 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.243.8.133
of Warner , EMI , and UMG .Click on the link that I have provided , to read the enthusiastic comments about DualDisc , made by these executives , at the National Association of Recording Merchandisers ( NARM ) convention on August 24 , 2004 .
I don't recall these individuals ever making such enthusiastic comments about SACD .
Based on the comments of these CEOs , it is extremely likely that record label resources will be taken away from SACD , and will now be spent on DualDisc .
SACD cheerleaders , it's all over for SACD .
The CEOs of the major record labels have seen the future of music , and it is definitely not SACD .
LOL
ZS KEKL
- http://www.companyreports.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-24-2004/0002237752&EDATE= (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
And why are we responding to their weirdness?
There's just too many contenders for that title in this forum!
Don't forget to put your name down......
Somewhere underneath yours....
nt
Hey, without some of our more colorful characters, this place wouldnt be an asylum, would it? Plus, if we didnt have people like Teresa or ZS KEKL then I would have to face my own neuroses, and who wants to do that?PS Eric, i am sorry about you being jilted by Teresa, but I heard that SA-CD people can never marry DVD-A types, so it was doomed from the beginning.
If I wasn't in the process of being involved with Isabelle Adjani, I could fall for Teresa.She turned me down once, on Whiner's Woad. (Teresa, not Adjani.)
Best
Eric
. . . ms. adjani prefers we unkempt, young, unshaven, blonde, disshevilled, sacd-listening types?finding out she was single made bust out nosferatu again yesterday, and i can tell just by her brilliant performance that she is TOTALLY into sacd.
and that she has an unbearable disdain for all things pcm. . . . so the edge is totally mine . . . .
. . . .yeah.
***********************************************************Dear Ms Adjani,
I think there has been a miscommunication.
I think I know what the problem is. You like SACD, and you think I only listen to DVD-Audio. I like SACD too, don't get me wrong. Actually, I have lots of SACDs, and many DVDs and CDs too, and also many LPs, although those are at my parents' house, with my cassettes and my Batman collection.
I plan to buy lots of SACDs in the future, all kinds of them.
If you only like SACD and cannot stand PCM, well that's OK, I have a past myself. We shouldn't let a minor format problem get in the way between us.
Looking forward to your message,
Best
Eric
...for a few weeks, then....Mr. PC MKEL: Last year you said DVD-A was the superior best, blah blah blah; it was so superior that now companies have come out with this frantic patch-job called dual disc. Hmmmm. I'll wait to see what the Swift Boat Veterans have to say.
ZS KEKL you are one sad person.Im glad your post got booted.
Please go see a psychologist immediatley. Get an MMPI and MCMI....and come back and report what diagnois he/she gives you. You need help dude.
.
But am not really.Just a wee bit irritated at the resident narcissist on each forum.
Personally I dont care what format wins.
I have both DVDA and SACD. Most of the music that I am really wedded to is on regular Redbook anyway. By the time one of these newer formats dies a completely different system will be starting up and DVDA and SACD will be ignored for the most part.
OTOH memory only gets cheaper, and bandwith only gets bigger...... Kids nowadays look at you funny if you mention high end gear.
The market will follow the kids.
I've never heard of such a thing. The concept of music video is so exciting to young people that MTV is mostly reality TV and fashion these days.
Do you really think Dual disc is going to tear young people (Dual-disc's target audience), away from their downloading and I-Pods? Oh, it's going to be a sad day for the majors. At least SACD was aimed at people who care about sound, don't know what an I-Pod is, and can sit in one place for an hour.
I hope you realize that AAC (iPod) is in the DVD-Audio specs?Of all the lossy formats, you chose the only one that will be directly compatible with the ROM section of DVD-Audio.
See link for story
Cheers
Eric
Far from it. In actual fact, one of the flexibilities of DualDisc is that the software content is specified to include a PC-readable section precisely so that compressed tracks can be transferred to an ipod-type of device. Therefore it addresses this ‘youth’ market directly.Of course, these same young folks who buy the DualDisc will also get the concert-video footage, on-screen lyrics, band interviews, and of course something which will play in both their car & CD boombox — as well as the very high-quality surround sound when they play it in their daddy’s home DVD-A/V system.
And for those lucky people who already have a DVD-Audio/Video in-car system, the disc will of course play as hirez in that too, and passengers in the back will be able to sing along to the on-screen lyrics (via seat-back screens and multifunction controller etc.), or watch the video extras.
"Far from it. In actual fact, one of the flexibilities of DualDisc is that the software content is specified to include a PC-readable section precisely so that compressed tracks can be transferred to an ipod-type of device. Therefore it addresses this ‘youth’ market directly."And then they can file-share with 200 friends.
"Of course, these same young folks who buy the DualDisc will also get the concert-video footage, on-screen lyrics, band interviews, and of course something which will play in both their car & CD boombox"
And this is why the Music Video DVD, which offered all that for 10 years, hasn't overtaken CD sales ever?
And the price to pay royalties to the hundreds of people who will be artistically involved with producing the graphics, footage, etc.? Not to mention the musicians?
Kids are online, I-podding, playing video games, watching movies. The SACD market may be small, but we wanted it, we have money and we have time.
nt
> > And this is why the Music Video DVD, which offered all that for 10 years, hasn't overtaken CD sales ever? < <Look at the sales trends. Look at the stores. DVD is taking over swathes of space where plain CD’s used to be. That’s because DVD offers more than CD.
Now, DualDisc not only caters for both of these markets, but it also allows labels to introduce very high-quality multi-channel audio to the masses, by acting as an effective "bridge" for people to migrate from CD to DVD. Moreover, with hirez being too big to manage on a hard drive, as well as being CPPM-protected, this is a direction where labels want to go.
> > And the price to pay royalties to the hundreds of people who will be artistically involved with producing the graphics, footage, etc.? Not to mention the musicians? < <
People will prefer to buy one multi-content disc, rather than a separate CD plus a separate DVD of the same album.
> > The SACD market may be small, but we wanted it, we have money and we have time. < <
Then you should be in the other forum.
"Look at the sales trends. Look at the stores. DVD is taking over swathes of space where plain CD’s used to be. That’s because DVD offers more than CD."This is a specious statement. *Movies* (on DVD) have taken over CD space. You're confusing the success of a genre with the success of a format. Everyone, even my mother, has the confidence and desire to own some movies.
Now, DualDisc not only caters for both of these markets, but it also allows labels to introduce very high-quality multi-channel audio to the masses, by acting as an effective "bridge" for people to migrate from CD to DVD. Moreover, with hirez being too big to manage on a hard drive, as well as being CPPM-protected, this is a direction where labels want to go.
"Now, DualDisc not only caters for both of these markets, but it also allows labels to introduce very high-quality multi-channel audio to the masses, by acting as an effective "bridge" for people to migrate from CD to DVD. Moreover, with hirez being too big to manage on a hard drive, as well as being CPPM-protected, this is a direction where labels want to go.They're aiming at people *least* interested in Hi-rez. They're going to file-share the low-rez portion, only the majors have saved them the time of CD burning! Brilliant.
Best of luck though.
The movie DVD section is quite large in most stores, rivaling the CD aisles. The DVD music video section has always been much, much smaller in every store I've checked.
. . . thus everything is headed towards DVD and multimedia experience. Hence DualDisc. And if chart albums on the music shelves are DualDisc, people will buy them.
...the DVD-A/CD flipper will only have a token amount of video content at best, and that wouldn't interest J6P, who's used to music videos (and buys them in modest numbers).
. . . and secondly, most record companies don't make a music video for each and every song on an album when that album is first released (if at all).Also note that Redbook CD's don't support discrete multichannel surround sound.
In short, the main purpose of DualDisc is:
1. 2-ch CD on Side A;
2. Discrete 5.1 surround sound on Side B (DVD) with on-screen lyrics;
3. Music video(s) also on Side B;
4. Any other extras the content provider wants to include.Oh, and if a record company does want to make a pop/rock film, or has a long concert video DVD, then they CAN certainly market it with "sneak-peaks / trailers / teasers" etc. on a DualDisc music album.
2 ch cd and 5.1 dvd sounds good to me as it fits my 2 systems. it is better than just cd or dvd as it is now. Would prefer 2 ch dvd-a but we are in a distict minority.
...How can anyone with more than a ham sandwich upstairs think that dual-disc means ANYTHING positive for DVD-A? My friends at the exec level at UMG tell me hi-rez audio means NOTHING in their decision making. Music + video does give them wood somewhat. But "audiophile sound" is, was, and always shall be a miniscule market that barely merits any attention at all in the big picture of format wars. Their interest is in piracy protection, profits, and profits again. Take a look at what UMG calls "Deluxe Sound + Vision" -http://new.umusic.com/News.aspx?NewsId=220
It's 2 cd's and a DVD video disc. NOT a DVD-A disc or Dual-Disc with DVD-A. As one friend at UMG told me, "It's about how many bites of the apple we can take".
Sorry, but it appears as though arguments about SACD vs DVD-A are a fools folly. BTW, have you heard about the other hi-rez format that appears to be gaining traction? Yes, vinyl gets more attention from the record labels than SACD and DVD-A combined.
My ridiculous rant aside, hopefully SACD or DVD-A will stick around for awhile because both of them (imho) sound much better than the normal cd's we've been listening to for the last decade and a half.
be prepared to be in it for the long run though!
August-September will be my biggest spree yet for SACD purchases. By the end of September when the Verve JSACDs come out, I will have bought more than 25 titles in two months, including 9 OJCs and 6 RCAs. SACD is dying so slowly I don't know how I'll find time to listen to it all, or find funds to pay off my credit cards.If this is what SACD's death is like, I can hardly wait for the resurrection. I won't be spending a cent on dual disks and neither will millions of other music lovers. The CEOs can either learn that the hard way--possibly losing their jobs in the process--or they can give people exactly what they really want at a decent price without bundling it with crap they don't want and charging a premium. How anyone--even a DVD-A fanatic--can get excited about that prospect is utterly beyond me.
After taking care of our audio reproduction systems, we quickly realize that, as "audiophiles", the bottleneck is the quality of the engineering behind a recording.Ive stopped my component upgrading/tweaking based on this simple realization, and i suspect many on the high resolution forums (SACD and DVD-A) feel the same. The importance of high res reproduction is critical to us, yet we know hires, in its current form(s), will not become a standard, does not encompass the broad works of arts outthere, cannot be obtained cheaply (at the least at the rates at which we buy, and as you note), can not be swapped between different platforms, will not slow down the perilious gains in the low resolution market (MP3, ipods, etc.), and, if anything, this adoption of cheap lowres music will compromise emphasis on well engineered recordings. We are headed striaght into isolation where our choices, however extensive, will remain limited in comparison.
Whatever our stand on the DVD-A and SACD issue, the ones deciding the faith of high res. have found a way to divide and conquer themselves.
In the early days of dualdisk there's always the possibility that the prices will drop once a larger audience buys into it (i know, i know...:-)). Lets hope. It wont help if SACD sticks around as an alternative (and should remain a niche hires format, as noted by others, since it might have found dedicated aging buyers).
my goodness i speel like a $#!%^$. my apologies,now i must get back to some seriously unimportant work.
best.
He's getting desperate with his grand anouncements.
"DualDisc represents a dramatic expansion of the music entertainment experience," commented Andrew Lack, CEO, Sony BMG Music Entertainment. "By combining video, surround sound and web connectivity in a single disc, we are presenting our artists with a broader palette to express their creative vision, while at the same time giving consumers what they told us they want -- greater value driven by unique content that brings them closer to the artist. We're confident that this ground-breaking new initiative will help to re-energize traditional music retail."This has nothing to do with REAL music
Just like the Sony DualDisc most will have Dolby Digital Surround sound to make more room for Video and other fluff!
It's too bad they made DVD-Audio optional!
Better luck next time,
Happy listening,
Teresa
I don't remember reading anywhere that the DVD layer is anything other than DVD-A.
It has been written that it would be possible to use DVD-V as the DVD layer, but the article referenced talks about DVD-A, not DVD-V.Seems to me that with DualDisc, 2 releases can cover everything.
DVD-V gives you the video content, DualDisc gives both Red Book and DVD-A Multichannel or Hi Rez stereo. Which knocks SACD into a cocked hat.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
and Studio Owner. Are you bitter because you could not get DSD equipment?Talk about bias!
Teresa
Liar?
I don't think so!
The limitations of DSD are well known to anybody who can actually be bothered to do the research.
Let me give you a couple of facts:
DSD64 allegedly uses 64 times the sampling rate of CD. WOW! It MUST be better!
But - CD uses 16 bits, having 65,536 combinations or levels of information, delivering 2900 million combinations per second, whereas DSD64 uses single bit data having 2 combinations and thus delivers 5.6 million combinations per second. Thus, the information capacity of SACD is about 0.2 percent of CD.
Single bit data is the least efficient way of recording there is.From the "high bitrate of DSD64" comes the claim that the bandwidth is enormous. This also isn't true either. To make the system work, the signal must be extremely heavily noise shaped. Noise shaping should be carried out last. Or all you will ever get is degradation in the signal & loss of resolution every time you attempt to carry out any kind of processing on it - which again you cannot do in DSD. No EQ, no mixing, no nothing, because the instant you do any of this type of work, the signal by definition becomes multibit again. And due to the noise shaping, this will lead to loss of resolution.
Now the next big SACD Lie..
It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that the supposedly "ultrasonic" frequencies in SACD are contributing anything at all. If that were the case, then why is the upper limit at 22KHz? I'll tell you - because all that is up there over 22KHz in SACD is noise, and lots of it. And if our ears are that good, we will hear this noise, or at least it will interfere with the music. So, knowing this, the designers of SACD came to the logical conclusion - It must be filtered out. In actual fact, SACD sounds better when played through Linear Phase 20KHz LPF.And a well recorded, well produced standard CD sounds just as good when played back through a properly set up system.
The sad truth is that most CD's are badly produced these days, which is why you think SACD is an improvement. It is not.But I'm almost certainly wasting my time here, as you obviously do not care about the truth, hence the personal attacks on me. Why is that - no convincing arguments? No, I thought not.
Oh - by the way. 24 bit PCM gives us a dynamic range of 144dB across the entire spectrum. SACD gives at best considerably less.
A 2.8224MS/s 1-bit A-D converter gives, with careful tweaking, the same performance as a 20 bit system from 20Hz - 20KHz.And thems the facts, wether you like it or not.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.But this statement is incorrect: "Thus, the information capacity of SACD is about 0.2 percent of CD."
This would be true if SACD was pulse code modulation. But it is not. It is pulse density modulation. You need to calculate information capacity differently. Multi-bit sequential patterns carry information in PDM. There are many many more possible combinations than the 5.6 million per second you come up with.
But isn't DSD supposed to be single bit, not multi bit?
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Yes it is a single bit at a time. But the idea of pulse density modulation is that signal amplitude is stored in a sequential series of bits (the "density"). Therefore signal amplitude is not stored only in a single bit as would be the case in pure PCM. It is actually stored in multiple bits, but just more in series than in parallel. It's really very similar to PCM and not such a different animal as people like to pretend.
"But - CD uses 16 bits, having 65,536 combinations or levels of information, delivering 2900 million combinations per second, whereas DSD64 uses single bit data having 2 combinations and thus delivers 5.6 million combinations per second. Thus, the information capacity of SACD is about 0.2 percent of CD."Neil, I don't think these numbers are entirely correct, but you cannot directly or easily compare sampling rates between DSD and PCM since one is looking at changes in height (DSD) and one is looking at amplitude (PCM).
I am an audio professional as well and no one I know (and I know many of the name producers/engineers) would dispute that DSD inherently records more data than CD.
In fact, the higher density of the SACD disc itself is specifically configured to hold more information.
I'm frankly surprised you don't know or realize this.
I also like 24/192 which sounds close to not quite as good as DSD but I think to be fair to the SACD fans, there is just not a lot of software available. I think there is also a good case to be made that faster sampling rates handle transients better.
> > I think there is also a good case to be made that faster sampling rates handle transients better. < <Nonsense. If 'transients' were so 'fast' that you needed higher sample rates than 96kHz (with multibit LPCM) to resolve them, then you wouldn't be able to hear them anyway. 24 bit depth is much more important than very high sample rate per se. 24 bit gives you real dynamic range & S/N ratio improvements which doesn’t degrade over the whole output frequency (unlike one-bit DSD which clearly gets significantly worse the higher up you go). Multibit is also ideal for DSP requirements, since that’s also the same ‘word’ language that computer math processors think in.
p.s. The main benefit of very high PCM sample rates is that it pushes the Nyquist filter so far away from the audible band, such that it can have a more benign gradual slope. Indeed, some professionals suggest that above 88.2kHz PCM you don't need such a filter at all.
"24 bit depth is much more important than very high sample rate per se."
We have done comparisons in the studio with DSD conversions simultaneous with PCM conversions at 24/96 and 24/192 and the DSD feed sounds more natural. DSD only has noise well into the upper band and the added frequency over 2okhz range creates audible improvements.
We work a lot with acoustic sets and there having the attack-sustain-decay present is important and we are quite sensitive to problems in this area. With DSD we hear what we also hear live in the studio as we are laying down tracks.
From a pure PCM perspective, the 24/96k is a big improvement over 24/48 so I don't believe the word length is important except for maybe a minor role.
As I stated before the wave recreation in DSD is mathematically completely different so saying there are problems with shorter word length versus PCM does not hold water.
...PCM, and more importantly, it is asymptotic, meaning their is no "pre-smear" of the transient, just post-smear. PCM transients/filters result in a symetrical transient which starts well before the actual transient. This is totally unnatural to anything we hear in nature. The DSD transient better mimics nature. As a result, we hear more natural microdynamics and more natural transients.
Harry
These are properties of reconstruction filter implementations.
It's not 'caused' by PCM in principle.If you refer to pre and post ringing effects from reconstruction filters then you should realise that the effects well beyond the audible hearing range.
Frank
No question they are properties of the reconstruction filters, but nonetheless this is how DSD and DVD-A are implemented in the real world. Whether the difference between 35uS asymetric pre-post rise time versus 350uS symetric pre-post rise time is audible or not is not settled. Obviously some believe it makes no difference. Others believe it may be *the* difference in the "naturalness" of SACD. No definitive work has been done to prove it one way or the other, AFAIK.
Harry
1) the upper frequency limit of SACD is 100kHz, unless the 50kHz filter is engaged (to protect certain equipment that can't handle ultrasonics above 50kHz). You made up the 22kHz limit, it is not has never been and never will be SACDs upper frequency limit.2) Our own Christine Tham has measured noise on SACDs in the 20kHz - 50kHz and it is only 5%.
3) Per research done by Pacific Microsonics overtones of musical instruments have frequency response up to 50kHz (the highest being the muted trumpet) and room noise (ambiance) up to 80kHz. And even though we cannot "hear" up 80kHz as sound our brain still processes the infomation as the "timbre" changes when these frequencies are removed.
4) I have owned both high end DVD-Audio players and I can tell you with my own golden ears (the ones I trust) that PURE DSD recorded SACD not only has more resolution than 24 Bit 192kHz and it sounds more realistic, smoother and vocalists actually sound like real singers like you would hear live.
5) YOU COULD DISCOVER THIS YOURSELF BY LISTENING TO A PURE DSD RECORDED MASTER TAPE or even a SACD made from one. That is if you actually cared about sound quality and not PCM Lies!
You are the one who does not care about the truth,
Teresa
Teresa, Teresa, teresa.
I did not "make up" the 22KHz limit, it is there in the design. Go take a long, hard look at the noise shaping responses used in DSD 64, and you will see for yourself that the designers settled on a practical bandwidth of 22KHz - incidentally, the same as CD. I repeat, any signal above 22KHz will be dwarfed by noise. Why can't we hear this noise? Because there are frequency limits in the DSD spec.BTW, if DSD64 is as good as claimed, why is there now DSD128 and proposed specs for SACD2.
Sort of reminds me of washing powder adverts - the ones where they tell you that this version really does wash cleaner than the last one!!!Go do your research - I can't be bothered with this any more. I object to being told I "make things up" when I have no need, desire or time to do so.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
"proposed specs for SACD2"That was just a rumor that Sony & Philips denied vigorously. It's been a year or so since first mention and still no sign...that tells me something.
My understanding is that 22khz is not part of the DSD specification. What you may be referring to are limitations in early equipment. There is sound recording above 22khz on several rceordings by Telarc for instance.
Not real?
Why is DXD being developed then, and also DSD128?
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
when 36 Bit 384kHz comes out it will still not even be close to the resolution of SACD.Those are the true facts, just pick up an PURE DSD SACD put it in a high end (especially tubed) SACD and listen for yourself!
I have owned both high end DVD-Audio and SACD players so your lies will not work with me.
No way never,
Teresa
it is either 32 or 40 bit. Not yet has 36 bit been considered to my knowledge. I can record in 32/40 or 64bit 384K right now, got the software. (Modifyed silicon graphics workstation) Had the 64 bit 384K since Sept 2001 actually...but again, the differences are moot to mention...it just creates a terrifically large file..3 mins = over a gig. 64/192K is more resonable file size wise but again, I just cannot assertain any real audible difference. I stay at 32/192K for editing of PCM. One argument that is absolute, I can make DVD-A's for less than 1 dollar each, sacd's on the otherhand are too expensive for most independant studios to consider. The artists do not want it. None of mine anyway, given the cost differences when offered. The DSD harware just don't get used around here unfortunantly.
.
Why's that? SACD gives you everything but the video (which audiophiles don't care about anyway), and better sound (IMPHO) to boot. Joe Sixpack may not buy the SACD if it's not single inventory, but he's not gonna care about a DVD-A/CD flipper either, for the same reason. He won't buy them unless he has no choice.
Because in my equally honest opinion, there has been more propaganda from the SACD companies than came out of any other source.
It just does not deliver what it says it does.
DSD64 is a single bit system, right?
This can not even come close to the quality of 24 bit (or even 16 bit) PCM without heroic noise shaping techniques. So much so that the bandwidth of SACD is actually the same as CD - an upper limit of 22KHz, because everything above that is swamped with noise.
If you consider information theory for a minute, you will understand that properly dithered & shaped CD specifies 65,536 levels, whereas DSD can only specify 2 as it is a single bit system. Therefore to have the same information capacity as a CD, SACD needs to have a sampling rate 32,000 times higher than CD. Which it does not.
SACD sounds better played through Linear Phase 20KHz LPF, as it gets rid of more noise that way. Strange how Sony don't mention that. As it is, the upper limit is by design 22KHz anyway. Because all that is present above that figure is noise, and lots of it.With SACD, you are only hearing the equivalent of a well mastered, properly produced CD. The only reason CD sounds so bad to so many people is the current trend for "louder" pressings, at the expense of the dynamics and causing enormous listener fatigue. Which is why most people think it sounds bad.
DVD-A on the other hand offers genuine 24 bit 96KHz multichannel audio, and the fidelity is far far superior to SACD. The only possible reason that the differences are not so audible can probably be attributed to the fact that there is simply nothing above 22KHz that carries any musically significant information.
Also, being a single bit system, you cannot actually do anything to DSD without it turning into multibit again, thus defeating the supposed point.
Quite simply, DSD is the least efficient method possible for recording, PCM is the most efficient.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
SACDs frequency response extends to 100kHz, 24 Bit 96kHz extends to 44kHz. SACD samples the signal 2,822,400 times per second 24 96kHz 96,000 times per second!Christine Tham has measured the high frequency noise between 20kHz - 50kHz to be 5%, that is 10 times less that LP in that range. In the supersonics I really don't think 5% of the signal being "noise" will even be audible.
Also the resolution of a PURE DSD recorded SACD is much higher than even 196kHz 24 Bit, all you have do is listen to one, it's really that simple.
And DVD-Audio even at 192kHz still has a PCM sound signature that CHANGES the sound. Anyone who is an engineer will clarify this for me but DSD was designed to be "transparent" with no sound of it own. Hundreds of tests have been done and DSD sound exactly like the live microphone feed, even Dolby S Analog sounds closer to microphone feed than even 192kHz 24 Bit PCM. The problem with DVD-Audio is it is still PCM, it is a better PCM but still PCM!!!!!
Where as SACD offers a sonic realism that was before only available with Analog tape at 30ips or LPs on the very best turntables. PCM cannot and will never be able to offer this degree of sonic realism, it is impossible. And it is unfair to ask PCM to perform in this matter.
Neil once you get to actually hear a PURE DSD recording SACD you will be singing a different tune.
And to compare SACD to CD PROVES You have NEVER heard a good SACD!
Anyone who has ever heard a correctly recorded and played SACD will accept nothing less
Pure simple logic,
Teresa
lots of credibility .OTOH , Teresa , you have none .
LOL
ZS KEKL
P.S. Be sure to read the link .
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=171493&highlight=Elliot+Mazer&r= (Open in New Window)
I hope so, or you won't get most audiophiles.
The details are left to the content provider. With the exception of Silverline the vast majority of titles are being released with dedicated stereo tracks.There is little point in upsampling lower rate digital sources to 192K, which is simply an exercise in specsmanship.
Regards,
John Kotches
Read it. He never says one sounds better. But you are just stirring the shit pot, so your accuracy goes out the window for a chance to snipe.
that I provided , you will realise that you have made a mistake .Even if you don't read the link , you are still wrong .
LOL
ZS KEKL
Engineer Elliot Mazer must be deaf, working with all that LOUD, DISTORTED ROCK, no wonder he cannot hear the superiority of SACD.I trust my own golden ears and they agree with Michael Bishop, Robert Woods, Joe Harley, Tom Jung, Tim de Paravicini and others who actually make excellent sounding realistic recordings when they say DSD is the most realistic format they have ever worked with.
Sometimes I wonder if you have a brain? as I know you don't have ears or you would be listening to SACD not DVD-Audio. Have you ever just stopped to think why 95% of the world's Audiophile labels release SACD and not DVD-Audio? When they are selling SOUND QUALITY? Really are you that stupid?
Sometimes I do not know why I waste my time with you, maybe you will fall in love with a girl who have a great SACD player and then you will know how WRONG you have been for the last 4 years!
Oh Well,
Teresa
of SACD .It was about the taste of Sony's money .
LOL
Teresa , it's time for you to wake up . There's a reason why it's called the record BUSINESS .
LOL
ZS KEKL
P.S. Once again , be sure to read the link .
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=178681&highlight=Eargle&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
ago. And being a small company Delos does not have the funds to release recordings in any high resolution format. All of his recordings are DSD to CD.Why?
Because it sounds more REALISTIC
And someday Delos hopes to re-enter the SACD market. So now you know why no new SACDs for Delos even though all of their sessions are DSD. Because companies no longer get help from Sony.
So how do you explain Telarc with over 120 SACDs and 2 DVD-Audio's? Or any of the other 100 or so Audiophile labels still releasing SACD with no help from Sony BECAUSE THEY SOUND BETTER AND AUDIOPHILE LABELS LIVE AND DIE BASED THEIR ON SOUND QUALITY. You KNOW NOTHING about the dedication of audiophile labels and why they exist.
There are now 2,355 SACDs, how many DVD-Audio's? DVD-Audio is really in a sorry state.
What format is getting RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence in High Resolution? SACD!
It's time for you to look at reality. DVD-Audio is dead and sonically inferior to SACD.
Those are just the plain facts, period.
Teresa
after all, once you have the equipment and know how to do it, why bother changing to PCM? Especially if there's "no difference when properly done" (as he told me he felt about DSD vs 96/24).I still say the skill of the people making the recording is WAY more important than differences between formats.
Acually, many indie studios use DVD-A, they just dont get the distribution of the big boys. So far, I have 14 DVD-A recordings, one facility. In my town, 18 studios now use DVD-A but for indie projects that get limited to no distribution, the point is moot. One facility in New Orleans actually claims more than 50 recordings to date. They will play on any DVD player and have video content as well...but I think their is room for both formats. I just wonder what Blu-Ray will do to DVD? Blu-ray is not going to be audio only at all.
.
That's very interesting, I am wondering about a way to connect all the studios that do limited runs or independents that publish their own DVD-A titles.If you want, you can send me an eMail directly
Best
Eric
..
.
Urrrh.. I hope, you got it, I sent 2
.
As I said, I need to read it carefully and will get back to you tomorrowI haven't read it all yet, but I can tell you that it's really exciting
Cheers
Eric
Eric, I will be getting an email out to you shortly. Have you made some recordings that are either going to be on the market or willing to be on the market? I am trying to form a consortium of independants and I have willing parties. It is a detailed situation. Lot of people interested so far.
.
B.T.W I do know the purchasing manager at DVDEmpire.com. I could put you in touch with him.(For example, last year I managed to get all the Arts Music classical DVD-As distributed through DVDEmpire.)
Very cool Martin! May I send you an email? The artists need all the help they can get. Many folks that have heard some of this are delighted.
.
.
Please do, your idea sounds great, and I'll be glad to help if I can. This board is a good hub for getting something started.Best
Eric
somehow they can't hear it.....
Saying one format is better than the other on the basis of theory is kind of dumb when you can listen to the results. I also felt that PCM processing sounded more reasonable than DSD - because of the increased noise with DSD - but the only important thing is how they sound. My current favorite sounding disks are DVD-Audio - Big Phat Bands, Grover Washington's Winelight, and the Steely Dans. Maybe that's partially because DVD-Audio seems to handle surround mix better, in general. But I have to say that the most amazingly lifelike reproduction I've heard of voice and instrument are the vocals of James Taylor in JT and the horns in the Bob Minzer Big Band's Gently - both on SACD. The one disk I have in both formats is the David Sanborn album - and it sounds marginally better in SACD. I know that the difference is greatly affected by how the original was recorded and which players are used for each format, so I don't really draw many conclusions from that. What should be disregarded is someone who has only DVD-A telling us how much better DVD-A is, or someone with only SACD capability telling us how much better SACD is. That is useless information. Both formats are capable of amazing sound.Craig
Several recording engineers feel the same way. Look at Michael Bishop's tests at Telarc where they chose DSD after listening to microphone feeds from both over several events.
in short, IMO, SACD is not hiresolution, is not practical either from a user's (think DSP for ex.) or "producer" (only reason it is being produced is because Sony subsidizes it) point of view, hinders the progress we were expecting in quality reproduction. It's all documented."SACD" can be good (great!) in limited parts of the spectrum, some notes here and there, some instruments and percussions and is capable of displaying spatial cues effectively. but taken in general, it can sound irritating when you expect a highly resolving source, and lacks the perceived dynamics of properly done DVD-A (and for that matter CDs'!). In this, "theory" and actual listening are in line in pointing to a less than ideal format in DSD/SACD in its current form. I agree with you that its (SACD's) euphonics can be pleasing at times and theres nothing wrong in liking just that...*but it is not a hires format!* nor should it be competing and hindering the only viable (well not really it seems) truly hires format in DVD-A. its a shame and its costing us in the long run.
Sorry for the (ad nauseum) rant.
"lacks the perceived dynamics of properly done DVD-A"NonA,
I'm sorry but this honestly contradicts my experience. You seem to me to state rather matter of factly but the fact is that a large number of prominent engineers prefer DSD to PCM. In fact, the world is quite divided on this.
Furthermore to claim DSD is not high resolution is completely ridiculous. It is clearly capturing more data and revealing more musical information across the spectrum than Red Book CD and IMHO 24/96khz.
Even several prominent DVDA supporters will agree with me on this point.
Well, i stated it as a matter of fact because it is my experience. As you note the "world is quite divided on this". My claim that SACD is not high resolution is in relation to what i consider the current reference of 24/192 in terms of "capturing more data". However, it's not just about the absolute # of data and bit transfer rate as you seem to suggest, it is about the compromises current DSD/SACD has to go thru to be feasible (and others will argue that these compromises are irrelevant, yet many hear them, and manufacturers introduce 50 kHz filters in their player to reduce any deleterious effect from playing a typical "noise shaped" SACD, for ex.). It could be many gigs of data, but if they are plagued with uncorrelated noise it can still underperform w/r to other more limited data sources (yes including from CD).Finally the DSD camp of recording engineer are in it because of the gravy train they got into from Sony sponsorship, and im not naive enough to believe that they would giveup on 20+ yrs of PCM infrastructure, skills, software, tools, etc. because they did some "studio comparisons", if you believe that, you are deluding yourself.
Sony used DSD/SACD, finally, as a delivery format for reasons we all know too well: 1) licensing revenue, 2) copyright protection. They packaged it as "high resolution" for the "masses" and went straight for the "audiophiles" that are desperate for better engineered records. That any of these recording engineers would make us believe that SACD stands on its own technical or sonic merits, is insulting to our intelligence. These guys should just admit that they found a profitable niche market, made more enticing because of sony's subsidies (and partially successfull marketing), its a new gravy train period, and theres nothing wrong with that, but please dont tell us its a superior format in any way, shape, or form.
its clumsy to produce (its straight forward only on the surface and ignores the more subtle technical aspects, for ex. why people had to go from single to multibit signa-delta modulators), its underspec'ed, and the end user is greatly restricted since most of the hardware is done based on PCM signals or analog, NOT DSD...unless converted to PCM (as in bass management for ex.)...if you want to do any amount of reasonable DSP (ex. in room auto-eq.) especially those newer self-dialed subs or speakers, there's close to zero manufacturer working with DSD thru and thru not even on the recording side (or digital amplifiesr manufaturers or xover or etc.). So ask you, why SACD??
you know it more than i do, so please spare us the BS.
Best regards
"Finally the DSD camp of recording engineer are in it because of the gravy train they got into from Sony sponsorship, and im not naive enough to believe that they would giveup on 20+ yrs of PCM infrastructure, skills, software, tools, etc. because they did some "studio comparisons", if you believe that, you are deluding yourself."I am personally aware of two situations where Sony spiffs did not play ANY role in the sonic decision which is the right course of action. By the way, do you know that Warner has been doing the same thing on the DVDA side? It's common industry practice.
"They packaged it as "high resolution" for the "masses" and went straight for the "audiophiles" that are desperate for better engineered records. "
This is not correct. It was originally an archiving format which Sony expanded to audiophiles. I don't think Sony ever marketed to the "masses" except to show their innovation.
"These guys should just admit that they found a profitable niche market, made more enticing because of sony's subsidies (and partially successfull marketing), its a new gravy train period, and theres nothing wrong with that, but please dont tell us its a superior format in any way, shape, or form."
There are some 2,200 or so SACDs. Sony has only supported a few of these by offering money. The rest is due to healthy audiophile demand. Ultimately the market rules, and audiophiles are clearly speaking with their wallet. David Chesky has admitted that they sell more SACDs than DVDAs by far, even though he like the DVDA format better.
"its clumsy to produce (its straight forward only on the surface and ignores the more subtle technical aspects, for ex. why people had to go from single to multibit signa-delta modulators), its underspec'ed, and the end user is greatly restricted since most of the hardware is done based on PCM signals or analog, NOT DSD...unless converted to PCM (as in bass management for ex.)..."
Again, more misinformation. All the new generation editing workstations avoid the intermediate PCM stage. New software tools make producing a DSD as easy as a PCM based product. And what you gain is a simpler, cleaner sounding recording chain.
"you know it more than i do, so please spare us the BS."
There's no reason for personal attacks here. As I stated I like both formats. But it is hard for me to sit by as false statements are being made.
im well aware of the points you bring up. And you only address my points partially on the cover that they cover them all or even accurately. they dont. Its not a personal attack, apologies if you took this way, it's just a bit exacerbating, the spin that is put on these issues. Best.
No problem.I just get frustrated that some DVDA supporters are making claims here that are either patently false like Neil's claim that an SACD holds less data than a CD OR they are stating for fact something that is a preference.
There are pluses and minuses to both formats. There's any easy compromised here: buy a universal or have two machines and enjoy both formats. Or decide for youself on one format, buy into it, and enjoy the music! That's what it is all about, no?
I know.
Sad, isn't it!I wonder why it is they will not listen?
And also I suspect the vast majority of folks who have bought SACD fall into one of 2 camps.
A/. Those who actually think they bought a regular CD and do not even know the SACD layer is there, and
B/. Those who are determined that they will believe it is better, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
You forgot two:C. They are professional engineers who have heard things in DSD they don't find in PCM.
D. They are audiophiles that have heard good examples of both and prefer DSD.
is that those fellows like the euphonic qualities of the SACD signature sound, which is right in line with their general preference for Vinyl. So they associate their "preference" with "better" and no amount of rationalization will make them see failures of SACD/DSD as a high rez format. Its an insidious form of egocentrism that confuses them and that is all too human, i dont blame them.
No kidding. To not recognize the limitations of PCM which I started out some 20 years ago is to say one has limited experience in recording.There are some real benefits from having a simpler recording chain like the one in DSD and the benefits are especially noticeable on jazz ensembles.
if one was simply remasteering an old analog recording for SACD, then yes there is a benefit, but the reality is:
- sigma delta DACs seldom work at 1/64s, they can be 5/256fs for example which means information is lost when it is downconverted to DSD
- DSD is not editable and needs to be converted to DSD-wide (4 bits) or a PCM-like signal for processing
- the bulk of digital recordings made till quite recently were done in low-res PCM (48/16 or 44.1/16)having said that though, i do agree that the "pure-DSD" recordings can sound breathtakingly good! there is something about the clarity of a pure DSD recording that PCM somehow doesn't quite capture :-(
> > having said that though, i do agree that the "pure-DSD" recordings can sound breathtakingly good! there is something about the clarity of a pure DSD recording that PCM somehow doesn't quite capture :-(
< <Hi Christine, you should hook-up a medium-to-high-end DVD-A player (e.g. at LEAST the -5900, but maybe a Linn or Esoteric or Meridian etc.) and then compare the sound with your better-than-average SACD machine.
And then to hear "clarity" you should properly audition the following "pure PCM" titles (all stunning 96/24 5.1 original recordings) which I understand you may have in your collection:-
Bach, St. Matthaus Passion (Teldec);
Shostakovich, Symph 5&6 (Arts) -- esp the very last track: "Presto";
Vivaldi, L'Estro Armonico (Arts);
Handel, Messiah (Arts);
Chopin, Four-Ballades (AIX);
Latin Jazz Trio (AIX);
Marcello, Handel & Vivaldi (AIX).Cheers
here is a list of "medium to high end" players i have listened to on my system:- Denon DVD-A1
- Denon DVD-3800
- Linn Unidisk 2.1
- EAD 8000 Pro
- Toshiba SD-9200I think you will agree these are pretty good players, with prices ranging from A$4000 (same price i paid for my SACD player) to A$14000.
And have you audditioned the above titles I listed in any of those machines? (I.M.O. the -3800 and the Tosh 9200 are not great machines, by today's standard, while the -A1 has inferior bass management to the -5900.).p.s. I defy any SACD title to improve on the sound quality and overall clarity of the ones I listed. I mean, just check-out the strings on the L'Estro Armonico title, the HF percussion and "tinkle" sounds on Latin Jazz Trio, or the Steinway Piano in the Chopin. :)
well, i do have st matthew's passion as per your recommendation, and i have listened to that on some of the players - not all, though.even though i haven't listened to the dvd-a11 yet, i've been told the dvd-a1 has a superior sound by denon themselves. bass management is not an issue because i always turn it off for maximum transparency.
i would buy the denon dvd-a1 tomorrow for the sound, except it is now obsolete and besides the video quality is too soft for me. the BB 1704 are still the *best* PCM dac around, imho. the 1792 or whatever may have better specs, but it is a hybrid dac whereas the BB1704 is a *pure* PCM DAC - no sigma delta.
as for you "defying" sacd titles to improve on your favourite titles, perhaps you should actually widen your experience of listening to sacd beyond the 1 title that you own, or have you bought more titles recently?
PS - the toshiba has a very nice, tight, and crystal clear sound. i don't think it loses ground compared to any of the new players, except in the video department. the 3800 i never really liked, so it definitely doesn't stand quite as tall as the others.
> > perhaps you should actually widen your experience of listening to sacd beyond the 1 title that you own, or have you bought more titles recently? < <Hi Christine, Believe me, if there was a compelling reason for me to buy SACDs I would. However, presently I’m pretty-much maxed-out on music purchases recently (budget-wise, and also time-available-to-listen-wise). Honestly, I’ve got a backlog to actually listen to now! And not enough time at present. :-)
For example, I’ve bought most of the latest Naxos classical DVD-As. Moreover, why should I buy the SACD versions of these, when the DVD-A gives me the original pristine 24-bit LPCM recording?
The same goes for my recently bought DVD-As of: Abbado — Beethoven Symphonies nos. 1&3 and 5&6 (Deutsche Grammophon), and Bjork’s "Medulla". All hirez PCM recordings. The Medulla DVD-A gives me a half-hour video documentary too.
I also recently bought (or pre-ordered): Santana "Supernatural" Jarre’s "Aero"; Polyphonic Spree; Porcupine Tree; Emerson Lake Palmer "Brain Salad Surgery"; etc. etc. — none of which are available on SACD, and if they were, they’d just be conversions of the PCM masters. (And much of the stuff on SACD is originally PCM anyway).
But I don’t want PCM conversions to SACD. I’d rather have the original recording on DVD-A. Plus, I also use my Denon A-11’s internal 32-bit bass management and time-alignment which works transparently on LPCM sources and gives a fantastic wrap-around soundfield.
So for me there is no need for SACD, or DSD. Moreover, to me, a "DSD" title cannot be "pure" unless the recording was done as a raw ‘back-to-back’ ADC-to-DAC, with no intermediate processing steps, and no mixing or even level changes! But there are very few of those around (if any). And if there are, there are certainly none that interest me.
So to wrap-up, SACD (DSD in particular) — in audio terms — is a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed. Indeed, the real purpose was to ensure an exclusive revenue-stream for its creators. And that I will not buy.
*** Moreover, to me, a "DSD" title cannot be "pure" unless the recording was done as a raw ‘back-to-back’ ADC-to-DAC, with no intermediate processing steps, and no mixing or even level changes! But there are very few of those around (if any). ***There are more than quite a few. if you send me email, i'll be happy to suggest some.
In fact, DSD's lack of processing "encourages" minimalist approaches to recording, which suits me just fine. even for pcm, i prefer minimalist recordings - i've noticed that cool edit, even when processing in 32 bit floating point, introduces subtle degradations in the sound with each processing step. perhaps i'm imagining it, but if you look very closely at the waveforms, you can see that multiple processing steps do alter the samples slightly over time. i am a great believer in "point the mike, set the right level, press record, and that's it." no processing except perhaps to trim the edges.
my point was - if you have never heard a pure DSD recording, then you really have no idea how good (or bad) it can be.
nt
That's where I do my DVD-A listening, at my friend's place or the dealer.
nt
No stereo section, but breathtaking recording (for me at least, maybe too lush for some), superb music, spiritually moving.Harnoncourt is the conductor
Best
Eric
Martin played it to me when i visited him in London, and i had to immediately buy a copy on my return to Australia!
in Amazon, Tower, Sendmemovies, DVDempire, nothing...theres a plethora of versions, could you please indicate which and where.mcuh appreciated.
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=DVDA&title=104872and:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000059ZHH/ref=br_lf_m_h__12/202-3046923-5659007
nt
I'm always interested in people's reaction about this title.Best
Eric
One suggested to me by "Dr. AIX" and this one now. best.
"Therefore to have the same information capacity as a CD, SACD needs to have a sampling rate 32,000 times higher than CD. Which it does not."This would be true if SACD did not store information in ordered patterns. But it does. The order makes a difference. So there is more information being stored than just bit by bit.
Warner execs have told me ALL dual discs will have high rez audio on them.But as an universal player owner and someone impartial to the format war I'm sceptical we'll see these discs anytime soon
I think what those execs may have meant was that all of *their* dual discs will have high-rez audio. From what I've read (I don't have any links, sorry) is that with DualDisc, one side is CD and the other is DVD - DVD can be either normal DVD or DVD-A.I think what they told you is good news if in fact all the Warner DualDiscs will have DVD-A on the one side instead of just normal DVD. Hopefully the others will do the same. From what I understand, Sony's DualDiscs will just be normal DVD on that side instead of DVD-A.
There is no reason to assume that at all.
From the stated quotes about the DualDisc, "All DVD content will be high resolution"
Which means either 24/96 stereo, or 24/96 Multichannel - both of which require DVD-A to be played back properly, not DVD-V.
And before anyone tells me that DVD-V can indeed support 24/96 Stereo, it can not do so with the inevitable copy protection which will decimate it back to 16/48 at the digital outputs in 99% of cases.The DVD layer will be DVD-A.
The quality is there, the player base is there, and for the industry, most importantly the CP is there. CPPM has not been cracked, is not likely to be for a while, and watermarking can be employed to prevent analogue copying.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Actually I believe there is reason to assume for now that its not all going to be hi-res on the DVD side...I think the "stated quote" you refer to is the post I replied to? If so, that merely contained someone's recollection of what someone else told them (I couldn't find anything in the article that was linked to in the original post of this thread about everything being in high resolution - in fact, if you go back to that article and search on keywords like resolution, 96kHz, fidelity - these words do not appear even once! Yet search on the word video and its mentioned in lots of places).
Let's look at the test market that was already run...
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/features/dualdisc.asp
“One side is a standard CD. The other side offers DVD content. This may include enhanced album audio, 5.1 surround sound, music videos, artist interviews, behind-the-scenes footage, documentary films, photo galleries, lyrics, computer-ready digital song files, and Web links. It all depends on the artist”.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=12004614
"DualDisc is the DVD Forum’s answer to SACD, a disc that offers both high-resolution DVD-Audio and DVD-Video compatible content on one side and Compact Disc compatible content on the other. BMG, EMI, Warner Music Group, Sony Music and Universal all tested titles within the first batch of thirteen – although Sony’s discs did not include high-resolution content – thereby indicating that the format will have widespread support amongst the major record labels.""The impact of DualDisc could well be far reaching, not just for the high-resolution listener. While DVD-Audio/CD hybrids will address many of the negative issues raised about the format (specifically the inability to play a DVD-Audio disc in a standard car or portable system), the market is also likely to embrace *DVD-Video*/CD hybrids, with movie or concert titles offering up a CD version on one side of the disc."
Being a fan of hi res and having a preference of DVD-A, I really hope that most/all record labels make it a policy that their DualDisc releases have high-res DVD-A on the one side, but until there's something official indicating otherwise I have a hard time believing that Sony will release any hi-res on the DVD side of DualDisc, instead reserving hi-res audio for their SACD stuff (unless DualDisc takes off and SACD stays as present).
In
addition to a full album on the CD side, the DVD side provides the full album
in enhanced sound (such as Surround Sound and/or DVD-Audio or LPCM stereo)
End Quote.The DVD-A layer, when correctly authored, contains primarily a High Resolution zone, and can also contain a Video_TS layer. If it does, the VTS contained must be pointed from within the AMG, or the disc goes out of spec.
DualDisc talks about CD/DVD-A layers. The DVD-V bit comes from confusion, and is referring to the hybrid zone in the DVD-A disc.DVD-A makes no sense at all at less than 24 bit when used in the context of DualDisc, and pure DVD-V layers make no sense either. It would be cheaper to package such a disc as a 2 disc set. I know - I author DVD-A and Hybrid DVD-A/V discs for a living.
And that is the last comment I am making on this one.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
"DVD-A makes no sense at all at less than 24 bit when used in the context of DualDisc, and pure DVD-V layers make no sense either. It would be cheaper to package such a disc as a 2 disc set. I know - I author DVD-A and Hybrid DVD-A/V discs for a living."Neil,
If this is true, why should be excited about the format. You have pitched an argument for a lack of hirez layers on the DualDisc format.
If true and DualDisc catches on, then won't we see less hirez product in DVDA form (24/96, 24/192)?
In other words, why would Warner or other labels issue a DualDisc with features other than hirez and then also spend money to issue a DVDA?
It seems like this would destroy the economics of offering the DVDA since the marketplace would be even less than its current small niche...
Audiophiles won't get PCM hirez in this scenario which would bolster SACDs niche status.
Now there's a thought that had not occurred to me.I would like to believe that the DVD layer would in fact get used for High Res surround mixes, or at worst case scenario 24/96 stereo versions.
But you do have a very good point in that this may well be very bad news indeed - it all depends on what way the industry jumps.
Hopefully, High Rez will win out over DVD-V.
But it is a worry, that's for sure.But having said that, I have been put right over costs, and using the economics of scale it is cheaper to produce a single dual sided disc than 2 separate ones, notwithstanding the potential for losing part of the set - which isn't really a consideration, as double/triple/quadruple disc sets are already being released at the present.
I really believe that Dual Disc makes sense as CD/DVD-A more than any other format, which has to be good! Where I see the advantage is having both types on the same disc, and stealing a trick from SACD who do something similar.
Let's face it, DVD-V as the DVD layer would render the CD layer useless, as we can put 16/48 Audio on the DVD-V which is already (marginally) better than CD.So how can it hurt?
As long as DVD-A is the second layer, then it has to be a win/win situation.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
> > Let's face it, DVD-V as the DVD layer would render the CD layer useless, as we can put 16/48 Audio on the DVD-V which is already (marginally) better than CD. < <The whole point of DualDisc is to present an attractive path for people (and record stores) to migrate from CD over to DVD-based music albums. To do this, record companies must offer an incentive. That incentive is hirez 5.1 discrete surround sound, with added extras on the DVD-V side.
Note that a standard DVD-5 has the capacity to store a typical whole hour-length album as 96kHz/24bit 5.1 surround sound, PLUS a Dolby surround track, PLUS the extras and a music video or two.
And to save space, what I reckon they mostly won’t include is a hirez 2-ch mix (either MLP or LPCM).
> Note that a standard DVD-5 has the capacity to store a typical whole hour-length album as 96kHz/24bit 5.1 surround sound, PLUS a Dolby surround track, PLUS the extras and a music video or two. <Which is why I think that DVD-V is a non starter in the DVD layer stakes.
Thought I had made it clear that I think DVD-A is the way to go, as given that argument DVD-V would be missing the boat. And pointless.I agree with you to some extent about the Surround versions, but the worry here is that if the high rez content is either 24/96 or 24/192 PCM/MLP, then the labels will not have to pay a second royalty. There is a thing going on at the moment - cannot for the life of me remember the details, so will go look it up - that is effectively saying a surround mix and a stereo mix on the same disc should mean double royalties as it is 2 different versions.
The lawyers are having a lot of fun with this one.
To be clear, what I honestly think will be the winning combination is
CD layer
DVD-A layer, ideally holding both Surround & Stereo versions, along with a linked Video_TS for compatibility purposes that may also contain a couple of videos.Space just is not an issue.
DualDisc is a double sided job, so that leaves us a dual layer DVD-A layer with a DVD-V zone incorporated.
That way, we can get up to 100 minutes of 5.1 24/96 MLP on one layer of the DVD, Plus 24/96 or 24/192 MLP encoded stereo versions, and the Dolby Digital content, on the second layer, as we will have 8.54Gb of disc space to play around with.Everybody wins, you get a disc that will play in every single DVD player, and every single CD player in the world, giving a potential market of hundreds of millions of units.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Apparently not.
I'm being told that the DVD Layer is not in fact a dual layer, so please ignore the last paragraph.
Sorry about that - but it does still leave plenty of room.
With the MLP factor, there is more than enough for high res surround at 24/96, plus a dolby digital version & a couple of videos in the Video_TS zone to boot.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Quote from today's AudioRevolution:- "Industry insiders in the disc manufacturing business say that it may soon be possible to manufacturer a DVD 9 disc on the DVD side of a DualDisc."So there must be something going on behind the scenes. My take is that it's probably a good thing to "keep it simple" at this stage by using the DVD-5 format for the DVD side.
Several reasons:-
1. the audio timing at 24bit/96kHz surround + extras fits in perfectly with the hour-long play length of the corresponding CD flip side;
2. It keeps the technical risk as low as possible (vital for such a widespread new-product launch);
3. It means the content providers won’t succumb to the temptation to add all sort of ‘bells & whistles’ feature extras, which if they did so, would slow-down the authoring and mass roll-out of many titles in a short space of time.P.S. By taking this ‘phased’ approach, it enables the DualDisc product to hit the streets without further delay, and make a name for itself among the buying public (and retailers). Importantly, this can all happen whilst allowing the disc consortium to get on quietly ‘behind the scenes’ with the secondary job of developing and testing a fully-reliable dual-layer DVD-9 flip-side version, and do so without the stress of being forced to commit itself to rush it to market by a given deadline.
What you are saying here makes a lot of sense to me.
Especially with the comment about faster authoring times, given that currently the only way to test a dual layer disc is to burn a QC disc to +R format, which is not really much help.
The only other way is to get the replicators to produce the QC disc - which has to happen anyway - and hope that the layer transition is good first time, or else it is a £500/£600 extra onto the bill plus another delay of a month or so.Apparently there are a few already announced, amongst them "Heathen" by Bowie. It will be very interesting to see if this is a multichannel DVD-A at 24/96.
Hopefully it will.As long as the DVD layer remains DVD-A, then we are in for some exciting times, as this format to my mind cannot lose.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
But not enough room in the spec for 5.1 24/192. :)
Eagles Hotel California has 24/96 5.1ch ,2ch 24/192 and a Dolby track. There is also some additional content.The hirez portion of the disc in the AUDIO_TS is well under 4gig in size. Fits on a single layer.
Frank
Frank you missed my point. There is no room in the spec for full five channels of 24/192 unlike DSD which is 5.1 at full resolution.
Why 5 channels at 24/192 ? It was never in the spec so why start 'demanding' this all of a sudden?It's like demanding 128 * fs DSD instead of the current sample rate.
For a delivery format 192ks has more to do with marketing. It only adds unnecesary frequency extension and slightly higher noise levels in consumer grade da converters.
In recording and production tooling it can have it's merits though.In any case DSD 5.1 at 64*fs has slightly less resolution than 24/96 across the 0..44kHz bandwidth.
PS.
The MLP lossless compression format can actually handle up to 63 24/192 channels of audio. The only limitation is the hardware's bitrate.
The DVDA spec can easily migrate to a higher density DVD technology.Frank
This is because 24/192 in 5.1, even with MLP, will massively exceed the available bitrate.
24/96 in 5.1 without MLP comes in at 13.82MegaBits/second.
Also, 192KHz samplerates are ridiculously over the top.See many, many posts on this - not only from users like me but also respected audio manufacturers at http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/288/1325/?SQ=5e42ee62bfc1f6a140c6e779c32a809f
And also
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdfQuite bluntly, there is no good, reliable evidence that there is anything uo there that our ears can hear.
And I do not care how many are going to now tell me I do not know what I am talking about. Anyone who says there is is either wrong, or else suffering from the well known placebo effect.
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
I'm sorry Neil but one of DVDA's biggest supporters Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Records believes, as do I, that 24/192 is a sonic improvement over 24/96, Lavry's dated research theories be damned.Several of my friends at boutique labels feel the same way...
Most don't listen on a system that's up to the caliber of Mark Ws system (or Bob Ludwigs for that matter). Mark uses five Piega C8-LTDs plus a Meridian 800v3 player and 861v3 processor. Ludwig uses an 800v3 and 861v3 processor with Eggleston speakers. I don't recall the amplification they use. Hmmm, I'll have to talk to Mark about this, because his primary setup 800+861 doesn't pass 192K yet, it downsamples to 96K, neither does Bob Ludwigs.I suspect Meridian is waiting for HDMI (second phase) to ship to have all of their products supporting digital transfer of 192K sampling.
In the overwhelming majority of systems, audiophile or not there will be no discernible difference between 24/96K and 24/192K.
Regards,
John Kotches
"As long as DVD-A is the second layer, then it has to be a win/win situation."If it works out that way then we would get more hirez which would be great and I'm all for it. If however it creates a video centric feature, then we may lose a bit.
Just as Hybrid sa-cd where supposed to.Consider this:
DualDisc release for mass market with hires content and some video.
This will be the good old album concept.Spin off's:
DVD Video concert releases.
Special Edition DVD Audio releases with addittional hires content.
Most albums can easily fit on a DVD5 layer.The last two can be marketed with 'teasers' on the mass market DualDisc release.
The existense of the DualDisc concept doesn't mean that DVDA can't be produced anymore.
Limited runs of DVDA disc are fairly cheap to produce.It's about moving the album concept over to a DVD player base.
It will take some time and they realize that.
In the end the cd layer will be dropped. The CD Player market is already a dead market.Sa-cd will never sell to the mass market without the cd layer.
It has failed.Frank
> > It would be cheaper to package such a disc as a 2 disc set < <In production terms and in the [smaller] batch quantities with which you may be accustomed, then maybe.
However, in the case of DualDisc, since it will be offered by all the major labels for the mass market (with resultant economies of scale), then the phrase: "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" comes to mind.
In short, the ‘added-value’ is greater for one_product_which_does_everything (and works everywhere) than is the case for two discs (which can accidentally get separated).
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=12004614
"...although Sony’s discs did not include high-resolution content"
Glad I only spent $150 on a player. Dual disc is not necessarily a high rez audio format.Oh well.
:(
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
