Anyone Buying DVD-Audio discs?

Alan D

New Member
I have a JVC DVD-Audio player. Other than the sampler discs
that came with them, I havent purchased any. I bought it mostly
for movie watching.

To be honest I really can't hear a noticeable improvement in the
sound quality compared to a say remastered CD.

Of course it has multi channel capability, with discrete channels.

What do some of you think who have purchased DVD-Audio
discs? Not music recorded in DTS or DD, but the true high-res
sampling that these provide, using the 6 channel analog output
from the player to the 6 channel analog input of the receiver.

My opinion is all the older recordings were produced for 2 channel.

It seems sacreligious to go back and try to produce these for
multi-channel.

Also has anyone compared a new DVD-Audio disc to the same
recording on LP and what is you opinion? Good or Bad?

Thanks,

Alan D
 
DVD-Audio

Dear Alan D,

I have purchased about sixteen DVD titles and like most of them. I buy them for the fact that they have the multi-channel mixes. A number of the older recordings were originally made in the quadraphonic era and were released in that format back in the seventies. In some cases the original artist has been involved in the re-mastering process. Many of the newer recordings were produced with the intention of release in a multi-channel format. The two channel mixes are then a compromise of the artist’s original intent.

As far as sound quality of the high resolution formats, I have found that the high resolution playback is noticeably better than the Dolby Digital option that is also offered on most of the DVD-Audio discs. I have not had much chance to compare the DVD-Audio to the LP version because I make a point of not duplicating titles that I already have on LP or tape. One good aspect of the DVD-Audio discs is that they also have a two-channel mix for those who do not care to listen in multi-channel (5.1) mode.

tcdriver
 
tcdriver,

Glad to hear you enjoy the DVD-audio disks. Since I have
posted I have been checking out a few websites for DVD/A.

Price wise the cost is not much more than CD. Some of the
cuts from the JVC sampler sounded nice with multi channel.

Some songs, for instance Neil Young's Heart of Gold sounded
so basic, almost 2 channel. Of course it is a soft slow song.
I just wouldn't buck up more cash for another version that
I feel wasn't an improvement. (I have Harvest on CD)

Pinch Me by the Bare Naked Ladies had nice multi-channel
blend, but I thought the recording was high on the treble.
with some spitting sounds with S's.

Now I was ready to buy the DVD/Audio version of Led Zep's
How the West Was Won. But not after reading a review; the
reviewer prefered the CD Version.

The reviewer said it was mixed as if you were on the stage
in the middle of things, and on some tracks Pages guitar would
sometimes come from the fronts, and then shift to the surrounds.

I have the CD version and it sounds super IMHO, the soundstage
is presented with Jones on bass pimarily from the left, Plant
more or less anchored in the middle, Page primarily on the right,
and Bonzo mostly in the middle and spead to the sides.
This is how they were basically set up on stage.

I have heard the Beach Boys Pet Sounds is outstanding on DVD/A.
I may buy this one. But I have it on Cassette and Lp.

I am more interested in a sonic improvement with more dynamic
range that this technology, along with the smoothness of higher
sampling rates.

Alan D
 
I myself love the format. I have been into DVD Audio for almost 2 years now. The biggest problem with High Res music, be it DVDA or SACD is the recording process. One thing I have noticed , if its not recorded well or mix right the HiRes formats will show it. I do like alot of the things they can do with MultiChannel. Done right and it sounds awesome but done wrong and it can be bad.real bad.

I think there is a learning curve for both formats going on and not so much from the technical side. I think the producers and engineers are still learning the way to record multi channel correctly. Sometimes the all mighty dollar gets in the way to be honest. Its hard to screw up a 2 channel stereo recording compared to multi channel. The disc's I have that sound bad are some of the reissues of older quad recordings, not all, but some.

Next is educating the public correctly. Most store personnel don't even know much about the formats. I think it is up to the record companies to promote awareness of the product on a store level with the people working in that environment. They should be in record stores training these people.
At least thats MHO

Scooter
 
Originally posted by botrytis
I think DVD-A has been more sorted out than SACD. This is because they do a pseudo-DVD record for SACD then do a total conversion. DVD-A is also cheaper for the recording studios to implement. I think this is the way it is going to go, eventually.
Dave

Huh ???

There's no pseudo-DVD for SACD as SACD is not compatible with standard DVD playback.

SACD's are produced from either analog, PCM or DSD masters.

So far the DVD-A consortium have done a great job in almost burying DVD-A.

There's been little promotion amongst music companies, sellers or the buying public, the catalogue of titles is pretty woeful and there's no backwards compatibility with existing CDP's.

Qualitywise it's a mixed bag too.
Some titles sound great (eg. Flaming Lips/Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots, Sinatra At The Sounds) but too many are plain awful eg. the remixed Fleetwood Mac Rumours, Faith Hill/Cry.

IMO there's still a long way to go before DVD-A or SACD can replace a really good Redbook CD player, let alone approach top notch vinyl playback.

What DVD-A does do well is put together a high value for money package like the above Flaming Lips set; Redbook and DVD-A sound, bonus video material etc.

More packages like this, titles that people really want and some sharper promotion will see the format take off.


cheers,
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom