What is considered PCM? Streisand Guilty DualDisc....

[Bob Romano]

I just bought the new Streisand DualDisc "Guilty". The cd side is a regular cd side. The DVD side is once again 48k/16bit PCM.?. Then I got to thinking... is the cd side also considered PCM. If so, then what is the point. It seems that Sony has completely given up on 5.1 (oh... except for the upcoming Roger Waters opera).

This was a HUGE missed opportunity on the part of Sony not to include some sort of 5.1 mix. It is way beyond me that they can see fit to make a 7 disc set of War Of The Worlds but they can't give us a 5.1 remix of Guilty. By the way... the video extras on the DVD side.... not worth even putting on. A 3 minute interview with Babs and Barry in which they basically kiss each others ass. 2 live tracks in stereo and an excerpt for the upcoming album. What a waste....

Bottom line... I bought it anyway... what a moron!!!

 

[Lucanu]

Sad....
Sure enough I still keep my vinyl version...

 

[neil wilkes]

I think that this has to be one of the biggest con-tricks Sony have yet pulled.
And so far - please correct me if I am wrong - every single one of the 16/48 discs are Sony Media.
Bob is of course quite correct in saying that 16/44.1 is also PCM, it is.
IMHO, this type of crass profiteering is another way of trying to "prove" that there is little or no call for Multichannel or High Resolution, and will end up in al DualDisc titles
from Sony coming out as PCM CD with Video content only in the godawful Dolby Digital on the DVD side.

My opinion is that these sort of discs should be boycotted, and I will never waste my time or money on one. What is the point? It's the music that I am interested in, not lousy videos. I suppose that if Sony and other labels are daft enough to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars on a promotional video for a single with a shelf life of less than 8 weeks at best, then they are going to try & recoup this in any way they can - they almost have to, given the losses they are making right now. But please - we want MORE multichannel, preferably in High Res and if not High Rez then DTS please. (but this will not happen from Sony it seems. Sony DualDisc will never have better than Dolby Digital on them. I strongly suspect that they are using an authoring compant who cannot work with DTS audio. Daft as this may sound, I do know that at least 1 of Sony's Music DVD Authors is using Adobe's EncoreDVD which simply does not support DTS)

I will buy a DD 5.1 mix if there is no alternative, but these 16/48 stereo versions are a waste of time.

 

[Ge Someone]

.. these 16/48 stereo versions are a waste of time.

Yeah, "Enhanced LPCM" they call it if I'm not mistaken. What a laugh. Then again they could easily put out 24bit/48kHz , upconverted from 16bit @: Would be hard to notice on first glance.

And I was hoping that DVD-A would get a boost on DualDisc, guess I was wrong.

BTW never saw a DualDisc released here (in Europe).

 

[mandel]

My opinion is that these sort of discs should be boycotted, and I will never waste my time or money on one. What is the point? It's the music that I am interested in, not lousy videos. I suppose that if Sony and other labels are daft enough to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars on a promotional video for a single with a shelf life of less than 8 weeks at best, then they are going to try & recoup this in any way they can - they almost have to, given the losses they are making right now. But please - we want MORE multichannel, preferably in High Res and if not High Rez then DTS please. (but this will not happen from Sony it seems. Sony DualDisc will never have better than Dolby Digital on them. I strongly suspect that they are using an authoring compant who cannot work with DTS audio. Daft as this may sound, I do know that at least 1 of Sony's Music DVD Authors is using Adobe's EncoreDVD which simply does not support DTS)

I will buy a DD 5.1 mix if there is no alternative, but these 16/48 stereo versions are a waste of time.

Well said. I am fed up of the record companies whining that they are making no money. Mofi or Pentatone can make a profit by selling 3000 copies of a disc, why does Sony have to sell 300 thousand bajillion. Stop trying to force the market into a bottle and start releasing quality products... Of course the majors don't want the freeforall that this would create.

Yep 16/48 is a waste of time. They MUST be mastering in higher res than that. DVD-V specs (never mind DVD-A) allow for greater resolutions in stereo. Even then, get your finger out and make it multichannel!

I've heard that some mastering processes do the downconversion to 16/44.1 as part of a long series of steps. So there might not be a hi-res stereo master easily accessible. What are the bets that this 16/48 track isn't just upsampled from the 16/44.1 anyway... @:

 

[ferret-e]

Multichannel isnt a popular thing. Thats All. Why big company must do anything for small group of mch or hi-rez fanats ??? It does something for the market. We arent a market for sony ))
We can only try to popularize these formats. Is this utopia ?%))) Depends on us. Internet gives GREAT opportunities to anyone......

 

[timbre4]

I used the contact link for the Columbia/Sony new releases to send an email that we prefer surround which will be listened to many many times as opposed to videos that might get watched once or twice. Then I put this on them....

Since Sony has abandoned SACD, please provide at least *some* type of 5.1 mixes.

 

[mandel]

I'd be more likely to say something like :
"Dear Sony,
Stop pissing on your customers.
Thanks, Mandel"
:smack:

 

[neil wilkes]

I don't believe that multichannel is that much of a minority thing. It's already prevalent in movies and if the music side were
A/. Marketed properly, and
B/. Got behind a single format instead of repeating the Quad era mistakes, (too many competing incompatible formats) then all would be much better. DualDisc with a DVD-A/V side covers all bases on a single disc - what is it that is so hard for the labels to get their heads around?

As for discs claiming "Remastered in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround", don't get me started. Okay, DD is better than NO MC, but it is not mastered in Dolby Digital, but transferred from the masters at 24/96. Why insult us with these heavily compressed releases?