 
|
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 |
209.97.232.110
In Reply to: But what about the difference between lossy and lossless posted by mwheelerk on February 27, 2007 at 17:10:23:
The max data rate for DVD (Audio or Video) is 9.8 Mbs. If you use uncompressed 96/24 it will use around 6.4 Mbs, leaving only 3.4 MBs for the video. This can be done, but the video quality is marginal. There were a couple of Chesky discs like this, one by Chuck Mangione and one by Sara K (I think).But DVD-A doesn't solve this problem. It just sidesteps it by only including still video instead of full-motion video.
The only thing DVD-A did (besides confusing the hell out of the entire marketplace with a stupid unnecessary format and stupid menus and stupid options) was to add lossless compression so that you could get 192/24 stereo or 96/24 surround sound. Neither of these mattered one whit. The people with surround systems are perfectly happy with Dolby Digital, while there wasn't any hardware on the recording side to take advantage of the 192 kHz sample rate for hardcore audiophiles.
Follow Ups:
Oh no, too late! :-)
< < Oh no, too late! > >I guess the cheerleaders' job is to still lead cheers, even *after* their team has been defeated.
Never heard such utter pants in all my life!!
How you can say that DVD-Audio is pointless escapes me, it really does - and I am far from "happy with Dolby Digital" for surround, it is appalling, and highly reminiscent of higher quality MP3.
Give me my 24/96, or even 24/48 any day of the week.Also, you seem to forget with properly authored DVD-Audio, there is usually a DVD-Video compliant layer to satisfy those of you who seem to think you cannot listen to music without full motion video.
To me, and many others, it is all about the MUSIC, not some poxy video.Get a grip, please!
< < How you can say that DVD-Audio is pointless escapes me...Give me my 24/96, or even 24/48 any day of the week > >What in the world are you talking about?
DVD-Video *does* offer 96/24 in stereo. And you can even still fit reasonable quality full-motion video on top of that, if you want to make a concert DVD. (The video on the aforementioned Chesky discs was worse than it could have been simply due to poor authoring.)
And as far as 48/24, it's found in lots of places with very high quality full-motion video -- haven't you ever heard of "James Taylor - Live at the Beacon Theater"?
The real reason that DVD-Audio was so stupid was because by the time it was launched there were already 20,000,000 DVD-Video players installed in peoples houses. If the record companies had gotten behind a format that would actually play in the players that people already owned, they might have actually sold some discs. Then they might have actually made some money. Then they might have even made some more discs and made even more money.
But instead, they *stupidly* decided to create a new format that required new hardware. And this new hardware had absolutely *no* benefit to the normal person. So the entire DVD-A thing was doomed from the beginning (as was the SACD thing).
There have been many special audiophile formats over the years that *have* succeeded -- direct-to-disk LP's, half-speed mastered LP's, gold-plated CD's, et cetera. But all of the *specialty niche* formats that also require new hardware have failed miserably. This is not rocket science, and I can't believe that the members of the DVD consortium could be so stupid -- but they were.
.
Hey Y'all:
Admittedly there isn't much of a market for surround sound, it is a commercial failure. But this is far from saying that it (DVD A and SACD) are pointless. They were a godsend to us surround enthusiasts, for we haven't had any new material since they quit making quadradiscs, SQ and QS phonograph records. And by the way, half speed mastering was invented for quadradisc, the fact that it benefitted stereophiles was an offshoot. Quad heads are just like any other audiophiles, we like the best sound quality availlable. But until SACD and DVD-A came along, we had to settle for what LPs. had to offer. We will take DVD-A over DTS, and we will take DTS over DD. We want the best quality but we want it in surround. Another point of DVD-Audio and SACDs is that they are mostly studio recordings not live concert recordings. They have true surround not just band up front, crowd in back. They also have just the music, like a CD, not this annoying tripe (interviews, backstage scenes) that they stick between and sometimes in the middle of songs. Surround is what we like. If you don't like that then don't buy it. But there's no need to put it down. These discs have a purpose. Unfortunately there are very few who "get" true surround sound, so we probably will be relegated to videos with DD and poor surround. At least that's something for us. And every now and then some studio comes along and throws us a bone. At least this is not like quad, where when quad was over, it was over.
< < But until SACD and DVD-A came along, we had to settle for what LPs. had to offer. We will take DVD-A over DTS, and we will take DTS over DD. > >The maximum data rate for audio on DVD-Video is specified as 6.144 Mbps. It can be sampled at 48 or 96 kHz with 16, 20, or 24 bits/sample. There can be from 1 to 8 channels. So there are actually lots of options for uncompressed surround-sound:
8 channels of 48/16 = 6.144 Mbps
6 channels of 48/20 = 5.760 Mbps
5 channels of 48/24 = 5.760 Mbps
4 channels of 96/16 = 6.144 Mbps
3 channels of 96/20 = 5.760 Mbps
2 channels of 96/24 = 4.608 MbpsIt's not quite as good as DVD-A offered by including MLP, but it would have been better to have a format that actually survived instead of a pipedream.
Never implemented.
As you well know.
Plus 16 bit audio is far more fragile compared to 24 bits.
Finally, using 6.144 MB/sec for audio leaves around 3.7Mbits for the video, and that will be very dependant on programme length. Quality is unacceptable to Video heads. Go try encoding a video stream with full motion using those data rates and then come back & tell me it is acceptable, because all you will get at those bitrates is still encoded as MPEG-2. Anything under 4.5Mb/sec is going to be as blocky as the day is long.
The reason DVD-A did not go mass market was because the mass market did not get told about it. I remember buying my first DVD-A player to be told in the retail store that "I didn't need this, because the other player had dolby digital which was better."Correctly authored DVD-A with a companion Video_TS IS the universal format everyone has been looking for. You get full motion video for those that want it, and high resolution audio for those who prefer that. Telling us surround fans to be happy with DD is like telling you video heads & vinyl heads to be happy with VHS & Compact cassette.
Let me put it this way: What do you think about HD video? Good or bad?
< < What do you think about HD video? Good or bad? > >As an audiophile and videophile, of course I think it would be nice to have higher quality whenever possible.
But we have to live in the real world. And in the real world, people will not adopt a new format just because the Japanese majors are trying some desperate measure to boost their stock prices. So let's recap:
a) The needs of the consumers and software companies are aligned. But the desires of the hardware companies are diametrically opposed. In other words, the hardware companies make boatloads of money when a *successful* new format is introduced -- nobody has the hardware yet, but they all end up buying it, and millions of players are sold. At this point, the hardware companies sales dwindle to a small fraction of what they were as people are only buying replacement players when their old machines fail.
But this is now the glory days for the software companies. When 90% of all households have a DVD player, their potential market is huge and they can make lots of money releasing even relatively obscure titles. This is great for the consumer, as they can find anything they want -- readily available and at low prices.
b) The Japanese majors made a killing from CD in the early '80s. They were able to repeat their success on a grander scale with DVD in the late '90s. But then things shifted as the manufacturing base moved to China -- DVD players became a commodity and no significant profits could be made. So of course, they are trying to introduce another format so they can try and make another boatload of money.
c) The problem is that the general public doesn't give a rat's ass about incremental improvements. Nor do they care about higher performance at higher prices. (If they did, Ferrari would be the world's largest car company.) So trying to launch a new format right now is doomed to failure. The only way a format can succeed is if the chicken (the hardware) and the egg (the software) are both born at the same time. This is a difficult trick to pull off.
So where that leaves performance-oriented people like you and I is to face the facts. Simply put, we are much better off to try and create products (both hardware and software) that produce improved performance from an existing successful format than to daydream about what the ultimate format should be (according to our narrow, performance-oriented definitions that most people don't care about). Some successful examples on the software side are:
- Superbit DVD's
- Gold-plated CD's
- Re-mastered CD's
- Direct-to-disk LP's
- Half-speed-mastered LP'sAnd on the hardware side are the hundreds of specialty companies making high performance products that serve the existing formats.
So like I said, DVD-Audio certainly offered a (relatively small) performance improvement over DVD-Video. But only for a *very* small target audience. It was doomed to failure before it started, as there was absolutely no compelling reason for the average person to switch from DVD-Video.
And there was a brief moment in time when it actually was possible for us all to get higher audio quality. By 2000, millions of people already owned DVD players. The patents on CD were expiring and so the royalties paid to Sony and Philips were going away. DVD-Video offered much more robust copy protection than CD did, which would have been a blessing for the software companies. Plus the option for allowing videos along with the music existed. All of these benefits were there on a well-established format that was on its way to becoming a smash success.
So if there had been a focus on making music available on DVD-V, it could have worked. But instead both the hardware and software companies shot themselves in the foot by focusing on trying to introduce not one, but *two* new formats that never really stood a chance. So now we are stuck with CD.
And guess what? They are doing the same stupid thing all over again with HD-DVD and Blu-ray. They just never learn...
Okay. I understand know. We should settle for less and never dream that anything will be better. That's me, that's the way I want to live.
< < We should settle for less and never dream that anything will be better. > >Sometimes it's hard to tell with internet postings, but I assume that you are being facetious.
Please note that there's a difference between wanting something better and smoking opium and having pipedreams.
It would be great if we could all listen to first-generation copies of 30 ips master tapes. But it ain't gonna happen.
We could invent a new format for turntables that spun at 100 rpm. The frequency response and dynamic range would be incredible. To overcome the playing time, we would need to make the discs 30" in diameter. But it ain't gonna happen.
I could put downloadable files of 352 kHz at 24 bits on a server that would offer incredible fidelity. They would be playable on a handful of professional editing suites. If I were lucky, I might be able to get a handful recordings of the local youth symphony. But it ain't gonna happen.
In the real world, we need to temper high-minded goals with a dash of realism.
For a brief moment there existed a chance to replace 44/16 CD format with 96/24 on DVD-Video format. And Dolby Digital (essentially five channels of MP3) could have been replaced with 6 discrete channels of 48/20. The format was set. Everybody owned the hardware. The copy protection was quite robust, especially in contrast to the non-existent copy protection of CD. It was all there, just waiting for someone to buy it. No buttons to push, and it didn't even rain.
And it all got pissed away for what, exactly?
Yes, a little facetious, but I love your description of Dolby Digital a five channels of MP3. Bravo.
< < I love your description of Dolby Digital a five channels of MP3 > >Unfortunately, this is *not* a joke or an exaggeration. From the official DVD FAQ, by Jim Taylor, author of "DVD Demystified":
"Dolby Digital is multi-channel digital audio, using lossy AC-3 coding technology from PCM source with a sample rate of 48 kHz at up to 24 bits. The bitrate is 64 kbps to 448 kbps, with 384 or 448 being the normal rate for 5.1 channels and 192 being the typical rate for stereo"
If you do the math, you will see that the audio data rate is exactly in the same range as MP3 files -- between 128 and 192 kbps for stereo music.
It kind of makes you wonder why a market even exists for expensive surround-sound processors. Would you be willing to pay (say)$5000 for a multi-channel MP3 player?
Universal will at least go neutral by Q1 2008 (maybe before that, but I'm not holding my breath). They'll get a tremendous surge in High Definition sales from the Blu-ray supporters who have been waiting for them to do the inevitable. Once that happens, every movie studio will support Blu-ray (Weinstein is too little to be meaningful) and HD DVD will not see 2009, despite what Microsoft wants.So that will leave Blu-ray as the sole High Definition audio/video format and the war will be over. Personally, I think when Sony releases the PS3 in Europe the HD DVD house will begin its implosion. Combine that with the June release of Sony's $599 Blu-ray player and there's really no reason to keep HD DVD around.
The High Definition audio/video music releases will replace the DVD concerts and videos.
< < The High Definition audio/video music releases will replace the DVD concerts and videos. > >Please don't hold your breath.
But,I don't think the people who are satisfied with DVD-Video would be on a forum of this nature or on any other forum of this nature. These forums are exactly about achieving the best sound quality for the music you love. Yes, it is true the great masses of people who are primarily interested in movie watching in surround could care less. But (oh that word again) this isn't about video it is about audio. DVD-Audio uses the space available for quality audio and full motion video was never the point nor the intent. For my taste I could care less about video because again it is about audio. DVD-Video live concerts are perfectly fine to me because the issue is as much video (you want to see the performance)as it is audio (you also want to hear the performance). You attention is divided. My attention when listening to CDs, SACDs or DVD-Audio is the music and nothing else. Half the time when I have made the menu selection on the monitor I shut it off and just listen.I don't have my head in the sand thinking SACD and DVD-Audio have been greatly successful formats but they give me hope for future high resolution audio. My hope is that the mechanism for HD-DVD and/or Blue Ray (I think Dolby's is called Dolby Plus and the DTS version) will eventually step outside of shear movie production and begin issuing Audio focused discs that should have the ability to have high quality if not HD video included.
Can you give me an example of difficult DVD-A menus. I have several of the early releases and other than the fact you have to use a video menu at all I have not experienced difficult menus.
< < I don't think the people who are satisfied with DVD-Video would be on a forum of this nature > >I guess you haven't been around much, have you?
Ever since DVD-Video was introduced in early 1997, it has had the capability for 96/24 uncompressed stereo music, with or without video. Both Chesky and Classic records introduced dozens of disc like this for the audiophile market. They didn't do very well in the marketplace because it was several years before you could buy a DVD player that didn't sound like a total piece of crap.
And by that time people were brainwashed into thinking that DVD-A and SACD were going to save the planet. Oh well...
< < My hope is that the mechanism for HD-DVD and/or Blue Ray ... begin issuing Audio focused discs. > >
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
Your idea failed with 96/24 DVD-Video. It failed with DVD-Audio. It failed with SACD. If you think it's going to happen with the new video formats, you are just plain wrong. The best chance for success in introducing a new audio format *was* with DVD-Video. But the DVD consortium shot themselves in the foot by trying to create DVD-Audio.
The only reason that SACD existed was because Sony's & Philips' patents on CD's were expiring. They used to make over $1,000,000,000 per year in *free money* on CD royalties! They didn't want to lose that revenue stream, but they weren't smart enough to figure out how to hit the jackpot again.
But DVD-Video simply does not have the capacity for lossless high res audio. And, can you point out to me which Classic DAD or HDAD discs have full motion video. I would like to check them out because none of the titles I have or any others for that matter have video. And what Chesky discs have full motion video. Both companies are focused on the audio and certainly not video. I need to do a little research to find those Chesky discs with the video to because I wasn't aware of this. My god, hanging on to DVD-Video as the do all end all sounds alot like the vinyl retro followers.
< < But DVD-Video simply does not have the capacity for lossless high res audio. > >This is such an absurd statement that there is no point to even argue it. Try reading the other postings on this thread. If you don't get it by now, there isn't any hope for you.
< < And, can you point out to me which Classic DAD or HDAD discs have full motion video. > >
None of them do. The full name of the company is "Classic Records". They are an audio company, not a video company. You must be thinking of Paramount, or Warner Brothers, or Disney, or something.
< < I need to do a little research to find those Chesky discs with the video > >
Yes, then you wouldn't make such silly statements in a public forum:
http://www.chesky.com/core/details.cfm?productcode=CHDVD194&productcategoryid=2
"Recorded with Chesky Records' legendary 96kHz/24bit audio technology and featuring full-motion video on DVD -- one of the first of its kind in the world"
I believe that the other Chesky release with full-motion video and 96/24 audio is:
http://www.chesky.com/core/details.cfm?productcode=CHDVD195&productcategoryid=2
Please note that the video on these discs is not all that high of quality. This is NOT due to the format limitations, but rather a simple case of sub-standard authoring.
96/24 video takes up 4.6 Mbps of the available 9.8 Mbps data stream. This leaves 5 Mbps for video, more than enough for good picture quality, and well beyond the average video data rate of 4 Mbps.
So keep on smoking that opium, and happy pipedreams to you!
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
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 ]
