Funny comments, you should see these:

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
9,113
Location
Middle TN
If you have time for a laugh, read through the comments section of this article on cnet with regards to surround music. It really shows how uninformed the "general public" is with regard to SACD/DVD-A/Surround 5.1 music.

Check it out and comment here if you like:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-2...a-and-blu-ray-fail-as-music-surround-formats/

Yes, I tried reading through all the comments but got too fatigued on the first page. The best thing about surround sound is the simple fact that it's there for those of us who like it and appreciate it.
 

Frantic

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
741
Location
Maryland
Jon,

This is humorous and very sad at the same time.

Most of us in this forum are not genius material but we can hold our own. To read that banter from the general public shows me that there is in fact a "Dumbing Down" of our society with regard to our hobby. Many years ago, when I first started gaining interest in music, High Fidelity/Stereo and Quad, more than a handful of folks knew what they were talking about and this was outside of my circle of audio nuts!

The public has settled for what is generally the easy path. Free downloads and portable equipment. The interest has waned for the most part. I will continue to do my best to show how pleasing the surround experience can be but it seems that trying to get someone to give me even 5 - 10 minutes is like pulling teeth. Once again, how sad.
 

DKA

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
1,513
Location
The Nutmeg State
Funny. I read that as a combination of actual valid points and opinions that are probably shared by about half the readerbase here. Stereo, mp3, etc., is more portable, and we live in a society that values flexibility and portability, and people will sacrifice a bit of sound quality (which can't be experienced on an average set of headphones anyway) for the ability to have access to whatever they want wherever they need it.

However, the "who needs surround when I have this mode on my receiver?" That's exactly the excuse I read on here from some when it comes to learning SPEC and the valuable tools over on the SBU site, even though the experience of working with SPEC and some Neo or DPLII setting are worlds apart. Hell, there's posts on here as to "stereo sounding good in surround" where settings for these modes are recommended. Let's not roll our eyes too much. There's plenty of people on here who feel that way and, again, why those of us who jumped head-in to stereo-to-surround years are the ones least complaining about where our surround is.

Sure, there's bullshit on there (like "5.1 surround is lossy"). The rest, though? This is what I here every day, both "out there" and on here.
 

Old Quad Guy

Let it Be
Staff member
Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,635
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
This was discussed here a few months ago here: Why did SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-ray fail as music surround formats?

I don't mean to sound so harsh, but Steve Guttenberg should look at his own life and figure out why he is a failure. A poorly written hit piece gleamed from info gathered here. This blogger and his voice is no more or less valid than any of ours. I'm tired of "geek losers" not adding anything to the conversation on blogs like CNET, but sticking jabs to create "fake controversy's" to gain attention to themselves. Am I right about this or not?

As for formats and "success" and blah, blah, don't blame the consumer, blame the Record Companies heads who don't know how to sell music in the 21st Century. SACD and DVD-A, BR are doing fine and still alive no thanks to the major labels. You don't put out product for machines that won't play them, pull the rug out on those that did buy, and then blame the consumer for "Not Buying." Oh, and don't forget to not advertise so no one will know about the products either.
 

Quad Linda

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
9,513
Location
DROP YOUR WAD ON QUAD Chicago, Illinois
OQG, you ain't wrong!

Linda

This was discussed here a few months ago here: Why did SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-ray fail as music surround formats?

I don't mean to sound so harsh, but Steve Guttenberg should look at his own life and figure out why he is a failure. A poorly written hit piece gleamed from info gathered here. This blogger and his voice is no more or less valid than any of ours. I'm tired of no nothing "geek losers" not adding anything to the conversation, but sticking jabs to create "fake controversy's" to gain attention to themselves. Am I right about this or not?

As for formats and "success" and blah, blah, don't blame the consumer, blame the Record Companies heads who don't know how to sell music in the 21st Century. SACD and DVD-A, BR are doing fine and still alive no thanks to the major labels. You don't put out product for machines that won't play them, pull the rug out on those that did buy, and then blame the consumer for "Not Buying." Oh, and don't forget to not advertise so no one will know about the products either.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
17,226
Location
Connecticut
OQG: You're right. I should have bumped that thread up. I thought it looked familiar, oh well... Age takes it's toll! :(
 

Old Quad Guy

Let it Be
Staff member
Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,635
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
OQG: You're right. I should have bumped that thread up. I thought it looked familiar, oh well... Age takes it's toll! :(

Naw, that's cool. Gives us another shot at the "geek loser." ;)

It is funny though how memory changes as we age. I was talking about seeing the "Mind Games" Quad record last year, relaying a story about seeing it in Berkeley in the late 70s. Well I also remembered I already told the story before and upon checking it, sure enough in 2007 I already did. But was my memory correct or what? In other words did the 2 accounts match or contradict each other? Strangely, they did match, but with certain details remembered on one post and other details in the second post to give a more complete picture if you look at both together. But I am feeling the early stages of forgetting stuff, I need an external drive for brain. :)
 

leevitalone1

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
3,990
Location
The navel of NY state
This guy is supposed to be some electronic guru? If you was to ask me I think he is uneducated in 5.1 music. Queen's, "a night at the opera a dvd! How stupid is that comment?
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,470
Location
in your face
However, the "who needs surround when I have this mode on my receiver?" That's exactly the excuse I read on here from some when it comes to learning SPEC and the valuable tools over on the SBU site, even though the experience of working with SPEC and some Neo or DPLII setting are worlds apart. Hell, there's posts on here as to "stereo sounding good in surround" where settings for these modes are recommended.

Stereo does sound good in surround. Sometimes even lowly DPLIIx sounds better than a dedicated surround mix. So? I'm happy to have many options.
 

Quad Linda

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
9,513
Location
DROP YOUR WAD ON QUAD Chicago, Illinois
Being a rabid surround collector for 40 years (am I THAT old?), I prefer a surround mix to synthesis. HOWEVER, I'd rather listen to synthesis than surround with nothing but echo in the rear. Tapestry 5.1 is killer, but the Quad mix was horrible. Synthesized didn't have that awful echo. Real hall effect on classical and live is often preferable. Pop studio recordings sound killer in surround, even some mixes that many of us would have done differently. Still, a dbx LP of Full Sail or Diamonds & Rust sound pretty damn good synthesized. Seperation or fidelity? Why not listen both ways, like Immersion or multiple surround mixes? A great surround mix usually trumps all else. It's all good, even the mono mixes.

Thanks for the head's up on the Night at the Opera CD/DVD, mch007. I own the DVD-A and wasn't aware that existed.

Stereo does sound good in surround. Sometimes even lowly DPLIIx sounds better than a dedicated surround mix. So? I'm happy to have many options.
 

0tto

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
2,034
Location
Canada
Thanks for the head's up on the Night at the Opera CD/DVD, mch007. I own the DVD-A and wasn't aware that existed.

Linda, i wouldn't recommend this version if you have no purpose to give money away just to support the format.
i did have and gave it to one of mine relatives. really sounds not good.
 

John Svensson

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,879
Location
Lititz, Pennsylvania
ANATO...I don't know about that Otto, if I didn't have the DVD-A this would still be a very nice secondary source for the same 5.1 mix, and with a lot of video extras thrown in, and for a cheap price.
For a DTS source, this DVD was pretty inspiring when I bought it! John (Yes, I still have both of them....)
 

jdmack

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
1,250
Location
Maryland
I think the person who posted "I can't tell the difference in sound quality between an MP3 and CD anyways" was just being a troll.

J. D.
 

DKA

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
1,513
Location
The Nutmeg State
I think the person who posted "I can't tell the difference in sound quality between an MP3 and CD anyways" was just being a troll.

J. D.

On certain players, you can't. What's the difference over a pair of $30 headphones on an IPod? That's how most listening occurs.

I think we continue to be a bit nitpicky with our comments here. We can't expect everyone to be as knowledgable as people who view this as their main hobby and interest.
 

0tto

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
2,034
Location
Canada
ANATO...I don't know about that Otto, if I didn't have the DVD-A this would still be a very nice secondary source for the same 5.1 mix, and with a lot of video extras thrown in, and for a cheap price.
For a DTS source, this DVD was pretty inspiring when I bought it! John (Yes, I still have both of them....)

i didn't talk about mix which is same, but sonic fidelity. perhaps they done best what was possible but unfortunatelly
even lossless HiRes part can't be considered as a reference to the sound quality. DTS compression made it even worst,
dull, with quite heavy distortion on "s" and "sh" of the voice. i found that "The Game" sonically is better than "ANATO"
if someone has DVDA version it doesn't make sense to go for this ADVD version.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,470
Location
in your face
On certain players, you can't. What's the difference over a pair of $30 headphones on an IPod? That's how most listening occurs.

I think we continue to be a bit nitpicky with our comments here. We can't expect everyone to be as knowledgable as people who view this as their main hobby and interest.


(sigh) Said it before, saying it again now re: mp3. Bitrates matter. Sources matter. Codecs matter. Playback gear matters, but probably not so much as you think. You can't just assume all mp3s are the same (i.e., inferior compared to CD). It is VERY likely that most people, including the population of QQ, would find it difficult if not impossible to tell a good mp3 apart from CD in a blind test, using good gear, without training to hear mp3-specific artifacts. So there is no reason to assume the commenter was a troll.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,470
Location
in your face
i didn't talk about mix which is same, but sonic fidelity. perhaps they done best what was possible but unfortunatelly
even lossless HiRes part can't be considered as a reference to the sound quality. DTS compression made it even worst,
dull, with quite heavy distortion on "s" and "sh" of the voice. i found that "The Game" sonically is better than "ANATO"
if someone has DVDA version it doesn't make sense to go for this ADVD version.

There is speculation that the mix on the ANATO DVD+CD is somewhat different from that on the DVD-A (certainly it differs in having a real 5.1 mix of 'God Save the Queen', which the DVD-A lacked) . Here's Brian May in the liner notes to the DVD/CD

"For the first time this includes a new surround mix of the final track 'God Save the Queen', and some improvements to the surround mixes previously issued to a small audience on the DTS DVD-Audio release.""


I have both but haven't done a fine-toothed comb comparison (and I don't know the album well enough to say). I do know that to me, both versions sound good. The DVD-V is my go to because not only does it sound good, it also would appear to reflect Brian May's preferred mix (the last of three surround mixes that have been prepared -- the first being recalled quickly from reviewers when May objected to the way it sounded). It's also more convenient for me to stream a lossy version than lossless surround.

There was lots of discussion here on QQ about the DTS DVD vs the DVDA, when this came out (including some posts by me). Here's the thread. I found it interesting that the CD remaster in the the CD/DVD set is less 'brickwalled' than the 'high rez' stereo DVD-A remaster released in 2002.
 

ProgRules

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
883
Location
Charlottesville VA
I have the dvd-v version which sounds pretty good to these old ears. But I have read that the mix is indeed different- those who have both say the dvd-v is mixed much hotter.
 
Top