Format fun, et. al.

[shark42]

I wrote this before the topic got locked - by the time I finished, it didn't show up. I tried to make sense of a lot of things, so, well, here it is. Enjoy:

***********
I wonder what will happen to the "format fun" (new expression to be used for "format war", by the way) now that Apple seems to have bought/is buying/is likely to buy Universal Music.

I think there's obviously a nerve touched here - beyond questions of journalistic integrity, name calling, etc., there's the issue of format alegiance, and whether or not this forum (or, especially, HFR) are meant to be balanced reflections of each format's merit, or instead, depending on your perspective, "biased" or "analytical" sites for discussing pros/cons.

There's a tendancy, as I've noted, to make this into a simplistic, us/them battle (let's not even get into how contemporary geopolitical events and prevailing ideological views -may- be shaping this form of rhetoric). I haven't thought of HFR (or this forum, for that matter) as weighing in one way or another in favour of one format over the other. This forum, of coruse, is -for- debate, pros/cons, etc. I don't see anybody arguing for the sonic superiority of one format over the other here (from our members), only issues that are "extra-musical" - video extras, say, or Red-book compatible.

If HFR is indeed "anti-SACD", I haven't seen it as a prevalent current in their reporting or editorializing. I saw from the response a tipping-back-to-neutral the debate about Sonic "deficiencies" claimed against MLP. I can see, however, how the article in question -could- be read as "MLP's great, DSD is the one that actually sucks...". I can only assume that was not Robinson's intention.

HFR, imo, should stick to news and reports about the format releases, with opinions left to the reviews. There will always be editorial slants in any publication, but I think it's best to stay away from any declaration of one format over the other. It should be noted once again that I don't think they've done this to this point, it's simply something that I, if editor, would be highly sensitive to.

In the end, to beat the horse to a pulp, it's about the music. HFR is an excellent site for the latest info, with pretty good (if not numerous) reviews of software. This forum, more so it seems than even AVS or other HT discussion groups, takes a "higher-end" approach to discussions regarding these new formats. Some of the experts here have breathtaking experience in these manner, true pioneers in the popular resurgence of surround playback.

I for one would love to hear real debates about the sonic differences (as oposed to diagnostic differences) of the two formats, comparing apples to apples, as it were. When Machine Head comes out on SACD, the comparison will be interesting indeed to the existing DVD-A. Ditto for many other titles that may end up being released in both formats. For now, however, I think the debate remains clear - Guthrie's comments, as quoted by HFR, were, it seems to me at least, put into appropriate context by the response article. I don't think this made Guthrie look foolish, but perhaps a bit ignorant.

If anything, you'd hope he (and Sony) would learn that the success of SACD does -not- depend upon the defeat of DVD-A (just as the success of DTS does not depend on not including DD playback on DVDs). This, to me, is the heart of the issue - predatory tactics will simply piss everyone off, killing both formats. Isn't is weird that it's SONY that has the first hybrid DVD +/- R/RW burner on the market?! Let the product speak for itself, and, as always, the middle level will rise to the top and become dominant (the cream always get the bum rap...)

Thank you Sony for paying for the restoration of DSOTM. If it comes out on DVD-A, I'm stupid enough to buy it again if it has cool extras. If they both came out at the same time, an SACD with redbook, a DVD-A with video extras, I think I would have bought the DVD-A. After all, I've already got the 20th Anniversary box with the nice cards (this is my fourth version of Darkside on 5.25" round shiny disc).

I personally don't need HFR to tell me why one's better than the other, I need them to help me know when stuff's coming out, how it sounds, and what the features are. If you give us the info without too much editorializing, we can certainly, as evidenced here, hammer it out ourselves.

 

[shark42]

removed, huh? didn't check fast enough I guess...

blocked lists, then removed messages. guess the topic's dead.

****

hey, figured out how to edit! I guess Dot's deleting his posts... ah, well, I did learn a bunch from his reviews. sorry this has gotten so bad, all around.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Hmm... looks like I missed out on a little "fun" while I was away... I'm sorry to hear that the ol' format war (I certainly wouldn't call it fun) managed to bite us here on QQ.

I would suggest to all of you who enjoy this sort of thing (along with the name-calling, bad feelings, threats, etc.) that you participate in the Audio Asylum forum. You will find more than your share of action there. We have no use for such childish nonsense here.

 

[shark42]

well, certainly the "fun" was sarcasm, sorry you had to delete the thread, but it didn't make sense with what came before. I do thing that there are imortant questions (some that I raise above) that got drowned out. I have noticed a strong chill since Dot went away, fewer postings, less debate. I think, under all the frustration and name calling, that there was a point to his claim. Clearly he had been here longer than I.

I would be interested in actually debating these issues in a civil way - I think that HFR -may- have been a little too pro-MLP exhibiting a partial bias, but only based on the responses in this forum, not in the orignal article. I'd love to discuss the merits of one format over the other, even the politics behind the acceptance of one over the other. The recent statments by Virgin in NY (that there will either be one format or none, based on previous experience) is very worth of dicussion. And yet, ever since the previous back and forth arguments, we have talked little about any of the central issues raised.

As my above comment seems to be last vestige of that verbotten dialogue, let me enter into the record some of Dot's -good- points, that slagging (perceived or otherwise) Guthrie is not helpful, that we should be less concerned about theoretical differences in sound and more worried about quality titles, and that we should be careful about responses to responses (what set off one major flame exchange was words like "libel", certainly over the top in my view).

I think he went way over the mark, but I think we can, for the good of this board and the good of the debate, discuss some of this issues with mutual respect and in accordance with the prevailing rules of conduct expected within this forum.

All the above in my own opinion, of course.

 

[Cai Campbell]

It is hard for me to comment since I was not able to read Dot's posts (they were deleted while I was on vacation). I guess I don't see a problem continuing the discourse as long as it remains civil. Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no SACD vs. DVD-A discussions here, since I cannot recall a single one that did not eventually degrade to juvenile tactics. But, that's just my opinion, and I'm not going to stand in anyone's way if they <span style="text-decoration:underline">really</span> feel the need to discuss these things here. Still, I must question the need, especially considering there are many other forums out there where the format wars get more than enough of their share of bandwidth. I guess I've always thought of this place as Switzerland and would like to see us remain neutral. Isn't it more fun to talk about the music anyway?

 

[The Quadfather]

I see no need to debate the virtues of one over the other. They both sound very good, but DVD Audio usually offers more extras. If a format has to win, I would prefer it to be DVD Audio. However, I will not be heart broken if it turns out to be SACD. Since this is not an audiophile website, the sonic superiority of one over the other is of less importance than it's "quadness". It's not that we don't apreciate high quality sound, but at least us old timers have often had to give up a little (sometimes a lot) of sonic quality in favor of a recording with good surround. Those of us that have quadradisc demodulators and eight track players know what I mean. Both of these formats can sound excellent, but not with all material. The sonic quality often takes a back seat in pursuit of quadraphonic recordings, and for a long time, that's all we had. That is why a lot of us were stuck in the seventies until these new formats started to emerge. I thank DTS for regenerating interest in surround sound music, so I don't grumble about their discs. Many of their early DTS encoded CDs are just the old quadraphonic recordings. They sound fine to me.

The Quadfather

 

[Cai Campbell]

That's exactly right, we're mostly about surround-sound here. While some of us also consider ourselves audiophiles and do care a lot about sound quality, it wasn't long ago when we had to sacrafice a lot of quality to get anything beyond two channels. The beauty of the new formats is that surround-sound has FINALLY come of age and we can have our cake and eat it to. When the virtues (or lack thereof) of the old formats were argued (SQ, Q8, CD-4, whatever) the variables were, for the most part, pretty cut and dry. With the new formats, the differences in performance (not features) have narrowed considerably, to the point where its mostly wasteful (in my opinion) hair-splitting arguments.

We need to stay focused. The important thing is that audiophile quality, surround-sound titles are on the market, and there is a huge commercial interest in the medium(s). But like the old days of quad, this interest is PRIMARILY in surround-sound as a feature, and not necessarily sound quality, which is just icing on the cake as far as most quadraphiles and casual consumers are concerned.

In any event, it's been said before by many of our participants here: BRING ON THE SURROUND TITLES, WHATEVER THE FORMAT! Our time has come! Let's enjoy the music and leave the format bickering to those "other" guys.

 

[daved64]

The only war should be between us and our wifes/girlfriends/significant others who freak when they get the Visa bill and see Bestbuy...Amazon....Futureshop...

Let's just enjoy the music.
(oh, and get a dv45a and don't worry about the format!)
:rollin:

 

[Guy Robinson]

Every month it's a race to the mailbox to get the Visa before the wife does. It's pretty bad when a $400 car repair looks like a small amount on the bill!

Anyway, both formats have their Gems. And I like them both pretty well equally from a sonic perspective.

However, no one will ever convince me that the sonics delivered in the SACD of DSOTM outweigh the substance of the surround mix provided by Alan Parsons.

Damn it! I wasn't going to say that again.

 

[shark42]

I found it funny that the brit article said basically what we were all fighting about, namely, the obvious (and perhaps fatuous) claim that we need titles, not format bitching.

However, I really would like to discuss here, if possible, why people like one format over the other. What features are more important to you: red book hybridity? video screens/navigation? added track content? (a la "Rumours" - any other discs with commentary tracks?)

Are there really any members of this forum that would claim to -hear- a difference between DSD and MLP discs, or is this a "straw man" for format war argumentation?

Let the fun begin...

 

[daved64]

"However, I really would like to discuss here, if possible, why people like one format over the other."

I only just started listening to MC music, but so far I think I have enjoyed my DVD-A's more than my SACD's, if only because the few classic titles that I have on SACD (DSOTM, POLICE EBYT) are a lot less exciting than my DVD-A's (ELP,YES Fragile, QUEEN Night at the Opera).
I couldn't say that I hear the diff between DSD and MLP, but again, the clarity on Fragile or Brain Salad Surgery kills the clarity on Dark Side. But....Beck's Sea Change pretty much kills em all, so I guess the source material is what matters.
Titles, just give me titles!

 

[sspsandy]

The one aspect of DVD-A for me that is a major edge is that the discs also contain Dolby 2 channel matrix encoded surround, just as DVD's that are 5.1 also have the Dolby surround encoding. Since I run a Fosgate Pro Logic II processor in my car, these surround encoded sources really light up the listening experience while I'm driving. While the unit does a decent job with stereo sources and quad matrix, the Dolby surround encoding is what it is really designed for. It makes use of the center channel, and is almost as discrete as the DVD-A playback in my home.

 

[Guy Robinson]

1) A good active surround mix placing me in the middle of the performance.
2) Sonics

So a stereo disc that is sonocally wonderful does not cut it for me. It's all about surround and so far I have kept to the mandate I made for myself about 3 months ago, "I will buy no more stereo only discs".

 

[shark42]

it's funny, the surround issue's a big deal for me if it's done well, descrete mix, etc. I just got a new HK amp with Logic 7, and, I've got to say, it's way, waaaayyyy better than I thought it'd be. I'm used to prologic, let alone DTS Neo 6, ProLogic II or, especially Logic 7. For example, the U2 Elevation Tour DVD has 2ch and 5.1 mixes. For me, at least, I chose to listen to the 2ch mix processed for surround rather than what I always thought was a rich 5.1 DD mix.

My clarification, then, would be for -good- surround mixes. Simply throwing a bit of echo into the rears does nothing for me personally...

 

[Dwight]

Dear Shark, I'm new around here and a math idiot, so I can't extract a 180 degree phase shift from a bottle of Montrechet '79, BUT,BUT,BUT, "The format wars" are the equivalent of professional wrestling with consequences. DVD-A has been maligned by the same tired elite who have endlessly attacked multi-channel. Read THE STEREOPHILE this past year, or read the great HP in this month's ABSOLUTE SOUND and you will hear the voice of the employee from the Good Guy's, who when asked what distinguished the two mc systems replied, "Well SACD was created by people for music and DVD-A was created for video." Oh MY! So Bob Stuart is a video guy, is that right? END OF DISCUSSION! I love most of my DVD_A's and I love most of my SACD's, but I now own Chesky's "Swing Live" in both formats......and the winner is?......DVD-A!!!!!!........Applause! My shoot out was a four person audiophile listenfest (with wine). DVD-A won because no one could accurately identify which was playing, just that one was more "transient" and the other "smoother".But no one had the courage to say "which was which", and that is why I believe there has not been the obvious comparison in the SACD promotion journals! Have you listened to the Norah Jones album, "..sounds like SACD ,or rathar CD to me..and a Damn good one! Let's have more channels of good sound and lets move on. Has anyone seen a shootout anywhere of the Pizzarelli SACD, DVD-A formats? Hmm!... Has anyone heard of SACD being compared to Direct To Vinyl ...like "For Duke"? Hmm?

 

[Cai Campbell]

I've been hinting pretty strongly that this type of discussion really isn't such a good idea... I'm okay to let it continue but when you come out and say one format is better than the other, well, for many, "them's fightin' words".

I'm fine to let the discussion continue, but I just want to point out that I am noticing the type of language that usually precipitates an all-out slag-fest. Please choose your words carefully as the discussion progresses. I will not hesitate to shut the thread if I feel it continues along the vein I've seen oh-too-many times before...

 

[shark42]

heh... that, my friend, is why I wanted to hear some people out. coming late into the game, as it were, all the other posts have been deleted or shut down. I'm not trying to pick at old scabs, but I think it's a relevant issue - while it may be reductionist to argue that one title available on both formats may mean you prefer, say, dvd-a over SACD, it's a legit claim. I think, personally, that there's only feature differences, rather than sonic. For me it was important to have both formats - I've yet to hear from anybody that's "refusing" to buy into either format.

There are many that buy DVDs for all the extras, others that never go through commentary tracks and just want a good film transfer.

However, nobody really buys the SACD=music/DVD-A=movie crap, do they? I'm just wondering, to repeat, if these are all straw men, drawn up for rhetorical purposes. I ask again, anybody actually prefer the sonics of one format over the other? (dwight, you've answered... thanks... ) With respect, I think it might have been the wine... heh. I have neither version of the Swing title myself, but I'd love to know what they had to do to the master Protools/Nuendo files to either MLP encode or DSD the source.

And, agreed, no fightin' words, k?

 

[JonUrban]

Without refueling the fire here , I think that the "audio" guys prefer SACD, simply because they do not want to play "music" in their DVD players. It is simple as that.

It is also interesting to note that MOST people who are pro-SACD for music, non-pro DVD-A, could care less about the 5.1 tracks on an SACD. Mind you, this is just a generalization.

That being said, we here at QQ are mainly interested in the surround sound aspect of the formats, so to put it bluntly:

DVD-A = Almost always surround
SACD = Sometimes surround

So naturally, the preference here leans toward DVD-A. While huge sales for stereo SACDs (Rolling Stones, Police, etc)support the format, if they are not mulitchannel, they do not satisfy the quad addiction!

Once again, let me reiterate. Give me Multichannel in EITHER format and I will buy it. Just because I may enjoy the enhanced features of DVD-A does not mean that SACD cannot be great.

Just bring them on - - - - lots of them. But please, MULTICHANNEL RELEASES.

"Everything else is just....................stereo."

 

[Guy Robinson]

Jon,
Well said again. Pretty well sums it up other than that the surround should be done by human hands and not via some digital processing method.

 

[John Kotches]

Dwight said:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I now own Chesky's "Swing Live" in both formats......and the winner is?......[/quote]

Swing Live was captured at 24/96K initially so any "conclusion" arrived with respect to inherent superiority of format A over format B is somewhat flawed IMO.

The only way to do a "valid" test is to directly encode analog feeds to DSD and PCM simultaneously.

Anything else is a compromised comparison.

Regards,