James Guthrie Transcript/Remarks re: DSOTM SACD

[bmoura]

Check the Audio Revolution web site at www.audiorevolution.com/n...side.shtml for a transcript of James Guthrie's remarks about the Dark Side of the Moon SACD.

Some very interesting comments there. And a bit unusual - you generally don't get a word for word transcript from such events !

[JonUrban]

Great link, however, I have a problem with something James says. In his argument for SACD over DVD-A, he says this:

<em>If the major labels decide to go with DVD-A based solely on the argument that there are millions of DVD video players already out there that will play the disc, then they are saying that they are quite happy for people to listen to AC-3 or DTS. <span style="text-decoration:underline">They are effectively saying that they don't care about quality.</span>
</em>

To me, this is <em>bullshit</em>, SONY rhetoric.

If I play a SACD hybrid on a CD player, the sound quality is no better than that of playing a DVD-A on a DVD player.

I fail to see why he states that the non-DVD-A tracks have to be AC3 or DTS. They don't! In fact, before DVD-A and SACD, audiophile labels like Chesky release music on DVDs because they could get audio quality far better than a regular CD.

<strong>SACD</strong>: To get the Hi-Rez, you need an SACD player.
<strong>DVD-A</strong>: To get the Hi-Rez, you need an DVD-A player.

I fail to see the difference. Once again, you cannot even get a surround mix on a CD player, you CAN get a surround mix on a DVD player, as AC3 or DTS - but hey, at least you can <em>get</em> a surround mix!

:-jon

[bmoura]

Hmm, if Guthrie said it, then it must be "Guthrie rhetoric".

>>To me, this is bullshit, SONY rhetoric.

[Ick]

He must not be getting any sort of royalties from the sales, because they would sell a HELL of a lot more copies than the SACD will sell. I've got at least 5 people I work with that have a DVD player that would love to have this disc, but they don't want to shell out any more $$ for an SACD player. I have a combo player, and both formats sound good to me. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I would love for someone to do a "Pepsi Challenge" with the two. There are too many people who think they have "golden ears".

ICK

[bmoura]

Since the Dark Side of the Moon SACD is a Hybrid disc, it is playable on CD and most DVD players as well.

As far as sales, the initial pressing of the SACD was 500,000 copies. So I'd say they're doing just fine !

[JonUrban]

bmoura wrote: <blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
As far as sales, the initial pressing of the SACD was 500,000 copies. So I'd say they're doing just fine !
[/quote]

Brian,

The one problem I have with these inflated SACD sales figures is this. Sure, there were a LOT of Rolling Stones SACDs sold, but they were not even marked as being SACDs! How many purhcasers bought them as "remastered CDs", not even knowing what an SACD is, let alone that they need another player to play it properly.

The same thing with DSOTM. Sure, they will sell a ton, but most of the buyers will not even understand what they have, other than a "newly remastered CD".

Now, if these SACDs were playable ONLY in an SACD player, and they sold 500,000 copies, THAT would be impressive!

Hey, SACDs are cool! I have them and I like them and I hope they release a lot more. Let's just not get too carried away with sales figures on product that is not even labeled.

It's kinds like the Doors CD-4 LP. That album sold a ton, yet how many played it on a CD-4 system? Did the sales of that album signify the success of CD-4? Nope.

:-jon

[bmoura]

Well, the Rolling Stones SACDs have sold in excess of 2 Million copies through December. And more have been pressed and sold since that time. So the folks at ABKCO Records are very happy about the project. They've told me so directly.

As for Dark Side of the Moon, if the initial run on the SACDs is 500,000 and it also generates multiple repressing orders (as the Stones SACDs did), it too will do quite well.

So the likelihood here is that like the Stones, the actual sales of the Dark Side of the Moon SACD will be more than the first pressing. And that certainly will move things along in the world of SACD.

[The Quadfather]

If the record companies are moving discs, they'll be happy. If that translates into more SACDs being made, then I'm all for it.

The Quadfather

[JonUrban]

Me too - I just believe that the Rolling Stones remasteres would have sold the same quantity even if they were not SACDs.

[emkey]

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the vast majority of DVD players do not in fact play the SACD equivalent portion of a DVD-A, right? They play a DVD compatible version of the music which is signficantly inferior quality wise to the actual DVD-A tracks and from what I understand inferior to SACD as well... If I'm correct in my understanding then the things he said are pretty reasonable. And if I'm incorrect then I'm sure somebody will tell me.

[AllAroundSurround]

Yes, you are correct, just as an sacd/mc HYBRID disc will play on a standard cd player, but not the High REZ the same is true for DVD-A discs played in a dvd-v player ...no high rez!
To hear the High rez in either format you need the high rez player!
Rob

[emkey]

OK, given that then is there really a significant improvement between DVD-V and standard CD audio quality?

[AllAroundSurround]

That's all content dependant. If you mean as far as d.t.s. and ac3 Yes the dvd-v has the ABILITY to give you higher yet some what compressed surround sound capabiliy if it's on the disc be it dvd-v or dvd-a that's the backward compatability part. You get video and audio but not both on cd .
Rob

[Ick]

I'm sure there are quite a few people who could care less about the Hi-Rez versions of discs (SACD and DVD-A). I just think that DSOTM would sell a lot more if it came with a DTS track on it like DVD-A. You'd be surprised these days with the number of people who have a surround set-up at home! Who cares about the CD layer on DSOTM? Pretty much everyone already owns the CD!!

Don't get me wrong, I love SACD the same as DVD-A, but from a selling standpoint they need to think about the people who don't own a hi-rez player but think that the surround is pretty DAMN COOL!

[Cai Campbell]

The fact that the Stones and Floyd discs are SACD is pretty much irrelevent when it come to sales. As far as 90% (or more) of the consumer's who are buying these discs are concerned, they're CD's, period. I think the Stone's hybrids made very, very few people go out and buy an SACD player. However, the Floyd disc has the BIG incentive that if you want to hear the surround tracks, you HAVE to buy an SACD player. So, I believe the media has very little to do with how many of the Floyd discs have been sold or will be sold, but I do believe it will have an impact on the number of SACD players sold, which in turn will boost the sales of other SACD titles. Anway, that's how I see it...

By a similar token, if the the Floyd disc were released as DVD-A, more people could enjoy the lo-rez surround tracks and be perfectly happy. It's not that people don't care about audio quality, it's just that they haven't learned to appreciate it or have other priorities in life. However, the fact that they wouldn't have to buy new hardware to enjoy the surround mix would be a minor plus, and I do think that sales of the disc would be a bit stronger because of this. I don't think it would be that much of a boost, but it would certainly help.

Getting back to "caring about quality", let's take Joe Sixpack and his "home theater in a box" with his five cheesey satelite speakers spread acroos the top of his 27" Zenith. If he actually goes out and buys an SACD player, just so he can listen to DSOTM in surround, do you think he's really going to notice much difference if he were listening to the same thing via Dolby Digital off of a DVD-A? I don't think so. Forcing a consumer to buy a new player has nothing to do with them caring about quality. Guthrie's statement is just plain absurd.

[shark42]

I don't want to even get into the dsd/pcm argument. Personally, I think Guthrie's just fueling a fire that doesn't need to be. All HT owners know that DTS often sounds better than DD, but this has less to do with DTS/DD specs, and more to do with the politics of the format. Now that almost every amp supports both, the format war dies...

Mind you, that war was avoided by the DVD spec indicating that at the -least- you'd have to include a DD track in order to comply with being a DVD (maintaining a minimum compatiblity). But I digress...

I think it'd be cool if the DSOTM release had included redbook, DTS, -and- MLP on a DVD-A disc (or, for that matter, an SACD). What's really nice about both DVD-A (menus, screen lyrics, documentaries, etc.) and SACD (hybrid discs with redbook layers) would ideally be combined. When DVD-A gets hybrid layers, and if SACD gets the (minor) video content (doubtful it can, at least to be compatible with existing players), it'd be six of one, half dozen the other for me. I bought two players, I listen to both, I love them both in their own way. More releases like DSOTM can only help us all...

Much happier that DSOTM can play in Stereo -and- DSD, rather than a DTS/MLP only version. In fact, now that I have an actual DVD-A player, I can be totally snooty and say that I'd prefer MLP/CD combo discs more than DTS/MLP. Mind, I bought several DVD-As before I had my RP-82, so right now I'm being incredibly hypocritical...

moral: bring on the tunes!

[Ick]

I Agree!! The more surround that's out there the better!! I just think that the music companies should be worrying about what titles they put out and not worrying about if a certain title will sell more players. They are putting the cart before the horse, and in this economy VERY few people are going to shell out another $200 - $400 for another player so they can listen to DSOTM. I have friends who feel that way.

The fact that the DVDA camp is adding a CD layer is a good idea. You get more bang for your buck. Now if Sony would start adding video and extra stuff.....

[deepsky4565]

Sorry to add to a debate, but proof is in order one way or another.

I just had a good friend over, who DOES care about quality and has plenty of disposable income, to hear the complete 5.1 DSotM.

He was blown away. he really enjoyed it, but when he realized how much an SACD player would cost to add to his system, he would pass. He would have run down and picked up a DVD-A right away and be enjoying the lo-res mix immediately. It's pretty much the hardcore people like us that are willing to go for the hi-res surround SACD players, a fairly small market.

Even though I support both formats, I think a hybrid DVD-A will be the best thing for surround fans, and SACD will become a niche audiophile format for those that think it sounds better than PCM.

Dan in Spokane

[Ick]

Yeah, Guthrie is full of crap. I'm sure he's very thankful to SONY for his hefty paycheck. I think both formats will prosper, and its good that more combo players are out there. Soon they'll be cheaper, and all it'll come down to is the music itself as it should be. If the engineers decide they like one format than the other, fine and dandy. Average Joe isn't going to care. Mr. Enginner/Producer just better make a good surround mix...

[Ick]

Well said!!

I guess ultimately we need to thank Sony and Guthrie for getting DSOTM out here no matter what format it's on. Now, they should continue with the Beatles, Christopher Cross (first album, it really IS a well engineered album!), more PF, and all the titles that have been proven to sell. Not the obscure ones!!!

[Cai Campbell]

Holy moly! (or however the heck you spell it)

Mr. Cotton (or can I call you Dot?) you hit on so many different topics I don't know where to begin! Well, I'll take a shot:

First off, I really, really, REALLY don't want to see the practice of mastering albums so they make "even crappy equipment sound better" continue. However, it may be too late. Already CD's are consistently produced that sound bright, hot and have tons of totally unacceptable clipping. Why? Because they make crappy systems sound better! These same discs, on a proper system, are downright painful to listen to. I am NOT advocating catering to the least common denominator. I don't want anyone to even think I am condoning this. This is an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with surround-sound, stereo, mono, or whatever.

What I DO condone is getting surround-sound out to as many folks who are already in a position to enjoy it, but not at the expense of making "audiophiles" suffer. That is why I like DVD-A: It has the hi-rez MLP tracks for the audiophiles and the DTS and/or DD tracks for pretty much anyone else who happens to have some form of 5.1 surround setup. I’m not trying to take sides here, though. I’d be totally keen on seeing hybrid SACD’s with a DTS redbook layer! That would be great! However, I don’t see that happening…

Dot, you simply CANNOT throw out the word “lossy” when referring to lossy compression schemes. Doing so would be like living in denial. If you are throwing away audio information, the scheme is lossy and needs to be referred to as such in no uncertain terms. There is compression that is not lossy, such as MLP. In this case, I’m more than happy to throw out the term “lossy”, since it does not apply.

Now, I must say that I despise lossy audio compression of any kind. Plain and simple, lossy compression sucks. Yes, even for surround sound. DTS is a lossy format and it sucks. That’s right, I think DTS sucks. It is a concession we are forced to make if we wish to preserve and share surround-sound recordings in a cost-effective, audience-rich manner. DTS offers a cheap surround-sound digital medium, allowing us to clean up and preserve these great vintage surround-sound recordings. The downside is, no matter how you slice it, you are taking an already suspect digital medium (16/44.1 redbook digital) and throwing out ¾ of the musical information! How can that be good?

With that said, DTS is the lesser of all evils. Of the lossy formats, it is by far the best. I just don’t want to see DTS put up on some pedestal. It is NOT a good format for music. It is a compromise, and even though it does its job exceptionally well, every time you wake up in the morning, there it is: <span style="text-decoration:underline">a compromise</span>.

Dot, one thing you touched upon was that surround-sound does help make up for the fact that it is being delivered in a lossy format. Now, this, I will agree with. The surround-sound experience does help mask the fact that you are only listening to 1/4th of the musical information. This is a temporary phenomenon, however. When the “gee-whiz” factor wears off, you’re back to the realization that something is missing...

But then, I’m just speaking for myself. Despite the perpetual stereotypes, audiophiles and surround-sound aficionados can be one in the same! I would count myself in that unique cross-section. If you consider yourself a surround-sound aficionado, but not an audiophile, then DTS or other lossy formats will probably serve you quite well for years to come (along with those hotly mastered CD’s that make everything sound great!)

Okay, well, there is nothing wrong with that. I’m not some audiophile snob wanting sonic bliss for myself, everyone else be damned! On the contrary, I’ll come full circle here and say that I want surround-sound for the masses. The medium should target the largest audience (but again) not at the expense of the audiophiles. The technology is at a place right now where we can all get what we want, and there is no reason the record companies shouldn’t take advantage of that!

Just a couple of more points I wanted to respond to… I don’t think modern surround sound systems are any easier to set up or configure than vintage ones. If anything, they’ve become more difficult (two extra speakers to contend with). Modern systems do have the advantage in that they can be tweaked with their DSP settings, but Joe Sixpack with his haphazard speaker placement will just look at you with glazed eyes if you try and explain how to take advantage of this feature. Oh yeah, and speaking of limited dynamic range, can you say “satellite speakers?” I’ll take the vintage quad speakers any day over this (unfortunate) marketing stroke of genius.

Finally, I do NOT think that surround-sound will supplant stereo. No way. I believe that stereo will continue to rule as the predominant music format for many, many years to come. Even if surround-sound becomes the adopted standard (my bet is heavily against this) stereo will always have its place. On a related note, I feel that poo-pooing the stereophiles and their anti-surround stance is yet another form of denial, and lowers yourself to their closed-minded stance, and we don’t want to go there now, do we?

Rock on.

[shark42]

Well, I think this topic is touching on an incredibly important aesthetic debate - namely, for what music is surround appropriate? Certainly, many would argue that for original, 2-track or mono mixes, it's best to be left alone (or, at the least, included as an original track). Others see joy in Quadding up any mix. ("Quadding" - my neologism for any kind of surround redux, 4.0, 5.1, 7.2, 13.6, etc)

Now, for me, Zappa, Beatles and Floyd are prime examples of Quaddish music (neologism number two, I'm on a roll kids...), while, say, Gordon Lightfoot or Loggins and Messina, artists I have vintage Quad mixes from, are less Quaddish. This is not to say there aren't benefits to Quadding-up different styles of recordings - the vintage mix of Joni's "Court and Spark", for example, is for me a nice example of what opening up the mix can do, whereas Lightfoot's record didn't do much for me except the "Ooh! Surround!" factor. I think we can all agree that there's a fine line between a genuinely musical use of surround and simply gratuitous, masterbatory pan-pot wanking. Azimuth joysticking, indeed.

For me, one of the blessed joys of the 'net is these weird tribes, groups of people that collect together to discuss the oddest things. We can leave the zooaphilia or Pez dispensor collecting to other forums - here I've learned about Q8, record players with twin styli (styluses?), and other dribbles from the golden age of Quad. Born in '72, it was way before my prime, yet I've got an old Pioneer Quad amp that had funky position knobs and matrix processing, things that I knew nothing about 'till the dawn of prologic. Now, the proud owner of both SACD and DVD-A players, I feel like I'm at the technological vanguard. This will either be a bust, or the dawn of a golden age of surround mixing, with audiophile recordings of everthing swarming the market at low, low prices (I'm thinking the former, but then again, I never thought DVD would catch on, and would stay, like my beloved laserdiscs, a niche market... )

I don't have the system to tell any difference between DSD and MLP. I don't have the software to do that either. Frankly, I'm not sure anybody does - it's a false dialectic. The marked difference, of course, is between Hires and CD (just as there was a major difference for most people between non-audiophilic, not-being-anal-and-taking-delicate-care-of-the-damn-disc vinyl and Compact disc There's clearly a difference between stereo CD and a 5.1 DSD in terms of the musical experience for the listener. The difference is far more subtle, to my ears, between, say, the 2ch redbook mix on Stones albums and the DSD version. The difference between the two stereo mixes is not going to sell many players, methinks - nor, frankly, should it.

However, for all those home-theatre-in-a-box peeps, the inclusion of a surround mix, as gratuitous as it may be, just might sell the disc -and- the player. DSOTM may make money for Sony's player division, just as Rumours or the (ahem) rumoured Abbey Road DVD-A will sell plenty of those type of players.

So, should everything be Quadded up? Can -every- disc (or at least, a vast majority) be improved by doing a surround mix? Or is stereo (or mono?) sometimes a more "true" representation of that particular work? The debate should rage just as much for contemporary works as it does for vintage recordings. For me, I see surround mixes as the principal advantage to the new formats, the thing that redbook CDs simply can't do, a reason for even "the masses" to switch their player and buy some new speakers. I bought the Stones SACDs because they were albums that, as redbook discs, were far better than my existing versions. SACD layer is simply cream. I own only one 2ch SACD that's not a hybrid - the Who's My Generation disc. Other than the fact that it's actually cheaper here in Toronto for the SACD than for the 2 CD set, it's not an album I need necessarily to have to listen to in my car. I am a little annoyed, in the end, that it's not a hybrid.

The rest of my (few) titles are all multichanel, from Meatloaf to Miles. My DVDa's are also all mutichanel, several purchased before I had my DVD-A player. When I bought my RP-82, I bought an excellent DVD player that -happened-, by happy luck, to do DVD-A. I wanted a 5 disc player for some time, so when Best Buy opened up in Toronto and had a door crasher of a cheap ($250CDN) 5-disc SACD player, I grabbed one immediately. Comforted by having the best of both worlds, I've been slowly building my collection.

I'm annoyed that the new Police SACDs here are not hybrid, extremely happy about the Floyd disc, and very worried about the future of the format. That said, I can only think of a few prime artists that for me would be worth replacing CD versions for, bands that, frankly, appeal to me in their Quaddish way. This may not be the future of the recording industry, but I'll certainly enjoy it while it lasts.

My questions for the group, then, after all this rambling - Can we claim that the majority of recordings can be improved by (suitable) Quadding-up? Furthermore, what's more important to the survival of these formats, surround mixing, or the ubiquity of hybrid discs that allows for playback with existing hardware?

[rusinurbe]

I am one of those Home cinema people who only have access to M/C via DD and DTS. I will not be going out and Buying DSOTM on SACD at the moment as there is no benefit to me I am unable to buy a new ‘Hi Fi’, and I have a perfectly good Home Cinema set up which plays the DD/DTS content on DVD-A. Maybe when I have a higher disposable Income I will invest in a 5.1 Home ‘Hi Fi’ set up. I can see some advantage to the SACD being a hybrid disc, but I already have two versions of DSOTM, why buy a third version only to hear the stereo content again?

[Cai Campbell]

Mark, I think the crux of the problem is that there is a major difference between what constitutes "engineering a mix that sounds good on EVERY system" 30 years ago and today. The difference is analog versus digital. I agree that DSOTM was a finely mastered analog recording that sounded great on a majority of systems in the day. Indeed, the original record sounds great on a majority of analog systems today. However, I'm sure it would sound like crap on an old close-and-play record player. Boomboxes or portables could be considered the digital equivalent of the close-and-play. The problem is, portable digital players have proliferated to the point where engineers are being forced to cater to them at the expense of everyone else. That's what I mean about catering to least common denominator. In the "good old days", doing stuff like that wasn’t as common, or at least the approach was less destructive. Today, compression, high-frequency boosting and overdriving the signal seems to have become the norm in mastering popular music, and it is downright depressing. In many cases, they’re squeezing the life out of the music!

If you can find a word to replace "lossy" I'm all for that. All I'm saying is we need truth in advertising here. Yes, the 25% of the sound (note that I am using the word "sound" and not "music" - subtle but very important distinction) that you are hearing is certainly the most important. When I say "gee whiz" factor in terms of surround-sound delivered via a lossy format, I don't mean that the surround mix sounds any less engaging, or that the music sounds any less dynamic or clear. What I mean is that you begin to notice the fact that you are listening to a lossy format. The effect is quite pronounced with DD but I notice this with DTS as well. The music will start to sound thin and especially shrill. Listener fatigue sets in much sooner than if I were listening to regular redbook CD's. There is just less body and weight to the presentation of the music. This is especially noticeable if you do a direct comparison between formats. DTS vs. regular redbook is hard to pin down, but the differences are there for anyone who cares to find them. However, the difference between DTS and hi-rez DVD-A or SACD is as clear as day.

Now, this is not to say that DTS does not offer great resolution. For what it is, it does. It is good enough that you can successfully evaluate a recording, such as the 4.0 mix of DSOTM on DTS CD vs. the hi-rez SACD. DTS is good enough that you can still identify the clarity, detail, dynamics and elements that make the 4.0 mix such a stunner, but you're missing the lush, rich, smooth presentation that only hi-rez digital or analog can offer.

But you're right, most people won't notice because they have no benchmark to compare to. In this case, ignorance is indeed bliss. Your analogy of DTS vs. hi-rez digital compared to Ford vs. Porsche doesn't cut it. That's a bananas and dump trucks comparison. Keeping with the vehicle theme, I would characterize it more like this: DTS is like driving a car down a smooth, well maintained gravel road at 30 mph. Hi-rez digital is like driving that same car down a well maintained paved road at 30 mph. In either case, you're driving the same car and arriving at the same destination at the same time. The only difference is in the smoothness of the ride. The music is the car and the format is the road.

Anyway, I'm not out to bash DTS because I’m against the format. I love the format and I think it provides a great service. However, I think there is a tendency to give it too much credit. I was playing the devil’s advocate to a large extent. I’m just trying to “keep it real”. The benefits of DTS far outweigh the negatives, but like I said, it is a compromised solution, and with any compromise there are negatives. Now, you can sweep those negatives under the carpet and say they don’t matter to you, but that doesn’t make them go away. I’m just trying to keep things in their proper perspective.

You are right on with your comments about modern surround gear vs. vintage quad gear. I had overlooked the media and media playback component entirely. I was concentrating on the receiver and speaker components only. My bad. You are certainly correct. It is way easier to “get it right” with digital media and modern systems. However, I would much rather listen to my CD-4 records instead of the DTS conversions, but you know what, it is all about convenience and not wanting to add unnecessary wear to the LP’s. But a better choice would be a lossless digital medium, like DVD-A. Then I could have my cake and eat it too!

Okay, now, my comment of wanting to get surround-sound to the masses but not at the expense of audiophiles has more to do with digital mastering practices and less to do with the delivery format. This gets back to what I was saying about CD’s being mastered too hot, with clipping and all that. This has not really been an issue with surround-sound mixes (yet) so I’m probably putting the cart before the horse. As long as they don’t take the digital mastering approach to making sure the hi-rez tracks “sound good on EVERY system” then I’ll be happy.

Anyway, as for taking the audiophile stance, once again, I’m playing the devil’s advocate. I’m just trying to present a balanced view of all the various issues at play here. There are a lot of different opinions and viewpoints and they are all valid. It’s easy to discount these out-of-hand since they may not apply to us personally, but that’s the easy way out. It is more difficult to tackle all the issues in the light-of-day and really understand the varying technologies, what they have to offer, their shortcomings and how these affect us all. I’m just as guilty as the next guy for my knee-jerk reactions to some of the seemingly inane banter that passes as commentary on some of these audio boards, but once in a while I find the need to step back and reassess my position. I guess that’s where I’m at right now. Sorry to turn an audio discussion into a philosophical one but it has been a worthwhile exercise…

Still rockin’!

[Ick]

Cai,
I don't think anyone disagrees with you. I think the main issue is getting the titles out there in surround, no matter what format. DTS was a foothold into the world of "higher" rez music. I don't think anyone would say that they thought DTS sucked the first time they heard it. DTS serves a good purpose in showing "Average Joe" what "better sound" sounds like. It's up to Joe to decide if he/she wants to invest in "best" (SACD or DVDA). I think that if the studios were to get the music to the most number of people they can, all the better for us! More sold = more made!! If the record companies purely thought of the audiophiles when they market stuff, they would have a slow going. We only have SO much money. I just don't want the companies giving up on surround. Sony did a good thing in providing 5.1 on their SACD after years of just stereo. (needless to say I bought TOTO IV in stereo, only to find it was slated for a 5.1 mix, and I had to buy it again!). I have a feeling we will win in the long run!!!!