Re: [ARSCLIST] VHS and Beta (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity)

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Fine wrote:

> Hi Don:
>
> This is actually not true. Last I read, vast majority of DVD owners listen thru their TV speakers.

The vast majority of DVDs aren't worth watching/hearing any other way. Who needs Adam Sandler in
surround sound? For that matter, who needs Adam Sandler?

>
> No way "many people" have anything resembling a surround system. Very low WAF (wife-acceptance
> factor), even for two large, full-range speakers, in most homes.

Fortunately, we went for running our VHS audio through the living room's system as soon as we bought a
HiFi VHS, and when DVD came along it replaced the CD player. I still haven't sprung for surround sound
and probably won't, if the SACD catalogue isn't going to be there.

dl

>
>
> Yes, SACD was developed as a superior fidelity system, but when that tack totally crapped out in the
> marketplace, the major backers switched to it being a surround system capable of "breathing new life
> into old masters." The AES show in 2003 NYC featured a Sony/Philips booth where SACD was
> "relaunched" as a multi-channel format. This was in reaction to the DVD-A alliance, who actually got
> multi-channel titles to market but then backed off quickly when no mass market developed. The SACD
> crowd tried "super-fidelity" 2-channel (Stones, Bob Dylan) and numerous remix/remaster multi-channel
> discs. As far as I've read or heard, none of them have been barn-burners with sales. So, now, it's
> evolving to a pretty small niche market. I'd bet it can be bigger and more profitable than, for
> instance, audiophile LPs, but certainly not a mass market and likely not something a large
> multinational record company would want to mess with much longer.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Cox" <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VHS and Beta (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity)
>
> > On 04/07/06, Tom Fine wrote:
> >> the reels were cooler. I borrowed a pile of them, transferred them to
> >> digital and burned to DVD-A discs. Some of the quad mixes were pretty
> >> hokey but some were excellent, and the reels were later-era, so they
> >> used decent tape, had less hiss and no edge warpage. Apparently they
> >> were premium-priced, so no 3.75IPS junk either. If the quad disk
> >> formats hadn't been such kludges, the format might have worked, but I
> >> think even if the mass-market version (grooved disks) worked well and
> >> sounded great, there just aren't that many people willing to double
> >> the size, cost and complexity of their sound system. The same wall hit
> >> by SACD.
> >
> > SACD is more about better audio quality than about surround.
> >
> > However, many people do now have some kind of crude surround setup as
> > part of a home cinema installation. That wasn't the case when
> > quadraphonic sound came out.
> >
> > So I think the resistance to having to buy two more speakers will be
> > less now.
> >
> > A bigger problem is that most popular albums are so badly recorded that
> > better reproduction may not be audible.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Don Cox
> > doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx