Okay Quadfather, please don't yell at me for talking about stereo here... 
I've been listening to my DVD-A discs in stereo lately, more for an academic exercise than anything else. I feel a lot of "audiophiles" are dismissing DVD-A because of the format's emphasis on multi-channel and I think they are really missing out. I mean, the DVD-A hi-res stereo mixes sound phenomenal, and in my opinion, are better than SACD.
Unfortunately, it can often be a chore to get DVD-A discs to play in stereo. In every disc I've checked, the default play mode is multi-channel, making it easy to get a DVD-A "up and running" in multi-channel mode without having to use the on-screen menu. However, stereo guys have a bit more to contend with. Because of the lack of standardization in the DVD-A menus, you really need to use the on-screen menu to select the stereo tracks. The only alternative to avoiding the on-screen menu is to memorize the menu beforehand and perform the task “blind”.
This brings me to a fact that has me perplexed. Virtually all DVD-A titles claim that they can be played in hi-res surround or stereo, but many of them (roughly 50% of the 80 or so titles I own) do not contain separate stereo play lists. I can adjust my player for stereo or multi-channel but what does this really achieve in a case where there are not separate play lists?
To test this, I compared many DVD-A titles, containing a single play list, in both stereo and multi-channel mode. I paid very close attention to see if I could detect something “missing” or glaringly different moving from multi-channel playback to stereo playback.
Basically, I found three different types of behavior:
1. Stereo playback outright missing information found in multi-channel playback.
2. Some instrumentation in stereo playback sounds too low in mix compared to multi-channel playback.
3. Equal balance of all instrumentation in stereo playback compared to multi-channel playback, but lacking presence found in a dedicated stereo mix.
To expand on this explanation, here are three DVD-A titles that illustrate these results clearly and concisely. All three of these titles have a single play list (i.e. no separate stereo play list) and claim to support playback in hi-res stereo and multi-channel.
1. Grover Washington Jr. – Winelight.
This title offers stunning, discrete multi-channel performance, with rhythm guitar and supporting percussion mixed strictly to the back channels. After switching the player to stereo mode, the instruments directed to the back channels simply disappear!
2. Natalie Merchant – Tigerlily
Although not 100% discrete, this is still a great mix. Basically, it seems to be a stereo mix in the front channels and a stereo mix in the rear channels. However, the balance of instrumentation is different between the two. The piano and guitar are mixed more towards the back channels. After switching to stereo mode, the piano and guitar are still there, but they are buried further down in the mix. This results in stereo performance that is very unbalanced compared to multi-channel playback.
3. Bela Fleck – Bluegrass Sessions
The multi-channel mix here is very discrete, with some (but not much) commonality between the fronts and rears. After switching the player to stereo mode, all information previously heard in the fronts and backs are maintained at the same levels. At first it would seem we finally have an instance where stereo and multi-channel exists correctly together on a DVD-A with a single play list. However, upon further listening, something does not sound quite right. The sound stage collapses and the mix sounds too thick. The individual instruments do not stand out as they should and a muddy pall seems to hang in the air. I have come to the conclusion that this is simply “fold down” stereo, blindly mixing the fronts and the rears in lieu of a “proper” separate stereo mix.
In cases 1 and 2, the player is simply tossing out the rear channels. In case 3, the rear is blended to the front. Neither result is satisfactory and stereo listeners are being short-changed. Big time.
The bottom line is that DVD-A must offer a separate stereo mix for it to live up to its promise of stunning hi-res performance for stereo listeners. Not having a separate stereo mix is most likely a cost-cutting measure by the companies that do not offer them. This is a huge mistake, since it can only hurt the format and ostracize an entirely separate market (i.e. stereophiles).
Even if all DVD-A titles carried a separate and proper stereo mix, this market of stereophiles might still dismiss DVD-A as a viable format because of the lack of standards in navigation and the virtual requirement that a television set be employed. The BEST method I have seen that addresses all concerns is a double-sided DVD-A disc with a stereo mix on one side and a multi-channel mix on the other. This should have become THE standard for DVD-Audio, and if it had been adopted across the board, I think the DVD-A format would be embraced by just about everyone and give SACD an even bigger fight.
Okay, so why the hell do I care about all this? I mean, I listen to my DVD-A discs in multi-channel mode, so why should I be crying for the stereo guys? Well, I happen to like this format. A lot. I’ve done extensive listening to DVD-A and SACD and I much prefer DVD-A. If there are more people that like, and buy, these discs, then more titles will be produced. It just pains me to see the potential slipping away.
Meanwhile, SACD has a virtual stranglehold on the audiophile community. Sony’s marketing muscle and production resources promise to make SACD a standard. Titles by CCR, The Stones and The Who are all slated for SACD. Would I rather see these on DVD-A, even if they are not multi-channel? You bet.
End of rant. Hopefully you’ve found some insightful information here. For what it’s worth, I plan on generating a list of titles that are known to have a separate stereo mix so that we can point our stereo friends in the right direction. It’s damage control time for DVD-A short-sightedness.
I've been listening to my DVD-A discs in stereo lately, more for an academic exercise than anything else. I feel a lot of "audiophiles" are dismissing DVD-A because of the format's emphasis on multi-channel and I think they are really missing out. I mean, the DVD-A hi-res stereo mixes sound phenomenal, and in my opinion, are better than SACD.
Unfortunately, it can often be a chore to get DVD-A discs to play in stereo. In every disc I've checked, the default play mode is multi-channel, making it easy to get a DVD-A "up and running" in multi-channel mode without having to use the on-screen menu. However, stereo guys have a bit more to contend with. Because of the lack of standardization in the DVD-A menus, you really need to use the on-screen menu to select the stereo tracks. The only alternative to avoiding the on-screen menu is to memorize the menu beforehand and perform the task “blind”.
This brings me to a fact that has me perplexed. Virtually all DVD-A titles claim that they can be played in hi-res surround or stereo, but many of them (roughly 50% of the 80 or so titles I own) do not contain separate stereo play lists. I can adjust my player for stereo or multi-channel but what does this really achieve in a case where there are not separate play lists?
To test this, I compared many DVD-A titles, containing a single play list, in both stereo and multi-channel mode. I paid very close attention to see if I could detect something “missing” or glaringly different moving from multi-channel playback to stereo playback.
Basically, I found three different types of behavior:
1. Stereo playback outright missing information found in multi-channel playback.
2. Some instrumentation in stereo playback sounds too low in mix compared to multi-channel playback.
3. Equal balance of all instrumentation in stereo playback compared to multi-channel playback, but lacking presence found in a dedicated stereo mix.
To expand on this explanation, here are three DVD-A titles that illustrate these results clearly and concisely. All three of these titles have a single play list (i.e. no separate stereo play list) and claim to support playback in hi-res stereo and multi-channel.
1. Grover Washington Jr. – Winelight.
This title offers stunning, discrete multi-channel performance, with rhythm guitar and supporting percussion mixed strictly to the back channels. After switching the player to stereo mode, the instruments directed to the back channels simply disappear!
2. Natalie Merchant – Tigerlily
Although not 100% discrete, this is still a great mix. Basically, it seems to be a stereo mix in the front channels and a stereo mix in the rear channels. However, the balance of instrumentation is different between the two. The piano and guitar are mixed more towards the back channels. After switching to stereo mode, the piano and guitar are still there, but they are buried further down in the mix. This results in stereo performance that is very unbalanced compared to multi-channel playback.
3. Bela Fleck – Bluegrass Sessions
The multi-channel mix here is very discrete, with some (but not much) commonality between the fronts and rears. After switching the player to stereo mode, all information previously heard in the fronts and backs are maintained at the same levels. At first it would seem we finally have an instance where stereo and multi-channel exists correctly together on a DVD-A with a single play list. However, upon further listening, something does not sound quite right. The sound stage collapses and the mix sounds too thick. The individual instruments do not stand out as they should and a muddy pall seems to hang in the air. I have come to the conclusion that this is simply “fold down” stereo, blindly mixing the fronts and the rears in lieu of a “proper” separate stereo mix.
In cases 1 and 2, the player is simply tossing out the rear channels. In case 3, the rear is blended to the front. Neither result is satisfactory and stereo listeners are being short-changed. Big time.
The bottom line is that DVD-A must offer a separate stereo mix for it to live up to its promise of stunning hi-res performance for stereo listeners. Not having a separate stereo mix is most likely a cost-cutting measure by the companies that do not offer them. This is a huge mistake, since it can only hurt the format and ostracize an entirely separate market (i.e. stereophiles).
Even if all DVD-A titles carried a separate and proper stereo mix, this market of stereophiles might still dismiss DVD-A as a viable format because of the lack of standards in navigation and the virtual requirement that a television set be employed. The BEST method I have seen that addresses all concerns is a double-sided DVD-A disc with a stereo mix on one side and a multi-channel mix on the other. This should have become THE standard for DVD-Audio, and if it had been adopted across the board, I think the DVD-A format would be embraced by just about everyone and give SACD an even bigger fight.
Okay, so why the hell do I care about all this? I mean, I listen to my DVD-A discs in multi-channel mode, so why should I be crying for the stereo guys? Well, I happen to like this format. A lot. I’ve done extensive listening to DVD-A and SACD and I much prefer DVD-A. If there are more people that like, and buy, these discs, then more titles will be produced. It just pains me to see the potential slipping away.
Meanwhile, SACD has a virtual stranglehold on the audiophile community. Sony’s marketing muscle and production resources promise to make SACD a standard. Titles by CCR, The Stones and The Who are all slated for SACD. Would I rather see these on DVD-A, even if they are not multi-channel? You bet.
End of rant. Hopefully you’ve found some insightful information here. For what it’s worth, I plan on generating a list of titles that are known to have a separate stereo mix so that we can point our stereo friends in the right direction. It’s damage control time for DVD-A short-sightedness.
