See Why Audio
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 28
Far be it from me to sum this all up but I'll have a go... heh... no, please don't all answer at once, just think about it.
Re: Sony / BMG an. other. huge. company f****d up hi-res surround by not marketing it.
It's an easy target but hitting it misses the point.
Imagine: You are an executive in a multi-national music-and-visual-content corporation (pick any one they're all the same) Would you, in a millyin years, market something that was so expensive to set up and impossible to control as ANY multi-use hi-res audio format? No you bloody well wouldn't. (don't start on SACD - it isn't truly multi-use because of it's technical and end-user limitations.)
You have a huge back catalogue ripe and waiting for re-release on high resolution for an adoring public who spontaneously erupt in street celebrations as every DVD-A title emerges... oh...
I see... MP3's... right.
This is a direct and easily identifiable (indeed typical) product of capitalism. Pure and simple - if there isn't a profit motive then the idea is dead before it's born. Hi res is and will always be expensive unless there is a world-wide internationally regulated standard of replay that allows manufacturers and software producers alike to mass produce. Oh, what's that you say? We don't care? You'd be right. Most people don't give a sh1t about hi-res and THAT is what drives the market. Yes they would appreciate it if it was laid on a plate but it won't SELL that way.
Re: What format is better than the other.
Ummm, welllll, uhh I think that DVD-A is preferable for many reasons;
1) flexibility of use, 2) sound quality IMHO for purely technical reasons, 3) you can make them at home quite cheap, and that's it really.
SACD? Not convinced. I notice the difference in sound quality over CD immediately but actually after having heard a few, I don't tend to like them. Why? Not ready to answer that yet... watch this space but don't hold your breath.. I said DON'T!
I've been playing around recently making transfers of SQ and QS quad from vinyl-to-96k digital surround and of course I make my own DVD-a from the results. I wouldn't trust any other format to replay my work quite as well. And it sounds GOOOOOD. If there is any hope for the DVD-A format I believe it lies in the end-user flexibility typically ensnaring home audio enthusiasts, small recording studios, musicians, DJ's etc.
For me it's a n0-brainer: if I can do it at home with limited funds and a modicum of enthusiasm, I am the ENEMY of Sony/BMG/Phonygram/E-M-EEyEEEE (shouted in a Johnny Rotten Way) purely because they cannot control me.
I note with hilarity that such things as cassettes, minidiscs, are now such a thing of the past that nobody here discusses them much less cries about it despite the obvious technical posssibilities of a superior product over others that I might mention and yet vinyl refuses to die precisely because it is a wonderful SOUNDING medium that happily also provides tactile end-user enjoyment factors. Or something.
The music companies? Sony? They're sellng us MP3's now - the ultimate distillation of easy distribution over quality. Does my head in.
I work as a high definition audio restorer for the re-issue trade. My business is slow. Clients are thin on the ground. Am I a dinosaur?
Answer me that.
Colin AKA See Why Audio.
Re: Sony / BMG an. other. huge. company f****d up hi-res surround by not marketing it.
It's an easy target but hitting it misses the point.
Imagine: You are an executive in a multi-national music-and-visual-content corporation (pick any one they're all the same) Would you, in a millyin years, market something that was so expensive to set up and impossible to control as ANY multi-use hi-res audio format? No you bloody well wouldn't. (don't start on SACD - it isn't truly multi-use because of it's technical and end-user limitations.)
You have a huge back catalogue ripe and waiting for re-release on high resolution for an adoring public who spontaneously erupt in street celebrations as every DVD-A title emerges... oh...
I see... MP3's... right.
This is a direct and easily identifiable (indeed typical) product of capitalism. Pure and simple - if there isn't a profit motive then the idea is dead before it's born. Hi res is and will always be expensive unless there is a world-wide internationally regulated standard of replay that allows manufacturers and software producers alike to mass produce. Oh, what's that you say? We don't care? You'd be right. Most people don't give a sh1t about hi-res and THAT is what drives the market. Yes they would appreciate it if it was laid on a plate but it won't SELL that way.
Re: What format is better than the other.
Ummm, welllll, uhh I think that DVD-A is preferable for many reasons;
1) flexibility of use, 2) sound quality IMHO for purely technical reasons, 3) you can make them at home quite cheap, and that's it really.
SACD? Not convinced. I notice the difference in sound quality over CD immediately but actually after having heard a few, I don't tend to like them. Why? Not ready to answer that yet... watch this space but don't hold your breath.. I said DON'T!
I've been playing around recently making transfers of SQ and QS quad from vinyl-to-96k digital surround and of course I make my own DVD-a from the results. I wouldn't trust any other format to replay my work quite as well. And it sounds GOOOOOD. If there is any hope for the DVD-A format I believe it lies in the end-user flexibility typically ensnaring home audio enthusiasts, small recording studios, musicians, DJ's etc.
For me it's a n0-brainer: if I can do it at home with limited funds and a modicum of enthusiasm, I am the ENEMY of Sony/BMG/Phonygram/E-M-EEyEEEE (shouted in a Johnny Rotten Way) purely because they cannot control me.
I note with hilarity that such things as cassettes, minidiscs, are now such a thing of the past that nobody here discusses them much less cries about it despite the obvious technical posssibilities of a superior product over others that I might mention and yet vinyl refuses to die precisely because it is a wonderful SOUNDING medium that happily also provides tactile end-user enjoyment factors. Or something.
The music companies? Sony? They're sellng us MP3's now - the ultimate distillation of easy distribution over quality. Does my head in.
I work as a high definition audio restorer for the re-issue trade. My business is slow. Clients are thin on the ground. Am I a dinosaur?
Answer me that.
Colin AKA See Why Audio.