. :)
In reality ipods can play AAC Lossless so in theory can support higher than redbook CD resolutions. Practically you most people have a 128 kbps AACs(itunes), very good but still (very) lossy compresion. This is no match for SACD or even redbook CD.

The only real thing HDTV has to do with hi-res audio (not counting HD DVD/BR) is that most people will spend big bucks for a big screen tv and next to nothing for audio. So of coarse they haven't the slightest idea how good DVD-A/SACD can be.
One has to spend at least as much on the audio as the screen and that's just to get good quality HT.
In fact, my 65" crt was $3500, five years ago. In that same room I've spent over $7500 on audio. And it would have been a lot more had I not got a super sweet deal on my main speakers.

The only real thing HDTV has to do with hi-res audio (not counting HD DVD/BR) is that most people will spend big bucks for a big screen tv and next to nothing for audio. So of coarse they haven't the slightest idea how good DVD-A/SACD can be.Initially people will buy a big screen HDTV and do nothing about the audio, but it usually doesn't take long for them to want to get bigger better sound to match the big TV. Of course, many of them go for a 5.1 system with tiny tinny satellites, either due to the WAF or just not knowing any better, but the desire for better audio does prompt some of them into getting a decent set of speakers.

I have a HDTV in the family room which is open to the kitchen. At present we make do with the speakers on the TV because to wire up a 5.1 system would involve the WAF and also trying to work out where to place the speakers.

In my living room I do have a 7.1 system (but only 5 speakers) with DVD-A and SACD capability as well as a front projection system. So I watch DVD's there mainly. But it's not HD since I would need to upgrade my projector and purchase a HD-DVD or BluRay player. I am waiting on that one

Larry

I have a HDTV in the family room which is open to the kitchen. At present we make do with the speakers on the TV because to wire up a 5.1 system would involve the WAF and also trying to work out where to place the speakers.Lots of people have that problem. In-wall or on-wall speakers may be their only practical option for the surrounds, without cluttering the room. Still, a 2.1 or 3.1 system up front can do a lot to enhance the sound compared to the TV speakers.

Initially people will buy a big screen HDTV and do nothing about the audio, but it usually doesn't take long for them to want to get bigger better sound to match the big TV. Of course, many of them go for a 5.1 system with tiny tinny satellites, either due to the WAF or just not knowing any better, but the desire for better audio does prompt some of them into getting a decent set of speakers.
Most people I know who have a large screen (50" and over) either just use the tv speakers or a cheapo tin can size speaker system, they got free with the tv. My ex falls into that catagory. They got free sony speakers, the size of a can of baked beans, and that was most of 5 years ago.