What are your thoughts about the delay of DVD-Audio players and software?

What are your thoughts about the delay of DVD-Audio players and software?
Not happy, here's why
22% (39 votes)
A little upset
15% (28 votes)
Don't really care
44% (80 votes)
Actually relieved, here's why
17% (30 votes)
No opinion
2% (4 votes)
Total votes: 181

It looks as if the release of DVD-Audio players will be delayed by several more months. Any comments about the situation?

Sagebrush Sam's picture

It's assumed it's THE next thing. Downmixing from 6 channels on classic recordings? Huh? SACD is already out with seemingly no audible copy code. This copy protection scheme is ultimately self-defeating. Just bring the #&%^+ out already if it's so #%@$* superior. Jeez

Ron's picture

To Matsushita: Shita or get off the pot. Codes will always be broken; that's what we have nerds for.

Samir, DC's picture

...because current CD players are very mature products that provide real musical excitment and because 99.99% of new releases are still in the CD format and more than 99.999999999% of the music around the world is available on CDs.

D.  Cline's picture

More time to recharge my wallet!

Ben Blish's picture

I believe DVD-Audio is a boondoggle. There are VERY few CDs that are recorded well enough to take advantage of the medium; most are overcompressed (as you mention this month), or carry too high a level of background noise, or suffer from various other maladies arising at every level of the creative process. It's laughable to me that people are championing a format like DVD-Audio when the vast majority of the "problems" they perceive with regular CDs are the result of lousy recordings. By far the vast majority of people are satisfied with a 15kHz-bandwidth FM signal. That ought to tell the DVD-Audio people something, but they aren't listening to the people—they're listening only to themselves. Stillborn? No. More like unfertilized. :-)

Federico Cribiore's picture

I am sure Sony must be licking their chops! Lord—what more could a marketer ask for? By the time DVD-A actually comes out, SACD will be established with a big catalog of music.

vern neal's picture

i would have to buy the dvd crap which is not better but different

Mike Hagerty's picture

Don't know that I need DVD-Audio or SACD.

Christopher Celli's picture

Who cares! DVD-A may sound better than Red Book CD, but ultimately, it sucks! Why? Because of the titles that are and will proliferate in the DVD-A software catalogue. Have you seen the offerings by Classic, Chesky, and Delos? 99% utter dreck! Now SACD--that's something else! Sony's already got a kick ass player out, and no doubt they will release a more affordable one in the near future. And Sony's got the whole damn Sony-Columbia catalogue to draw from. There's a whole load of to die for stuff in that vault. And to boot SACD just plains sounds better than DVD-A. It's no longer a conglomerate Sony-Philips thing with a single choice: It's Sony vs. Philips! And Philips cannot win. DVD is a video and computer storage format no matter how you crack it. Sur, it can hold 2 channels of 24/96, but if my intuition is correct,it will continue to be two channels of immensely undesirable music. Let DVD-A take all the time in the world--let it die in the gutter. G buy your DVD players to play movies on--they're cheap and DVD-V looks better than LD. And go buy your DVD-ROM drives for your computers--they'll store way more information than CD-ROM and probably access it faster, too. But for audio: stick with CD until you can afford SACD; or if you can afford it now, by all means go and but the Sony SACD-1. Don't waste your time on DVD players hooked up to cheap 24/96 processors; especially that Musical Fidelity crap. Nice British company--make good amps; but steer clear of their digital stuff: they use the Burr-Brown PCM 1716--a $4 piece; when they could just as easily go with the much higher speced and better sounding PCM 1732 for $12 a piece. Any player using 2 or 4 PCM 1702 is likely to sound better with the 16/44.1 CDs it can play than a MF, 1716 based player will sound with 24/96 DVDs. You got ask yourself. Why would they opt for an inferior $4 chip when for $8 more they could use the superior 1732. To save $8 or $16 on each unit. Well if that's the case, they're just too damn cheap; it means the design was probably laid out in Taiwan, and the stuff is simply not high-end. So, DVD-A has had a very scruffy showing so far (or is it a no-showing?). And SACD is making a full pretense to nothing but the high-end and a catalogue of exciting music, not to-sleep-for system demos, and near exclusive small ensemble jazz and solo piano (sure, great for demoing a severely frequenct extreme limited system of SETs; but not the type of music that forces to sit still and listen and rases the hairs on the back of your neck). Thanks for listening. You pays your money and makes your choices. Don't make the wrong one: which is DVD-A.

Andrew Baule's picture


Anonymous's picture

we need only one format!

R.  Dal Farra's picture

It's the accuracy of your reporting. Of least importance, the use of the term "hacker" is only unintentionally accurate in this case. The author wasn't a cracker, but a hacker, a legitimate code writer. The main problem with the article, though, is its implication of motives, making it sound as if the act was just another incident of software vandalism to be grouped with the Melissa Virus, port sniffers, or warez sites. This is completely incorrect. The real reason for writing this software was to watch DVDs on a computer without being forced into loading Windows. Apparently the movie industry hasn't the foresight or corporate fortitude to release viewing software for alternate operating systems. Then, in the manner normal for people working in the Open Source software arena, the work was distributed for others to use and improve. Only an industry that considers country codes justifiable could take offense.

J&JP's picture


David S.  Dodd, ddodd@aug.com's picture

The delay will, hopefully, give an opportunity for news of more SACD hardware and software releases . . . 'cos I sincerely lust after the new Sony device. Without an expanded awareness of this alternate (and, in my humble opinion, superior) technology, it may languish & ultimately be unsupported.

joeavid@aol.com's picture

Let me just comment that DVD-Audio WILL NOT be consumers' audio format of choice! Here's why: Most people will not buy a new audio player when CDs serve the purpose just fine. Too many people are really satisfied with the sound and price of today's CDs, period! For the people who already have DVD players, why should they upgrade their existing player when it, too, is just fine? Let's remember that they bought the player to see & hear MOVIES, in an improved format, NOT music.

Guy White's picture

I was on board with one of the first round of CD players in 1983, a Technics. Luckily, I didn't give up on LPs. Through the years, I've had to upgrade this "perfect sound" through three more CD players and a DAC. At the same time I've only had to upgrade my VPI Jr. rather inexpensively to a Mk.IV model. Records keep sounding better all the time, and people are amazed that they sound better than CDs.

Prithviraj M.  Vedpathak's picture

But it is better that they sort out all the problems and then bring the player out, rather than hurrying up.

Dennis DeJulio's picture

I'd rather DVD-A just die. There's no way I can afford the hardware to make it work well.

Louie's picture

SACD will rule. The longer it takes DVD to get its act together, the more decisive software maker canbe about making discs for SACD.

Vance Chiang's picture

I'd have to wait longer for the dust to settle before buying my new CD player.

Eric Nelson's picture

The longer that DVD-A players are put off, the stronger the SACD market position will be. I like SACD better than DVD-A, because: 1) It does not offer recording engineers any options except the number of channels—the recording engineers tend to pick the worst option when given a choice. Also, PCM D/A converters that work for a number of sampling rates will be more complicated than (i.e., not as good-sounding as) single-rate converters. 2) No TV monitor required to set up SACD player. 3) Simpler A/D and D/A conversion process. 4) Sony has dual-layer technology working, so that SACD discs can be played on Redbook CD players. 5) From all reports, SACD and 24/192 are pretty much as good as each other, but SACD is an infant technology, so if it sounds as good now as the mature PCM technology, then it should sound a lot better in 10 years.

Kurt Christie's picture

I'm getting too much enjoyment out of vinyl to really care a whole lot. However, aren't we all hoping that someday digital will not only have CD's convenience etc, but vinyl's quality as well?

Tony Coughlin's picture

Perhaps SACD is the future, and the fate of DVD-A, which is in the hands of bumblers, should be laid aside.

Dale's picture

With the delay, I may be able to hold out for a combination DVD-A/SASD player. That is good. I am uncertain about the REAL reason for the delay. Should I be worried or relieved?

Naveed Haider's picture

I would prefer the SAD format.

Steve's picture

I want my DVD!!

LASZLO's picture