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.""
One: I will not buy your "improved" format. You will not sneak this by my nose. You will probably on the other hand sneak this under the nose of everyone that does not read slashdot because I have found that everyone else is dumb.
Two: Someone will break your "copy protection" two weeks before you release it and this will not effect me any more than playing DVDs on my linux box does now.
Cheers!!
what about hardware players? do they already have them? unlike compressed and lossy formats like mp3 and ogg, these are formats people are more likely to carry around and play on hardware players, as opposed to digital copying. so...why switch when the players are expensive and the gain is minimal?
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Now I'll have to buy the White Album again.
--
For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
I do not need new hardware, or need to buy new copies of all my music.
I would like to be able to buy compilation disks with ALL of a groups albums on it, at CD quality, though..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
Music companies will still be releasing crap on those new formats, except this time around, the crap is more crisp and sharp.
:)
Kinda like a bad constipation
If you have a DTD capable recieve, there are several DTS encoded audio CDs that play in your DVD player and sound great!
http://www.naildrivin5.com/davec
At last, I have always needed those copy-proof CDs!
Oh, wait!
It just seems like another attempt to jack up prices by introducing a new medium. I know that it provides superior quality, blah blah blah, but really: is it worth $30 a pop? I'd rather download the movie (I'm not saying I'd pirate it, although I do sometimes) legitimatly, amd I'd pay $5, or maybe even $10 if they would just let me do it.
Depends on what you want. All of the SACDs I've seen have an extra track that's CD quality, and plays in your standard CD player. That'll be the biggest help for adoption - you can buy a bunch of these now, and when you upgrade your player, your collection is upgraded automatically at the same time.
Copying isn't a problem though - although you just get the CD quality track. I've already backed up a few, and it's fine for, say, your car if you don't want your discs ripped off. I don't really need 5.1 sound in my car anyway.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
People aren't going to buy into another format change just yet. Especially since it'll involve buying a whole new system to get the "benefits". 16bit/44.1 audio CDs are here to stay, for at least another 10 years. I mean jeez, most people actually think mp3's and CDs burned from them sound good enough!!!
...
The only hope the labels have is to release exclusive content on SACD and artists arent gonna stand for that
the 'slide
"Corporate rock still sucks. What are you gonna do about it?"
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
It's like watching a VHS tape on your high-definition television.
Why buy new SACD's that were converted from the original stereo source?
Until the recording industry starts releasing SACD's that meant to be SACD's in the first place, it is pointless...
It just means more data gets lost when I encode at 128kbps so the songs fit on my limited memory mp3 device... it'll probably take longer if anything.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
This technology is complete, utter bullshit. Regular DVD audio tracks are just as capable of reproducing high fidelity music as this SACD and DVDA crap. DVD originally stood for Digital Versatile Disc. It has the needed capabilities and sound quality to function as the next generation high fidelity sound source.
These greedy bastards just want to suck an extra, uneeded device from us as well as reintroduce copy protection that ignores fair use.
I will ignore those SACDs and DVDAs until they are digitally copyable so that a scratch in my favorite record/song no longer will set me back 15 to 20 bucks.
Stop the brainwash
I listen to most of my music through headphones. They don't disturb other people (normally) like speakers do and they generally have a better response curve than the most expensive speakers. How is 5 channel sound going to improve my experience when headphones are limited to two channels?
Casettes broke and were non-random access. CD were vastly more reliable, and you could skip the filler tracks on most contract-bands. Oh, and they sounded better.
.... Maby when I get a third ear, I'll need the third speaker.
My point being - what non-quality reasons are there for me to move to these new formats?
I've already moved my mucic to a network: I can access all of my music anywhere there's a net connection and there are no jewel cases to lose.
Be damed if I'm going back to physical media just to gain 'headroom' or for a third channel...
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
At the level I'm listenning my music at, I can't even tell if it's mono !
Ignoring the copyright issues for a second...
It seems to me, the cost of CDs is a sore point with some (many?) consumers already. Why would anyone think think those same consumers would rush out to adopt a new technology that's likey going to be more expensive?
It is quite simple
Haiku should not be funny
Try a Senryu
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? ]=-
Not only does this format require a new drive to play, but the average joe consumer won't be able to hear the difference anyway. Right now I have a stereo and speakers that can't even take full advantage of a regular CD, let alone new "improved" formats. I'm willing to bet that most people don't have that kind of system. Unless you have an audiophile quality setup already there is absolutly no reason to upgrade other than to throw your money away.
"I've figured out what's wrong with life: It's other people." -Dilbert
I'm relieved to hear that someone has finally come up with technology that will prevent audio piracy. I will sleep so much better at night knowing that I can no longer comit these horrible crimes against society. Thank God these new inventions are so often complicated enough that nothing short of a black magic marker can break the glorious encryption! [/sarcasm] Now, I understand these people are trying to market their goods, and stressing the fact that it's difficult to copy is probably a good strategy for them to use to sell to record companies, but jesus.. is anyone still stupid enough to believe that if a technology can be invented to "prevent" compying, that it cannot be surcomvented just as easily? I wish they'd spend this much time coming up with a real solution to the problem rather than trying to throw money at it.
-----
jonathan barket
Here's an "audiophile to English" dictionary:
"warm" = crackly
"proven" = bigger, less convenient, less versatile
"superior" = elitist
"music" = jazz and classical
[ home ]
These new formats are ploys to sell new hardware and foist copy-protection on us, at higher prices. Do us all a favor and don't buy into this crap.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
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.
I own several DVD Audio discs, and so far I am quite happy with all of them. The real benefit of DVD-A isn't the higher sampling rate... as many have derisively commented so far, as people we can't really notice the difference in sound quality, our ears are simply not up to it.
The big benefit comes from being able to listen to music in something better than stereo. Regardless of quality, a good 5.1 surround mix is more pleasing to the ear because it lends new dimension to the music. If this format becomes widespread, I think we'll see more musicians taking advantage of the sourround sound effects to provide better experience. Many of the DVD-A discs I own also provide additional video content as well, and information about the artist that a lot of people might find interesting.
You don't have to be a crazy audiophile to get this, either (although I am). Most places sell all-in-one kits that are more than high enough quality for the average person, and can be purchased for under 400$, or even 300$ in some cases. They generally come with a DVD player, and some sort of 5.1-capable receiver. That's all you need.
No, dumbasses at the RIAA et al, people want portability and freedom. Why don't they get this yet? How many songs are downloaded/ripped to a LOWER quality format (128kbit) for the sake of convenience?
This just proves that they either just don't get it, or they are fearing that they are losing that sweet sweet control that they have had for so long. Or both.
OK, here it is. You want to get the music fans back? Take the incredibly massive archives of music that you "own", digitize them, and offer the files at a reasonable price. How many Ratt CDs have you sold over the past 10 years? But you know what - if I could get all those songs at $0.15 per song I would do it. That was my high-school years. Offer ridiculous compilation albums in MP3 format. "Top 100 songs of the 80s" for $20. Customize, you pick 100 songs for $20. I am not talking the latest releases, how about anything older than 5 years old. Those songs are just sitting there. Generate some interest in music instead of bitching and moaning that nobody is interested in the drivel that you put out. Hell, offer a CD full of old MP3s with every new CD that you buy. Something! Anything! Just stop trying to control your customers with force.
How come I can think up several plausible solutions off the top of my head, but they are blind to the fact that digital file formats for music are here to stay?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
We're going to be able to copy SACDs and DVD-A's just like we're able to copy DVDs now -- it's simply not possible to make a player that outputs a digital bitstream to a D/A converter without being able to copy the bitstream. I agree that I'm miffed because it won't be convenient -- I think region encoding is horrid...but seeing as I don't copy my DVDs and CDs that much anyways, it's not a problem for me. I buy a CD or DVD, I keep it in excellent condition, and I play it when I want to! It's been that way since I was buying vinyl, with the exception of region encoding.
I for one, am hoping that SACDs catch on and that artists start producing multi-channel, super hi-fi albums on a regular basis (Peter Gabriel is reportedly experimenting with multi channel music). And no, DVD-A doesn't count as super hi-fi in my book (it's still PCM encoded albeit with an expanded dynamic range).
Only thing that would make me think twice is if they made region encoding any more of a nuisance than it already is.
Actually humans can 'SENSE' fequencies beyond the 20-20 range. Dolby labs had an article in Hometheater magazine a few years back discussing the need for sub-and hyper sonic data to aid in dimensional perception. While it is unlikely that you can 'hear' a 30Khz sound you brain may still process it in some fashion. I think it was in 1999 around spring that they ran the article. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean you should discard it. For instance if you encode low freqencies say around 10Hz you may not hear that but you can Feel it. You are absolutily correct that 100Khz is over kill, anyways where does 100Khz sit on the electromagentic list? You have to be getting close to infra-red! (Doh could you imagine being cooked by your music! ACK!!!)
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
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
SACDs and DVD-Audios, when coupled with the right speakers, sound superior to regular CDs.
"if you're working around the house, then it (the enhanced sound) doesn't really matter."
In order to get the benefit, you have to be sitting right in the middle of the stereo (or surround) field of your new $600 Klipsch speakers, with a new $500 deck, $550 reciever, and maybe a nice preamp. Also, the difference in dynamic range between 16 bits (CD) and 24 (DVD-Audio), while nice, isn't even going to be noticed on any piece of music destined for the radio, because they compress it into oblivion before it gets anywhere near the station, let alone your reciever.
(Pop in any rock album from the last 10 years. Watch the levels -- they won't vary more than about 10dB. Do the same with a Beethoven Piano Sonata. The levels are all over the place.)
You've also got to care. The only people who are interested in this are classical music fans (so we can hear the difference between the 300-year-old Stradivarius and the 275-year-old Stradivarius), and the muscians, producers, and engineers who think that everyone's an audiophile too.
I'm not even sure that I'd want to hear Britney on SACD. It would probably rupture my eardrums.
That seems unlikely, but let's say they released DVD-As/SACDs for $12, and left CDs at $15-20. DVDs were deliberately priced low to make the format attractive, and that seems to have contributed to its success.
Now, It seems unlikely to me that the labels would do such a thing. If they were that smart, they would already have their own pay-napster and be making $10/month off from millions of people. But if they did, they just might get to that "critical mass" needed to make one of those new formats the next CD.
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.
"The manufacturers cite the superior audio quality, and 3-dimensionality of the new formats' reproduction as the reasons for customers to embrace these formats."
They've got to be kidding right? Anybody who has ever used the Internet *know* that 99% of the "consumers" are happy with crappy 128 kbit MP3s encoded in Xing. Most of them can't even hear the difference between those MP3s and audio CDs.
Consumers don't care about quality. Manufacturers have to come up with something truly revolutionary, or most people will stick to CDs like how people stick to MP3 and refuse to use Vorbis.
CD's (and their cases) take up a LOT of room - I just packed up two double-stacked crates of CDs to get 'em out of the way (they're all ripped anyway and the iPod takes care of the portability). I'd love a cd that can be played on a standard CD player (well, a tray or spindle one anyway) that's half the size of a normal disc and holds the same amount of audio. I don't think there's anything wrong with the FORMAT, just the BULK of it. The last thing I need is more big shiny disks. I buy 'em, rip 'em and store 'em. Smaller is ideal. :)
Triv
...there is an entirely new form factor.
8track->cassette->CD
Super8->VHS->DVD
LP's are in there somewhere, along with all the lost formats (DAT, ElCassette, Minidisc, etc)
With each new toy, there was a real form factor change along with a fidelity change.
A 5" round thing that looks like a CD, plays in what looks like a CD player, plays only music, plays music at no real discernable quality gain, yet costs significantly more, and carries the potential of no copying...
That's dead before it leaves the gate.
At least come up with some new player and format. Maybe a solid state chip or something. Not just another "CD".
It's very likely that you wern't listening to the DVD-A track, so much as the AC-3 track that's on there for people who don't have a DVD-A player, and just pop it into their DVD-V player.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I mean literraly there are only so many chords and note combinations possible. Unless something radical comes along I think that we will only have new instruments to rely upon.
Heck not even new instruments. If you use the same melody as a previously published song, you're likely to face legal action. Four notes are enough to infringe, and there are fewer than 50,000 possible combinations.
The theoretical limit on the number of distinct works is the subject of a short story called "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson. Read it and weep.
Will I retire or break 10K?
CDs are 44.1 KHz. That means frequencies up to 22050 Hz can be represented.
No human can hear above 20000 Hz.
So a higher sample rate is superfluous.
And a 16 bit quantization is essentially perfect for all music except that with an extreme dynamic range, and even then, only if you are anal.
The 96 KHz sample rate on DVD audio is insane. And as for 5:1 surround sound, please note humans only have 2 ears...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I'm surprised how uninformed people are about this technology, given that is isn't exactly new.
I can appreciate the improved resolution of DVDA and SACD. The argument about the 22khz limit is quite subtle and lots of people miss the point. If a digital filter operating at 22khz isn't designed perfectly (which isn't easy), it does artifact the music in the audible range. What the 96khz and 192khz resolutions bring is the ability for even the cheapest audio system with substandard filters to escape the artifacts because they are shifted way up beyond normal hearing range, instead of being smack bang in the middle of the program material.
You won't be ripping SACD or DVDA anytime soon, or even playing them on PC's. Neither has a PC based player today to my knowledge. DVD-A uses Meridian Lossless Packing codec, and the only way to get an MLP codec on a PC today is to spend $$$ on DVD-A authoring software. I'm not even sure if that is encode/decode or encode only. I have also read that the DVD-A disk format is not compatible with the DVD-V format per se i.e. a DVD-ROM cannot read the DVD-A tracks.
Anyone ripping a DVD-A today is simply ripping the DVD-V compatible Dolby 5.1 track included on some DVD-A's.
The Sony SACD technology is based on DSD and operates at incredibly high frequencies. You couldn't design a system to be more unfriendly to digital audio (or pirates). At the recent AES show Sony were showing off OEM modules to people for encoding and decoding SACD. The reason is that off the shelf chips just don't work with their design. It's a major pain in recording studios as well, since nothing is designed to work with their standard, and only Sony can author SACD's today to my knowledge. About the only good thing SACD has (apart from the sound) is the backwards compatibility with dual layer discs in ordinary CD players.
None of this gets around the fact that in the current economic environment (1) consumers are happy with MP3's and CD's and their existing systems (2) studio's aren't going to ditch their existing 24 bit 48 khz limited equipment, especially Pro Tools rigs and (3) much of the catalog of SACD and DVD-A is boring old music for stereophiles!
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?
Poor sap. Until you use all 5 ears and a good 5.1 system, you will never appreciate music the way it is meant to be heard.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
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.
Anything above CD's 16 bits/44.1 kHz is imperceptible unless you're a dog, a bat, or a child with unusual ears. Hearing loss increases with age, and with the advent of rock concerts, the problem is worse than in previous generations.
- AlanH
However, there ARE people who can hear the difference. Why make fun of them wanting something that sounds better?
All you people making fun of them...what kind of computer to you have? After all, most people would not notice the difference between a ~1 GHz Celeron with a GeForce2 MX, and the latest Athlon or P4 and a GeForce 4 Ti4600. Anyone who has spent more than $1000 on their computer setup needs to shut up about the audiophiles.
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.
1) would love to read about a test where an IDENTICAL signal source was recorded in CD and SACD and compared, BLIND, by ordinary consumers. Is the difference really audible?
2) More to the point, is there any way to STOP CD publishers from deliberately introducing degradation into the CD track in order to make the SACD sound better by comparison? Not that they would ever do such a thing, of course... but I'd like to see at least a truth-in-advertising disclosure if they did.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I've already purchased a license for the music on my CDs (since, according to the RIAA, I don't really "own" anything). Shouldn't I get to trade them in for the new format for the cost of the raw media plus, say, 15% for overhead and profit?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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."
As soon as I buy a Betamax VCR, a laserdisc player, a DAT player, a MiniDisc player, a digital television, and all those other formats that have "better reproduction quality" while also charging me 2x-3x as much and limiting my options in purchasing media and/or recording.
99% of the titles released now on regular CD could be of better quality too. I have found some very good quality CD's from Telarc and a few others. The rest are far below par. Lack of dynamic range being the most overlooked, background noise not much better. IMHO, simply adding more channels is not going to automatically improve the sound. Quality controls need to be used if better sound is the goal.
I have a mid range Yamaha reciever with Dolby Pro Logic 2 and some other 5 channel modes. It is possible to get decent multichannel sound out of a regular audio cd with the optical input and if the source material is good quality. A bad quality disc is still bad in multichannel. Not a good apples to apples comparison because it was not indented to be multichannel.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.