Too many formats!

madmax

There are so many audio formats! Hybrid sacd, single layer stereo, hybrid multichannel, single layer multichannel, DVD audio stereo, hybrids, 24/95, dts, 5.1. Add to that the old familiar ones, LP, 180g, 200g, special pressings, laser disc, mp3, CD, hdcd... Too much to handle!

danger boy

I know. it boggles the mind. why do we need so many dang formats?

what ever happen to mini disc? did it go the way of 8 tracks?
what about digital audio tape? What about mini cd's? how many new audio formats still in development will we see in the next 5, 10 yrs?

can't we all just get along?

DIVX is dead

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

Mini disc are out, but their really expensive. If im not mistaken they hold 120 minutes of music(?), and I also think there was a recall and they were taken back into study so to speak. But they'll be back...

Systems

Minidisc is alive & well, but is not that popular in the U.S.

However, as big as the U.S. is, even a "niche" product can have quite a few users.

Maybe DAT is still professionally popular, but consumer DAT is fading fast, at least in US. I think Sony makes only 1 or 2 consumer DATs for US market.

madmax

Oh yea, forgot reel to reel, cassette, digital compact cassette, XM, am, fm, satelite directv, ussb, hi def tv, 480i...

I remember trying to figure out if getting rid of the 8-track and changing to cassette was a good idea. That debate went on for years!

gidrah

I wish reel to reel would make a come-back. I realize there or those that don't think R-R was audiophile, but then again I realize many things.

I almost bought an 8-track recorder the other day.

Frank Z

I think that the electronics industry is doing it's best to keep up with consumer demand. Problem is the variety of demands by a variety of consumers. This forum is a great example of the that diversity. Some people think 2 channel is the only way to go, while others feel that multi-channel is the way music should be played. And even within that camp there are SACD fans and DVD-A fans.

Remember the BetaMax? For audio/video reproduction it beat the VHS format hands down. But them puppies where HUGE, so the vast majority of consumers picked VHS over Beta. The market just wasn't there anymore for the Beta, so it fell by the wayside. We might see the same thing happen to CD or SACD or DVD-A. Only time and the marketplace can tell.

So is one format better than than the other? That's a question that can never really be answered, too many people with too many different opinions.

hoosier21

Originally posted by gidrah
I almost bought an 8-track recorder the other day.

I know a guy that did buy an 8-track recorder, the question is where to find the blank tape?

danger boy

how much do you all think that new formats are developed by the Japanese electronics giants? Do they make or break a new format? Most electronics come from Japan, correct? WIth a few exceptions.. there are very little coming from the USA as I understand it.

madmax

I think the way to do reel to reel is to buy one of the eight track reel to reel recorders like small home recording studios use. You can actually record and play all channels at the same time making it reasonable to record 5.1, DTS etc.
madmax

RuSsMaN

Originally posted by Frank Z
Remember the BetaMax? For audio/video reproduction it beat the VHS format hands down. But them puppies where HUGE, so the vast majority of consumers picked VHS over Beta.

Yes and no, VHS made it through because Sony would not share the betamax design, they copywrote it. Am I wrong?

Kinda like how most of us use the Ibm pc (or a clone thereof), and not a Mac, even though the Mac is hands-down a better design. Apple was greedy, so is (was) Sony.

Cheers,
Russ

Frank Z

Russ,
I think you are partially correct. My brother had a Betamax machine many years ago but it was not a Sony. If memory serves, Sony really beat the drums for beta, but the other companies rallied and pushed the VHS format. Sony may have licensed the design and made a few Yen from the other companies that actually produced Beta machines. Moot point now, I came across an article on another forum a week or so ago that said that Sony had finally driven a stake through that product line.

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

I agree with w/e the old **** says...^^^^^ LMAO!

Frank Z

Enough with the "Old" already!! :LOL

RuSsMaN

Get a room you two, enough already. L-O-Friggin-L

Sheesh.

danger boy

I agree that Sony got greedy and that is the partial reason Betamax died.. that, plus, wasn't Beta more expensive? VHS had support from many more electronics companies. Now VHS is on the way out a few years down the road.

jdavy

great products do not always get adopted. Beta is much better than VHS but VHS became the standard since it was cheeper. CD's did not catch on right away. The first machines cost a grand or more in the early 80's. DVD took about 2 years to catch on. Laserdisc users were the early adopters but it took 2 christmas seasons to be a hudge hit. MD is very hot in asia not so in the usa. I do not expect all of the multiple new cd formats to make it. If I had to pick one to bet on, I would go with the SACD hybrid. Clean recordings that can be played on any cd player and better enjoyed on a SACD player. I also helps that Sony produces CD's and many artists seem to be supporting it. For example the re-releases of the Rollings Stones are SACD hybrids.

TroyD

Referring back to the Mac / IBM thing. Go back 15 years or so. Apple was KICKING IBM's ****. Everyone had an Apple computer but Apple got greedy.

I agree with rlw, I think the SACD hybrid, from what I've read it seems to have the most going for it. Backward compatibility is a huge bonus

BDT

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

Originally posted by Frank Z
Enough with the "Old" already!! :LOL

TroyD

Originally posted by ATCVenom
That was then, this is now.

True enough but knowing a little bit about history is always a good thing.

BDT

danger boy

I agree... history should teach us something here. But neither format.. SACD or DVD-audio have done really much of anything to promote their wares. I was in Best Buy last night to check out the latest releases on DVD-a. there was no DVD-a display. The SACD display was back in the corner...and it was turned OFF! How can a new emerging format survive if it isn't being made available?
Side note: the Bose display was front and center of the busiest isle in the store.. some people stopped by to check it out. I was watching from across the isle what reactions people were having to home theater sound. I don't care for the Bose stuff myself... but it did attract attention.

So with these new hybrid SACD's i can play one in my CD player? Or in my DVD player? nice.. i can't find any of those hybrid ones yet? ONly the ones that say "can only be played in a SACD player"

F1nut

DB,

Try here, www.amusicdirect.com or www.redtrumpet.com.
Yes, the hybrids will play in your cd player, no not in your dvd player.

TroyD

DB, I think across the board you could say that the AV industry does a pretty lousy job of educating consumers.

BDT

Frank Z

But neither format.. SACD or DVD-audio have done really much of anything to promote their wares.

You ain't kiddin'!!! My wife and I were in Media Play before Christmas looking for a Josh Groban CD. After the sales guy pointed it out to us I asked if it was available on SACD. His response was " SACD.....What's That?" I could not believe it! How do these people expect to sell SACD or DVD-A and not even know what the hell they are?!?!? Yes Media Play is not a High-End retailer, but for the sales staff not to know what SACD is, well it is just plain SAD!!

MxStYlEpOlKmAn

OLD dude, u think thats bad..go to cc....lol

danger boy

Originally posted by Frank Z


You ain't kiddin'!!! My wife and I were in Media Play before Christmas looking for a Josh Groban CD. After the sales guy pointed it out to us I asked if it was available on SACD. His response was " SACD.....What's That?" I could not believe it! How do these people expect to sell SACD or DVD-A and not even know what the hell they are?!?!? Yes Media Play is not a High-End retailer, but for the sales staff not to know what SACD is, well it is just plain SAD!!

Frank, i'm sure some of their employees keep informed on most of the new stuff out there. . you may have been talking to someone that wasn't current on the new formats. Or just a flunkie. ha ha

Mx, CC as far as I know.. does not even carry DVD-a, and i'm not sure about SACD.

Maybe, the mulitichannel folks think that if these new formats do catch on.. it will impact the sales of regualr CD's? It's possible i guesss.. but highly unlikely. It's about time for something to shake up the music industry now i think. Doubtful that multichannel is it.

Paul Connor

Put the Compact Disc Out of Its Misery
The new CDs: Neither compact nor disks. Discuss.
By Paul Boutin
Posted Monday, January 6, 2003, at 8:26 AM PT
This spring, the compact disc celebrates the 20th anniversary of its arrival in stores, which puts the once-revolutionary music format two decades behind Moore's Law. The IBM PC, introduced about a year and a half earlier, has been revved up a thousandfold in performance since 1983. But the CD has whiled away the time, coasting on its Reagan-era breakthroughs in digital recording and storage. The two technologies, the PC and the CD, merged not long after their debuts—try to buy a computer without a disc player. But the relationship has become a dysfunctional one. The computer long ago outgrew its stagnant partner.

To the new generation of music artists and engineers, "CD-quality sound" is an ironic joke. In recording studios, today's musicians produce their works digitally at resolutions far beyond the grainy old CD standard. To make the sounds listenable on antiquarian CD players, the final mix is retrofitted to compact disc specs by stripping it of billions of bits' worth of musical detail and dynamics. It's like filming a movie in IMAX and then broadcasting it only to black-and-white TV sets.
It doesn't have to be this way. The modern recording studio is built around computers, Macs or PCs. Beefed up with high-performance analog-to-digital converters and super-sized disk drives, they digitize music up to 192,000 times per second, storing it as 24-bit data samples. That "192/24" standard captures more than a thousand times as much detail as the CD's "44.1/16" resolution. Moreover, this music data is just another computer file, an icon on a desktop. Double-click it, and it plays. It would play on your home computer, too, if you could get your hands on it. All you would need to enjoy studio-quality sound at home are high-end speakers or an amplifier with digital connections to your computer. That's the "digital hub" scenario touted by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others. Plug everything into a home network, load up the computer with tunes, and press play from anywhere in the house. A three-minute pop song in 192/24 format fills about 200 megabytes of hard-disk space, which means Dell's latest 200-gigabyte drive could hold nearly a thousand of them.
But instead of gearing up for digital home hubs, record companies have rolled out two more shiny-disc formats: DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD. Both sound great, but you're forgiven if you haven't heard of them. Following the radical makeover of consumer electronics in the past two decades, these discs have wandered in like Rip Van Winkle, unaware how behind the times they are.
In sound quality, at least, each disc brings the listening experience up to modern standards. DVD-A, developed by an audio industry working group, pumps up the old CD format 500 to 1,000 times in data density to match that now used in studios. SACD, on the other hand, is based on a new form of digital recording developed by Sony and Philips that converts sound waves into bits (and back again) more smoothly. Both bring studio data to the listener, bit for bit, and include extra surround-sound channels for home-theater systems. Properly engineered, their improvement over CD sound is striking. Can the average person hear the difference? Instantly. As Fred Kaplan noted this past summer in Slate, it's enough to make you buy new speakers.
Yet both kinds of discs, despite being developed in the 'Net-head late '90s, are odd throwbacks to the pre-PC era. Most obviously, they're the same size as the original CD. Can you name any other digital device that hasn't shrunk in 20 years? The players for them are bulky, closer in size to Sony's first CD decks than to Apple's iPod, which holds 400 albums rather than just one.
Flip one of the players over, and you'll find another retro sight: analog output jacks. To prevent buyers from running off bit-for-bit copies of the new discs, gear-makers have agreed not to put digital ports on either DVD-A or SACD players. Yet old-fashioned analog connections erode pristine digital sound and are prone to interference from televisions, lights, and computers—the objects they'll be placed next to in modern homes.
The real deal-breaker is that a stand-alone player is the only kind available. By manufacturers' consensus, there won't be any network ports on the players, nor will there be any DVD-A or SACD drives available for computers. Some makers are promising a digital link from the player to a home-theater console, but it'll be deliberately incompatible with any of the jacks on a computer. In bringing the CD up to date with the PC, the music industry is also trying to split the two technologies asunder again.
It's no wonder that gearheads who buy the latest, greatest everything have ignored DVD-A and SACD in favor of MP3 players and CD burners. Computer-friendly music formats let you archive hundreds of albums on a laptop, create custom playlists that draw from your entire collection, and download them to portable players smaller than a single CD jewel box. Today's fans want their music in a form that fits the pocket-sized, personalized, interconnected world of their computers, cameras, phones, and PDAs. Asking digital consumers to give that power back in exchange for a better-sounding disc is like offering them a phonograph needle.

Systems

Thanks. Interesting.