Re: dBFS

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:icu5bi$dg7$1@panix2.panix.com...
> I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at least no more
than
> any other recording system.

Me either, *IF* it was just about surround playback. (even though I can't
really see the need myself)
The systems however were promoted on the idea of higher audio quality with
the unstated agenda being increased copy protection.

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:icu5bi$dg7$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at least no more
>than
>> any other recording system.
>
>Me either, *IF* it was just about surround playback. (even though I can't
>really see the need myself)
>The systems however were promoted on the idea of higher audio quality with
>the unstated agenda being increased copy protection.

Sure, but we have seen increased copy protection with every digital release
system.  That's just normal and to be expected, and just like SCMS it will
rapidly be defeated by the people who want to defeat it because technical
solutions to social problems never work.

What sells DVD-A and SACD into the market, over CD, is the ability to 
have surround recordings.  Since there is a large installed base of surround
playback systems in homes, as a consequence of the home theatre craze, you
would expect this to have some demand.  But it really doesn't.

People have the ability to play the stuff back but they don't see it
worth paying for.

The increased sample rate or DSD encoding is just a free bonus that comes
along for the ride and wouldn't be a selling point even if it did increase
sound quality substantially over the CD.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:icuvll$3k3$1@panix2.panix.com...
> What sells DVD-A and SACD into the market, over CD, is the ability to
> have surround recordings.  Since there is a large installed base of
surround
> playback systems in homes, as a consequence of the home theatre craze, you
> would expect this to have some demand.  But it really doesn't.

I didn't expect a big demand. Why pay more for audio only DVD's when you can
already get surround sound music DVD's with vision included for less? But
the real question is why they thought people would want to pay for
completely new systems like SACD?


> People have the ability to play the stuff back but they don't see it
> worth paying for.

As I said, they are buying HEAPS, it's the vision included stuff they are
choosing, just as I do.


> The increased sample rate or DSD encoding is just a free bonus that comes
> along for the ride and wouldn't be a selling point even if it did increase
> sound quality substantially over the CD.

It's definitely not free IF you have to buy an expensive SACD player, and
you can already get surround sound music DVD's with video included for less
money!

You may be able to fool most of the people most of the time, but not all of
the time! :-)

MrT.

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:icu5bi$dg7$1@panix2.panix.com
> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:icr8ds$3ag$1@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
>>>>
>>>> Umm, because they were snake oil?
>>>
>>> Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market.  Look
>>> at Bose.
>>
>> Dead right, but it does require a lot of marketing, and
>> there wasn't nearly enough for DVD-A and DSD. For some
>> reason their heart just wasn't in the con that time.
>
> I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at
> least no more than any other recording system.  But it's
> true that surround audio-only playback failed back in the
> seventies, mostly due to the program material, and so I
> am not really all that surprised that it has failed
> again.

I don't get this "surround audio has failed" talk.  It's a matter of the 
right tool for the job. The two-channel audio market has a bright future 
because of the pervasiveness of personal audio. The surround audio market is 
generally A/V.  Very few people sit down with their families and listen to 
2-channel audio. Just about everybody who dedicates some personal or family 
time to media at home is currently using a surround system or at least a 
system that is surround capable.

> People don't want accurate reproduction, they want
> gimmicks. --scott

Accurate reproduction could only have a global meaning if there were a 
consistent standard for it.

About as good as it gets right now is an audio system that presents a 
convincing sonic image which implies plausable timbre and imaging.  There's 
a nasty gap between accuracy and plausability, but plausability is about as 
good as it gets right now.

At the ABX level or sonic differences, there's no such thing as accurate 
speakers or microphones, for example.  As audio practitioners we all know 
that  you get a different sound out of a speaker or a mic about every 6 
inches or 5 degrees we move them.  Large increments if they are far away. 

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:icuvll$3k3$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> What sells DVD-A and SACD into the market, over CD, is the ability to
>> have surround recordings.  Since there is a large installed base of
>surround
>> playback systems in homes, as a consequence of the home theatre craze, you
>> would expect this to have some demand.  But it really doesn't.
>
>I didn't expect a big demand. Why pay more for audio only DVD's when you can
>already get surround sound music DVD's with vision included for less? But
>the real question is why they thought people would want to pay for
>completely new systems like SACD?

Well, that's another question... are people buying surround sound music DVDs
with vision included?  

>> People have the ability to play the stuff back but they don't see it
>> worth paying for.
>
>As I said, they are buying HEAPS, it's the vision included stuff they are
>choosing, just as I do.

I don't see that selling particularly well at all either.  From a technical
standpoint, I think the required lossy compression is a big problem with
those, but the average listener doesn't care.  On the other hand, sales still
remains way down.

WAY, way down.  
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>I don't get this "surround audio has failed" talk.  It's a matter of the 
>right tool for the job. The two-channel audio market has a bright future 
>because of the pervasiveness of personal audio. The surround audio market is 
>generally A/V.  Very few people sit down with their families and listen to 
>2-channel audio. Just about everybody who dedicates some personal or family 
>time to media at home is currently using a surround system or at least a 
>system that is surround capable.

Right, but they aren't buying the media.

People have the equipment to play it back, but they aren't buying anything
to play back.

Sales are WAY, way down.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:id0hrb$t6$1@panix2.panix.com
> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't get this "surround audio has failed" talk.  It's
>> a matter of the right tool for the job. The two-channel
>> audio market has a bright future because of the
>> pervasiveness of personal audio. The surround audio
>> market is generally A/V.  Very few people sit down with
>> their families and listen to 2-channel audio. Just about
>> everybody who dedicates some personal or family time to
>> media at home is currently using a surround system or at
>> least a system that is surround capable.
>
> Right, but they aren't buying the media.
>
> People have the equipment to play it back, but they
> aren't buying anything to play back.

> Sales are WAY, way down.

I'm sure that media rentals and downloads have a lot to do with sales going 
down.

I spent a fair time this weekend with my wife mixing downloads and rentals 
via Netflix. 

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:id0hrb$t6$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Right, but they aren't buying the media.
>
> People have the equipment to play it back, but they aren't buying anything
> to play back.
>
> Sales are WAY, way down.

The sales of music DVD's (most come with surround audio as well as two
channel) in Australia seems to be pretty strong to me. My local shop has
thousands, and I'm sure they actually sell some. (I've got well over 100
myself) Their profits are healthy despite a downturn in sales of TV's which
was their biggest money spinner for a while, so they can't be losing money
on CD and DVD sales which is their only other source of income.
(they do sell some audio equipment and cameras, but it's a fairly minimal
sideline)

As I've said all along, most people seem to be drawing the line at paying
more for DVDA without vision, but DVD sales are still strong. I'm not
convinced the USA is all that different either without some evidence. I
think you are simply choosing to ignore where the real sale of surround
audio is.

MrT.

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:id0hm3$433$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Well, that's another question... are people buying surround sound music
DVDs
> with vision included?

They are here. I bet the sales outnumber DVDA and SACD combined by 100:1 at
least. probably 1000:1 or more.


> >As I said, they are buying HEAPS, it's the vision included stuff they are
> >choosing, just as I do.
>
> I don't see that selling particularly well at all either.  From a
technical
> standpoint, I think the required lossy compression is a big problem with
> those, but the average listener doesn't care.  On the other hand, sales
still
> remains way down.
>
> WAY, way down.

Well you would have to spell out WAY DOWN on WHAT, and then provide some
data for that statement to have any meaning at all.

MrT.