Slashdot Mirror
More on DVD-Audio and SACD
Spock the Baptist writes "This article at CNN covers the drive of manufacturers to get the public to convert from the CD format to two relatively new formats, DVD-Audio, and Super Audio Compact Disk. The manufacturers cite the superior audio quality, and 3-dimensionality of the new formats' reproduction as the reasons for customers to embrace these formats. The article also goes on to say: "An added bonus for record companies and retailers, who are engaged in a battle against piracy, is that the relative complexity of DVD-Audios and SACDs makes them much harder to copy. At the same time, that might turn some consumers off the format.""
I hate to break it to the makers of DVD audio and so forth but an old saying is still true:
"In the design of an audio system the quality of the sound is determined by the weakest component." (An old McIntosh training manual page).
If my CD's only encode say 20Hz to 20Khz having speakers that can produce say 10Hz to 30Khz does me no good. The inverse is also true, if my DVD-AUDIO cd has 10Hz to 30KHz and I have speakers that only do 30Hz to 10KHz WHO CARES.
Take any speaker set you buy for under $200 a speaker and I have news, you frequency response, dB response, and all that crap the audiophiles go nutz over is not going to match the sounds on the DVD-AUDIO CD.
Any component in the audio system (walkman, integrated amps, component pieces, etc..) can be the target of a bitchy old red head! "You are the weakest link, Good Bye!"
I have a client that is gaga for audio. He's gotta have more than $40k in his system. Tube amps, at $2k turn table, the works! He invited me over to listen to a fidelity test of Pink Floyd the Wall a year or to ago. We first listened to it on an all digital system with the recent release of the Wall. Sounded great, it was an all Carver system with Infinity speakers (Basically the best system that say Best Buy could put together.) We have fun shot pool and 2 hours later ate with the rest of the guests (there were like 40 of us there.) then we went upstairs to the "Fidelity Room" He had speakers that were like $2000 bucks a piece and had a self tuning equalizer setup (It was cool to see) and then we played a few select tracks off the CD. Sounded the same. Again we went and shot-the-shit so to speak for another hour as he prep his vinyl and the difference was night and day. The we listened to some tape recording of it (I think they were called DAT recordings) and that was damn good too! Both were far better than CDs. Anyways, a few days later after I had bought my home theater setup (Onkyo setup I bought while I was working at a Circuit City back in highschool, a 646 integrated amp with infinity speakers) and he brought over the Vinyl and Dat components. We listened to the CD, Record, and DAT tapes and guess what? They all sounded the same.
Plain and simple it's like a car, the ability to top out at 300 mph is usless when the speed limit is 55. DVD-AUDIO and Super CDs are worthless unless the system they are played on can keep up.
Great idea for audiophiles I am sure but to the common consumer... useless.
I have to admit the extra features would be cool, perhaps embedded album art and lyrics would be a nice touch but again I see no reson to change unless I have the equipment that can match the fidelity.
My two cents (along with at least 40 spelling errors)
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
DVD-audio is a reasonably mature format, and many existing DVD players can read it. It contains some huge advantages over audio CD -- 24bit samples at 48kHz vs. audio CD's 16bit x 44.1kHz; support for 5.1 as well as stereo, 6.1, 7.1, 10.2, etc; better integration of multimedia extras; etc. I expect handheld players (the DVDiscman?) to become available in the next three years as soon as DVD reader assemblies become cheaper, and I expect these DVDiscmen to become cheap within five or six years.
Also I wouldn't count out a hack of both audio-CD and DVD-audio data on the same disc, using different wavelength lasers. This would totally solve the backward compatibility problem, as well as make it easier than regular DVD-audio to rip.
Can't say much for the other up-and-coming format mentioned, as I know nothing about it.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
not true. DVD-A goes as high as 24 bit, 96 KHz per channel.
Why buy new SACD's that were converted from the original stereo source?
Nowadays, the original source would be 24-bit, 96kHz at least. It's only downmixed to 16-bit @ 44.1kHz for the initial CD press.
SACD and DVD-A players are both readily available. DVD-A can be found on middle-range DVD players from JVC and Panasonic, and on low-end players from Apex. SACD, AFAIK, is Sony-only, but many SACD players are also DVD-capable, so it's entirely possible that if you've bought a player in the last six months or so (I've had DVD-A for 18 months now), you got it without even noticing.
Audio quality from either source is a vast improvement over CD, particularly for those with 5.1 setups. Stereo quality is also noticeably better, particularly on SACDs.
SACD is a "ghost" format, in that it can be put on the same disc with crappy PCM audio. Cost can be about the same as normal CDs (I just saw a couple of Sony Classical CDs with SACD labels at Borders for $15), or substantially more. Usually there are "expensive" SACD discs next to the demo units in large stores. Almost every large electronics store seems to have an SACD demo unit and a few disks; it's a more attainable format.
SACD seems to have fewer multichannel discs, but more really great recordings (Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" etc) than DVD-A. Sony's music library really strong argument for the format.
DVD-A is really, really impressive. When people who don't like my music mention how utterly phenomenal a recording is, I've got to think it's a difference that is noticeable.
The down side to DVD-A is that it is universally more expensive than CD, with prices in line with DVD movies; Best Buy sells most of its DVD-A titles (racked with DVDs, not music) for $18 - $22, which is simply insane. Amazon.com does better, with prices more in line with normal CDs. Best Buy is the only retail chain I've been in with any selection of DVD-A titles, and the selection seems in general to be smaller than that of SACDs.
A friend of mine with a recording-studio background has explained that it's very easy to make an SACD from a multitrack analog master tape, 20 or 30 year old recording, so those will likely be the mainstay of SACD releases for some time.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
I'd like to see the various tracks made available on the new format. Even if only at CD quality. So for example I could listen to the song with the vocal track removed, or just the bass line by itself, drums by itself, vocals by itself, or any combination there of.
This is actually not true in most cases, at least for DVD-Audio. Most DVD-As have an audio track and a DVD-Video track. The sound quality isn't as good as DVD-A on the compatibility track, but it's still a) multi-channel and b) better sounding than CDs. I highly recommend to anyone interested to go out and pick up a DVD-A to try. One disc convinced me to get a full-blown player ($150-$200 -- I got the Toshiba SD4700).
Has anyone heard a DVD-Audio disc? Is the sound really that much better?
.. crap can't think of the proper phrase... but don't seem to contain much difference in volume which can be a very powerful technique in music. I look foreward to what real musicians are capable of doing with the abilities of dvd-audio.
Ever heard of movies on DVD? They are of the same quality last I checked sound-wise. 24bit 96kHz 5.1 sound is obviously better than 16bit 44kHz. The problem with judging this thought is many many many reciever decks out there do not have true 24bit or 96kHz DAC's. If your reciever has a DAC worth a damn and you spent more than $100 on your speakers (per speaker) then hell ya it sounds better.... a LOT better. The one thing I've noticed with 5.1 audio is the range of volume possible. From one speaker playing a tiny tiny sound to all 5 speakers playing the same sound at full volume. Unfortunately music these days does not seem to contain much
DVD-A will not make most music sound better.
Which does *NOT* mean that it *cannot* make most music sound better.
Even with standard audio CDs, they (meaning the braindead sound engineers who optimize for radio play rather than home audio) only use roughly 25% of the dynamic range of a CD. Threshold-minus-16db to jet engine, yet vocals and drums have roughly the same level. So what will we get with DVD audio? A wider range, with better granularity, and drums will *STILL* share the mix with vocals.
No real incentive exists to use this format, unless the RIAA manages to force the public, via legislation or simply eliminating all other choices. None. Or, if sound engineers start doing their "real" job rather than pandering to the PR pimps (which I can't blame them for, really - I too, and I suppose most people, have had to make choices between "do it wrong or look for a new job").
Note that I do not mean to say that DVD-A doesn't *crush* standard 16-bit 44.1khz PCM audio, as POTENTIAL quality goes. But it will get used just as poorly as its predecessor.
I believe using headphones would defeat the purpose of the technology, unless of course you had a 5 channel headphone ring around your head.
/. /.'d?
(Some SACDs are two-channel, made to enhance stereo sound.)
This statement needs some explaining. Seems like a way to push a solution for a problem that does not exist (or pure FUD). This can be done in pure digital already on a standard CD or simply encoded or enhanced prior to putting it on the disk. Adding fake reverb, chorus, and delays more often then not leads to garbage.
The ONLY advantages I see for the consumer is the claim of increased storage per disk, and the 5.1 mode. Even then, headphones, your car, boom box etc will get no increase in quality out of this. I assume on SOME titles it might be useful, the other 99.99% of snap, crackle, and pop that comes from the RIAA will not.
The CNN article seems to be based of a press release so the real details are sketchy..
I seem to be having problems getting this thing to post. is
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
DVD-A and SACD both prohibit digital output for this very reason. The player and receiver have to have 6 channel analog output/input in order to use them. This is one of the frustrating parts of this for me because it means I have to buy a new receiver as well as a new DVD-A/SACD player.
While *most* humans can't hear more than *about* 44.1 kHz, the interference induced by waves *above* that frequency can and *do* have AUDIBLE effect on sounds below that frequency.
For example, if you were to play a simply sine wave with a given amplitude (A), at 18,000 Hz (F), out of a speaker -- you'd be able to hear that, correct?
Now, if you generated another sine wave 180 degrees out of phase, with the same amplitude (A) at double the frequency, 2F (=36,000 Hz), you would *definitely* hear the influence of the extra sine wave on the sound.
If either of your speakers (or audio format) cannot reproduce that 36kHz signal (whether or not you saw the tree fall in the woods, it still fell), then you will not hear that oscillation in the volume of the 18kHz sine wave.
Frequencies above 20,000Hz, even on crappy speakers, can and do produce audible foldback effects on things like drum transients, fret noise, air, etc. at the top of the audible spectrum.
DVD-Video: (up to) 24 bit @ 96 kHz for stereo, data compressed (DTS, Dolby AC-3) from (up to) 24 bit @ 48 kHz source for multichannel
DVD-Audio: up to 24 bit @ 192 kHz for stereo, lossless compression from (up to) 24 bit @ 96khz source for multichannel
SA-CD: 1 bit @ 2.8MHz for stereo
Of course, as I (and many other people) have said here, who's got the hardware to hear the difference? Not too many people.
But don't try to pass this off as a marketing ploy. There are differences.
There is a bit of FUD in that article and some of the posts here. Here are some details that I know of for each format.
SACD:
1. Each SACD MUST include at least a Stereo SACD section. The multichannel and CD (Redbook) parts are optional.
2. An SACD with a CD layer is completely backwards compatible.
3. Not all current SACD's include the CD layer. The reasons for this are most likely due to manufacturing capacity. Sony currently has two pressing plants in Japan that just came online with Hybrid SACD pressing capability, so expect this to change.
4. Nothing prevents you from recording off of the analog outputs or ripping the CD layer (if it exists).
5. More manufacturers than Sony are producing SACD equipment. There are many new universal players (DVD, DVD-A, SACD, CD, VCD, etc) from the likes of Onkyo, Pioneer, Apex, and Yamaha either on the market now or in the works.
6. SACD uses whats called "Direct Stream Digital" (DSD) as it's recording process. DSD is a 1bit system with a sampling rate of over 2 million samples a second.
7. No TV is required to access the disk, track access is provided in a CD like fashion.
8. All SACD's include text titles on the disc for track, artist, and album information.
DVD-Audio:
1. DVD-Audio is backwards compatible with DVD players. However, the backwards compatibility is achieved by putting a lower resolution Dolby Digital and/or DTS version in the VIDEO_TS part of the DVD.
2. The actualy DVD-A material resides in a separate directory on a DVD called AUDIO_TS
3. DVD-Audio does not have to include a stereo track. IMHO this is a bad thing.
4. Linear PCM is the technology behind DVD-Audio. Max sample rates are 24bit/96khz for 5.1 and 24bit/192khz for stereo.
5. LPCM is compressed and encrypted with MLP (Meridian Lossless Packaging). The compression is obviously lossless.
6. Dolby Digital and DTS are lossy encoding methods akin to the beloved MP3.
7. Some labels are including a "Macrovision Like" copy protection scheme on the DVD-A tracks.
8. You can rip the DD or DTS side, but you cannot rip the MLP LPCM audio (yet). You may not even be able to record the analog audio if watermarking is included.
9. The interface for a DVD-Audio disk may require a TV to navigate. There is no set structure allowing you to have easy access in a "CD Track" like nature. This is entirely up to the producer of the disk.
Each format is a bit more expensive than current CD prices. Heck current CD prices are higher than they should be, but a new format should be expected to have higher prices initially.
Personally I prefer the features of SACD, and I would love to see hybrid discs become the norm for all new releases as long as the price is equivalent.
-tj
----------------- Who is Jesus?
They may play in dolby digital but unless you have a DVD-Audio player you are NOT getting what you paid for. There are multiple audio tracks encoded on the disc, you are only playing the dolby digital 5.1 track. While this sounds better than CD, its still not DVD-Audio
A DVD-Video player will not recognize and play the ultra-high fidelity PCM and MLP encoded audio tracks on a DVD-Audio disc. To play these tracks, a DVD player is required that meets the DVD-Audio specification. These players can be identified by the DVD-Audio logo.
This seems to be an extremely common misconception, one that is even perpetuated by Best Buy employees. Ironically, they sell DVD-Audio discs but not the players!!
info found on www.digitalaudioguide.com
I've seen plenty of worthy comments here pointing out that the quality of the audio you hear is determined by the weakest link in the system. Not exactly correct technically speaking (it's a sume of squares thing) but let's go with it.
I'd like to point out that in identifying your weakest link, in addition to the recording and reproduction equipment, you have to consider the recording environment, artistic decisions and listening environment.
The demonstrations of DVD-A and SACD I've expereinced have been quite impressive. I believe the reason for this is that more care is put into production of these disks and the demo playback equipment is top shelf. People expect them to sound better. I believe almost the same expereince is possible with conventional CD.
Most of you bozos listen to music primarily in your car or as background party music or maybe at work with the HVAC rumbling overhead. The listening environment is the limiting factor for anyone not sitting upright in their acoustically treated livingroom somewhere out in the quiet boonies.
And finally, to make music get attention on the radio, much of it is keyed up and deliberately distorted in the mixing and mastering process. I suppose you could say, "I want to hear the music exactly as intended by the artist." Well, I've got news for you, most artitsts listen to music in their cars just like you do.
As one of the people unsatisfied with CD quality sound, I am heartened that the industry is (finally!) stepping up to the bar and trying to produce genuinely musical sound. Even if you think you have lead ears (i.e., noone can tell the difference between CD players, CD is good enough, etc.), I think many would be surprised to hear the difference when presented to them. The article mentions how even musicians think they're hearing complete sound, until they hear what's possible. Sound perception in humans is far from perfect and sound memory and recognition less so, but our hearing is still more acute than CD's allow.
Given all that, the two competing formats are interesting especially from an engineering perspective (as I understand it). I'm definitely not expert on the formats, but here's my (half-baked) take on the current situation.
DVD-A seems like an obvious winner for more multimedia capability and the appearance of backwards compatibility (its DVD after all, right?). Cool. However, DVD-A requires lots of electronics to process the signal including sophisticated D-to-A converters (a la the CD medium where they've been trying to perfect this D-to-A process for many years). This is the 16-bit... 18-bit... 20-bit progression you've probably heard of re: CD players. It's doable, but its kind of brute force from a pure engineering perspective, and from an audio perspective, it's less than ideal because the format guarantees a reasonably long signal path through all these converters and electronics.
Enter Sony's SACD. SACD takes a radically simpler approach which puts the quality of the sound as the primary driver in the format. As I understand it, SACD format is based on an ongoing stream of bits (no words to chunk and convert). There's still work to be done, but the signal path is much shorter since the electronics are much simpler (vanilla compared to DVD sound processing). Some (many?) studios use SACD in the studio record and process music before down-converting it to CD format. So, SACD is about the music.
Given those two issues, SACD could lead to phenomenally better sound even in cheaper units SACD players (than roughly equivalent DVD-A players) if (once?) volume sales and production arrive. Simpler, cheaper, and higher quality than CD (or DVD-A for the most part). So, I'm kind of taken with the SACD approach for the new audio standard. Perhaps DVD's themselves can upgrade (higher capacities for higher resolution movies) without worrying about DVD-A so much. Good sound for movies is nice, but at least get better than 640x480 resolution for the movies!
So, here's one vote for a next generation audio format. And there are my (random, not entirely informed) two cents on the competing formats.
Oh my god. I can't believe there are people out there still listening to 128 kbps MP3s. They are horrific. I can't even *listen* to an MP3 unless it's at least 192. I won't rip anything at less than 256.
I'm not one to buy 'directional' speaker cables, or even debate the merits and shortcomings of coaxial vs. optical digital cables, but I *do* know there is definately a discernable difference between Dolby Digital and DTS (DTS kicks ass!) and that DVD-A is far, far superior to CDs.
For me, it's not a question of if I *would* buy DVD-A discs, its whether the music I like is available on that media. the only thing that seems to be out on DVD-A is jazz, and one token disc from every other genre. I can't wait until the format becomes more prevalent.
Actually SACDs are an entirely different format that uses a digital bitstream (known as Direct Stream Digital or DSD) at a much higher frequency instead of Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) used by CDs and DVDs. Ideally this is a better digital storage format, but requires more space than the PCM used in CDs. By "better" I mean that the Analog to Digital (recording) followed by a conversion back to Analog (playing) will result in anolog waveforms that are closer to the original waveforms that were recorded as compared to PCM.
This is not to say that DSD will really make much of a difference to the average user in terms of how their music sounds. Most people on basic stereo's will probably never heard the difference.
For reference, Regular DVDs use the exact same PCM as CDs. DVD-A uses a higher bitrate, but it is still PCM.
Personally I'm of the opinion that most mass produced CDs don't even stress the limit of potential "quality" of the CD format (PCM). I have a few extremely well recorded and phenomenal sounding CDs that indicate to me the potential of the CD format, but most CDs are mediocre recordings. Why should improving the format (DVDA or SACD) make a difference? If recording quality doesn't increase, it won't matter at all.
Spyky
This is way better than any VCR on the face of the planet.
Besides which, did you just utterly and completely miss the statement that most consumers don't even use the recording capabilities of VCRs?
Not very, that is. This arrangement is the worst possible, since you will have 100% phase cancellation (in theory). In reality, your bass-to-low/midrange will fade out, and you will have no imaging or soundstage. This effect will vary greatly due to diffraction, leading to large changes in sound depending on where your head is.
The reason headphones work is that all of the sound is going into your ears: no possibility for cancellation. Personally, I much prefer loudspeakers for "thre dimentionality."
20 KHz is the average upper range for human hearing. Some can hear higher than this.
Sleep is for the Weak
There seems to be an assumption that all audiophiles are just zealots who are "faking it". However, any serious musician has ears that are trained well enough to recognize notes by ear, and many have trained their ears so well that they can tell the model and make of an instrument from nothing but the sound it produces. These sorts of audiophiles are most common in classical/orchestral music, and they have good reason to be audiophiles. Someone who buys a million dollar violin has good reason to buy a million dollar viloin.