I do have a decent 5.1 system I put together, but I don't use it much. More likely to play DVD's 2-channel output thru the left and right speakers. The majority of TV time is spent on the exercise bike, and in that case, audio is coming out (loudly) through the TV speakers. Not much TV time to be had in other day-parts. The few movies we find worth kicking back and watching in comfortable chairs, we do use the surround sound, although I think my wife is just indulging me with that and might even be happier with the TV speakers (her impulse-volume tolerance is much lower than mine, and she and I agree that many a movie obscures dialog to inaudibility in order to pump up SFX in the sound mix).
Regarding the comments about SACD vs. the CD layer on dual-layer discs, I have a strong suspicion that there's something different about how the CD layer is read by most CD players. I'm not sure if more error correction is going on or what, but I agree it does not sound very pleasing most of the time. Switching to CD layer on a multi-format player is a paluka test because those machines (usually DVD players) have known issues with CD audio format in many cases. They're optimized to read DVD's. Here's the only science I have on this -- if you put a dual-format SACD/CD disc in my Plextor Pro CD burner, and run Plextools, more errors show up than a regular commercial CD, including the older CD of the same material. If a good CD drive like a Plextor has trouble reading the CD layer of these discs, I'm assuming an audio player does too and hence the reports of bad sound quality. I state this as a theory because I don't have enough facts on it. I'm wondering if one of the lab guys on this list ever ran extensive readability tests on these discs.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VHS and Beta (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity)
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