Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Don't Care,because I do not intend to purchase till 2001, maybe!?
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.
Would like format that provides the best possible audio and video reproduction. I know companies save bucks by putting everything but the kitchen sink on a single DVD, but with production/media costs as low as they are, is this really necessary? If history has taught us anything, it's that convenience will probably win out over quality (remember VHS vs. BETA).
We cant posibly hope to make an Audio DVD work ,unless it's downward compatible. I want to be able to chose what kind of data stream it will play. The pcm based Surround has been around for years ,and there is no ,or little audio content.We should use this as an indicator for our direction to develope in. Nels Johnson
I don't look to be "on stage" while listening to music, with the percusionist behind me and the lead guitar in front of me. More channels is not better. Let's just make it sound better with the two channels we already have.
I suppose I really should vote for 24bit 88kHz. But was not an option. I think it will take 10 or more years for the industry to figure out how to do 5.1. It will probably take the time for todays college kids to get jobs and get affluent to take 5.1 to the real high-end for music. So between learning and the driving force it is a long way off. In the ] mean time we need a higher resolution standard.
It is very difficult to get a channel sysytem set-up correctly. While a five channel sysytem may theoretically provide better sound, the average person will never own a house big enough to set up such a system correctly. I want the best possible two channel system.
I believe that 24/96 is the best choice but would like the option of 5.1 or 2 channels. Based on my budget, I'd rather have 2 great loudspeakers than 5.1 mediocre ones. Hopefully also the 2 channel option will mean less need for processor power which equals less cost for newbies to DVD. I believe it makes more sense to aim for the highest standards in this nascent technology so we won't be moaning about the sound the way we do about CD's. In that regard 5.1 with 24/96 is the ideal and extracting 2 channels from that shouldn't be a problem (undoubtedly record companies won't release seperate 2 and 4 channel versions). I just hope that those stuck with 2 channels won't lose out too much in the playback chain translation.
I believe that we should have the max number of channels that will fit losslessly at at least 96/24. If that is 2 channels for now, that's ok. Remember HD-DVD is just a few years down the road. Also, we need to look seriously at the systems which will provide the best (most correct) imaging in multi-channel systems. I favor an open approach to the system, with a header specifying the channel layout. I imagine, though, that a lot of people will have only one multi-channel listening room at home. That will probably be in the typical "home theatre" configuration. An article on microphone technique and playback configurations for multi- channel systems is certainly in order for some future issue(s) of the magazine. Paul Missman
I am unsure about what I want as I am not educated in this field. I think that having 2 standards, one for audio only and another for video, both playable on one machine, makes the most sense. Let the video standard be whatever they use in THX movie theaters, with the audio standard being whatever sounds best and still allows one hour or more of music per disc.
flexibility and choice should be the important issue. Many consumers don't care about the difference between 44 and 96. Some consumers will never leave stereo, while others will never look back - players will have to be flexible. I cant wait to hear what happens with 96 kHz multichannel.