Vote

I must be one of the lucky few with 5.1 ears. Hi-rez multi-channel is awesome.

Who cares ! Until they get serious, why should we?

DVDA sounds wonderful and is definitely better than CD.

I much prefer SACD to DVD Audio.

Why bother when the only titles available are the Neil Young collection?

I have to say, what's the big deal? The big numbers (24/192) got my attention when buying a DVD player (Denon DVM 4800). I bought a couple of DVD-As that seemed to sound better than CDs but didn't really think much of it for about a year. Then my wife bought a copy of The Beach Boys Pet Sounds on DVD-A. Now we could hear a clear differance and became very interested in "high-resolution" audio. Looking over the DVD-As available, (few) we bought a turntable and for the first time, have been able to buy recordings we love in the 10s and 20s instead of ones and twos.

A decent CD player still beat a good dvd-audio player, specially in stereo

There are no players in my area and I have never seen more than a single disc in a store. I was told it had been ordered by mistake and would be sent back to the distributor. I've never heard one!

The Meridian Lossless Packing format is every bit as good as SACD. Both offer the precision and detail unavailable before. I'm going to use this format to make dubs of favorite LPs for everyday listening.

Sorry, not really interested.

DVD-A is a fine format for portable applications in that it delivers "good" sound in an accessible manner. In my experience of casual, as well as critical, listening to DVD-A when hooked up to my home system, I find shortcomings, such as upper octive rolloff and somewhat muddy bass when compared to my analog reference rig. I do a good deal of recording on both a personal level (in my home) and on a professional scale. DVD-A has been my second choice behind pure analog as a viable playback source; however, it falls short of anything that may be considered absolute analog.

I find it fascinating that we have these 24bit or 64 bit, 384khz sampling machines when 16 bit has not even been perfected yet. If Zanden's dac and Audio Note's reference dac are considered amongst the finest, than these non oversampling no filter tube dacs have much to be improved on, without even adding more oversampling. Also, most of the digital devices that are highly regarded are designed by individuals who are disatisfied with the current digital trends simply because they are aware that analogue and vynel is superior but there are still thousands of cd's not available on vinyl.

Resolution, air, timbre and not dark sounding like SACD. These are the reasons why I like DVD-A.

DVD-Audio exhibits a much more analog-like coherence than SACD. Too bad that there are so few recordings available that were recorded at equal or greater resolution; we may never know just how good it may be.

Have not heard any.

I love it- after living with both formats I have to say it sounds better than SACD...

As much as I want to like DVD-Audio, I've had a hard time warming up to it. My best audio system in the house is two channel-only without an attached TV, and DVD-A isn't consistently suited to that environment. My MC system, where DVD-A should shine in theory, is optimized for HT, not music. As long as DVD-A producers don't take two channel stereo without a TV seriously, I can't take DVD-A seriously.

DVD-audio is a non-factor. Video menus do not belong in good audio and it doesn't sound any better than the best cd's I've heard played back on the better systems. It doesn't even come close to the best SACD's out there. Let's keep DVD realted technologies where they belong......in video. Multichannel is a complete waste of time as well. Kepp it in video where it belongs.

It's not bad. I like LPs better.