mr. cummings:

Quote:
not only would it not be pointless, it's THE point. if a direct comparison in the same room won't sway either side, why do people think a forum post is going to? to have the opinion that logic 7 is better than direct multi sacd is fine with me, but inferring that it's better as a matter of fact is pointless and begs a challenge.


We haven't said it's better. Please try to pay attention. We've both said that we feel it's better, given our personal experiences. Sanjay's right: it's about opinions and tastes.

Why are you insisting that we share your opinion?

Then, e.e. wrote:
Quote:

BTW, the comments about there not being enough software or enough good multi sacd production available are growing quite old. there are well over 500 titles available. actually, many of them are quite good surround mixes. if someone owns 1 or 2 dozen sacds, he or she hasn't scratched the surface.


That's fine. Neither I nor Sanjay have claimed to be an expert on all available SACDs. In fact, I claim quite the opposite for myself: I don't even have a SACD player. I've heard the demos, of course, so I know enough to feel it's a good format, but I won't adopt it until I can walk into any music store and find a reasonable selection.

Quote:

i'm with jason. double conversion is degrading and pointless.


Thanks for the hot tip. Now let's hope that the music industry gets its act together P.D.Q.

Quote:

the only way you can compare bypass to double converted 'on the fly' is if you have 5 full-range speakers, or outboard analog BM.


Only five?

Oh dear, you seem to have missed the point of Logic 7. (Hint: it's not the "logic" part that's important.)


Quote:

dts vs dd. to say that any dts version sounds better because of some sort of EQ manipulation makes no sense. if it was EQ only, then logic would lead you to say the DD version was poorly EQ'd.


I proposed that very question on the SMR forums a few weeks ago. If DD is more faithful to the original master than DTS but people seem to like the unnatural degradation and boosting of levels in DTS, then does this point out a failing in the original mastering?

But regardless, whether you like it or not, in every single instance where the DTS was level-matched and ABX compared against DD, nobody was able to distinguish between them. And since neither sounds appreciably better than the other, yet Dolby Digital can be compressed to occupy less data real estate, I guess that takes care of the "superiority" of DTS.

Quote:

in every case of a soundtrack that's offered in both formats, i've found the dialog to be clearer and the surround effects to be more head turning.


Whoopie. Find a DD soundtrack made from the same master, boost the bass up about 10 dB, and I'll bet you couldn't tell them apart.

Quote:

i happen to believe dts is a better company that produces better product ...


Certainly, they produce better marketting and advertising. I love how they claimed that one of their weaknesses (poor compression) was instead a strength (higher bitrate). That was a brilliant stroke of strategy worthy of Bose itself!

BTW, I've met the folks from both DTS and Dolby Labs on a number of occasions. Have you? (And I'll sure bet that soundhound has! )

Quote:

... and i'm glad there is ANY competition for the 900 ton gorilla that is dolby labs.


In what way is Dolby Labs a 900 ton gorilla? Your rhetoric is intriguing, but I don't see the logic in your metaphor.

Jeff