How many channels and what formats do you want to see on DVD Audio discs?

DVD audio standards are still up in the air, but promise (hopefully) to come down soon. For our inaugural question, we want to know what you prefer: fewer channels and longer playing times, or multichannel high-quality sound with shorter playing times.

How many channels and what formats do you want to see on DVD Audio discs?
2 channels: 16bit/44kHz
2% (8 votes)
2 channels: 24bit/96kHz
40% (204 votes)
5.1channels: 16bit/44kHz
1% (5 votes)
5.1 channels: 24bit/96kHz
26% (133 votes)
5.1 channels: Dolby Digital (AC-3)
7% (35 votes)
5.1 channels: DTS
6% (31 votes)
Mix of Formats
11% (58 votes)
Open Standards
6% (31 votes)
Don't Care
1% (6 votes)
Total votes: 511

David Doyle's picture

I don't want to spend the money on 6 speakers for pure listening. I wonder the extra channels would clearly improve the listening experience.

Marc A.  Petrillo's picture

I picked the 2-channel format, because stereo will reign in the long run, I hope, although a 5.1 channel format would be interesting.

Jim Sotack's picture

Jay M.  Carstensen's picture
Tom Remys's picture

2 and/or 5.1 channels - 24 bits a must!

Murray Friedman's picture

Don't force one format...allow software in player to handle multiple formats.

Peter Szachnowski's picture

5 channels of 20 bits and 56 kHz

Allan Folkersen's picture

Long Live High End!

Don Crawford's picture

All out performance is the only way to go!

David A.  Sadd's picture

Surround is very expensive to do right, but wonderful. I would vote for 24/96 at least across the front 3 channels. Maybe the sub and rear channels could be 16/44.1. I will have to trust someone elses ears on that one since I am not on any of the present deciding comittees.

Anonymous's picture

wouldn't mind a mix, but am more interested in more music per disc

Don D.'s picture

5.1 channels only if there is enough space on the disc to do it without losses from compression.

David Ralph's picture

I would be amazed if a new standard had only two channels. How long have we had stereo as the standard for audio?

George Prentice's picture

This is really quite a question. It will be many (10+) years before home theater system (5.1) start becoming viable audio systems (we have both, of excellent quality). I think it will take the teen agers of today to grow up with surround systems and become affluent to have 5.1 or something similar to become "high-end" as audio is today. So between now and then I vote for a higher resolution 2 channel standard.

steve thomas's picture

Audio along still sounds better to me in 2 channel

Josh Tarnow's picture

Don't limit options. Thats why we continue to have new format and obsolesence every few years. Expandability....thats the wave of the future...and I for one am willing to pay for it!

Peter Veth, The Netherlands's picture

- How about DSD ? - Is a combination of 2 and 5.1 channel possible ? - minimum playing time : 80 minutes

Jim Heintz's picture

Highest quality and quanity possible! (testing...)

Anonymous's picture

Assuming that a high quality 5.1 DVD does make it out in quantity to the mainstream, I would also need to see a very high quality 5.1 playback system that would not compromise an existing audiophiles 2 channel reproduction. I am concerned with having a center channel speaker and subwoofer between two main speakers that already have an exceer processor speeds coming on the market the solution should be to move to software based systems

Jim Heintz's picture


Barry E.  Cohen's picture

What about Sony DSD?

Pat M.'s picture

24/96, PLEASE!

Louie Jones's picture

Audio DVD players must be compatible with current audio CD!!

Robert Holbrook's picture

The important thing for me is improved fidelity: hence 24/96 without digital reprocessing. Upward compatibility with existing CDs seems vitally important to a fast rollout of the new format. Beyond that, I vote for 5.1 channel 24/96 over two channel 24/96 even though I don't care about more than two channels. I have three reasons. First, fidelity will ultimately catch up with the limits of the format, and five channels will, finally, offer more information than two, even if we have to endure (or discard) years of digitally reprocessed information in the extra-stereo channels). Second, we should try to foresee and avoid another format shift twenty years from now. Finally, the more flexible format gives the marketing guys in the recording industry more ways to make money off the new format, which will speed its ubiquity and the coming of higher fidelity.

Tom Spruill's picture

DTS as long as it is nonlossy compression

Thomas H.  Thompson's picture

Surely the quality of the sound is the primary consideration.

Warren Tremain's picture

There is no reason that a computer based system of converting any of the variuos formats couldn't be implemented for converting the data on a dvd to sound. We have been stranded with the CD given the faster and faster processor speeds coming on the market the solution should be to move to software based systems

Michael Morrison's picture

There is no way I'm going to replace my CD collection with an identical set in some other format.


As opposed to the CD "perfect sound forever" bravo sierra, let's get a new format right from the start for once.

Allan Sykes's picture

24 bit/96kHz all the way. 95% of records on the market are too long anyway. Less fill, more quality, please.