 
|
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 |
206.181.226.34
I am new to DVD-A (two days now!) I hope this isn't a stupid question -- have I possibly damaged my wonderful new Panasonic DV 59AVI Universal player with the Grateful Dead "American Beauty" dual disc? I bought the dual disc last night without realizing these were somewhat controversial.I played the DVD-A side once and a few minutes of the redbook side. I did notice it was a little noisy when changing tracks. At one point after flipping the disc, the player had a hard time recognizing the disc once. I stopped, restarted, and it was fine.
Follow Ups:
An FYI From the Kenwood USA website.....Important Information: Use of DualDiscs on Kenwood Products"
Some music companies announced a new pre-recorded hybrid disc named "DualDisc" in August of 2004 and have already started releasing DualDisc titles. The DualDisc is a two-sided disc made up of a digital audio disc on one side and a DVD on the other. However, it appears that the digital audio side does not conform to the standard industry technical specifications for compact disc digital audio.
Kenwood DVD players, CD players and disc drives fully conform to the standard industry technical specifications for compact disc digital audio. At this time, using a DualDisc on Kenwood products may lead to playback problems or mechanical troubles, and other unexpected problems including DVD players, CD players and disc drives. For optimum performance and to avoid problems, Kenwood recommends that consumers not use DualDisc titles on any Kenwood products, including DVD players, CD players and disc drives.
Kenwood has been reviewing technical specifications regarding the DualDisc titles which are already in the market. In accordance with the investigations, Kenwood will update this notice.http://www.kenwoodusa.com/lounge/index.jsp
I thought that maybe the same hold true for some other players.
I am pretty sure all of the issues surrounding DualDisc concerns the cd layer. Since the dvd-audio layer offers both stereo and surround tracks there really is no reason to play the cd layer (other than curiousity) in your new dvd player.
sheesh.It plays in my McCormack UDP-1 just fine (based on a Pioneer transport) and sounds great, to boot.
The interviews weren't much, tho.
Why not get the real thing while you still can?Grateful Dead's American Beauty is a Rhino / Warner release and Warner Bros. has said they are not releasing any more DVD-Audios. So when American Beauty DVD-Audio goes out of print there will be no more.
My advise is still sell the Dual Disc and buy the DVD-Audio.
Teresa
The shortfall of DVD-Audio has always been the lack of portability. It was tied to a DVD-Audio player/system. You can't play it in your bedroom system, the patio system, the walkman, the car, etc. DualDisc with all of its potential shortcomings at least offers this flexibility of choice and use.
1) My bedroom is my living room, studio apartment. I can play DVD-Audio, SACD, HDCD and CD.2) I don't have a patio.
3) I don't have a walkman.
4) I have Cassette in my car.
So DVD-Audio works fine for me,
Teresa
Sorry to hear about that. I hope things will be better in the future for you.
> > Warner Bros. has said they are not releasing any more DVD-Audios < <They never said any such thing.
From MediaLine News:"Warner Music Group executive Robin Hurley publicly admitted that high-resolution DVD-Audio has been a disaster at the Audio Engineering Society (AES) convention in San Francisco this past October. In fact, Hurley said he wouldn’t be surprised if the labels let whatever stock that’s now on shelves (if you can find it) sell out, and going forward, only release DVD-Audio content on DualDisc, the music industry’s new supposed savior.
'I don’t think you’ll see standalone DVD-Audios; they’ll disappear as stock sells out. It’s either the DualDisc or two discs—CD (and) DVD. It’ll be packaged like a CD and be in the CD bins—and that will be a huge step forward.'"
. . if a DVD Audio is packaged with a CD?! (Which gives the DVD-Audio content an order-of-magnitude greater distribution than previously.) I personally think it's great that DVD-Audio is finally reaching the masses. And more and more DVD-Audio LEDs are lighting-up on universal players.Indeed, they should have done that right from the beginning.
And as Hurley said: "It’ll be packaged like a CD and be in the CD bins—and that will be a huge step forward.'"
By the way, I was, in fact, one of the very first people to espouse the feasibility of single-inventory CD/DVD-Audio flip discs on this forum (or indeed any forum — see link from three years ago). I guess some decision-makers finally took note. Better late than never.
I note that Jimby from UMG was in that thread. I also communicated with both Warner and 5.1 Ent's Mr. John Trickett privately at about the need for a single-inventory CD/DVD-Audio flip-disc (and/or CD + DVD-Audio in one box) at about that time.
Things are finally happenning.
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=hirez&n=107208&highlight=flip+side+martin+says&session= (Open in New Window)
First I do not want to pay for the CD layer or to have a CD + DVD with maybe DVD-Audio in the same case.For a while many SACDs have been buried in the CD bins, which means I have to look at lots of crappy CDs to find the SACDs. I prefer the SACD and DVD-Audio displays with all the high resolution formats in one place. So instead of flipping though 20,000 recordings to find the high resolution ones, I only have to flip though 300 or 400.
Also I would like to see DVD-Audio redesigned to offer only high resolution by using 2 layers: 192kHz 24 Bit 2 channel and for the first time ever 192kHz 24 Bit Surround on the DVD-Audio layer. On the DVD-Video layer 92kHz 24 Bit 2 channel and NO DOLBY DIGITAL, NO DTS.
Also Dual layer DSD is a spec for SACD and I would like to see that replace the CD / SACD Hybrid. As if you have the SACD layer why in hell would you want to listen to the CD layer.
SACD and DVD-Audio are for audiophiles they will never be mass market products.
Happy listening,
Teresa
I,for one would like DTS on all DVD-A's. That's how I first got into surround music(Gaucho DTS cd). And not everyone has a DVD-A player but have home theatre systems.
Also I would like to see DVD-Audio redesigned to offer only high resolution by using 2 layers: 192kHz 24 Bit 2 channel and for the first time ever 192kHz 24 Bit Surround on the DVD-Audio layer. On the DVD-Video layer 92kHz 24 Bit 2 channelTeresa - there are very, very few recordings that would fit easily into your criteria. Mandating this would mean that the vast majority of recordings would have to be upsampled. Upsampling is not always a good thing.
and the based on the Analog to 192kHz recordings I have heard from Classic Records and Warner Bros. the benefit is great in 2 channel, it should be just as great if the multichannel folks could enjoy 192kHz as well. If you are unconvinced play the 96kHz side of a Classic Records HDAD and then the 192kHz side. Also Hi-Rez music is now releasing 192kHz DVD-Audios and AIX has made some recordings in original 192kHz.You said: Upsampling is not always a good thing.
Why is that? My CDs are upsampled to 24/96 on my tubed SACD player and I believe that is what makes them listenable.Happy listening,
Teresa
... has a maximum play time of 37.5 mins on a single-layer dual disc. I don't know if the hi-rez side can have two layers.Some manufacturers don't like upsampling - Audio Note, for instance.
Regards,
Geoff
No Dolby Digital, No DBX, No CD side.This would give us a DVD-Audio with up to 2 sides and up to 2 layers on in each side and be only 1.2mm thick.
Anyone who would play the DVD-Audio on a regular DVD Player would get High Resolution 24 Bit 96kHz 2 channel on the DVD-Video part.
On an DVD-Audio player in both 2 channel and multi-channel you would get 24 Bit 192kHz.
Then these labled ADVANCED RESOLUTION would actually be ADVANCED RESOLUTION for everyone. No low resolution Dolby Digital, no low resolution DTS and no resolution CD side.
This is sort of the surround sound version of Classic Records HDAD which offers 24 Bit 96kHz on the DVD-Video side and 24 Bit 192kHz on the DVD-Audio side. Classic Records HDADs have No Dolby Digital and No DTS and of course no CD side. So no matter what player you play a Classic Records HDAD on you get high resolution.
The perfect high resolution disc. It can be done, and someone soon will have the courage to do so.
I feel DVD-Audio hasn't become mainstream because there is low resolution information on the DVD-Audio disc. So when people listen to the Dolby Digital and think THIS IS HIGH RESOLUTION! They are not impressed not realizing they are totally missing the high resolution part of the DVD-Audio.
Happy listening,
Teresa
I really doubt that has had any impact.It's like saying SACD sales were curtailed by including the lower resolution CD layer - someone played the CD layer by mistake on their new Universal machine, and concluded that SACD was nothing to write home about.
(I understand this is not a surround sound situation and anticipate your next move ;-)).
Regards,
Geoff
someone played the CD layer by mistake on their new Universal machine, and concluded that SACD was nothing to write home about.
Actually that is the very question that is asked on the high res highway when someone is not please with SACD. Now that SACD is a niche market I beleive the SACD layer can be replaced by an additional DSD layer or even single layer for lower cost. The specs support dual DSD layers and this would allow Video with DSD sound to be used or double the playing time for audio only SACDs. I posed this question on the highway and was totally shocked to find out a lot of people actually use the CD layer.
As noted so many times before, A-D converters are going to sacrifice accuracy for speed at 192 KHz sample rate. It's just not worth increasing sample rate beyond 96 KHz . You're sacrificing accuracy and doubling storage space requirements and receiving no benefit.192 KHz sampling is going to theoretically yield an upper frequency response limit of 96 KHz. What do you think is worth capturing between 48 KHz and 96 KHz? You're not going to find anything on an analog tape between 48 KHz and 96 KHz except for noise and artifacts from the recorder's bias oscillator.
Any difference you think you hear between 96 KHz and 192 KHz fs is going to be either expectation bias (highly likely) or differences in reconstruction filter (less likely, but possible).
Music is about listening not charts and graphs. You ears will tell you that 192kHz is superior and not overkill.If you have damaged hearing it may be overkill, I do not so 192kHz is not overkill for me or for audiophiles and recording engineers.
Teresa
If Classic Records released 384 KHz/40 bit material you would say they are better, too. Alan Parsons will sound even better at 1 MHz /144 bit. Sampling theory is meaningless - Nyquist and Shannon were just a couple of dumb math guys, anyway.You really need some new material. Saying everyone that doesn't agree with you has hearing problems is old. Try something new next time. Be creative - something involving MOFI recordings, SSRI pharmaceuticals and stigmata would be amusing...
I'm impressed that you can hear beyond 48 KHz. Perhaps you are transgenic.
Do have any CUE why 192kHz software exists? Why audiophile recording companies exist. Why 2.8mHz was chosen for DSD's sampling rate.The more sample's per second the more accurate the music is, the bit length is how long the Digital word is in PCM the longer the better as it will convey more information.
This 192kHz, gives you 192,000 discrete samples per second with a 24 Bit word lenght. This would equal 4.6 million bits per second.
48kHz give you 48,000 discrete samplers per second with a 24 Bit word lenght. This would equal 1.15 million bits per second.
Digital is not continous, the trick is to fool the ear into believing it is. Humans can hear events as fast as 2ms (that's miliseconds, or a millionth of a second) so a 500kHz sample rate would be ideal. And this is why DSD is better as it sample's at 2,822,400 times a second but with only one bit resolution. So it's resolution is often said to be between 24/96 and 24/192 but it's not that simple. As with DSD every 2ms you are getting almost 5 discreet samples and with 192kHz you are getting about 1/3 of a discreet sample. So our brain is more easily fooled into believe DSD is continuous and is why DSD has no listener fatigue and sounds so smooth.
So you see Sampling Frequency is MORE important than Bit rate.
You can even prove this with software just listen to an LP or SACD of any of Telarc's or DMP's 16 Bit 50kHz Soundstream recordings and then listen to ANY 24 Bit 48kHz recording. And the conclusion to your ears will be obvious the extra 2,000 Samples per second greatly increases the sonic quality of the 50kHz even though it is using shorter words: 16 Bit instead of 24 Bit.
All you need to do is trust your ears, the rest will come naturally,
Happy listening,
Teresa
This may be a first for me.
"Digital is not continous, the trick is to fool the ear into believing it is"I wish there was someone with a background in sound who could comment on that silly statement.
The complete guide to digital audio.Dither (which is like low level analog) is used to smooth out the Digital waveform which when decoded looks like small stair steps. Added dither makes it look and sound more like an analog signal. Everyone on the whole planet except for 4 or 5 guys here actually can understand this concept.
Analog (=) and continuous waveform
Digital (=) an Analog signal converted to Digital using 1's and 2's this is not continuous.And yes you need a very high sampling rate to for Digital to be as fast as human hearing which can hear events as short as 2 millionth's of a second.
Teresa
Ok you said "Humans can hear events as fast as 2ms (that's miliseconds, or a millionth of a second) so a 500kHz sample rate would be ideal. And this is why DSD is better as it sample's at 2,822,400 times a second but with only one bit" here: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dvda/messages/19052.html
BTW milliseconds is one thousandth of a second NOT one millionth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MillisecondAgain proof you dont know the first thing about science.
Also:
"Digital (=) an Analog signal converted to Digital using 1's and 2's this is not continuous."When digital is converted to an analog signal it is a waveform. That waveform may have artifacts that might be a footprint of the converter etc but you cannot describe the wave as being "Not continuous"
Here is where you get all muddled up and resemble dither in some ways....you read concepts that you have no understanding of, and with part knowledge you try to fill th egaps with false constructs. These then are relayed as fact in a pompous fashion when you hit the bulletin board. You do come off as looking silly. Do a poll, ask everyone if they believe you understand audio in any meaningful scientific way. You might be shocked to find out most here (and especially those with knowledge) believe you to be more of a joke than knowledgable.Many ignore you because by your history they know you are stubborn, cannot see any ideas beyond whats in your head, and that you lack factual data, relying too much on mumbo jumbo AND false interpretations of fact. I remmeber a time many years ago when I did not understand dither, the last thing I would have done is argue about it with false assumptions.
Humans hear events as short as 2 millionths of a second, I used the wrong symbol. Have you never used the wrong symbol? OK here I am admitting a mistake, which you say I never admit to.Digital is continuous it is "a series of discreet samples of a musical waveform" the very definition means it is discreet samples which cannot be continuous and if enough samples can be provided we can fool our brain into believing it is continuous.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding these simple truths?Teresa
o Temporal information
"The phase locking principle seems to also play a role in localizing sounds, particularly at low frequencies. We are able to tell the difference in the position of a sound source based on time delay between when it reaches our right and left ears. In order to tell which direction a sound is coming from (its azimuth) parts of the hearing pathway in the brainstem (Superior Olivary Complex and Cochlear Nucleus) detect delays as small as 20 microseconds."That would be 20 millionths of a second and NOT 2 millionths as you stated.
1 microsecond = 1 millionth therefore 20 microseconds = 20 millionths.
http://www.answers.com/topic/microsecond
If 20 microseconds is the resolution of our ear/brain system. Then if you divide that by the sample rate of 50kHz that would be one sample per 20 microseconds which should be perfect. But it is not. There is some other reason that 192kHz is sonically superior to 96kHz and 96kz is sonically superior to 48kHz.See now I have admitted to 2 errors.
Thanks for the link,
Teresa
"Digital is continuous it is "a series of discreet samples of a musical waveform" the very definition means it is discreet samples which cannot be continuous and if enough samples can be provided we can fool our brain into believing it is continuous."
Digital is use of Binary data to represent information in this case sound. Whether you have many samples or few I suppose they are discreet in the digital domain. HOWEVER there is no fooling of the brain.......because whenever a digital signal is converted to analog it is a continuous waveform. Period. Thats it. Simple. TaaDaa. Now you may argue that increasing the sample rate allows a better representation of the original signal that was camptured, but this is very different than what you were trying to explain.
Do have any CUE why 192kHz software exists?
Yes, for marketing purposes. You have obviously taken their bait, hook, line and sinker.Digital is not continous (sic), the trick is to fool the ear into believing it is.
Your ears are digital, too. Check current research on hearing mechanisms. There is no trick involved with digital. Digital sampling is not continuous, but the reconstructed waveform is.Humans can hear events as fast as 2ms (that's miliseconds, or a millionth of a second)...
A millisecond is 1/1000 of a second, not 1/1,000,000 of a second. Sample rate only affects frequency response. You say a 500 KHz sample rate is required. That would yield a theoretical 250 KHz frequency response, which is totally unnecessary. You are trying to correlate sample rate with hearing perception without any understanding of sampling theory. Study decimation and reconstruction and you'll see where your misunderstanding lies.So you see Sampling Frequency is MORE important than Bit rate.
That statement makes it entirely clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Search the archives. It is full of posts of Teresa loudly proclaiming that MUSIC is ANALOG, and our EARS are ANALOG, therefore ANALOG is NATURAL and DIGITAL is NOT.Many people, including myself, have attempted to correct her but we have all failed miserably. So what makes you think you are going to succeed? :-)
Actually, Teresa does have a point about timing. Digital quantizes to the nearest sample boundary. Although the analog reconstruction filter is supposed to restore phase information, some timing information is lost.
Our ears may not be sensitive to ultrasonic frequencies, but they are very sensitive to timing information.
And evidently Navman believes the same.Are we to believe there is some great conspiracy in that software venders put only their worst sounding recordings on 48kHz and their best on 192kHz? This is absurd, as is this whole thread.
BTW, Analog waveforms are continuous and Digital is code stream of 1's and 0's. So music Analog as it is a continuous waveform. This is easily measured. So was as right about that and also right that 192kHz has way more resolution that 48kHz.
I have decided that "unaffiliated" and "Navman" can listen to all the 48kHz DVD-Audio's they want. I on the other hand enjoy my 96kHz and 192kHz DVD-Audio's, but especially the 192kHz ones.
Happy listening,
Teresa
"Analog waveforms are continuous and Digital is code stream of 1's and 0's. So music Analog as it is a continuous waveform. This is easily measured."What do these sentences mean? Pray do tell. Please dont answer indirectly. Please dont go of on a tangent. I cannot understand what it means or what point you are trying to make.
"I have decided that "unaffiliated" and "Navman" can listen to all the 48kHz DVD-Audio's they want" as opposed to what would happen if you had not "decided"??????????? This sounds very emotional. But I cannot understand what it means. I dont know or persoanlly care about 48KHz vs anything else. I jumped into the thread because of wild assertions you were making, and not based on what I do or do not listen too. In fact I havent mentioned my persoanl beliefs on sampling frequencies etc. I have tried to comment on a few facts I do understand, but you could not even understand them because you either choose not too OR you dont read what you reply too OR you really cannot think beyond what silly fragment of an idea gets stuck in your brain at a particular time.
When I proposed a NEW DVD-Audio "High resolution only" format with:6 channel 192kHz Surround Sound (DVD-Audio layer)
2 channel 192kHz Stereo (DVD-Audio layer)
2 channel 96kHz Stereo (DVD-Video layer)
No Dolby Digital, NO DTS.Thus anyone playing such a disc on ANY DVD player would get High resolution sound and know what all the fuss is about!
However "unaffiliated" seems to think 48kHz is all that is needed.
I do read and actually absorb the words off the printed page. All facts I have presented are correct. You guys look for grammatical errors such the wrong symbol for millionths of a second. How petty can you get?
"Analog waveforms are continuous and Digital is code stream of 1's and 0's. So music Analog as it is a continuous waveform. This is easily measured."
Simple exactly what it says. Go to Radio Shack get an oscilloscope and a microphone and play a musical instrument into it, what is displayed on the oscilloscope is an analog waveform.
Sometimes you make me very, very mad with your stubbornness to see the truth.
Teresa
Lets say that this makes sense and I think I know what you are saying
"Analog waveforms are continuous and Digital is code stream of 1's and 0's. So music Analog as it is a continuous waveform. This is easily measured." What has this to do with the next sentence "So was as right about that and also right that 192kHz has way more resolution that 48kHz". ANSWER: Nothing.
When upsampling redbook , yes many times 192 sounds better but not always, sometimes a lower upsample sounds best.
That whole "music is analog" thread was awfully entertaining - thanks for the laugh!I don't want to be accused of attacking her "core belief system", whatever that may be.
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=188739&highlight=analog&r=&session=
reproduction, someone with a strong scientific background that can at least once and for all, for the rest of us, dubunk Teresa's mumbo-jumbo.It is sad how she distorts science and the English language to further beliefs that are only truth in her head and try to pawn them off as "reality"
Something along the lines of the old ABC after school cartoon "Schoolhouse Rock" would be more effective."A noun is a person, place or thing."
And of course everything you stated in incorrect, please do a search on the internet. Especially on Sampling Frequency. IT IS HOW OFTEN a frequency is sampled.You are truly "unaffiliated" with both logic and the ability to use deductive reasoning.
I suppose you listen to the 92kHz side of a Classic Records DVD-Audio instead of the 192kHz side? Are you really that stupid?
Teresa
Unable to discuss the technical issues on a rational basis, Teresa resorts to name calling...yawn.
I am only saying you are stupid if you really BELIEVE what you are saying as there is no way a 48kHz 24 Bit DVD-Audio has as much resolution as a 192kHz 24 Bit DVD-Audio. Only a stupid person would believe such nonsense.Also I asked you to produce software that supports your theory. There is none as all DVD-Audio software produced so far supports my facts. You may not like it but Sampling Frequency plays a bigger role than Bit rate in the sonic quality of DVD-Audio's
And this you can easily prove for yourself by actually playing your software.
Teresa
Once you demonstrate a nominal level of reading comprehension and gain a basic understanding of digital audio, I'll be glad to answer your question.In the meantime, please drive carefully. Your vehicle is rated "Poor" in IIHS crash tests.
"Stupid is as stupid does." - Forest Gump
HeheheheheheGot a good chuckle there -
Mike
I see there is none. I am sorry I don't read the same kooky writers you do. What I have read about Digital Audio makes much more sense. So I will say I will discuss Digital Audio with you when you understand some basic theory, until then NO!!!!Anyway what I am asking you for you cannot find it a book. I want software evidence of your claim that 48kHz has as much resolution as 192kHz. Your are avoiding that because you know it doesn't exist.
Though it does look like my CHEVROLET CAVALIER is not very safe. I will drive defensively.
Teresa
That was the funniest thread of the year!
"It's just not worth increasing sample rate beyond 96 KHz" because "You're sacrificing accuracy and doubling storage space"Now this is not him saying "48kHz 24 Bit DVD-Audio has as much resolution as a 192kHz 24 Bit DVD-Audio" You jumped to a conclusion with that.
Oh BTW I never said t"here is some great conspiracy in that software venders put only their worst sounding recordings on 48kHz and their best on 192kHz" Again that is YOU jumping to histrionic conclusions.
Please read the post you answer and understand what the other says before you put words in their mouths.
Learn some discipline. Flailing is not good for you. It must be stressful.
That it's the bit rate that gives increased resolution.I disagreed and all hell broke loose! I am only saying that if it is correct ONLY the bit rate increases resolution then there has to be a conspiracy that software venders only release their best recordings with high sample rates and their worst with low sample rates. I am the one who comically put forth the conspiracy as I do not believe it. I believe highly sampling frequencies offer higher resolution. What a concept!
And I hope and encourage all the labels releasing 192kHz software to continue even if it is a waste of storage space. I can hear and appreciate the improvement.
Teresa
He did refer to the frequency of music in general "You're not going to find anything on an analog tape between 48 KHz and 96 KHz except for noise and artifacts from the recorder's bias oscillator." This not the same as 48Khz sample rates.
In my system 192kHz is worth the extra disc space. I'm glad the audiophile DVD-Audio companies agree with me.So it is Frank who needs to show me this miracle 24/48kHz software.
I guess it was unaffiliated going on about the frequencies above 48kHz only containing noise.Teresa
- Frank says 24/48 is high resolution and as good as any 24/96 or 24/192 DVD-A he owns (Open in New Window)
You get carried away, go on and on, irritate a lot of people because you are on a rampage and have no clue who said what.
Why in hell should I get attacked for that? Come one get real I'm all for DVD-Audio if it's high resolution.Now that ZS-KEKL has defected to DualDisc and I'm left to defend DVD-Audio all by myself as no one else seems to care.
Well, I'm buying all the DVD-Audio's of music I like before it's all gone and others are stuck with low resolution defective DualDisc. I won't be as I have SACD.
Happy listening,
Teresa
debated for making stupid statements. Re-read this thread. You assumed someone was saying something they were not, you put words in other peoples mouths, you misrepresented the technology you were discussing. The only thing that I know for a fact is you like DVD-A and hate DualDisc. You like SACD and Vinyl, and you drive a Chevy.Oh and you think by screaming "I luv DVD-A" all the major companies will ditch dualdisc.(Bawhahahahahahaw).
"Once you demonstrate a nominal level of reading comprehension.............. I'll be glad to answer your question."
I think you owe him an apology.
unaffiliated and Frank are not the only one's pushing low resolution DVD-Audio here.Yes it makes me mad. What if the record companies actually begin to believe people like them high resolution will be in a lot of trouble.
I ordered 4 DVD-Audio's this week, all have 2 channel high resolution:
Casino Royal (Classic Records 192kHz 24 Bit)
Yes: Fragile (Warner 192kHz 24 Bit)
Nature's Realm (Water Lily 96kHz 24 Bit)
Leroy Anderson: Fiddle Faddle (Vanguard / Silverline 96kHz 24 Bit).I do not want the companies to think 48kHz is good enough.
Do you understand why this is so important now?
Happy listening,
Teresa
This is an audio discussion board - you really shouldn't let yourself get angry about it. It's not other people that are making you angry, it is you that makes you angry.You have taken the position that the greater the sampling frequency, the better. There are sound technical arguments opposing your position, but you have you heels dug in. That's fine.
Keep in mind that you are not the one who is going to decide at what sampling frequency and bit depth that recordings are going to be released. That's a decision for the producer, artist and engineers to make. Make peace with that and you might find yourself happier.
And yes I have found technical writtings on both sides of this issue.But I trust only my ears. And as long as 24 Bit 192kHz audiophile DVD-Audio give superb sonic and great musical pleasure that is all I can be concerned about. After all there are people who feel anything more than CD is a waste of disc space.
But sometimes more is more. I have not dug my heels in as I don't need other people to tell me what I enjoy.
Teresa
People have made argments that go counter to your beliefs....so what? Why do you personalize it? Secondly, no one in the industry is going to make a decision based on the rantings on this board. We are not that important in the grand scheme of things.
sampling.
.
From that standpoint, she was 100% correct, according to the statements of the Warner VP.It doesn't break *my* heart that the "traditional" DVD-Audio release is unlikely to continue. As long as it continues to be a compromised format, it makes sense to release a CD along with it or as part of it (note that I feel the same about SACD).
. . . was that they used to [try to] sell them in a "special" section in record stores. Moreover -- that thorny issue of distribution in record stores was precisely the main "compromise".Now they have repackaged them so that one way or another, they are assured to be stacked as regular albums. But packaging them with CD audio does not suddenly stop them from being "DVD-Audio".
The packaging it terrible. Except for the Warner Bros. you cannot tell type of resolution is inside.And of course they are too thick and audio manufactures do not want you playing them in their equipment.
Teresa
Robin Hurley expressed his personal opinion about what he thinks what will happen. It wasn't an official statement from Warner.Frank
If I, as a representative of my employer, speak about the future of my employer's products or services at a professional function or meeting , I am making an "official statement."In such a situation, there is no such thing as "personal opinion."
Period. End of Story.
that Mr. Hurley believes he's entitled to his personnal opinion about possible future events that he thinks that could happen.
Frank
(nt)
Cheers,
Paul.
There, I said it. Yes, I like the DualDisc. 24/96 DVD-A 2-channel, 24/96 5.1, a nice set of interviews, and a CD layer. Although many manufacturers have cautioned against problems, it has played in every CDP and DVD-P I have tried--even the slotloader in my truck (yeah, I tested the limits).I like the damn thing, and at $13 I'd buy it over the DVD-A anytime.
I do have a beef with the stated "24/192" being only 24/96... But that's not a DualDisc-specific issue, just a beef with Warner.
Do you really need the CD layer as I believe that is the only difference other than being too thick and possibly damaging your equipment.Personally I am buying all the Warner DVD-Audios I want before they disappear forever.
Happy listening,
Teresa
The DualDisc DVD layer is identical in audio and video content to the DVD-Audio version. The interviews are there.
and that should solve you noise and TOC reading problems.Happy listening,
Teresa
I know its not a Meridian but Meridian feels that their DVD players do not reliably play the cd layer."More Information from Meridian
The recent Dual Disc statement from Sue Toscano at Nicoll Public Relations on behalf of U.K. based Meridian provided perhaps the most detailed information to date about the format. Meridian is the developer of the MLP compression used in many DVD Audio and DualDisc releases, so one would expect that the firm would be up on the playability of the DualDiscs themselves.In the statement, Meridian divides their product line into 3 categories - DVD Players, CD Only Players and ROM Based CD Players. Meridian says their DVD Players play the DVD side of DualDiscs "perfectly" but note that these players "do not always play the CD-compatible side because the player optics are not designed for such thin CD layers. We do not propose to make any modifications to our DVD player designs because these components are highly optimised for playability of Red Book CD and DVD." The company suggests playing the DualDisc DVD side on these players.
Meridian says the "CD" side of Dual Discs "functioned perfectly" in their CD Only players. Finally, on the company's ROM based CD players, Meridian will offer "an inexpensive modification that allows these players to play DualDisc perfectly with absolutely no change in the quality for regular CD. The player will have to be sent to an authorised service centre, so please do not undertake this option unless you plan to collect these discs." This upgrade program will be available to interested Meridian owners in "early 2005".
In summary, a rather complete run down on their product line and Dual Disc playback. The offer of a low cost ROM upgrade is also the first from a company to tweak their products for the new format. We'll watch with interest to see if similar tweaks are forthcoming from other vendors in the weeks and months ahead."
Are you sure is Panasonic?
.
.
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 © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]