| agneepath! 11994 09.08.2008 16:25 |
Is DVD-Audio a dead format - and will we see any more Queen albums released in this format? I assumed it was, but dvd players are still being released that can play DVD-audio (as well as SACD) e.g. Pioneer AV600, Oppo 83 etc |
| Tero 09.08.2008 16:39 |
DVD players with DVD-A or SACD compatibility will be released as long as any DVD players are released, that's not a problem. The problem with DVD-A regarding Queen material is Brian May. He doesn't have the time (and interest) to personally oversee the mixing he would want to, so the only products we can expect in the future are re-re-re-re-re-releases of A Night At The Opera and The Game. |
| Rick 09.08.2008 18:18 |
Indeed and Q+PR stuff. Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows. So, it's a bit of a dilemma... |
| Adrianats 10.08.2008 01:59 |
Which is a real shame huh??? Since Freddie's stuff is far better than this 1/2 Queen we've got nowadays... I just wonder why they insist not to release a 70's show...Freddie was really marvellous at this time. |
| brians wig 10.08.2008 05:28 |
I hope it's not a dead format. I love surround stuff to the degree that I've done my own stereo upmixes. I notice that the new album is coming out as a CD/DVD set. I hope that means a dts DVD of the album rather than it's been repackaged with ROTC. |
| Tero 10.08.2008 05:32 |
It's actually repackaged with an edited version of Super Live In Japan. Haven't you seen the other topics? |
| pittrek 10.08.2008 05:46 |
DVD-Audio was a dead format 5 minutes after its invention |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.08.2008 06:27 |
pittrek wrote: DVD-Audio was a dead format 5 minutes after its inventionMake that five minutes before. I still cannot believe how anyone could've been so stupid as to come up with this format. |
| Tero 10.08.2008 13:05 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:Surely it's a better format than say... A USB memory stick with mp3 files?pittrek wrote: DVD-Audio was a dead format 5 minutes after its inventionMake that five minutes before. I still cannot believe how anyone could've been so stupid as to come up with this format. |
| Rami 10.08.2008 14:03 |
What is so bad about DVD-Audio? |
| brians wig 10.08.2008 15:05 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Make that five minutes before. I still cannot believe how anyone could've been so stupid as to come up with this format.Don't tell me you're one of those people who doesn't see the point in surround sound and the ability to hear instruments and backing vocals that are normally hidden under the top layers of Lead Vocals and Lead Guitar? Maybe I've heard the albums for far too many years that hearing them in different ways is great. Do you understand the point of hearing a demo of a well known song? For me it's like that. Surround sound allows me to hear well known songs in a different form. |
| brians wig 10.08.2008 15:11 |
Tero wrote: It's actually repackaged with an edited version of Super Live In Japan. Haven't you seen the other topics?Not at the time I wrote the post. Since then my views have been aired! |
| pittrek 10.08.2008 15:23 |
Rami wrote: What is so bad about DVD-Audio?Nothing bad. Just useless. It's a format for a couple of audiophiles with a great equipment and a lot of time for listening to it. It's the same problem as the LPs - much better sound then a CD, but less practical. Don't forget that now most people today listen these days to music in portable mp3 players or cell phones |
| kingogre 10.08.2008 16:12 |
pittrek wrote:Youre absolutely right. Commercially the format was indeed dead within five minutes. Doubt there will be any big reissue series of albums in the near future or at least until the music industry stabilizes.Rami wrote: What is so bad about DVD-Audio?Nothing bad. Just useless. It's a format for a couple of audiophiles with a great equipment and a lot of time for listening to it. It's the same problem as the LPs - much better sound then a CD, but less practical. Don't forget that now most people today listen these days to music in portable mp3 players or cell phones |
| Tero 11.08.2008 03:27 |
kingogre wrote:Don't know about DVD-A, but Genesis was more than happy to release two thirds of their back catalogue in SACD last year, and the final installment is due this year.pittrek wrote:Youre absolutely right. Commercially the format was indeed dead within five minutes. Doubt there will be any big reissue series of albums in the near future or at least until the music industry stabilizes.Rami wrote: What is so bad about DVD-Audio?Nothing bad. Just useless. It's a format for a couple of audiophiles with a great equipment and a lot of time for listening to it. It's the same problem as the LPs - much better sound then a CD, but less practical. Don't forget that now most people today listen these days to music in portable mp3 players or cell phones It's not a question of surround sound having its merits... It's a question of whether or not there is a big enough profit to be made, and that's what QP are interested more than anything. |
| kingogre 11.08.2008 05:23 |
Tero wrote: It's not a question of surround sound having its merits... It's a question of whether or not there is a big enough profit to be made, and that's what QP are interested more than anything.Just as for every other record company since the record was invented. |
| paulosham 11.08.2008 05:56 |
Rick wrote: Indeed and Q+PR stuff. Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows. So, it's a bit of a dilemma...you are deluding yourself if you think that Paul Rogers and Kween will ever overshadow anything Freddie did with the band. |
| Tero 11.08.2008 06:30 |
kingogre wrote:That's right, every company thinks about the profits.Tero wrote: It's not a question of surround sound having its merits... It's a question of whether or not there is a big enough profit to be made, and that's what QP are interested more than anything.Just as for every other record company since the record was invented. Yet some companies have found it to be profitable to release these surround albums. Why do you think that is? Is it because Queen would sell less copies than Genesis, or is it because QP would want a BIGGER profit than Genesis? ¨ I know you like to defend Queen as much as I like to question their motives, but you have to look at it with some objectivity: Two major bands who own the rights to their material. An equally long career with an equal amount of previous re-issues, and neither is very fashionable at the moment... Yet one of them thinks it's a good idea to release surround albums and archive material. It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? |
| QueenSite 11.08.2008 07:40 |
I think there's time for DVD audio releases. IMO, new stuff + archive box set must come first. |
| Rick 11.08.2008 07:45 |
paulsmith2001 wrote:Well I can tell your I prefer Queen with Freddie too. That's where it all started. I love to see old shows being released. On the other hand, it's nice to see brand new material too. Paul is a great singer and a perfect vocalist for nowadays Queen. And being able to the see guys live again is a nice bonus.Rick wrote: Indeed and Q+PR stuff. Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows. So, it's a bit of a dilemma...you are deluding yourself if you think that Paul Rogers and Kween will ever overshadow anything Freddie did with the band. As I stated before: dilemma |
| Tero 11.08.2008 10:05 |
QueenSite wrote: I think there's time for DVD audio releases. IMO, new stuff + archive box set must come first.It's taken fifteen years and there hasn't been anything even remotely like archive releases by Queen... So by the time the surround mixes are available, not only is DVD-A dead, but all the current Queen fans as well. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.08.2008 10:16 |
brians wig wrote:I support binaural stereo. We have only two audio inputs (ears), and there is nothing six channels can generate that can't be generated better in the form of binaural stereo. Unless you wish to hear separate instrumental tracks, like in the case of DVD-audio, where they are spread over the boxes, but multitrack stereo would be far superior to that. I don't like listening to music through speakers all that much; I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.ThomasQuinn wrote: Make that five minutes before. I still cannot believe how anyone could've been so stupid as to come up with this format.Don't tell me you're one of those people who doesn't see the point in surround sound and the ability to hear instruments and backing vocals that are normally hidden under the top layers of Lead Vocals and Lead Guitar? Maybe I've heard the albums for far too many years that hearing them in different ways is great. Do you understand the point of hearing a demo of a well known song? For me it's like that. Surround sound allows me to hear well known songs in a different form. |
| Tero 11.08.2008 10:33 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;) |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.08.2008 10:40 |
Tero wrote:I don't absolutely object to those, I just don't give a light for the surround mix. What I'm opposed to is DVD-Audio.ThomasQuinn wrote: I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;) |
| Adam Baboolal 12.08.2008 10:39 |
That's bizarre TQ, cause you say you don't like dvd-a's, but don't mind sacd's. Fact is, they're practically the same and both offer the same things! So why do you pray for dvd-a's death, but not sacd's? Is this a hd-dvd vs bluray thing we're getting into here? Adam. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.08.2008 15:29 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: That's bizarre TQ, cause you say you don't like dvd-a's, but don't mind sacd's. Fact is, they're practically the same and both offer the same things! So why do you pray for dvd-a's death, but not sacd's? Is this a hd-dvd vs bluray thing we're getting into here? Adam.The difference is that I can play a hybrid SACD on a regular good quality cd-player, but not so for DVD-A. As I said, I couldn't care less for the surround mix, I want a good stereo mix I can play with my cd-player. |
| Libor2 12.08.2008 19:25 |
DVD-Audio has surround mixes of course, but it's possible to play it in stereo downmix (with higher sound quality compare to Audio CD). The same goes for SACD. It's not an argument that (hybrid) SACD is possible to play on CD player while DVD-audio not. True, DVDA isn't playable on standard CD, but it could be played on standard DVD player (which isn't so rare in these times, is it?). I don't want too much plead for DVD-Audio, I should say, I like SACD more too, but the main disadvantage using DVD-Audio for me is necessarity of having TV on to navigate through menus and sound settings. On the other side, there could be some video bonus on DVD-Audio. Every thing on the world has its cons and pros, and DVDA and SACD formats are not too interesting for common people (in the era of mp3s). But I think, there are people (and market) for these formats (and Genesis (soon) the whole catalogue on SACD shows that it could be done). |
| Adam Baboolal 13.08.2008 06:28 |
I can see your point about using a good cd player, but then, didn't they make hybrid cd/dvd-a discs so you could do just what you describe? link Yup. Adam. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.08.2008 08:00 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I can see your point about using a good cd player, but then, didn't they make hybrid cd/dvd-a discs so you could do just what you describe? link Yup. Adam.I've never seen a hybrid DVD-A/CD in any Dutch store; if they exist, fine. I still consider the surround mix redundant, but I guess there's a market for everything, and as long as I can play it in my cd-player, I'm satisfied. Now what I don't understand, is why the extra space offered by the DVD medium isn't employed to create 8- or 16-track audio, where one can mix the tracks by hand. So, in essence, a 'downmixable' digital multitrack Now I'd sure be willing to buy myself new playback equipment for that! |
| Libor2 13.08.2008 09:19 |
There are hybrid DVD players (they can play SACD, DVDA and of course CD audio). If you choose Pioneer, Denon or Marantz (among others), they all have acceptable sound quality even for Audio CD. |
| Libor2 13.08.2008 09:27 |
Well, I didn't see andy DVDA/CD hybrid disc too and I don't think there are any. If you want to stay with your audio equipment, then DVDA disc aren't interesting for you. In such case hybrid SACD is better. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.08.2008 10:30 |
Libor2 wrote: There are hybrid DVD players (they can play SACD, DVDA and of course CD audio). If you choose Pioneer, Denon or Marantz (among others), they all have acceptable sound quality even for Audio CD.Yeah, but I sure as hell don't plan on listening to my music through my DVD player, for the simple reason that I have a very good cd-player, that not only performs much better than all DVD-players I've tried, but was expensive enough at the time for me to want to keep it for a while longer. Because 'acceptable' is certainly not good enough when it comes to listening to good recordings! |
| inu-liger 13.08.2008 21:34 |
"A dead format?" Surely not! David Gilmour's upcoming "Live In Gdansk" release, which has no less than FIVE different editions(!), has two editions which has his "On An Island" album remixed in 5.1, included as a DVD-Audio disc (yes, you read right.....not SACD!) link |
| Libor2 15.08.2008 12:53 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Yeah, but I sure as hell don't plan on listening to my music through my DVD player, for the simple reason that I have a very good cd-player, that not only performs much better than all DVD-players I've tried, but was expensive enough at the time for me to want to keep it for a while longer. Because 'acceptable' is certainly not good enough when it comes to listening to good recordings!Yes, I understand your point. I prefer my CD player for playing Audio CDs too, on the other side, my Marantz DVD (cca 1200$) plays audio CDs pretty good also. But I didn't say that it's the best way to use these universal machines instead of CD players. It's better to add it to your audio equipment as another player. And the sound of SACD or DVDA is definitely better than the same on Audio CD. All I want to say, is that these audio formats (SACD, DVDA) aren't dead end. Not for me. The only one problem with them is unwilingness of music industry to use them (because it'd cost money and people in mp3 era don't want any sound quality and don't buy them). Why should EMI or Warners bother with something so expensive if they can throw some mp3 on web and people are happy anyway... |
| Adam Baboolal 16.08.2008 07:16 |
THAT'S the problem, isn't it? Clear as day in that above post. People want MP3's and don't seem to care much about quality. That idea scares me because it goes against everything I believe about music, i.e. that it should be experienced in the best way. The Ipod generation kinda kills the vibe in that sense. The good thing it does is get a lot of music to people. Adam. |
| inu-liger 16.08.2008 07:29 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: THAT'S the problem, isn't it? Clear as day in that above post. People want MP3's and don't seem to care much about quality. That idea scares me because it goes against everything I believe about music, i.e. that it should be experienced in the best way. The Ipod generation kinda kills the vibe in that sense. The good thing it does is get a lot of music to people. Adam.Yeah. It's a double-edged sword in that regard. Unfortunately for a lot of musicians, iTunes and digital downloads are the way to go in addition to the usual CD/Vinyl/High-Def releases if you have any hope to make some sort of an income. I hate MP3's really. I can tell them apart from lossless audio, and have been able to do so for 6-8 years at least. |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.08.2008 11:30 |
Luckily, analog recordings (i.e. vinyl) are increasingly popular, so there is still hope. And let's face it, the sooner this generation (which is not very pleasant, considering the degree of violence, apathy and booze) is overtaken by the next, the better. |
| Adam Baboolal 16.08.2008 12:05 |
Funny you mention analog recordings, I think it may be time to seek out the Queen vinyl releases. I remember hearing a recording on here and thinking it had a nice vibe about it! Adam. |
| kingogre 16.08.2008 15:27 |
My old vinyl of Queen I sounds miles better than the CD release. Really kick-ass album. |
| inu-liger 16.08.2008 22:46 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Funny you mention analog recordings, I think it may be time to seek out the Queen vinyl releases. I remember hearing a recording on here and thinking it had a nice vibe about it! Adam.LOL. I bought "Live Killers" used vinyl for about $3 earlier today, speaking of seeking out vinyls. |
| TheAmazingEvent 20.08.2008 20:45 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I support binaural stereo. We have only two audio inputs (ears), and there is nothing six channels can generate that can't be generated better in the form of binaural stereo. You may only have 2 ears but us humans are able to process 360 degree sound imformation and locate it's direction. 5.1 gives a more rounded sound putting you in the middle rather than the sound being projected from one side. All DVD player downmix 5.1 to stereo for headphones. |
| Tero 21.08.2008 01:45 |
TheAmazingEvent wrote: All DVD player downmix 5.1 to stereo for headphones....Right after the "sound editor" of a dvd remaster has upmixed the sound from the original stereo master. :P |
| agneepath! 11994 21.08.2008 14:55 |
this is an interesting development: link |
| NOTWMEDDLE 23.12.2008 16:02 |
Tero wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;) Pink Floyd made EMI re-think about SACD when they released Dark Side of the Moon on Hybrid SACD in 2003. EMI (Capitol here in the US) were surprised at the success of the DSotM 5.1 Hybrid SACD that it opened the door for EMI to issue David Bowie, Roxy Music's Avalon, Bryan Ferry's Boys and Girls and Genesis' albums in 5.1 SACD. Warner Music in the US didn't support Hybrid SACD so hence why Genesis got CD and DVD packages here in the US. |