Which should be the only Hi-rez format Sacd or Dvd-A

[spotlightkid]

If you had to choose one format and drop the other all together which way should we go-sacd or dvd-a.i have a sacd player and only want more sacd.i have not heard dvd-a only read that some don't like the sound.i wish the two camps-audio and video would stand away from each other and dvd concentrate on the video end and let music labels press sacd and concentrate on the audio end.seems like i'll
never hear the Doors,Fleetwood Mac and many others in sacd
What do you think?

[MikeT]

I own both, and I would, in a heartbeat, state SACD is vastly superior to DVD-Audio 99% of the time.

So my answer: SACD.

[spotlightkid]

Mike T-could you please tell me what differences you hear in general about sacd vs. dvd-a

[Grant]

SACD gets my vote.

[lennonfan]

I vote DVD-A. I did an a/b comparison at a high end stereo store and really couldn't tell the difference through their system. I like the layout on DVD-A and enjoy multi-channel mixes.

[Andy]

I'm sure they are both at least ok but I can't see buying four more speakers four more new amps and pre amp and and digital source component. Thats about $12K just for speakers and another $10K for amps. Is SACD worth a $25K upgrage? Even if I thought it was I coudn't afford it. Not to mention buying all of my favorite music again.

[RetroSmith]

DVD- A all the way!!!!



I enjoy multichannel mixes of classic music.

SACD is primarily a 2 channel "audiophile" format........I cant see the format surviving under that premise.



Stupid as it sounds...heres one BIG reason DVD-A will sell:

"honey.....if we buy THIS player, I can play my DVD-A thingiees and you can watch your movies ALSO"

[RicP]

Hey MikeT!!! How are ya!!! :)

As far as my choice...I think my Avatar says it all.

[YaQuin]

DVD-A...it simply makes more sense.

[Dave B]

SACD - But, I have yet to hear a multi-channel mix that I thought really improved a recording. So I'm not that big on the the new multi-channel players but, I'm open to having my mind changed.

[Rspaight]

At this point, I'd have to go with SACD, since I'm more of a stereo person and SACD always has a genuine stereo mix, even on multichannel releases, as opposed to DVD-A which sometimes derives the stereo mix from the 5.1.

Plus, I just like the "feel" of SACD better -- it's a no-BS upgrade to CDs, while DVD-A seems gimmicky, with graphics and on-screen menus and stuff. All that is well and good for movies, but I don't want to watch my albums. (Yes, I know you don't *have* to use a TV with DVD-A, but it's obvious you're meant to.)

Ryan

[RicP]

DVD-A...it simply makes more sense. Actually SACD makes far more sense, allow me to elaborate.

Firstly DVD-Audio is shrouded in confusion. You have no idea how many people are playing DVD-A discs on a plain old DVD-V player and listening to the DD or DTS mix and thinking that they're hearing DVD-Audio. This happens all the time.

So you've got massive confusion on the part of the consumer with regard to what exactly DVD-Audio is and how they play it. Everyone that's purchased a DVD-Video player already is S.O.L as far as DVD-A goes unless they repurchase a new player. Many studies have shown and sales numbers prove out that people in general are much more apt to upgrade their audio components than their video components. Better or worse...DVD-A is inexorably tied to DVD-V and is therefore perceived as a video component.

Also, until recently there weren't even dedicated stereo mixes on a DVD-A, you had to rely on the machine providing a downmix for you. Warner has started to wise up and include separate stereo mixes on most of their DVD-A's now.

SACD requires that there be a fully separate stereo mix as part of the specification...you will never see an SACD that does not include a separate non-downconverted stereo mix.

Here are some reasons that I think SACD is a much better choice.


1) The most important one to me...Hybrid discs. You can buy an SACD and play it in your CD player NOW. This is not part of the DVD-A spec and requires you to own a dedicated DVD-A player or a DVD-A/DVD-V player in order to utilize these discs. As most "DVD" machines are located in someone's home theater area and not necessarily a dedicated audio area. That severely limits the practical use of DVD-A in an audio only system.

With the exception of Sony's releases, which all so far have had pre-exisitng CD releases, most SACD's being produced today are hybrid and can be purchased now and played on a CD player...now.

2) No need for a video device. Now I know that there are ways to play a DVD-A disc without a display device, however some of them are not quite intuitve and not every disc adheres to the same standard. Some discs require you to use the "Group" button to change between tracks, some require you to use the "Audio" button within the same group.

Also, the bass management (or should I say lack thereof as of now) needs to be set on the display device, and virtually all of the "extra features" on a DVD-A are video based and obviously require a display device, again precluding the use of DVD-A in an audio only setup.

3) Disc Layout/Error Correction. The error correction is more streamlined than it is with DVD-A and IMO the disc layout works better for a pure audio play. DVD-A fits in with DVD-V perfectly and works extremely well as an adjunct to DVD-Video. SACD on the other hand works better for a dedicated audio system (IMO). I am in no way saying that DVD-A is inferior or is more susceptible to errors, just that I think the disc layout makes more sense for SACD, that's all. In the grand scheme of things this is small potatoes, but it is a difference.

4) Watermarking. This is a big one for me and many other audiophiles. DVD-A supports the Verance audible watermark which is embedded directly into the audio stream. Not the best thing to tell an audiophile that wants the purest representation of the music as possible. I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding the relative audibility of the watermark, but just the fact that it's there is enough. Not every DVD-A uses the Verance watermark, but the ones that do are not marked as such in any way.

SACD uses PSP which stands for Pit Signal Processing. The idea behind PSP is to modulate the power of the laser used to record data onto the glass master at the pressing plant. Indeed, the size of the focus beam increases with the laser power, and so too does the width of the resulting mark on the disc. However, an increase of the beam would affect both, the width and the length of the mark, which would be a critical problem, since the length is already used to modulate the audio main stream.

The trick to modulate the width while keeping the integrity of the audio main stream, consists in a temporary feedback loop introduced between the PSP unit and the quality-check system. As a result, the recording process learns to control extremely accurately the length of the marks cut into the substrate, ensuring that the required width modulation to encode copyright information does not introduce unwanted length variations.

It is actually a form of "Digital Watermarking" which stores the required copyright data as a modulation of the width of the injection moulded 'pits' on the disc substrate itself. Hence, copyright data can not be replicated without the glass mastering equipment used to make the original disc stampers. It goes without saying that such an equipment has been specifically designed and carefully licenced.

Furthermore, the modulation of the pit's width can be synchronised on consecutive turns of the disc in order to form visible patterns on the disc itself. Thus, faint text or graphics can appear on the recorded side of the disc when viewed while spinning.

The very tight control on pit length provided by the PSP system actually reduces pressing-induced jitter by at least a factor two, and potentially much more. As a result, audio quality, which is definitely affected by the injection moulding process, can be improved considerably.

Beside the visible Watermark on the playing surface of the disc, PSP can also be used to store irremovable information like the country of origin, mastering house and pressing plant identification codes, glass master matrix number, disc ISRC catalogue numbers, etc.

Digital Watermarking based on the PSP system has already proved its efficiency : if a disc with no or altered copyright information is inserted in a SACD player, play-back will start for a few seconds, and then the disc is simply ejected from the player.

SACD has the capability to use an "embedded in the audio stream" watermark as well, but as of yet there are no labels that are utilizing it.

There are others that have more to do with DSD than the format itself...these are the use of DST(Direct Stream Transfer) to put the audio on the disc and the use of SBM (Super Bit Mapping Direct) that allows the conversion of the original DSD stream to virtually any PCM rate obviously including 16/44 PCM for an easy Redbook CD conversion of a DSD stream.

Actually, 16/44 downconversion is just one option for the DSD bit stream, as the original 2.8224MHz frequency has been carefully calculated to enable high precision downconversion to all current PCM sampling rates, thanks to simple integer multiplications and divisions.

Indeed, the sampling frequency of DSD, 64x44.1kHz= 2.8224MHz, has been chosen to be a simple multiple of most of the common sample rates in order to make data conversion to existing audio formats as easy as possible.


So in closing I hope I've given you some of my reasons why I think the SACD format is a better one for pure audio systems than DVD-A. I also believe that more "audiophiles" will embrace SACD over something like DVD-A because of some of the things I've outlined. Of course if the software isn't there, then all bets are off, after all people want music not a new format. As long as Sony and the other labels continue to support SACD by releasing software, I believe that the format has a gret chance of surviving.

[lennonfan]

Ric, you start by disputing the poster who said DVD-A makes more sense by saying SACD makes far more sense, but I find your reasons flimsy at best.
Many audiophiles have integrated their audio systems with their visual systems, this best demonstrated by the popularity of VHS hi-fi.
It makes more sense to use DVD-A because music is no longer simply an audio-only medium, MTV changed all that;)
DVD players will be just as cheap to mass market as cd players in the future, heck you can buy DVD players now as low as $59.
The fact that SACD plays with a redbook standard on conventional cd players is a weak arguement, IMO, since I believe that DVD players make cds sound better than traditional cd players do. Why -not- upgrade?

The error correction argument doesn't hold much water with me, I've never had a DVD-A skip or repeat, not even once.
The watermarking issue I think is kind of lame too, since it's simply prejudicial to be against a copyright protection that is -inaudible-. Were it truly noticeable I might agree, but if you can't hear it, -so what-?
The bass management system doesn't even apply for me, as I don't even use a subwoofer...with 22" woofers in my front towers, subs are hardly necessary.
What is the maximum time a SACD can hold? DVD-A is capable of holding several times what a cd can.
You neglected to mention all the advantages of DVD-A, which includes dedicated stereo mixes. Since they were just introduced around a year ago, the fact that the first few didn't is no reason to hold that against the format -forever-.
There are many dedicated audiophiles that love multi-channel. I personally think audio-only setups are becomming archaic (fun, yes, as music is primarily an audio experience but not exclusively necessary to enjoying fine music reproduction).
Until someone can demonstate -why- SACD is a better format, I'll stick with DVD-A. The DVD format is exploding and will surely replace VHS in time. Good riddance to bulky tapes that take up way too much space and decay, I say.
SACD seems simply unnecessary and from what I see offers no clear advantage over DVD-A. This, after going through the trouble of experiencing an A/B comparison.
For me, I run my internet, tv and video (dvd/vhs) through a 32" tv that stays on all the time. It puts the entire entertainment system in one handy package, and I notice now that DVD is even appearing in automobiles. The sales are higher than SACD and frankly outside of a few great artists I can think of (streisand, dylan, costello, Janis) I find I like more artists that appear on the labels making DVD-A (warner, elektra, atlantic, asylum, reprise, Rhino) and if they start manufacturing universal players (I know some already exist) then the whole format wars will be pointless if everyone can enjoy both.
I wish the majors would have agreed on a standard beforehand, the way they agreed on the philips cd standard...it would spare all this senseless grief.

[Andy]

My audio system is totally separate from my video system. I understand the MTV VH1 influence though. Where would Shania Twain be without video play?

[RicP]

lennonfan,

I'll try not to be too hard on you as a fellow Beatles fan. ;)

Many audiophiles have integrated their audio systems with their visual systems Absolutely false. Maybe many people in the "general" public have integrated systems, but most "Audiophiles" (your word choice) do not have integrated systems at all, in fact it is much more the opposite.

since I believe that DVD players make cds sound better than traditional cd players do I am certain that you will find yourself in the vast minority on this one. And you missed my point which was that people just do not upgrade their video gear as much as they do their audio gear. Studies have proven this and just ask your friends or associates. Ask them how many pieces of audio equipment they've purchased in the last 10 years (CD Players, Walkman's, Tape Decks, MD Decks, MP3 Players, etc) and contrast that to the number of video items they've bought during the same time (VCR's, TV's, DVD Players. TiVo's, etc).

The error correction argument doesn't hold much water with me That may be because you didn't read what I wrote. I never mentioned skipping or repeating.
The watermarking issue I think is kind of lame too, Well thanks for that great technical rebuttal, but the Verance watermark has been Proven to be audible. It Has to be audible to survive compression and everything that they designed it for.
The bass management system doesn't even apply for me So because it doesn't apply for you, that means it doesn't apply for anyone? So you feel that everyone should have full range towers in their system or they don't deserve to listen to hi-resolution music? You neglected to mention all the advantages of DVD-A, which includes dedicated stereo mixes Absolutely FALSE. The DVD-A spec does not call for dedicated stereo mixes, and in fact I did mention in my post all about the fact that Warner has recently corrected this oversight, but that there are many other titles that do not include pure stereo mixes, nor is there anything in the spec that mandates them.Until someone can demonstate -why- SACD is a better format, I'll stick with DVD-A. And how would you like me to do that? I can do it based on the format as I did above, or I can do it based on sound quality which is at worst the equal of DVD-Audio, and at best significantly better. The DVD format is exploding and will surely replace VHS in time. Good riddance to bulky tapes that take up way too much space and decay, I say. Unfortunately this logic is flawed because DVD-Video != DVD-Audio.
SACD seems simply unnecessary and from what I see offers no clear advantage over DVD-A. Then you are not looking hard enough in addition to ignoring the advantages that I very clearly pointed out in my last post. But here's another one for you...How will you play a DVD-A disc in your car? your walkman? Hybrid SACD can do this NOW.
For me, I run my internet, tv and video (dvd/vhs) through a 32" tv that stays on all the time Well that's good for you, but don't be under the mistaken assumption that everyone has this same setup. notice now that DVD is even appearing in automobiles Yes...DVD-Video.
The sales are higher than SACD If you are speaking of software then this is a blatant falsehood. It's almost Universal knowledge that SACD is outselling DVD-A in terms of Software.

So in return, I find your rebuttals to my points as equally flimsy if not more so as all your rebuttals seem to have to do with what works best for you, and not the public in general. In addition your rebuttal contains some blatantly false statements, whereas both of my posts are simply my opinions based on the facts as they stand now.

Thank you for your time. :)

[Paul L.]

If we change this to what WILL be the only Hi-Rez format, I think it'll be SACD. Sony is not going to abandon it. Warners, on the other hand, could very well abandon DVD-A. AOL/Warner are much more of the bean counter types than Sony. It's quite possible some AOL execs are going to look at the sales figures for software and say, What do we need this for?

RicP makes a very good point that DVD-A is confusing to just about anyone. Are they listening to DTS, to DVD-V, dedicated stereo tracks, 2 tracks of the multi-channel, 192K, 96K, 48K, 16K?

As for watermarking being inaudible, this seems to depend on the listener. It's been claimed that once you know what to listen for, you'll hear it easily. I can't swear to that myself, but that's what's been said.

It's also been pointed out that the watermarking survives processing of the file down to mp3. Since mp3 is a lossy scheme, that seems to indicate that the watermarking has to be pretty darn strong to begin with, or it would disappear when knocked down to mp3.

[MikeT]

Originally posted by spotlightkid
Mike T-could you please tell me what differences you hear in general about sacd vs. dvd-a

To my ears, SACD has a more fluid, warm and generally pleasing sound. DVD-Audio has a brighter, more etched sound. Both though are a cut above regular CD.

I have heard superb DVD-A discs, namely the two Dead titles, The Eagles - Hotel California, America - Homecoming, Steely Dan - Two Against Nature, but they don't have as relaxed a sound as SACD.

There is nothing inherently wrong with DVD-Audio (others may disagree - as you might have seen from the discussion already brewing in this thread), and at first (since I had a Technics DVD-A10 months before getting my first SACD player) I loved all the "extras" each DVD-Audio disc had - now they are merely a nuisance.

Generally, SACD has a very clearly defined low end, that is very robust and deep. DVD-Audio (and this could be a factor of the player I use) low-end isn't as clearly defined in either stereo or MCH.

The hi-end is where SACD really shines. The majority of good SACDs have a "realistic" high-end, where cymbals sound like cymbals, etc. On the other hand DVD-Audio tends to present the hi-end very much like redbook CD does (brighter and a tad harsh) - just with a bit more clarity and definition.

I just hear more space/separation between instruments within the music on 99% on the 72 SACDs I own.

Don't misunderstand me, DVD-Audio sounds pretty good with the right software (which the same can be said for SACD). Yet I find myself reaching far more for an SACD than a DVD-Audio disc (I own 41) when I go to listen to music.

[Holy Zoo]

Has anyone done THE test yet? Pruchase one of Telarc's releases on both SACD and DVD-A and done a direct comparison? I don't have a DVD-A player, otherwise I'd be all over it (I LOVE head-2-head comparisons... it's the engineer in me coming out).

I think they have a couple like this, including Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture (both in surround, too!).

I don't know for a fact, but I'd suspect that Telarc wouldn't use the verace watermark, so it may actually be a near-perfect test.

[Pinknik]

Except for the fact that neither of these technologies is anything like mature. New cheaper (but not cheap) SACD machines may outperform the really expensive ones that came out early and no one has made a really high end DVD-A machine, though they're coming. It's all evolving. And the music industry is having a tough time getting by with red book CD. You might end up stuck with the good ol' CD as the only format. SONY won't drop SACD? Sure they will if it doesn't do what they want, they're still gonna have it all over the pro industry like their failed DAT and MiniDisc.

[RicP]

Has anyone done THE test yet? Pruchase one of Telarc's releases on both SACD and DVD-A and done a direct comparison? Many times. I've done it as well as my Audio dealer. Trouble is...it was recorded in DSD so the SACD trounces the DVD-A rather soundly as I would expect it to. Seeing as how it was recorded in DSD though, that makes it less than a "fair" test of just the technology of PCM vs. DSD

It is an amazing recording though and is one of the reference recordings that show what SACD is truly capable of.

Incidentally I am talking about the 1812 disc. Most of Telarc's newer releases are recorded in DSD though and then down-converted using an SBM-like process to either 24/96 PCM for the DVD-A, or 16/44 PCM for the CD if there is a separate CD release over and above the hybrid SACD.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by RicP

Incidentally I am talking about the 1812 disc. Most of Telarc's newer releases are recorded in DSD though and then down-converted using an SBM-like process to either 24/96 PCM for the DVD-A, or 16/44 PCM for the CD if there is a separate CD release over and above the hybrid SACD.

Thanks RicP! You're the first I've heard of that's actually done this. Hey, if you don't mind answering, is it possible to describe the difference you hear between the SACD and the 24/96 DVD-A? Do you find it subtle, or really obvious?

[Beowulff]

Ric,

Maybe you can answer a question I have as you seem to be very knowlegeble on the Sacd format. I understand the difference in the type of copy protection used by the two formats. I buy both types, but the hook up between my sacd player, my dvd-a player and my receiver is a cable nightmare. Why has Sony not switched to a digital out on their players rather than force users to use the 6 channel analogs. If the copy protection is doing it's job, then it makes no sense not to have gone to a digital long ago unless I'm missing something.

[Grant]

I agree with what RicP has been posting 110%.

DVD-A ia a grave mistake and i'm glad the companies are seeing that.

[MikeT]

Originally posted by Holy Zoo
Has anyone done THE test yet? Pruchase one of Telarc's releases on both SACD and DVD-A and done a direct comparison?

I did a comparison of "Celebrating the Music Of Weather Report" on both SACD and DVD-Audio, and I posted fairly long review on AudioAsylum.

Here is the link, since it was pretty long and I would hate to have to recount it again. So click below:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/45699.html

[lennonfan]

01-24-2002 04:45 PM

RicP
Junior Member
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: NJ, On The Hudson
Posts: 22lennonfan,
I'll try not to be too hard on you as a fellow Beatles fan.
quote:
Many audiophiles have integrated their audio systems with their visual systems
Absolutely false. Maybe many people in the "general" public have integrated systems, but most "Audiophiles" (your word choice) do not have integrated systems at all, in fact it is much more the opposite.

and your source for this information is...?

quote:
since I believe that DVD players make cds sound better than traditional cd players do
I am certain that you will find yourself in the vast minority on this one.

I'd like to see the studies that say otherwise.

quote:
And you missed my point which was that people just do not upgrade their video gear as much as they do their audio gear. Studies have proven this and just ask your friends or associates. Ask them how many pieces of audio equipment they've purchased in the last 10 years (CD Players, Walkman's, Tape Decks, MD Decks, MP3 Players, etc) and contrast that to the number of video items they've bought during the same time (VCR's, TV's, DVD Players. TiVo's, etc).

so what? If my 32" tv works fine why should I have to go out and buy another one? Walkmans break all the time...they're cheap and portable...MD is a failed format....the only point here is that VCR's TV's and DVD players have a longer life than many small music reproducers, are more expensive and need to be replaced less often. DVD is a pretty new phenom, and people are buying them like crazy, and in time they are certain to replace vhs as a standard of choice.

quote:
The error correction argument doesn't hold much water with me
That may be because you didn't read what I wrote. I never mentioned skipping or repeating.

well, outside of stopping audible music distortion from lack of signal, what purpose is there to error correction than to prevent skips and repeats?

quote:
The watermarking issue I think is kind of lame too,
Well thanks for that great technical rebuttal, but the Verance watermark has been Proven to be audible. It Has to be audible to survive compression and everything that they designed it for.

then please cite a source that uses this watermark so I can check for it.
None of the DVD-A discs I own have offered a hint of 'ticks' or other other distortion of the music.




quote:
The bass management system doesn't even apply for me
So because it doesn't apply for you, that means it doesn't apply for anyone? So you feel that everyone should have full range towers in their system or they don't deserve to listen to hi-resolution music?

nice dodge, but that isn't what I said. I didn't make claims for 'everyone' I was talking of my own personal experience. How others choose to enjoy their speaker setups are completely up to them. I don't hear with their ears....but I do think full range towers are the best way to listen to hi-rez, yes.


quote:
You neglected to mention all the advantages of DVD-A, which includes dedicated stereo mixes
Absolutely FALSE. The DVD-A spec does not call for dedicated stereo mixes, and in fact I did mention in my post all about the fact that Warner has recently corrected this oversight, but that there are many other titles that do not include pure stereo mixes, nor is there anything in the spec that mandates them.

and SACD has had errors in mastering as well (see the posts here on Billie Holiday's Lady In Satin) which you've neglected to mention. The point is, which you neglected but I already said, was that there are errors in the first releases being that the formats are only a year old but that is no reason to hold it against the format -forever-. Also, please give specific examples of the 'many other titles' that are not pure stereo mixes.


quote:
Until someone can demonstate -why- SACD is a better format, I'll stick with DVD-A.
And how would you like me to do that? I can do it based on the format as I did above, or I can do it based on sound quality which is at worst the equal of DVD-Audio, and at best significantly better.

given that the sampling rates are virtually the same, explain -why-. What you have given above is nothing factual, just a personal opinion.


quote:
The DVD format is exploding and will surely replace VHS in time. Good riddance to bulky tapes that take up way too much space and decay, I say.
Unfortunately this logic is flawed because DVD-Video != DVD-Audio.

This makes no sense to me. How is this logic flawed? Are you telling me people are -not- converting to DVD? What are you saying here?

quote:
SACD seems simply unnecessary and from what I see offers no clear advantage over DVD-A.
Then you are not looking hard enough in addition to ignoring the advantages that I very clearly pointed out in my last post. But here's another one for you...How will you play a DVD-A disc in your car? your walkman? Hybrid SACD can do this NOW.

You will play a DVD-A in the car the same way you play cds now, only you will have a dedicated DVD deck in the car instead of a CD. People switched from cassette to cd, they will surely in time switch to DVD as well since the components can be quickly and cheaply manufactured. Especially in mobile homes, etc., where space is a premium. You ignore these realities. The disc space is many times more in a DVD vs. a CD which will make it much more portable...the same way they're now mass producing what are (IMO) vastly inferior mp3 players.

quote:
For me, I run my internet, tv and video (dvd/vhs) through a 32" tv that stays on all the time
Well that's good for you, but don't be under the mistaken assumption that everyone has this same setup.

Where does this come from? Where did I say anything that would imply that's everyone else's setup? It seems to me you're just looking for things to pick at, things that aren't even there. tsk tsk.


quote:
notice now that DVD is even appearing in automobiles
Yes...DVD-Video.

which can play DVD-A discs encoded with DD but also there are now DVD-A players appearing in high-end autos.
I just read about a new Mercedes with one.

quote:
The sales are higher than SACD
If you are speaking of software then this is a blatant falsehood. It's almost Universal knowledge that SACD is outselling DVD-A in terms of Software.

please provide a source for this 'universal knowlege' you speak of. The stats I've seen have DVD-A outselling SACD 2 to 1.

quote:
So in return, I find your rebuttals to my points as equally flimsy if not more so as all your rebuttals seem to have to do with what works best for you, and not the public in general.

I can only speak for myself as to what works best for me, I don't know the entire public well enough to speak for them. Perhaps you do?

quote:
In addition your rebuttal contains some blatantly false statements, whereas both of my posts are simply my opinions based on the facts as they stand now.

Opinions I would say are skewed against any sort of fair comparison.


quote:
Thank you for your time.
__________________

always a pleasure.