 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Does anyone know what Teldec is doing? posted by Jim Pearce on January 28, 2003 at 21:00:23:
Isn't that just a victory for Verence ? Even if you support DVD-A because you THINK its going to win, so are backing the winning format. Theres really no reason to be happy is SACD doesn't. That just means your only source of un-watermarked audio is gone.
Follow Ups:
Although the form of the watermarking is mandated, it's usage is optional.Please cite:
1 Disc, 1 Track, 1 Time Mark where you have heard the watermark on a released DVD-Audio title.Nothing prevents a watermark from being insterted into SACD either, be it Verance or some other form of watermarking. That would be at the discretion of the record label as well.
Regards,
John Kotches
So since they are the main reason for buying any DVD-A's at the moment, its pointless.Please cite:
Each comparison you have done from master tapes and DVD-A disk to assert that its not audible.All I'm saying, is the arguments most people had for going DVD-A to start with was because they believed it would win and that SACD would be a dead end.
That may or may not be the case, still why would you WANT DVD-A to beat SACD ? If SACD wins out, you will still have a very nice DVD player and some DVD-A recordings. However, for the future, I can't imagine why anyone would wish watermarking or mix-down stereo.
I have never heard DVD-A described as the be all and end all. The SACD supporters that post on the hi-rez highway though, beleive exactly what you state - DVD-A must die for SACD to survive. They prefer SACD to win. To me and perhaps many others, we do not see a problem of one format or the other. There is nothing to say that both formats cannot exist together. Analog and digital have been used for years as recording mediums. Multi-format players will allow both formats to exist. Just go to the SACD board right now and see, the bickering is still going on by the same people that caused problems before. Rich now does not want anything critical said of SACD at all and it is the usual love in for every SACD disc that appears. Here we have real issues to discuss in practical terms. I am not into "sound" but "music". If it moves me, then fine, I don't really care how great it "sounds". This goes for the majority of the population. They care about the emotion of music, not how great it sounds.
With no manadated Hi-Res Stereo, if the format became main-stream, joe bloe will want the surround mixes to get more and more zany..A watermarked 2-channel mixdown from a zany surround mix of many of my favorite artists (Warner has some great stuff) is worse than a CD.
If DVD-A
Guaranteed a 2 channel 96/24 mix
Gaurdnteed no-watermarking on non-top 20 pop stuff (most suceptible to Mp3's)
Agreed to label DVD-A clearly as to their contentsThen I would become a DVD-A suporter overnight, and your right, I wouldn't care which won, even though I do like SACD, I'm sure Meridian can do some cool stuff too ;p
Daniel.
I'm curious, how many SACD titles and DVD-A titles do you own?Personally I have about 80 SACDs and about 120 DVD-Audio titles, from a mixture of labels.
One thing that is always not considered is that a title need not be watermarked 100% of the time. It could be 3 seconds for every minute of playback for all you or I know. Of course I can't have access to watermarked and unwatermarked data. I thought I detected an artifact from watermarking on one of the WB titles, and checked with an "in the know" source, who informed me that what I was hearing was on the original master tape.
I can tell you with certainty even on the watermarked WB titles, the sonics are far superiour to Redbook CD.
The best sounding material (as is most often the case) is from the small labels, like AIX, Hi-Res, MDG and Tacet. None of these use watermarking. Coincendental? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Here's a novel idea. Buy titles from labels that don't use watermarking, and avoid labels that watermark. Vote with your dollars in that respect.
Of course, if you want to avoid DVD-A, and some of the quality titles available for more stereo reissues, that is your prerogative.
My preference is towards multi-channel reproduction, and there's no question that DVD-A is leading the way in that respect.
Regards,
John Kotches
Warner's just chose to admit they use watermarking. For this reason, I am likely to avoid Warner releases. Now it just so happens Warner's has the only titles I'm mildly interested in so DVD-A adoption has been pushed back (perhaps indefinitely maybe until I opt for a DVD-V upgrade).
Some would scoff at this attitude concerning watermarking but it HAS be audible for it to work and this HAS to affect the music.I'd feel better about it (maybe) if Warners, Verance, and/or other users of Verance watermark technology would come out and categorically deny the watermark is "acoustically significant", explain why, and provide A/B comparison material for consumers to evaluate.
I want music to move me in an emotional way. I am not going to preclude buying music that can move me because I may hear something. I have said this before and I say it again, tape hiss is more intrusive than watermarking. When I hear live music I don't hear tape hiss. It has become accepted by many. Play a recording with lots of tape hiss to someone that has never heard it before and it will take some time before they are able to listen through to the music. Benign or not tape hiss is the same as a watermark. Tape hiss unquestionable is audible!!
unless you neuter the music with Dolby NR or the like... In contrast, watermarking IS avoidable; just DO NOT USE IT !!!!
.
Frank
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
