I love movies in 5.1, and since I installed the sub woofer, I hear things I
did not hear before. I've had no problem with dialogue being obscured.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VHS and Beta (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity)
>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" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> 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.
>>> 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" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> 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
>>> > [log in to unmask]