Full Version: Do we need DVD-A, SACD etc?
To my ears minidisc is virtually transparent to cd, mp3 using lame APS is also virtually transparent to cd. What on earth have these new formats to offer other than causing us to shell out masses of cash for a new format we don't really need or will appreciate.
Well, considering we're talking about high-definition formats, being transparent to cd has nothing to do with anything. These formats are supposed to sound better than cd and/or give full surround sound.
Now...do we need them? No, not really. Cds are fine for most people. Are they damn nice? I don't know, but I hear good things from people.
The pros of these new formats are that they are formatted at a higher samplerate (and I'm not sure if they've gone past 16-bit, but I think DVD-A does) and can provide surround sound for those who have nice surround audiophile setups (like I hope to have within a year/year-and-a-half).
The cons, however, have mostly to do with trying to rip or record them, although I'm sure that with time, this will be rectified.
Now...do we need them? No, not really. Cds are fine for most people. Are they damn nice? I don't know, but I hear good things from people.
The pros of these new formats are that they are formatted at a higher samplerate (and I'm not sure if they've gone past 16-bit, but I think DVD-A does) and can provide surround sound for those who have nice surround audiophile setups (like I hope to have within a year/year-and-a-half).
The cons, however, have mostly to do with trying to rip or record them, although I'm sure that with time, this will be rectified.
DVD-A is 24 bit at 96 kHz, if I am not mistaken. SACD is 1-bit at 2.8 MHz or so, with draconian copy protection.
This topic has been beaten to death already. Use search.
This topic has been beaten to death already. Use search.
Sorry, tried search came up with nothing seemingly relevant.
I got my DVD-A because I was curious to hear one of my favorite albums done in 5.1.
I really didn't care too much that it was 24-bits or was sampled at 96kHz. I just wanted to hear the multi-channel sound. And there's something to be said about listening to Bohemian Rhapsody in 5.1
I really didn't care too much that it was 24-bits or was sampled at 96kHz. I just wanted to hear the multi-channel sound. And there's something to be said about listening to Bohemian Rhapsody in 5.1
There is a whole section of the FAQ devoted to this topic.
>16bit is a waste of money if you are going only to LISTEN music. No need in it. Electronic giants trying to get your money giving you nothing. >16 bit is useful only when you are going to edit music.
I agree with de Mon. Moreover,what's good about listening to music in surround (except for some electronic/experimental material) ? 99.999% of music is recorded as to be played in stereo or mono.When you listen to a band play,you have them play in front of you,not behind you
Agree with Krest and de Mon.
I wouldn't buy a SACD or DVD-A player because there's a little choice of albums that are originally designed for these formats (and because such player are still rather expensive).
But it's true, listening to Bohemian Rhapsody or Dark Side of the Moon are surely an incredible experience.
I wouldn't buy a SACD or DVD-A player because there's a little choice of albums that are originally designed for these formats (and because such player are still rather expensive).
But it's true, listening to Bohemian Rhapsody or Dark Side of the Moon are surely an incredible experience.
For my ears I can notice the difference between MD and CD. MD sound is just too dry.
No comment on DVD-A and SACD, haven't had a chance to listen to it.
No comment on DVD-A and SACD, haven't had a chance to listen to it.
DVD-A doesn't necessarily require a 5.1 mix of a 2 channel recording, it just works out that way so there's some gimmic to get you to buy. Same with DTS Cds
I personally appreciate the added resolution of 24/96 or 24/192, but the added cost is not worthwhile yet. DVD-A uses SDMI I believe, so capturing to a compressed format probably will involve analog capture
I have about as much use for MD as I do DCC
I personally appreciate the added resolution of 24/96 or 24/192, but the added cost is not worthwhile yet. DVD-A uses SDMI I believe, so capturing to a compressed format probably will involve analog capture
I have about as much use for MD as I do DCC
To answer the original question: No we don't need them. For me the answer is not because the CD is good enough (admitedly, it is), but because we have an already better format deployed: DVD Video. DVD Video is everywhere, DVD Audio is not. But you can use only the audio part of DVD Video if you want, and this includes lossy formats such as Dolby Digital and Mpeg Audio Layer 2, AND, raw uncompressed PCM at 24bit/96khz max. People could store their recordings in DVD Video PCM now and never concern with DRM issues or other stupid "new" format restrictions.
The only problem i see with CDs, is the waste of space, weird samplerate and forced to have two channels (i always wondered how the 4ch bit on the CD spec was supposed to work with). But we can do better. We can pick either CDR or DVDR data and put lossless compressed audio in there, and FLAC seems the best option for standalones. So why not outdo the labels? Why not everyone adheres to FLAC using DVD/CD media? It would save plenty of space and preserve quality. It is absurd that CDs don't have a mono mode, or different samplerates/number of channels, a complete waste for certain applications. I am trusting consumer based stand alone units more than big corp pushed formats now. Let them have their format each, and fight themselves, and we have our format.
After all, it was us who made mp3s as popular as ever. Oh and SACD is just a weird and complex method to achieve something easily done using traditional PCM. People should concentrate in adopting a new format, i vote for flac stored on data discs, it must be simpler than mp3 on data discs of today. By choosing our own format and bypassing the labels, we are really having a voice on the matter. From now on i think the content will be imported by ourselves from legacy formats and new content produced by unsigned artists can use our new format and never fiddle with the stubborn corporations again. Of course just like mp3s, some will just have to adopt it, and earn a deserved piece of the cake. Or remain in the other side of the river...
The only problem i see with CDs, is the waste of space, weird samplerate and forced to have two channels (i always wondered how the 4ch bit on the CD spec was supposed to work with). But we can do better. We can pick either CDR or DVDR data and put lossless compressed audio in there, and FLAC seems the best option for standalones. So why not outdo the labels? Why not everyone adheres to FLAC using DVD/CD media? It would save plenty of space and preserve quality. It is absurd that CDs don't have a mono mode, or different samplerates/number of channels, a complete waste for certain applications. I am trusting consumer based stand alone units more than big corp pushed formats now. Let them have their format each, and fight themselves, and we have our format.
After all, it was us who made mp3s as popular as ever. Oh and SACD is just a weird and complex method to achieve something easily done using traditional PCM. People should concentrate in adopting a new format, i vote for flac stored on data discs, it must be simpler than mp3 on data discs of today. By choosing our own format and bypassing the labels, we are really having a voice on the matter. From now on i think the content will be imported by ourselves from legacy formats and new content produced by unsigned artists can use our new format and never fiddle with the stubborn corporations again. Of course just like mp3s, some will just have to adopt it, and earn a deserved piece of the cake. Or remain in the other side of the river...
Great speech!
Unfortunately, you'll have to tell many Average Joes to use lossless instead of MP3.
And it won't be easy, because most of them can't hear a difference between FLAC and LAME 160kbps abr preset MP3.
Why then use something that takes 4x more space?
You'd have to use similar marketing methods to these used by DVD-A vendors.
And where is open, reference hardware FLAC decoder design?
Unfortunately, you'll have to tell many Average Joes to use lossless instead of MP3.
And it won't be easy, because most of them can't hear a difference between FLAC and LAME 160kbps abr preset MP3.
Why then use something that takes 4x more space?
You'd have to use similar marketing methods to these used by DVD-A vendors.
And where is open, reference hardware FLAC decoder design?
QUOTE(Artemis3 @ Jul 22 2003, 04:37 PM)
To answer the original question: No we don't need them. For me the answer is not because the CD is good enough (admitedly, it is), but because we have an already better format deployed: DVD Video. DVD Video is everywhere, DVD Audio is not. But you can use only the audio part of DVD Video if you want, and this includes lossy formats such as Dolby Digital and Mpeg Audio Layer 2, AND, raw uncompressed PCM at 24bit/96khz max. People could store their recordings in DVD Video PCM now and never concern with DRM issues or other stupid "new" format restrictions.
The only problem i see with CDs, is the waste of space, weird samplerate and forced to have two channels (i always wondered how the 4ch bit on the CD spec was supposed to work with). But we can do better. We can pick either CDR or DVDR data and put lossless compressed audio in there, and FLAC seems the best option for standalones. So why not outdo the labels? Why not everyone adheres to FLAC using DVD/CD media? It would save plenty of space and preserve quality. It is absurd that CDs don't have a mono mode, or different samplerates/number of channels, a complete waste for certain applications. I am trusting consumer based stand alone units more than big corp pushed formats now. Let them have their format each, and fight themselves, and we have our format.
After all, it was us who made mp3s as popular as ever. Oh and SACD is just a weird and complex method to achieve something easily done using traditional PCM. People should concentrate in adopting a new format, i vote for flac stored on data discs, it must be simpler than mp3 on data discs of today. By choosing our own format and bypassing the labels, we are really having a voice on the matter. From now on i think the content will be imported by ourselves from legacy formats and new content produced by unsigned artists can use our new format and never fiddle with the stubborn corporations again. Of course just like mp3s, some will just have to adopt it, and earn a deserved piece of the cake. Or remain in the other side of the river...
The only problem i see with CDs, is the waste of space, weird samplerate and forced to have two channels (i always wondered how the 4ch bit on the CD spec was supposed to work with). But we can do better. We can pick either CDR or DVDR data and put lossless compressed audio in there, and FLAC seems the best option for standalones. So why not outdo the labels? Why not everyone adheres to FLAC using DVD/CD media? It would save plenty of space and preserve quality. It is absurd that CDs don't have a mono mode, or different samplerates/number of channels, a complete waste for certain applications. I am trusting consumer based stand alone units more than big corp pushed formats now. Let them have their format each, and fight themselves, and we have our format.
After all, it was us who made mp3s as popular as ever. Oh and SACD is just a weird and complex method to achieve something easily done using traditional PCM. People should concentrate in adopting a new format, i vote for flac stored on data discs, it must be simpler than mp3 on data discs of today. By choosing our own format and bypassing the labels, we are really having a voice on the matter. From now on i think the content will be imported by ourselves from legacy formats and new content produced by unsigned artists can use our new format and never fiddle with the stubborn corporations again. Of course just like mp3s, some will just have to adopt it, and earn a deserved piece of the cake. Or remain in the other side of the river...
dvd-video can store 24/96 pcm? i never heard of that before.
just a question. why flac? why not monkey's?
QUOTE
why flac? why not monkey's?
Processing power in embedded/standlone systems is limited and expensive, while storage media is cheap...
I don't think that's ever going to happen though. All that matters is what the majority likes and they usually like overhyped crap. I'd bet everything I have that not more than 10% of mp3 users know that it is lossy. Even though that's the case we entrust the government to the majority 
The problem is much more fundamental
The problem is much more fundamental
QUOTE(atici @ Jul 22 2003, 07:28 PM)
I don't think that's ever going to happen though. All that matters is what the majority likes and they usually like overhyped crap. I'd bet everything I have that not more than 10% of mp3 users know that it is lossy. Even though that's the case we entrust the government to the majority The problem is much more fundamental
The problem is much more fundamental Yeah... you're bloody right
Just yesterday one guy asked me why his Pink Floyd MP3 CD DOES NOT PLAY in his HiFi 
I spent approx. 15 minutes explaining and then gave up... He apparently didn't understand a word...
QUOTE(ye110man @ Jul 22 2003, 11:05 PM)
dvd-video can store 24/96 pcm? i never heard of that before.
Yes, i don't understand why this little fact remains so obscure. Well there are many things about the DVD format most people seem to not know, for example the DVD spec was ready back in 95, but didn't have the region lock outs and other "copy protection" features, so before the first movie studios endorsed it, they demanded these "features" added.
You may remember one of Panasonic's (member of the DVD council that designed the format) acronym for "DVD" was "Digital Versatile Disc". It was envisioned that this single format could replace both CDs and legacy video systems. Stand alone "Audio" units would simply lack the video parts and be cheaper that way.
But the labels didn't see much incentive to adopt it, CD was enough, and the DVD format also supports the legacy CDs. Some of them finally reconsidered, but the weak encryption and "copy protection" features of the original DVD specs were already broken, so they demanded even strictier measures before adopting, and out of nowhere appeared yet another incompatible format: "DVD Audio". I think that the DVD audio "protection" will also be broken in time, but these people never learn. Unfortunately, each extra measure they take makes the system more expensive.
Overhyped things will loose common folk a bit, but there is something nasty that will bring them back to reality: "Copy Protection". It means limitations everywhere, limitations people have never known to have before. This will piss many people very much. Both DVD-A and SACD come with DRM like features, and it looks like things are just going to get worse. Media labels want to limit the times you play a song, the system where you can play them, forbid backups, or just make the creation process so complex that you have to go back to them again for production... under their rules and conditions, etc. People will want to have a solid alternative, free of all that nonsense, and with enough flexibility to enjoy the "Audiophile experience" of the higher sampling rates and bit depths of the "big boys" too (or more importantly, the longer playing times); and most importantly, be able to produce independent works.
Oh and lets not forget about the 80mm discs (part of both CD and DVD standards). Just how much space can a little 8cm DVD disc hold? 1.36gig (single side/single layer). Hmm how much 16bit 48khz PCM audio fits there? (btw; unlike CD, you CAN store a single channel
) More than a CD, it seems.. And what if it were other data? flacs? mpcs? mp3s? oggs? avis? Can you picture the size of a standalone that only takes 80mm discs? We will see them more often, i'm sure... Japan uses them a lot 
And i think we may even be using our own video format too, just look at how popular those mpeg4 standalones are becoming, with time, all i see is them losing more and more control, and they don't know anything better but oppress more and more their potential customers. People are getting pissed off... People won't stand them forever, and Artists are part of the People too... This struggle is just going on...About flac hardware, well it seems to me that it could work the same way open source software works. If some hardware manufacturer is really interested, i'm sure they can arrage some deal with Xiph to have the required implementation done earlier, or maybe it does exists or something is already in progress?
Flac is very fast for decoding which is important in small devices.
QUOTE(Artemis3 @ Jul 22 2003, 04:37 PM)
To answer the original question: No we don't need them. For me the answer is not because the CD is good enough (admitedly, it is), but because we have an already better format deployed: DVD Video. DVD Video is everywhere, DVD Audio is not. But you can use only the audio part of DVD Video if you want, and this includes lossy formats such as Dolby Digital and Mpeg Audio Layer 2, AND, raw uncompressed PCM at 24bit/96khz max. People could store their recordings in DVD Video PCM now and never concern with DRM issues or other stupid "new" format restrictions.
The only problem i see with CDs, is the waste of space, weird samplerate and forced to have two channels (i always wondered how the 4ch bit on the CD spec was supposed to work with). But we can do better. We can pick either CDR or DVDR data and put lossless compressed audio in there, and FLAC seems the best option for standalones. So why not outdo the labels? Why not everyone adheres to FLAC using DVD/CD media? It would save plenty of space and preserve quality. It is absurd that CDs don't have a mono mode, or different samplerates/number of channels, a complete waste for certain applications. I am trusting consumer based stand alone units more than big corp pushed formats now. Let them have their format each, and fight themselves, and we have our format.
After all, it was us who made mp3s as popular as ever. Oh and SACD is just a weird and complex method to achieve something easily done using traditional PCM. People should concentrate in adopting a new format, i vote for flac stored on data discs, it must be simpler than mp3 on data discs of today. By choosing our own format and bypassing the labels, we are really having a voice on the matter. From now on i think the content will be imported by ourselves from legacy formats and new content produced by unsigned artists can use our new format and never fiddle with the stubborn corporations again. Of course just like mp3s, some will just have to adopt it, and earn a deserved piece of the cake. Or remain in the other side of the river...
The only problem i see with CDs, is the waste of space, weird samplerate and forced to have two channels (i always wondered how the 4ch bit on the CD spec was supposed to work with). But we can do better. We can pick either CDR or DVDR data and put lossless compressed audio in there, and FLAC seems the best option for standalones. So why not outdo the labels? Why not everyone adheres to FLAC using DVD/CD media? It would save plenty of space and preserve quality. It is absurd that CDs don't have a mono mode, or different samplerates/number of channels, a complete waste for certain applications. I am trusting consumer based stand alone units more than big corp pushed formats now. Let them have their format each, and fight themselves, and we have our format.
After all, it was us who made mp3s as popular as ever. Oh and SACD is just a weird and complex method to achieve something easily done using traditional PCM. People should concentrate in adopting a new format, i vote for flac stored on data discs, it must be simpler than mp3 on data discs of today. By choosing our own format and bypassing the labels, we are really having a voice on the matter. From now on i think the content will be imported by ourselves from legacy formats and new content produced by unsigned artists can use our new format and never fiddle with the stubborn corporations again. Of course just like mp3s, some will just have to adopt it, and earn a deserved piece of the cake. Or remain in the other side of the river...
Hmmm... I read this post few times and still don't understand a point
I understand you love FLAC for some weird reason, but IMHO there are better alternatives around... what about WavPack lossy HQ and maybe new OptimFrog Dual Stream, for instance? And you seem to forget how hard is to get hardware support for any lossy/lossless format - how many hardware players are on the market - except the MP3 ones?
Ok it may not be flac, it was just an idea, it seems to me the best, thats it. The point is that we should make our own physical format, the same way we did with mp3. All we have to do is put flacs instead, and we have a better than CD format. And standalone support should come too, as part of the process.
QUOTE(Artemis3 @ Jul 22 2003, 11:59 PM)
QUOTE(ye110man @ Jul 22 2003, 11:05 PM)
dvd-video can store 24/96 pcm? i never heard of that before.
Yes, i don't understand why this little fact remains so obscure. Well there are many things about the DVD format most people seem to not know, for example the DVD spec was ready back in 95, but didn't have the region lock outs and other "copy protection" features, so before the first movie studios endorsed it, they demanded these "features" added.
You may remember one of Panasonic's (member of the DVD council that designed the format) acronym for "DVD" was "Digital Versatile Disc". It was envisioned that this single format could replace both CDs and legacy video systems. Stand alone "Audio" units would simply lack the video parts and be cheaper that way.
But the labels didn't see much incentive to adopt it, CD was enough, and the DVD format also supports the legacy CDs. Some of them finally reconsidered, but the weak encryption and "copy protection" features of the original DVD specs were already broken, so they demanded even strictier measures before adopting, and out of nowhere appeared yet another incompatible format: "DVD Audio". I think that the DVD audio "protection" will also be broken in time, but these people never learn. Unfortunately, each extra measure they take makes the system more expensive.
Overhyped things will loose common folk a bit, but there is something nasty that will bring them back to reality: "Copy Protection". It means limitations everywhere, limitations people have never known to have before. This will piss many people very much. Both DVD-A and SACD come with DRM like features, and it looks like things are just going to get worse. Media labels want to limit the times you play a song, the system where you can play them, forbid backups, or just make the creation process so complex that you have to go back to them again for production... under their rules and conditions, etc. People will want to have a solid alternative, free of all that nonsense, and with enough flexibility to enjoy the "Audiophile experience" of the higher sampling rates and bit depths of the "big boys" too (or more importantly, the longer playing times); and most importantly, be able to produce independent works.
Oh and lets not forget about the 80mm discs (part of both CD and DVD standards). Just how much space can a little 8cm DVD disc hold? 1.36gig (single side/single layer). Hmm how much 16bit 48khz PCM audio fits there? (btw; unlike CD, you CAN store a single channel
) More than a CD, it seems.. And what if it were other data? flacs? mpcs? mp3s? oggs? avis? Can you picture the size of a standalone that only takes 80mm discs? We will see them more often, i'm sure... Japan uses them a lot And i think we may even be using our own video format too, just look at how popular those mpeg4 standalones are becoming, with time, all i see is them losing more and more control, and they don't know anything better but oppress more and more their potential customers. People are getting pissed off... People won't stand them forever, and Artists are part of the People too... This struggle is just going on...About flac hardware, well it seems to me that it could work the same way open source software works. If some hardware manufacturer is really interested, i'm sure they can arrage some deal with Xiph to have the required implementation done earlier, or maybe it does exists or something is already in progress?
Flac is very fast for decoding which is important in small devices. thanks for the link. didn't know sdds was supported too. how would i create a dvd-video with pcm audio and no video? it looks like 44.1khz sampling isn't supported. so i'd have to resample at 48khz?
mini-cd never caught on because you can't really hold much. 210mb. flash mp3 players can hold more than that.
but with mini-dvd we have scalability. let's say mini-dvd single-layer single-side 2-channel 20-bit 48khz with MLP compression. this is within the current standards for dvd-audio. you can hold... roughly 100 minutes. if you want 5.1 channel, you can put it on a dual-layer and hold roughly 80 minutes.
and to make this mini-dvd player even more attractive we can add mp3 support. 24 hours of 128kbps mp3 and 16 hours of standard preset on a single-layer single-side. we can go a step futher with mini-dvd-video. dual-layer and strip out all the extras. the studios would probably only include dolby 2.0 anyway on these. and maybe it's possible to encode them at something like 360x240 since it'sll be mostly for portable use, while still maintaining backward compatibility. encode it at the lower resolution but the header would still say 720x480. on a regular dvd player it'll be streched out while mini-dvd-video players would recognize this and display it as 360x240.
And what about DTS?
48khz 20 BITS 5.1 (or 6.1). Lots of decoder (dvd player+ PCHT). The sound is quiete impressive compared to CD.
48khz 20 BITS 5.1 (or 6.1). Lots of decoder (dvd player+ PCHT). The sound is quiete impressive compared to CD.
As the DVD FAQ says:
Note that for PCM It also states: "There can be from 1 to 8 channels. The maximum bit rate is 6.144 Mbps". Anything besides PCM is lossy, and some are insane (like that DTS 1536kbps thing) propietary formats.
If we want to work with an established format, we want to avoid DVD-A. DVD-V audio does not use MLP compression, its raw like CD. The DVD Video also can only use a few resolutions, as it says also in the DVD FAQ:
I recommend 352x480/576. Even ugly formats like VHS can preserve the vertical resolution (number of lines), but horizontal (number of dots per line) are the first to lose in the analog realm (think of your s-video cable). And remember mpeg-2 can encode interleaced content for legacy material.
As for the video, you can always put a still black or a slideshow if you want.
But all of this is sticking to already established standards, what i really meant is to use DVD DATA discs and store flacs/mp3s/oggs/mkvs/whatever. Some DVD players already play .mpg files stored in data CDRs, even non standard to the above specs, That same player also plays mp3s and SVCDs, which are our of the DVD spec. Why the hardware manufacturer included support of these? SVCD and its variants is widely used in Asia, where the player came from... A key option is to have writeable media, in the mean time there are no dual layer DVDRs discs so its more realistic to think about 1.36gig media. Of course the 80mm CDs are too small (data), but may come handy with some lossy audio formats if you happen to use an 80mm only player.
QUOTE
A DVD-Video disc can have up to 8 audio tracks (streams) associated with each video track (or each video angle). Each audio track can be in one of three formats:
* Dolby Digital (AC-3): 1 to 5.1 channels
* MPEG-2 audio: 1 to 5.1 or 7.1 channels
* PCM: 1 to 8 channels.
Two additional optional formats are provided: DTS and SDDS. Both require the appropriate decoders and are not supported by all players.
* Dolby Digital (AC-3): 1 to 5.1 channels
* MPEG-2 audio: 1 to 5.1 or 7.1 channels
* PCM: 1 to 8 channels.
Two additional optional formats are provided: DTS and SDDS. Both require the appropriate decoders and are not supported by all players.
Note that for PCM It also states: "There can be from 1 to 8 channels. The maximum bit rate is 6.144 Mbps". Anything besides PCM is lossy, and some are insane (like that DTS 1536kbps thing) propietary formats.
If we want to work with an established format, we want to avoid DVD-A. DVD-V audio does not use MLP compression, its raw like CD. The DVD Video also can only use a few resolutions, as it says also in the DVD FAQ:
QUOTE
Allowable picture resolutions are:
MPEG-2, 525/60 (NTSC): 720x480, 704x480, 352x480, 352x240
MPEG-2, 625/50 (PAL): 720x576, 704x576, 352x576, 352x240
MPEG-1, 525/60 (NTSC): 352x240
MPEG-1, 625/50 (PAL): 352x288
MPEG-2, 525/60 (NTSC): 720x480, 704x480, 352x480, 352x240
MPEG-2, 625/50 (PAL): 720x576, 704x576, 352x576, 352x240
MPEG-1, 525/60 (NTSC): 352x240
MPEG-1, 625/50 (PAL): 352x288
I recommend 352x480/576. Even ugly formats like VHS can preserve the vertical resolution (number of lines), but horizontal (number of dots per line) are the first to lose in the analog realm (think of your s-video cable). And remember mpeg-2 can encode interleaced content for legacy material.
As for the video, you can always put a still black or a slideshow if you want.
But all of this is sticking to already established standards, what i really meant is to use DVD DATA discs and store flacs/mp3s/oggs/mkvs/whatever. Some DVD players already play .mpg files stored in data CDRs, even non standard to the above specs, That same player also plays mp3s and SVCDs, which are our of the DVD spec. Why the hardware manufacturer included support of these? SVCD and its variants is widely used in Asia, where the player came from... A key option is to have writeable media, in the mean time there are no dual layer DVDRs discs so its more realistic to think about 1.36gig media. Of course the 80mm CDs are too small (data), but may come handy with some lossy audio formats if you happen to use an 80mm only player.
I'd have to say the only 5.1 album I'd buy is Dark Side Of The Moon. But I don't have any sort of high-def audio player right now, so I wouldn't buy anything right now.
QUOTE(901dave @ Jul 23 2003, 11:10 AM)
I'd have to say the only 5.1 album I'd buy is Dark Side Of The Moon.
I might give more weight to something actually recorded with rear channels.
THere are some decent concert videos in 5.1 on regular DVD.. Fleetwood Mac
for one.
QUOTE(DonP @ Jul 23 2003, 08:17 AM)
QUOTE(901dave @ Jul 23 2003, 11:10 AM)
I'd have to say the only 5.1 album I'd buy is Dark Side Of The Moon.
I might give more weight to something actually recorded with rear channels.
Well, that's true...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.