New Audio Disc Formats and Copyrights

JollyGoodChase writes "CNN has an article on Super Audio CD digital watermarking and the lack of digital outputs on any SACD or DVD-Audio players. Covers dealer responses, tech issues, and consumer options in a good summation of this technology."

Comments

Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

Who can tell the audio difference between SACD and CD. It might be higher quality, but can people actually hear the difference.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[falser]

From everything I've read, you only hear a difference in the more expensive players (ones that cost more than $1000). Sony has a lot of cheap SACD/DVD players now, but they don't show off what the format is capable of. Makes me kind of wonder if the whole SACD format is worthwhile because if it was significantly better, then any cheap player should be better than the msot expensive CD player.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Merconium]

It sounds markedly better, IMO. The problem is that my buddy (where I auditioned the DVD-A) had to buy DVDs he didn't even like just to be able to hear the format. If the record companies produce their entire catalog on both formats and the price really reflected the cost, then we might have something.
DVD-A *should* always come with a standard CD layer (usually in Dolby Digital or DTS) and I believe if we were allowed to rip that under fair use, the format would take off.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[nelsonal]

The biggest difference is 5.1 encoding. There are some differences with encoding, SACDs use a much higher sampling rate, but fewer bits to record data with. I haven't heard one but I think it would be nice to have surround sound versus just stereo signals.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear the difference, but you aren't going to hear it on a boombox or a set of computer speakers. To me, everything that I didn't like about the sound of CD's is gone with the SACD and all that's left is the music. I find I can get into the music more because there is nothing even slightly annoying about the sound quality to distract my attention.

The watermarking on a SACD disc is done by varying the physical 'pit' sizes, rather than embed some digital code in the data stream. There is a pattern of varying pit sizes in which the watermark is embedded. A SACD player can discern these slightly different sizes and won't play a SACD unless it has the right watermark. The good thing about doing it this way is the audio content is entirely unaffected by the watermark - it doesn't distort the sound in any way. It does make it much more difficult to copy the SACD layer, though. But most SACD discs are hybrid, meaning there is also a regular CD layer which can be read and copied as usual. Only the higher quality SACD layer is copy protected. For me I am willing to accept the copy protection to get the better sound quality.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[hudsonhawk]

Then clearly this format isn't targeted at you, so don't bother. Since SACD's play on regular cd players, I imagine it would be pretty easy to rip them from the stereo 44k 16bit layer and compress it until it sounds like it was recorded on a microcassette.

The target audience here, for now anyway, is clearly audiophiles and people who want to use their 5-speaker home theater setup for music as well. Unfortunately, they're going to alienate both of these audiences by refusing to add digital output.

Me, I'll stick with vinyl. It's cheap enough that I don't mind paying for the product, sounds better than cd, and has a tactility that can't be argued with.

Scott

Re:Who needs another disk player

[slaker]

If you're listening on any kind of home theater equipment, the difference between CD and SACD or DVD-A is very easy to hear, particularly if you've got a full six channels. If you're listening on crappy headphones or computer speakers, it's less apparent.

You can get CDs to output in 5.1 - sort of - with Pro Logic II, but the difference between that and a true multichannel format is still night and day.

A lot of SACDs are stereo only, but even those are audibly better than CD.

I believe the ultimate goal of these "copy protected" formats will be to send an encrypted signal over ieee1394 - we're starting to see 1394 ports on high-dollar amps, anyway. Neither SACD nor DVD-A will output to a digital connector, although most *do* have those connectors for use with CDs. From what I've read, the equipment manufacturers are claiming that current digital outputs can't meet the badnwidth needs of the multichannel formats, hence the analog 5.1 (six cables) and presumably firewire connectors. This is a stupid thing, but I really want to see a multichannel format move forward, so I'm willing to accept it.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true! I have a Sony DVD/SACD player that cost me $139 and it sounds far better playing SACD than my other CD-only player which was much more expensive. In fact, even playing regular CD's I prefer the sound of the Sony player (model NS-500V)

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I hear anyone mention DVD-A, I laugh to myself and think about the movie Orgasmo.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Vinyl sounds like crap compared to CD. Its a scientifically proven fact, and any "audiophile" that tells you that vinyl sounds warmer than CD or any other BS is blowing smoke up your ass.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[EllisDees]

The only real difference is more channels of sound. Actual sound quality is no different to a pair of human ears. The only thing that might make them sound any better is the fact that they are going to do a much better job mastering the early releases. If they took as much care when mastering cds, they'd sound just as good.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

You, my friend, are grossly misinformed. Please don't spout off BS when you have no clue what you're talking about. All "regular" CDs (including those recorded at 24bit/96kHz or better) encode a waveform using 16bit/44.1kHz PCM (Pulse Code Modulation), commonly referred to as the "redbook" standard. SACDs, on the other hand, use DSD (Direct Stream Digital) high resolution coding. This samples the music at 64 times the rate of CD, or 2.8MHz. The signal is recorded as a single bit variation from the previous sample and the waveform reconstructed using a simple sigma-delta process. The dynamic range for SACD is 120dB with a bandwidth of 100kHz though these will be limited by implementation and electronics.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about. Standard CDs sound like shit in Pro Logic because Pro Logic clips the high end around 10 kHz. This is well within the dynamic range of human hearing and noticeably muffles the sound. You don't need a FireWire port on your receiver to get digital sound from a SACD or DVD-A. Almost all SACD and DVD-A players have digital coaxial as well as digital optical outputs, and even low-end $300 receivers are going to have the same digital inputs. Firewire has nothing to do with SACD, and the only reason to use the six analog 5.1 connectors is if your receiver doesn't have a built-in digital audio decoder.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

it Orgazmo you insensitive clod.

and to be informative:
DVDA : Double Vaginal/Double Anal

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

Wow, those numbers are impressive. Doesn't mean you can hear the difference. No speakers or amplifiers currently on the market as well as typical human hearing can take full advantage of the audio spectrum of regular CD's, SACD is a complete waste.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

If you're listening on any kind of home theater equipment, the difference between CD and SACD or DVD-A is very easy to hear, particularly if you've got a full six channels. If you're listening on crappy headphones or computer speakers, it's less apparent.

Most people as well as myself do not listen to music in 5.1,6.1 or 7.1 format. Pumping 2 channels through 4 channels 2 of which are time delayed will cause undesireable effects in the music. The .1 is your subwoofer and in most cases you really want to turn it off for listenign to music. Okay listening to Pink Floyd in 5.1 is incredible, but it does not reproduce the original music.

My receiver has several built in surround modes for music, things like Studio, Arena etc... These are nice sometimes, but they also degrade the music and do not faithfully reproduce it. In other words, you are hearing a difference because of the audio processing, you are not hearing a difference in the actual music.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

The target audience here, for now anyway, is clearly audiophiles and people who want to use their 5-speaker home theater setup for music as well

Audiophiles do not listen to music in home theater mode.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[fyonn]

DVD-A *should* always come with a standard CD layer (usually in Dolby Digital or DTS)

not quite sure what you mean here. if it was a cd layer (like hybrid sacd's have) then it would be plain redbook stereo and would play in any cd player (thats the idea behind sony's hybrid discs', except that that afaik, only a few of the sacd's out there actually are hybrid's. most just have the sacd layer and no cd layer).

or do you mean that the dvda disc should have a dvda layer and a dvdv layer, the latter having a dolby digital (for ubiquity) or dts (for bandwidth) track with the same music on?

or do you mean a cd layer with a DTS track encoded on it (like current dts disc's (note, not "dts cd's" as they are not redbook standard, and neither do they label themselves as such)).

I think dvda's should go for the middle option I specified (and indeed, they might for all I know) as thats how they can get ppl to buy their media without needing the new hardware right now

I like sacd in concept more than dvda I have to admit. the format mandates a stereo track in addition to any multichannel track, however, I do think that a cd layer should also be part of the standard so that ppl can buy an sacd without a player, safe in the knowledge that if/when they get an sacd player things will get better.

dave

PS. I also think that cd's album's should come with a free dvd video disc of the artists music vid's. otherwise they'll only go to waste

Re:Who needs another disk player

[edmcw]

No, vinyl does, in fact, have a warmer sound than CD. That doesn't mean that vinyl is truer to the original recording - it's not. The warmth of vinyl is an artifact of the medium. It's sound not found in the original recording, generated by a variety of environmental factors, like poor vibration isolation in your turntable, varying vinyl quality, even dust in the grooves. Many people happen to like that vinyl sound, regardless of it's relationship to audio fidelity.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[fyonn]

Since SACD's play on regular cd players

they *should* play on normal cd players as the standard mentions putting a cd layer in, alas it only has it as an option, not as required. hell, most of the sony discs only have an sacd layer and therefore a cd player won't even know you've put a disc in.

dave

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

5.1 encoding is meaningless in attempting to reproduce music. The band plays in front of you, not in the front with the drummer in the left rear and the guitarist in the right rear, and the bassist roaming around the audience. The .1 takes the bass out of the music and causes and unnatural sound.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[JebusIsLord]

Actually the .1 isn't even intended to necessarily be sent to a separate speaker by the proponents of 5.1 (ie DTS, Dolby). They simply intended the .1 channel to be a discrete encoding of the bass audio with which you could do as you please. I still disagree with you though, sending the bass to a speaker designed for it will improve bass response and improve the audio quality IF PROPERLY TUNED. I am not refering to the thumping bass syndrom so endemic in our hip-hop listening population.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[crucini]

They simply intended the .1 channel to be a discrete encoding of the bass audio with which you could do as you please. I still disagree with you though, sending the bass to a speaker designed for it will improve bass response and improve the audio quality IF PROPERLY TUNED.

I know nothing of SACD, but responding to your comment: There is no reason for low frequency signals to be separated on the recording medium. They are better separated by an active crossover in the playback path. This allows the crossover frequency to be chosen to match the capabilities of the subwoofer(s) and mains.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

I have two sets of speakers connected, a pair of old 3 way JBL's D315's and a JBL SCS135 surround system. The SCS135 system sounds incredible for DVD playback, but is only okay for music. The D315's are great for music, but need to be driven hard with lot's of power to appreciate them(these speakers were made for heavy metal:). The big 15 inch woofers and lots of power eliminate the need for a subwoofer and turning on the sub creates a rather annoying boom. The reason for both sets is because different mediums require different approaches. Listen to a John Bonham solo through a sat/sub setup and then through a traditional pair of big woofer speakers and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[rodgerd]

The band plays in front of you, but the acoustics of most rooms means the sound will reflect around. 5.1 is actually quite useful for reproducing concerts.

Doubtless there'll also be bands and producers who wish to take advantage of it for effects.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[NortWind]

Even a Sony PlayStation 2 has a frequency response of 20 Hz to 17.9 kHz with only +0.12, -3 dB variation. You better have a really kick-butt sound system to hear anything better than that.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[macdaddy357]

They have cooked up two new formats only audiophiles would feel a need to own, and audiophiles don't like them because of their analog outputs. SACD and Audio DVD will be as popular as DAT and DCC were. They are DOA. No one will pirate them or buy them. With a hole in the middle, they won't even make good coasters.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[jwlidtnet]

I discern something worrisome here, though. If amateur-band-A wants to release something on SACD, they *have* to watermark the thing to get it to play in a SACD player...it doesn't seem like they have a choice.

That lack of choice might become a sticking point in the future.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[surprise_audit]

Who needs another disk player?

Perhaps a better question would be: who has the acoustically-perfect room required to actually hear the difference?

I laugh when I hear of people spending $1000 or more on ultra-perfect in-car hifi - like the steel box with noisy internal combustion engine and 50-mph wind howling past that they mount it in isn't going to introduce weird harmonics to ruin the experience. Now I can laugh at people doubling the cost of their home audio system with little to show for it.

The guys selling this stuff could probably sell snow to Eskimos...

Re:Who needs another disk player

[forgotmypassword]

The reason is that the human ear cannot locate the source of low bass very well. The wavelength of the sound is very long and our ears are not so large. Therefore it is cheaper, easier, and more efficient to simply seperate to low frequencies from the rest of the audio.

This (could) give more frequency range to the rest of music.
This allows you to have 5 very small speakers.

Perhaps if we were elephants or blue whales, then this would be a problem. But seperating the low bass is no worse than cutting the frequency off at 20-24k as far as humans are concerned.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need a really expensive setup to hear the difference. I listen to my SACD's using a pair of Sennheiser 535 headphones (msrp $159 can be found on ebay for $60) and the difference is remarkable. Cd's just sound flat and... well... digital. There is no warmth to the sound at all. Most people who still listen to records stick with them because of the analog warm feeling to the sound. And you don't even need really expensive equipment to tell the difference. However, records still have lots of static and have lower resolution sound. Super Audio CD's combine the good qualities of both records and cd's to form a vastly superior product. Granted, you won't really care much if you are the type of person who uses the headphones that came with your discman, but to everyone else, give them a try. There is a huge difference and anyone who doubts that most likely hasn't heard a SACD and is stupid enough to be commenting on them. To really get the most of a SACD you should be not using extremely shitty speakers, but as long as you're not playing them out of your TV speakers you should be able to hear a difference.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[svirre]

The bitstream in SACD is the output of a pretty simplistic delta sigma modulator. (Moden audio ADCs use multibit delta sigma modulators).

The fuction of a DS modulator is to shape the quantification nose such that it occurs outside the useful band. (in this case up to 20KHz). The 120dB dynamic range figure for SACD is only valid for DC. At the upper end of the audio spectrum it is no better or less than that of an ordinary CD.

Storing the raw output of the DS modulator strikes me as extremely silly as you will use most of your bits to store unwanted HF noise.

The only sensible thing is to filter the output and just store the information, but ... oops... we have done that since last world war and patenting this now would be difficult. Enter SACD: so silly we can patent it.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a Sony PlayStation 2 [soundandvisionmag.com] has a frequency response of 20 Hz to 17.9 kHz with only +0.12, -3 dB variation. You better have a really kick-butt sound system to hear anything better than that.

A flat frequency response is only one piece of the audio puzzle. That spec alone doesn't really say much about the relative quality of the PS2 as a player. The major difference between CD and the hi-res formats isn't the frequency response, it's the 24-bit resolution instead of 16 bit and 96-192KHz sample rate instead of 44.1 KHz.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[hudsonhawk]

To be fair, music isn't a science, music is an aesthetic experience. Perhaps I just find it aesthetically pleasing.

Or, it could be that the effectively infinite sampling rate lends itself well to short-wavelength sounds, giving vinyl a harmonic "richness" that I just don't hear in cd.

Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke up your ass.

Scott

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Vinyl sounds like crap compared to CD. Its a scientifically proven fact, and any "audiophile" that tells you that vinyl sounds warmer than CD or any other BS is blowing smoke up your ass.

Scientifically proven, huh? Got any references? The only that is really proven is that CD has a much lower noise floor and vinyl has a more extended frequency response than CD and doesn't have a fixed, limited resolution.

One oft mentioned problem with CD is that the error increases as the frequency approaches the format's limit of half the sampling rate. To many people, that makes the highs sound harsh and unnatural. Hence in comparison, people say vinyl sounds warmer or smoother.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, no. You're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Standard CDs sound like shit in Pro Logic because Pro Logic clips the high end around 10 kHz.

Pro Logic II, not Pro Logic you dipshit. Pro Logic II is different than Pro Logic and doesn't have any such limitation.

You don't need a FireWire port on your receiver to get digital sound from a SACD or DVD-A. Almost all SACD and DVD-A players have digital coaxial as well as digital optical outputs, and even low-end $300 receivers are going to have the same digital inputs.

OK, here's the scoop cluebag:

When you play the SACD layer of an SACD, you get nothing out of the coaxial or optical digital outputs of current players.

When you play the CD layer of a hybrid SACD, you get 16-bit, 44.2 KHz PCM on the digital outs, just like a normal CD player.

When you play a DVD-A, you either get a downmixed 2 channel, 16/44.2 PCM version of what's playing, a Dolby Digital version, or a DTS version depending on the player and disk.

In no case do you get the full quality SACD or DVD-A output on either the coaxial or optical digital output, both for technical reasons as well as copy protection.

Firewire has nothing to do with SACD, and the only reason to use the six analog 5.1 connectors is if your receiver doesn't have a built-in digital audio decoder.

Firewire is the interface that the manufacturers have adopted to send the full quality SACD and DVD-A content digitally. The first players and receivers that support this have been appearing on the market this fall. Prior to now, no player would output the full SACD or DVD-A stream on a digital output. And even now, the digital link is encrypted.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people as well as myself do not listen to music in 5.1,6.1 or 7.1 format. Pumping 2 channels through 4 channels 2 of which are time delayed will cause undesireable effects in the music. The .1 is your subwoofer and in most cases you really want to turn it off for listenign to music. Okay listening to Pink Floyd in 5.1 is incredible, but it does not reproduce the original music.

My receiver has several built in surround modes for music, things like Studio, Arena etc... These are nice sometimes, but they also degrade the music and do not faithfully reproduce it. In other words, you are hearing a difference because of the audio processing, you are not hearing a difference in the actual music.

You seem to be thinking of Pro Logic and similar surround encoding methods that simply take a 2 channel mix and produce a surround "effect" through the use of filters and time delays. In that case, the real music content is just two channels. In a "real" multichannel format like DD, DTS, DVD-A, or SACD, there are 5 or 6 independent, full range channels.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

The lower mids and upper bass is what get's lost in these systems and is what maeks them useless for music. all sub/sattelites systems crossover the bass at way to high of a frequency and cause a lot of music to sound very poor. A large part of the sopectrum which shoukd be in stereo is played in mono and you get poor reproduction.

There is no substitute for large woofers

Re:Who needs another disk player

[NortWind]

16 bits of resolution is enough to go from inaudable in a normal environment (like a quiet room) to the pain threshold. 44.1KHz sampling in theory could give you response to 20KHz, but in practice you have to back off a bit. 16KHz is certainly achievable. That's above most peoples' hearing limit. It's certainly good enough for any use I have.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

The lower mids and upper bass is what get's lost in these systems and is what maeks them useless for music. all sub/sattelites systems crossover the bass at way to high of a frequency and cause a lot of music to sound very poor. A large part of the sopectrum which shoukd be in stereo is played in mono and you get poor reproduction.

There is no substitute for large woofers

The subwoofer is the large woofer. Acoustically, it doesn't really matter much whether the woofer is in a separate enclosure or in the same unit as the other drivers. All that really matters is that the woofer and midrange driver are sized appropriately so that there is no mid-high bass hole between them. Remember, we're not just talking about those satellite systems with 3" cube speakers which start rolling off at 220 Hz. Take a set of bookshelf size speakers with 4.5-6.0" drivers, add a sub with a an 80Hz crossover, and viola, no hole in the frequency response.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[woogieoogieboogie]

I still do not buy the "better quality music" bit. The human ear can only hear so much and it is incapable of hearing the full audio spectrum of cd's. If there was an issue of clarity as in records or tapes vrs cd's, then the point might be valid, but CD's have no distortion because it is a digital format(unless the master has distortion). With CDs, all the music is there, it is up to the equpiment to bring it out.

Yeah, a car is pretty poor place to spend moeny on audio equipment. Even the best audio equipment cannot overcome 50 db of ambient noise in the cars interior.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the .1 isn't even intended to necessarily be sent to a separate speaker by the proponents of 5.1 (ie DTS, Dolby). They simply intended the .1 channel to be a discrete encoding of the bass audio with which you could do as you please.

Actually, a number of the more audiophile oriented labels are producing SACDs and DVD-As with a full range signal in the 6th channel that it is really intended to drive a height channel.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Sunda666]

You can't hear the difference, but your dog or cat will be able to. Maybe SACD is target at pets rather than humans....

cheers.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

for the average sized listening room i've found 2 10" woofers each in the right and left and 2 15" subs to work the best. biamped right and left, crossing over to the subs around 70hz is a good place to start. subs serve the purpose of room tuning where you can move them around to avoid room modes. having your room the right dimensions helps too. i think the majic ratio is something like 1:1.8:2.6 for rectangular. when you have more walls it becomes more unpredictable. of course this all only make a difference above about 105db.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[tigga]

Actually the .1 isn't even intended to necessarily be sent to a separate speaker by the proponents of 5.1 (ie DTS, Dolby). They simply intended the .1 channel to be a discrete encoding of the bass audio with which you could do as you please.

Yes. It was intended to reproduce special effects only for movies - like thunder, explosions etc.
But then manufacturers of inexpensive electronics decided subwoofer could play ALL the bass and other miniscule speakers are for anything else, screwing up sound...

Re:Who needs another disk player

[tigga]

CD's have no distortion because it is a digital format(unless the master has distortion)

Well, for starters there are phase distortions because of A/D conversion.
One more problem that sampling rate is very close to higher frequencies. So those frequencies just could not be coded/decoded well enough.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

16 bits of resolution is enough to go from inaudable in a normal environment (like a quiet room) to the pain threshold.

Any number of bits is enough to go from inaudible to the pain threshold, but the more bits, the less quantization error. You can see a difference between rendering a nice picture with your graphics card set to display 24-bit color (millions of colors) versus 16-bit (65536 colors). Similarly, you can hear a difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio formats. How much difference you hear will depend on your equipment and the dynamic range of the recording.

CDs have a problem with music that has a wide dynamic range, particularly classical and some acoustic jazz. Because your hearing is logarithmic, while the digital sampling levels are distributed linearly, the quiet parts of a CD have a lot less effective resolution. Audio engineers work around this by compressing the music to use less dynamic range - basically they alter the music to keep the signal level up near the maximum in order to make the most use of the limited resolution. With a 24-bit format, there is enough resolution at lower levels that engineers can leave the music uncompressed.

44.1KHz sampling in theory could give you response to 20KHz, but in practice you have to back off a bit. 16KHz is certainly achievable. That's above most peoples' hearing limit. It's certainly good enough for any use I have.

Even at 16 KHz, you're getting less than 3 samples per wave to reconstruct the signal from. At 96 KHz, you get 6 samples per wave at 16 KHz, and at 192 KHz you get 12. Nyquist's theorem says you need an absolute minimum of 2 samples per wave to reproduce the frequency at all, but the higher than sampling rate, the less distortion of the highs. I can hear the difference between a 24-bit, 48 KHz recording and a 24-bit, 96 KHz recording on my modest system, but not the difference between 96 and 192 KHz.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

I still do not buy the "better quality music" bit. The human ear can only hear so much and it is incapable of hearing the full audio spectrum of cd's.

Yeah, all of the people who can actually *hear* the difference clearly on midrange equipment surely must be dreaming.

If there was an issue of clarity as in records or tapes vrs cd's, then the point might be valid, but CD's have no distortion because it is a digital format(unless the master has distortion).

Just because it's a digital format doesn't mean it has no distortion. No digital recording of an analog signal is a perfect representation, due to the limited digital word size and sample rate. With a CD, the word size is 16 bits, meaning that every sample of the analog signal will be recorded not at its actual value but at the closest of 65536 discrete levels. This is called quantization error, and it is a source of distortion.

65536 sounds like a lot, but it has to cover a wide range of signal levels. Near the maximum level (0 dB), the effective number of levels is around 65536, at 10 dB down it's about 6500, at 20 dB down about 650, at 30 dB down 65, etc. Therefore the amount of audible distortion increases significantly in the quieter parts of a recording, which is why classical sounds bad on CD and most popular music is heavily compressed to use minimal dynamic range.

The limited sampling rate of a digital recording also adds to the distortion. At the 44.1 KHz sampling rate CD uses, the high end of the audible frequency range (15-18 KHz) is getting close to the Nyquist limit of 22 KHz. That means that while the format is capable of reproducing frequencies that cover the entire range of human hearing, the high frequency components are captured with only 2-4 samples per wave. Even if you can't hear any content above 22 KHz, a higher sampling rate (e.g. 96 KHz) provides more samples per wave in the audible range, which sort of averages out the quantization error and turns audible distortion into inaudible noise.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[NortWind]

Any number of bits is enough to go from inaudible to the pain threshold, but the more bits, the less quantization error.

This is not so, if you wish to maintain acuracy of faint high piched sounds on top of loud low pitch sounds. You need linear (not companded) representation to do this. Another way to look at this is to say that if you set the energy level of the LSB to be the lowest audible sound, then every additional bit will allow a doubling of amplitude. If you know what amplitude you want to go to, you can calculate exactly how many bits you will need.

In fact, going from a quiet room (40db) to the uncomfortably loud sound and possibly harmful level of operating a vacuum cleaner (70db) is arguably enough. Since sound energy doubles every 3 db, one bit is needed to represent each additional 3db. So a 30 db range needs 2^10 or 10 bits, and covers most of the useful range, if your data is properly scaled.

I know some people like to listen to music at louder than 70db, rock music is often up to 100db at a concert. That would need 70db of range, or 23 bits, but only if the noise floor were as quiet as your livingroom. More likely, the noise floor at a concert is 50db or higher. 16 bit (or 48 db) above that is 98 db.

I'm not saying more bits aren't better for reproduction in theory, I'm just saying that once the information is reproduced better than the speakers can do, or the people can hear, then you can stop. I would welcome a reference to any double-blind studies you know of that show 24 bit can be distinguished from 16 bit.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[JebusIsLord]

You bring up a good point, 5.1 audio WAS designed for film in theatres years ago, not music. Hell most of the soundtrack comes from the front stereo channels anyhow during a movie.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[EllisDees]

> You, my friend, are grossly misinformed.

About what?

I said, "Actual sound quality is no different to a pair of human ears". If you can show me a single double blind listening test where people could pick out the difference between a cd and a SACD that were mastered from the same source, then you can say I'm misinformed. Until then, you are just swallowing the marketing that's being fed to you.

>All "regular" CDs (including those recorded at 24bit/96kHz or better) encode a waveform using 16bit/44.1kHz PCM (Pulse Code Modulation), commonly referred to as the "redbook" standard. SACDs, on the other hand, use DSD (Direct Stream Digital) high resolution coding.

So what? Can anyone on the planet *hear* the difference? I doubt it. Does it justify buying all new equipment and a brand new form of media for all the same music you already have? Not at all.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not so, if you wish to maintain acuracy of faint high piched sounds on top of loud low pitch sounds. You need linear (not companded) representation to do this. Another way to look at this is to say that if you set the energy level of the LSB to be the lowest audible sound, then every additional bit will allow a doubling of amplitude. If you know what amplitude you want to go to, you can calculate exactly how many bits you will need.

It's not that simple. Generally, you don't want to just hear the lowest audible sounds, you want to hear them without distortion. That means you need a much finer resolution at that signal level than just the minimum necessary to store it.

Since sound energy doubles every 3 db [storm.ca], one bit is needed to represent each additional 3db. So a 30 db range needs 2^10 or 10 bits, and covers most of the useful range, if your data is properly scaled.

You're correct in that the lowest sample level available with 10-bit sampling is -30 dB below the peak. However, the next lowest sample level is -27 dB, which means that there is a whopping 3 dB between sample levels at -30 dB. 3 dB of error per sample is positively huge, creating massive audible distortion. To put things in perspective, the average person can easily perceive a 1 dB difference in volume level, and because of the distortion it creates, 1 dB error per sample is even easier to hear.

For the sake of comparison, 16-bit sampling results in a sample spacing of 6.62e-3 dB at -20 dB, 0.0658 at -30 dB, and 0.617 at -40 dB. In other words, nobody will hear a problem at -20 dB, at -30 dB only those with good equipment and golden ears might hear some distortion, and at -40 dB it's clearly unacceptable. Now, with 24-bit sampling, the spacing is 2.59e-4 at -30 dB, 2.59e-3 at -40 dB, 0.0258 at -50 dB, and 0.251 at -60 dB. So, while 16 bit sampling is starting to get a little coarse at -30 dB, the extra 8 bits pushes the problem down (8 x 3 dB = 24 dB) to around the -50 dB level.

Now, typical levels for pop & rock music, which is usually heavily compressed, are -5 to -10 dB average with quieter parts around -15 dB. Typically, audio engineers leave 3 bits (9 dB) of headroom over the peaks, so that's close to 25 dB (+9 to -15) of usable dynamic range needed for the average pop/rock music. 16 bit sampling handles this adequately, but it does require engineers to compress the dynamic range of many recordings to stay within this range. On the other hand, many classical recordings have average levels in the -20 dB range, with some quieter parts down around -30 dB. To cover these recordings without compression, you need about 40 dB of usable, distortion free dynamic range, which easily pushes the limits of the 16 bit CD medium.

Re:Who needs another disk player

[NortWind]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

If you adjust the gain so the LSB is the quietest that can still be heard, it implies that the next bit down, 1/2 that amplitude or 3dB quieter, is inaudible. At the lowest hearing levels, you can only pick up pitch, not whether it is a sine wave or a square wave or triangle.

With a 16 bit representation, there are 65,000 different amplitude sign waves that I can make using a D/A converter. Each of those amplitudes lined up from smallest to largest, has exactly the same difference in amplitude relative to the next smallest or next largest, the amount measured by 1 bit. So, if I am trying to span from 30dB (very quiet) to 78dB with 16 bits, the next sine wave up from 30dB (height of 1) would be 33dB (height of 2), as you say. But the next sign wave up is not 36dB(height of 4), that is two more up. The next is about 34db (height of 3). By the time you get to the loud end of the scale, 78db, the amplitude steps are tiny compared to full scale. At the top, you are losing only 1 part in 65,000 of amplitude, almost no dB's at all.

I guess with 24 bit sampling you can cover a range of 72dB. If you have a need for such a range, you must have an audience with both a very quite room for listening, and a good tolerance for pain. Some classical music fans might fit this description, so I guess you have a point there. But I don't need it for Daft Punk!

All that quality...

[Anonymous Coward]

And no good way to output it. Seems ironic, dontcha think?

i'm going to guess...

[no reason to be here]

that just like DVD-region encoding and similar BS that this will begin to disappear in a few years, if the standard is to survive.

also, did anyone else notice IBM as one of the companies ultimately behind DVD-audio? Do you think big blue will give linux hackers information on the copy-protection scheme used in DVD-audio as part of their commitement to opensource/free software?

Re:i'm going to guess...

[RoyBoy]

Well, I wouldn't bet on it. DVD-A is a good idea for long term archival storage of music (very high quality, not lossy, etc). I know IBM didn't originate the DVD CSS and region coding schemes, and I doubt IBM were the ones who wanted it as part of the DVD-A spec, but since they aren't really a player in consumer electronics, the probably had to deal with the Toshiba's and Sony's of the world... Just my $0.02!

Re:i'm going to guess...

[garcia]

no, this is a lack of digital outputs. I am less worried about the damn security, I am worried that I will not be able to use these players w/the other devices I already have...

Now, do these morons really think that people care about "superior audio quality" when they really only want to rip/download MP3s?

The only time I am interested in SUPERIOR audio quality is when I am going to be listening to a live show (SBD), and when I am doing that, it is either already on CD, SHN, etc, or on tape (Nakamichi).

MP3s are for people that want to download music to enjoy, not to worry about sound quality. Only people who are SERIOUS about sound quality would buy these players, and I am already sure they haven't used MP3s too much.

Re:i'm going to guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this little law called the DMCA that stops IBM from doing that.

Re:i'm going to guess...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

that just like DVD-region encoding and similar BS that this will begin to disappear in a few years, if the standard is to survive.

I wouldn't count on region coding to go away. The DVD-Video format has been available for five years and so far no major (and very few minor) DVD content producer has recanted them, except for the asian piracy rings. The game companies keep producing new consoles with too, consoles have been doing it for quite a long time.

Re:i'm going to guess...

[Blue Stone]

Screw the content producers! My DVD player maker has done away with region coding for them! :)

Next: disable the FF lock-out on the copyright notice/Studio-splash...

They're engineered to be copy-proof

[akincisor]

Hah!

The last time their "advanced technology" was foiled by a felt tip pen! I hope they have something better.

Wait... I hope they dont!

Re:Jargon

[woogieoogieboogie]

Gee, a little of RTFA might help you here.

so what...

[cygnus]

there are always pro models of all gear that lack the sorts of 'anti-piracy' features of the commercial ones. once one person rips a source and it hits the Net, what's the difference?

Re:so what...

[jjoyce]

...that's when Palladium takes over.

Looks like a solution to my question...

[chrisseaton]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=44369&cid=4612 065

Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[Chester K]

Consumers aren't going to run out and buy all new hardware just to support a new format that gives them really no added capabilities over their existing hardware.... CD-Audio is good enough quality sound; this new format doesn't offer enough of an improvement for it to catch on -- and that'd be the case even if the formats weren't fair-use crippled. Once you throw that into the equation, these formats have an even dimmer potential.

A format doesn't begin mass market acceptance until the fanatic audiophiles buy into it at the beginning, and those are exactly the types of people who will raise the biggest stink about the copy protection, and the lack of digital audio out.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

A format doesn't begin mass market acceptance until the fanatic audiophiles buy into it at the beginning

No. A format doesn't begin mass market acceptance until the big record labels decide to stop accepting buybacks of the old medium. That's how CDs became "mass market": record stores stopped shelving vinyl because the record companies stopped buying back unsold copies. At that point, every vinyl album that didn't move became undigetible inventory, and it didn't make sense to buy many or even any.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[dirk]

A format doesn't begin mass market acceptance until the fanatic audiophiles buy into it at the beginning, and those are exactly the types of people who will raise the biggest stink about the copy protection, and the lack of digital audio out.

These are exactly the people who won't care about copy protection, because they don't want a lossy copy on their computer. They want these formats for the superior quality, and if you want superior quality, you don't care as much about maiking a lower quality copy. Audiophiles are the ones who still claim the MP3 is a horrible format even though the average person can't tell the difference between cd audio and MP3. They won't care that they can't make a copy of it, because the copy will invariably be of worse quality, and that is exactly what the audiophile doesn't want.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[mosch]

Well, for people who have a nice DTS 6.1 system, the new formats allow you to use all those speakers you've got sitting around the house. Of course at the moment that's not a particularly compelling reason, because having the church organ behind you and the gospel choir in front of you is only novel for so long.

I happen to have a DVD-Audio capable DVD player, and to be honest I don't think it's anything special. CDs still have excellent response over the range that's audible to humans, and 96db is a large dynamic range, no matter how you slice it.

In short, speaking as a DVD-Audio owner, I recommend not using DVD-Audio.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[dizco]

They won't care that they can't make a copy of it, because the copy will invariably be of worse quality, and that is exactly what the audiophile doesn't want.

They might not want to copy it, but they want to use their fancy high-priced DACs.. which they won't be able to do without digital outputs.

--sean

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[fyonn]

These are exactly the people who won't care about copy protection

these are exactly the kind of people who *will* care about copy protection as it means they can;t reuse their investment in high quality external dac's and means that they have to rely on the bass management capabilities in the player (which are usually fairly basic) and can't use the often much more advanced fine bass control available to the pre/pro.

audiophiles don't give a stuff about mp3's really, but what they do care about is quality of sound and doing things right. a 6 channel analogue out means that they are not maximising the capabilities of their equipment.

here's an example. the player might allow you to set a bass crossover of 80hz, yet you main speakers can go down to 45hz, and at better quality than your sub. your pre/pro will allow you a much finer control of the crossover point but thats irrelevant as you can;t use it.

more importantly I think. one of the coming "big things" is room correction. the biggest influence on sound quality for many people is the room you're listening to the music in. systems by companies such as TacT allow you to measure the frequency characteristics of the room and pre-correct the audio signal for the room before it hits the power amp (and therefore, speaker). this requires a digital copy of the sound to work on and if all you can get from your player is analogue then thats a wasted preamp stage and it means that it's quite likely that a cd could sound far better than an sacd or dvda as the cd signal is being properly processed to sound great in your room, and the sacd/dvda isn't.

thats why audiophiles care

dave

PS. room correction is a pretty small field in consumer electronics now, but I reckon it'll become bigger news in 5-10 years

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[Anonymous Coward]

At that point, every vinyl album that didn't move became undigetible[sic] inventory, and it didn't make sense to buy many or even any.

With modern, low-inventory business practices is this a tactic that will continue to work?

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[bryanp]

even though the average person can't tell the difference between cd audio and MP3

Only if you're one of the millions who have destroyed their hearing by blasting metal, rap and other children's music. I can assure you that anyone with decent hearing can tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD of good classical or jazz. It's *extremely* obvious when you listen to the brass.

Oh, and before people start flaming, I *do* enjoy rock music, but it's a horrible format for testing a sound system or determining audio fidelity.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[robian]

Accepting buybacks?

I have worked in a record store for a couple of years and have never seen any of the majors do any thing like that. There was one world music label that took returns when placing a new order.

However that was an order one, return one kind of deal.

It's been awhile so maybe things have changed.

I believe the cd became mass market, because of everybody replacing their vinyl copy of Sgt Pepper.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[trolleri]

> They won't care that they can't make a copy of it, because the copy will invariably be of worse quality, and that is exactly what the audiophile doesn't want. Any serious audiophile would laugh at a cd reader that can not deliver a perfect *copy* of the bits on a cd to a dac for conversion or digital out for other means. The only thing an audiophile cares about is to make as perfect conversions as possible - that includes making perfect copies from source to conversin, to begin with.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[crucini]

Oh, and before people start flaming, I *do* enjoy rock music, but it's a horrible format for testing a sound system or determining audio fidelity.

I disagree. There are many dimensions to audio fidelity, and different genres of music can stress different dimensions. I've seen small speakers that sound great with chamber music but awful playing back rock. Most common defect: uniting the kick drum and bass into one sticky ball of thud. Move to a larger speaker of the same quality level and chamber music may sound exactly the same while in rock, the kick and bass are clearly articulated and independent. Meanwhile, there is probably a parallel case - two speakers that sound equally excellent for rock, but sound different to chamber music.

The most important criteria for a disc used for system testing? It has to be well engineered, and you have to be deeply familiar with it on a variety of systems. This gives the "DSP" part of your brain a strong baseline to measure against.

Maybe the short answer is "you get what you measure". If you like rock, better use rock for at least part of the evaluation process.

Re:Does it sound better than CD-Audio?

[seaan]

These are exactly the people who won't care about copy protection, because they don't want a lossy copy on their computer.

Speaking as one of the audiophiles who helped kill DAT, let me tell you some of the reasons an audiophile wants digital outputs:

1) The quality of digital/analog conversion can vary quite a bit. If you already have an ultra-high D/A converter, you don't want to be stuck with the inferior ones built-in to the SACD/DVD-Audio player.

2) Most current pre-amps perform sound modification (such as bass management, surround-sound effects, etc.) in the digital domain. If you can only get analog inputs, you need to convert the stream back to digital, and than back to analog. Even with the best gear, the extra AD/DA cycle noticeably degrades the quality!

3) Many current pre-amps don't have the six-channel analog inputs that it takes to properly play back the SACD/DVD-Audio material. Trying to get past this is UGLY!

That is three major reasons without even getting into the usual fair-use issues. The funny thing about this, is that they are making the exact same mistake they did with DAT (the most common method of personal copying was tape-to-tape using $50 boom boxes, so they block digital-to-digital?).

As a general rule, the only people who care about digital-to-digital quality are the audiophiles. These are the exact same people who are least likely to pirate music (heck, most audiophiles buy multiple copies of the same recording). The people who do the most piracy are the ones who don't have enough money to buy good systems, and don't care about the reduced quality of sound.

I've sent letters to most labels, and several manufacturers telling them what I think. I'm not surprised to see that other audiophiles agree with me, there is no way I'm supporting SACD or DVD-Audio until they drop the bullshit content-controls.

Audiophiles

[redfiche]

I just don't see serious audiophiles plunking down the cash if they can't output the digital signal.

Still copyable

[upt1me]

If there is sound coming out of my speakers there will always be a way to make that sound into a mp3. Don't they understand consumers want mp3s or some other digital format.

If you can play it...

[weasel47_3]

I don't know why compainies waste millions of dollars trying to copy-protect CD's. It's useless.

If you can play it, you can record it. You can capture the audio from the source, not nessisarilty with an MP3 ripper, but with a 3rd paty stereo or dolby recorder. It's quite easy for anyone with half a brain.

Just capture the source as a WAV or orther format and you can burn it however you like.

Re:If you can play it...

[upt1me]

And then once it is in MP3 format it will be all over Kazza or other P2P services.

Re:If you can play it...

[EvilMal]

The only problem with this is the quality loss. Going straight from the CD to MP3 before has had the benefit that it's a perfect copy.

of course, I can't tell the difference between a 128 kbps mp3 and a 256 kbps mp3, so this doesn't bother me :]

Re:If you can play it...

[apweiler]

Well... I really am starting to think that convenience is incredibly important - it's such a hassle to wire your SACD player to the soundcard and let the whole CD run through this in real-time, it probably will stop a lot of people. Not you and me perhaps, but ordinary consumers.
This is also one reason why copy-protected audio CDs might have some effect. Only some, though, because many of these consumers will then download the songs from someone who managed to rip them on Kazaa.
Then again - people take the time to record stuff to MiniDisc via analogue cable in realtime. So you might be right.

Either way - it's hard to say how the average consumer will behave. Expect the worst.

Why DVDs suck

[tiltowait]

With DVDs first came out, the general consumer opinion was "great - now I'll have the same flexibility with viewing that CDs offered over cassette tapes." Well guess again, buster. With most DVDs you're now forced to watch 2+ minutes of INTERPOL and FBI warnings before getting to a chapter index on a standard player (some of it is usability flashy annoyances, but you can't skip any of it).

These 2+ minute warnings do nothing to prevent piracy and only serve to annoy people - they're rather like the recently-dumped "are you carrying any bombs" questions at airport check-ins. Technological advances and misguided DRM measures just don't mix. It doesn't help that the entertainment industry is just paranoid of any new technology:

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
- Jack Valenti in 1982, trying to get congress to outlaw the VHR.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that _does_ suck.

The problem is, most people make little excuses for these annoyances. You'll hear it on slashdot all the time: "Oh I just go make popcorn when that stuff comes on...oh I just go to the bathroom...Oh I just go get a beer while that's going on."

People have learned to accept these little intrusions and inconveniences, even though they shouldn't. Although Linux users that want to play DVD's are screaming bloody blue murder over the whole CSS issue, Joe and Jane Lunchbox could care less about region encoding--exactly how likely is it that they will run into a region problem? Not very, and therefore they probably don't even know about CSS/region encoding.

Of course, you CAN get around these things...I patched my Apex player to get rid of Crap-o-vision and region encoding. A properly patched Xine will let you skip the FBI nonsense as well. But the thing is--you shouldn't HAVE to do this. None of this trash should have been there to begin with. And DVDs are an addiction--people don't want to stop buying them just because of these inconveniences. (And some of them are REALLY annoying...the Monty Python DVD set from A&E for example FORCES you to sit through the warning, the A&E logo splash, and the entire A&E Monty Python intro before you get to the index. I get more and more annoyed by it every time I play it.)

Frankly I'm a fan of digital video--I make SVCD's all the time and I have a growing collection of DVDs. And I do honestly believe that CSS/region encoding is going to die, eventually--they just can't win, and there are lawsuits racking up in various countries to fight it as we speak.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Cinematique]

+4 Insightful?!

*Some* DVDs have somewhat lengthy FBI warnings, but the idea that you're forced to "watch 2+ minutes" of them is a gross overstatement. 30 seconds, at the most. If you can prove me wrong, I'll give you $20. Obviously, those who modded this post up felt that it was either clever sarcasm, or are simply blind and ignorant.

Yes, you are prevented from skipping the warning on most DVDs, but again, they aren't 120 seconds long. Some major studio DVDs don't even have FBI warnings at all! It depends on the distributor, motion picture, and movie studio.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[colinleroy]

With most DVDs you're now forced to watch 2+ minutes of INTERPOL and FBI warnings before getting to a chapter index on a standard player

These are volunteer hardware/software limitations, btw. Software open-source DVD players let you skip them easily :)

Re:Why DVDs suck

[zapfie]

Just so you are aware, there is a typo in the second line of your sig.. Who is Jack Valenti, by the way? He sounds like someone with some serious issues..

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the president or somesuch of the motion picture association.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[evvk]

I saw one disc where the propaganda text was in at least 10 different languages and you were forced to watch it in all those languages. That makes at least two minutes.

DVD menus are awkward two. Why the fsck can't the player remember that I want the original soundtrack and subtitles in Finnish (if possible)? Why do I have to surf through multiple levels menus just to watch a film? Shouldn't pressing the 'play' button be enough? VHS much less a pain in the ass to use.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Flamerule]

+4 Informative?!

Yes, you are prevented from skipping the warning on most DVDs, but again, they aren't 120 seconds long.

The point isn't the length of the warning, it's that on a DVD player and DVD that I bought, I am prevented from skipping through parts of the data stream. It is a wretched and disgusting thing to watch my DVD player flash a "not allowed" icon up when I try to do something, because the manufacturer has conspired with the content cartel to remove functionality (or add a "functionality" I don't want!) from the device.

The same thing happens with my Realmagic Hollywood+ program on my windows partition, but happily when I'm in Linux, MPlayer and Xine will let me do whatever I want. Unfortunately, support for my DVD decoder card isn't quite where it needs to be (you can check out the state of affairs at the DXR3 and Hollywood+ driver project page), so the DVD quality is a little off in Linux.

Actually, the example of being unable to skip the FBI warning is a good one to show non-techwise people, who might zone out if you tried to explain the entire CSS encryption and region-coding scheme to them. I watched something with my mom recently, and she definitely noticed when I pointed out how we were being forced to watch the warning screen.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[iamdrscience]

#1 - A lot of DVDs don't have FBI Warnings, and of those that do, most of them are not longer than 20 seconds. #2 - I don't know about you, but on my DVD player even though you can't SKIP the FBI warning you can still fast forward through it (same as on VHS!). I don't recall EVER running into an FBI warning longer than 30 seconds OR one that couldn't be fast forwarded through. However, there is one DVD I own which has movie previews before the movie which could not be skipped and that was annoying, but they could still be fast forwarded through (LIKE ON VHS!). So just ONE of my DVDs (out of 100+) has something annoying in the beginning and even then it's no worse than its VHS equivalent.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[PjotrP]

imagine audio cd's having a 30 seconds "ripping to mp3 is illegal" message which you had to listen to when you press play...

Re:Why DVDs suck

[NoMaster]

*Some* DVDs have somewhat lengthy FBI warnings, but the idea that you're forced to "watch 2+ minutes" of them is a gross overstatement.

Ummm, I have a couple of DVDs here with warnings in 4 languages, each 30 seconds long. I just wish I could remember which ones they were; I'd quote the titles...

One I do remember is the Buffy S1 DVDs, R4. 3 warnings (English, French, and somethingelse) at the beginning; Dutch (I think) at the end. This is the one that got me off my arse to install DVDsynth, so I can skip those damned warnings...

Re:Why DVDs suck

[DarkEdgeX]

Disc Manufacturers I try to avoid--

- Disney
- Paramount

Disney (for example in Monsters, Inc) places a bunch of ads that you can skip by hitting 'Menu' but are annoying. I mean, yes, you can easily skip it, but if you miss the short message explaining HOW at the beginning, you're forced to endure up to 5-6 advertisements.

Paramount on the other hand, usually has the unskippable FBI warnings. What *I* like is the studios/manufacturers who place these warnings *at the end* of movies (usually with the rating), as this makes the most sense, and doesn't inconvenience the regular consumer. I won't agree with the author that you replied to, but I will agree with him on the point that these things detract from the overall enjoyment of the product. Why can't we just watch movies ad-free, we paid for them, isn't that enough?

(FYI: I actually enjoy movie trailers/advertisements usually, placing them in some 'Other Titles' menu item would make me extremely happy so I could go watch them at my leisure/desire, but force feeding it just sucks.)

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't the length of the warning, it's that on a DVD player and DVD that I bought, I am prevented from skipping through parts of the data stream

It's my shotgun and my bullets, and I am prevented from shooting people with it.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[SaraSmith]

"Why do I have to surf through multiple levels menus just to watch a film? Shouldn't pressing the 'play' button be enough?"

All I usually do is push my "audio" and "subtitles" buttons during the movie. On nearly every DVD I have, these buttons scroll through all audio tracks and subtitles... I don't know if every player has these, but they work just fine on mine. Plus, my player's menu has default language settings. I CAN tell it to play the French audio track on everything, with Japanese subtitles (or whatever) by default. It'll even show the menus on the DVD in your desired language, assuming they're on the disc of course.

Just a cheapo APEX player... plays everything I can throw at it, even nonstandard resolutions and bitrates, flawless SVCD playback... even mpeg and vob videos burnt to a regular cd, not even with any sort of special formatting (VCD/SVCD/etc). mp3... jpg pictures... menus that remember your language settings... handles subdirectories... it's even got a disc changer, which is wonderful for multi-disc VCD/SVCD movies, or you can just leave some mp3 discs in there (10+ albums per disc kills regular cds just on convienience factor) and leave a slot open for movies.

It completely slaughters most friend's players in almost every way, which they spent lots and lots more money on than me.

I've got a cheap $200 stereo with a 5.1 decoder, this all came with speakers and everything, not the best, but it sounds great in a bedroom... plus I even made one of those fresnel lens projectors, so if I want to mess with focusing the thing, I even have an enormous screen. My cheap setup blows away a lot of other people's, and even really impresses them most of the time.

Now that I've rambled far too much.. the lesson is... try the cheaper players, they just might have the features you're looking for.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Romeo Must Die, Region 4. The FBI Warnings are in 8 different languages. Now send me the money. Actually, on second thought, send the $20 off to the EFF.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[mabinogi]

That's not the same thing at all...

You are not prevented from shooting people...you could go out right now and shoot people if you wanted too.

The fact that you would be arrested, sent to jail and possibly even executed, is not a function of the gun itself. It's entirely up to you to decide whether or not you care about the law and the (fairly inevitable) consequences.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

...they're rather like the recently-dumped "are you carrying any bombs" questions at airport check-ins.

THe question is legitimate, despite the obvious objection. It may trip up someone who IS carrying explosives or has other intentions, and give them away via facial expressions, eyes, tone of voice, etc, BUT ONLY to a trained professional. Your average $5/hour Bubba The Security Dude is as likely to strip search a grandma as a real terrorist.

Re:Why DVDs suck

[Cinematique]

I guess I should've clarified... I meant Region 1/USA only. I've never come across any DVDs from regions other than #1, seeing that I'm in America and all, and don't actively seek them out.

Furthermore, sending $20 to the EFF would be a waste. To say otherwise is pretty foolish. They've done absolutely nothing as of late to help shore up my rights as both a consumer and a citizen of the theoretically "free" United States of America.

SACD and digital-out

[tweakt]

At least for SACD, it's not because of purely copy protection reasons.

SACD output is 2.8Mbit/s. Toslink cannot support this as it's not just the bitrate but its a completely different way of sampling.

For what it's worth SACD is the one truly innovative format, DVD-Audio just pushes up the sample size/sample rate that AudioCD has, is a completely new way to do things. See here for background

Anyway....
There is no(*) receivers that support decoding this into the 120db dynamic range and 100khz frequency range that the format supports. So the solution is to decode to high bandwidth analog outputs and feed each channel in analog format directly to a discrete amplifier.

(*) actually I just saw one the other day, a pioneer, with IEEE-1384 input for SACD/DVDA type formats, now to find a player with this output.

Re:SACD and digital-out

[mhatle]

You need a Pioneer VSX-49TXi for the reciever (i.Link in) and a Pioneer 47Ai SCAD player to send the signal over i.Link.

I havn't personally heard this combination, but I've been told the sound is incredible.

--Mark

Re:SACD and digital-out

[illumina]

Some SACD players have digital outs (e.g. Accuphase), but they only work when playing regular CDS and are disabled when SACDs are played. It is similar with DVD-Audio, it is possible to set up the disc so that it will not output the 24/96 datastream on the digital output. Instead you only get the downsampled version of the data. However many smaller record labels aren't so nasty and will let you output full resolution data, so that if you have a high quality DAC that can handle 24/96, then you get great sound, and you could import it to your computer it if you wanted.

Re:SACD and digital-out

[JoeSchnee]

> SACD output is 2.8Mbit/s. Toslink cannot support this as it's not just the bitrate but its a completely different way of sampling.

OK, optical SPDIF doesn't support 2.8Mb/s, but the physical TOSLINK parts can do over 9Mb/s as witnessed by the 24bit 8 channel Alesis ADAT format.
Same transmitters, same receivers. The serial format is just a few dollars worth of CPLD or a few pennies of ASIC.

Re:SACD and digital-out

[adrew]

I was walking through Circuit City the other day and passed something that sounded really good. It turned out to be a Sony SACD/DVD "system in a box." I found the improved sound quality immediately apparent...everything sounded really "warm."

I bought my first DVD player soon after that. It's a Sony SACD/DVD player with a built-in Dolby Digital decoder. I bought it 'cause my receiver (an older Harman/Kardon) doesn't have digital surround sound inputs, but does have an analog 5.1 channel input.

What's cool about this is that I can connect the DVD/SACD player's 5.1-channel outputs to the receiver's 5.1-channel inputs and listen to SACD's in full, glorious surround sound.

I haven't bought any SACD's yet, but it did come with a sampler disc, and there's a subtle, but noticeable difference. (My $300 speakers probably aren't good enough to get the full benefit.)

Re:SACD and digital-out

[Bishop]

According to Acoustic Rnaissance for Audio the bitstream encoding used on SACDs is not better then PCM with a comparatively high sample rate and sample size. Both encodeing techniques have their advantages. According to the linked paper, for the purposes of digital audio storage and playback, PCM is better. Although the paper does not delve deeply into the advantages of bitstream encoding, the paper does say that bitstream is better when there is a direct connection between the ADC and DAC.

Re:SACD and digital-out

[DarkEdgeX]

For what it's worth SACD is the one truly innovative format, DVD-Audio just pushes up the sample size/sample rate that AudioCD has, is a completely new way to do things.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but what's not innovative about DVD-Audio? DVD-A has MUCH more than just higher sample size/rates, it also has multi-channel output (Dolby Digital 5.1 encoded/compressed using MLP), something SACD also has, but that I think makes the formats as good as they are. Is there some other difference between SACD and DVD-A that I'm missing that puts SACD over the top?

As for digital outs, this has been confusing me actually. Pioneer has a semi-cheap DVD-A player (also does DVD-Video) with digital optical/coaxial outputs, but it also has individual analog outputs for the different channels. What happens when you play a DVD-A disc in this player? Does the digital out simply not get used? Seems like a waste of my amplifiers decoder to send it out over all those wires. =)

Thanks!

Re:SACD and digital-out

[jeffy210]

Pioneer is releasing the Elite series DV-47i (i for IEEE) that has the correct output to use in conjunction with their recievers. I'm just going to get the 47, instead of the the 47i, because i'd prefer to stick with my Denon reciever.

No digital outputs, but....

[tonywestonuk]

What is stopping someone recording the Analogue outputs using a high quality sound card, and then burning the results onto CD?.... I'm pritty sure that there would be very few people who could tell the minute difference in qualtity, and then the format would be fully copyable by anyone....... So what about the digital watermark- since I doubt that every CD sold would have a different watermark, and therefor they'd still be unable to trace the original 'CD Pirate' from the n'th copy down the line.

AFAIK, Digital watermarks are removed when the music is encoded with Ogg/MP3 , after all these compressions work by removing the sound elements that humans percive poorly.

Maybe, this is just a way of ensuring only 'approved' cd's are playable on this equipment, and therefore protecting their monopoly from the threat of joe blogs distibuting his own music without going through a record company....

Re:No digital outputs, but....

[zardie]

While consumer multichannel recording software (and hardware) seems a bit hard to get hold of (I haven't seen any, but I haven't looked too hard), you'll find that the SB Audigy 2 can do 24 bit, 96khz sound recording. M-audio have a similar product they have just released (with no digital inputs, mind you).

So it's very possible and within consumer reach to record high quality audio with their PC. It won't sound the same as SACD but again, MP3s don't sound as good as CDs yet they're still popular.

Re:No digital outputs, but....

[drinkypoo]

More to the point, in DVD-Audio's case, it's just a DVD. How long will it be before someone writes a ripper (ala DVD2SVCD but for audio) that will rip them to the format of your choice? You don't need digital out, in fact it's the least opportune method for ripping something because it only operates at 1:1 speed. My PC can generally re-encode an AVI to SVCD resolution and bitrate MPEG2 at 1:1 speed, I can MP3 as fast as I can rip with my plextor while doing other things, I can decode a DVD while only using a few percentage points of my CPU's capacity... Why would I want to use SPDIF to rip a DVD Audio Disc?

Re:No digital outputs, but....

[Dasein]

Yeah but semi-pro stuff is easy to find and pretty cheap.

This might work for $379.

Re:No digital outputs, but....

[metrazol]

The point isn't that you have to record tracks through your soundcard as opposed to simply ripping them off the disc. That's not a big deal if you know what you're doing.

The problem is that the D/A (that's digital to analog) converter in these components isn't as sweet/mad expensive as the $10,000 box sitting on an audiophile's rack.

Also, plugging an analog component into your beautiful system can be a pain in the ass. Digital out means one plug into your D/A converter. Simple. Wiring a new connection to your pre-amps, now that's a pain in the wallet when you're using $100 a foot cable.

P.S. If you're using an audigy to record tracks, and pretty much any consumer targeted system, your recordings are going to suck. Throw down for something a little better if you plan to do a lot of that...

Re:No digital outputs, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Audigy isn't true 24-bit, it's 16-bit dithered on playback. Record is 16-bit, low 8 bits are noise. Get a real soundcard.

Re:Please help with Linux driver

[ttyRazor]

They don't exist, sorry. Return it and get one with a prism2/orinoco based chipset

Decide!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey music industry, could you make your mind up about whether you don't want the analog loophole or want to avoid digital quality leaks? SACD players without digital ports? You have got to be kidding. Next thing we'll hear about is a player with neither analog nor digital ports...

Better legacy playing

[nelsonal]

The interviews in the article seemed more concerned about the SACD player sounding worse than their high end CD players. I'm assuming that SACD players probably have pretty good D to A converters, since they are designed for audiophiles and only have analog output. Would it sound worse running 6 channel analog to your amplifier, than running the digital signal and decoding it with your amp? I know with my sound card, it sounds worse, but I think that has more to do with my soundcard's cheap components.

Re:Better legacy playing

[fyonn]

Would it sound worse running 6 channel analog to your amplifier, than running the digital signal and decoding it with your amp

how many dacs do you need? with digital inputs then you need one dac per output channel no matter how many digital sources you've got. a good dac is a way of transforming an old cd player, but good dac's are expensive.

in my system I have a cd player, dvd player, digital radio and midisc player. all of which output in digital. I would rather get a really nice pre/pro with damn good dac's which will with with any digital input, than get a nice dac for each component (which I wouldn't do as I can't afford it).

whereas with sacd/dvda nly outputting in analogue then my investment in dac's suddenly becomes useless as the players refuse to let me use them.

dave

SACD = AMAZING!!!

[tweakt]

I bought a new Sony DVD player and for basically no extra cost it happens to play SACD as well. Dude, I was skeptical, but even on my humble system, I was POSITIVELY FLOORED.

It came with a sampler disc. Had some great blues and jazz tracks as well as some Roger Waters (Pink Floyd). It's so lifelike, realistic, almost gives me goosebumps. But if you are the type that can't tell the difference between 128k MP3 and the CD, then don't even bother.

My point is: (A) The difference is very clear. The high end is so full, cymbals sound like they are right in the room with you. (B) You don't need to have an audiophile level system to hear it (just halfway decent speakers). Of course every bit helps. For reference I have a set of KLH speakers, good but not very expensive.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[boa13]

Well, doh, it's a sampler disc. You would fully expect it to sound just great! I'm sure they've had a Team of Super Sound Engineers to fill the high-end.

Don't get so hyped on a single record. I'm willing to believe SACD sounds better than a CD, but I'm also certain that having a good sound engineer makes much more difference.

Looking at my CD collection, the symphonic version of the Princess Mononoke soundtrack sounds like shit and forces me to boost the volume to dangerous levels to enjoy it somewhat, while the symphonic version of the Castle in the Sky is simply the best-sounding CD I have ever heard. Same author, same technology, abysmal difference in quality.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

... except it's a smapler disc.

The problem with modern CDs is the engineering.

These days, they use heavy dynamic range compression on them to get them as loud as possible for radio air-play, but it makes them sound much poorer when you listen at home.

If you've got some CDs from 15-20 years back, try listening to them and compare it to something recent. The difference there is often astounding.

Yes, SACD is better. But there's a lot more to it than just the technical specs. And that demo disc was engineered to sell you the system... your CD collection was engineered to sound good on radio.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[ikea5]

wrong! dynamic range compression are not done on the CD side when they play on radio. your cds are still recorded with no dynamic range compression. todays cd actually sounds a lot better then the 15 year old ones, especially with some with the over-sampling rate digital transfer, like JVC's XRCD and some other 20/24 bits transfers.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then explain why they don't sound better?

Explain why modern CDs rarely drop below -15db on the level mdeter?

Answer: because they're range compressed.

I'm not alone in noticing this. Check out here for commentary of others that have noticed it.

Modern discs ARE noticably louder and they ARE range-compressed. And the quality sucks compared to what the technology is capable of.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're both wrong. Today's CDs are heavily processed =including= compression. Radio stations =also= stomp the hell out of the signal to make it louder (and virtually unlistenable IMO).

OTOH, CDs from 15-20 years ago are no better in this regard. Popular use of compression technology dates back to the sixties in the recording studios and the seventies in the broadcast studios.

Many of the older CDs sound much worse than todays CDs because mastering engineers spent a few years trying to tweak them like they had to do with vinyl to get the latter to sound tolerable. This is why early CDs suffered from so much unnecessary compression and high frequency boost. It's also part of the persistent myth that CDs sound worse than vinyl. Early ones were just badly mastered.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[Psx29]

Reminds me of the Dolby Digital vs. DTS (and to a lesser extent vs. SDDS) debate. It all depends on how it is encoded.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!!

[Crixus]

Plus early A/D simply sounded like shit.

Yes, good compression technology has been around for a long time. I use it every weekend in this analog room that I work in.

We do need to get some dynamics back onto the CD's. Digital guys talk about their signal to noise ratio, but they never take advantage of it. :-)

Someday we'll return to preserving dynamics. Who knows when. It's fashion.

Rich...

Everything they do is bad?

[mao che minh]

I wonder what an acceptable solution for the masses would be for the protection of copyright material? It's obvious that the way that media is exchanged and used has changed with the information age, and this change has brought on a new market climate that the movie and music industries must learn to conduct trade in. The people seemingly won't tolerate DRM and similar "treacherous computing ;)" models, we immediately defeat any encryption schemes that they come up with, and we bicker and complain about every action that the media giants take in defending their goods.

So what are they supposed to do? Start using "pay for play" market strategies more? Blow hundreds of millions of dollars coming up with yet another encryption scheme that two guys at MIT will crack the next Sunday? Or, will they dump their millions into the pockets of unscrupulous politicians and companies like Microsoft, and eradicate the act of personal computing as we know it? My opinion: First, they must lower prices. There is no reason that 90% of the artists out there should be earning more then average Joe. And second, they must implement more intensive pay for play schemes and stop relying on the sale of mass amounts of over priced garbage.With lower prices on complete albums, and the ability for people to pay only for the songs that they like, I think that you could see the music industry sustain the success that they have had in the past (not like they are hurting now, mind you). One would hope at leastthat with the increase in sales, they might stop shelling out billions in their campaign against our freedom.

Re:Everything they do is bad?

[jokerghost]

"First, they must lower prices. There is no reason that 90% of the artists out there should be earning more then average Joe"

Clearly you haven't been reading /. for a while now. Otherwise you'd realize that 90% of artists barely break even. The only ones making the multi-millions are the ones who's albums keep going platnum.

Try this or this , or, for futher reading, try doing a search for "music" or "RIAA".

However, I agree, it would be nice if CD prices were lowered to a respectable price. It's ironic how CDs were to replace vynl because they were cheaper to produce, and now we pay more (inflation adjusted) than anyone ever paid for a record.

-jokerghost

Re:Everything they do is bad?

[aaarrrgggh]

What are they supposed to do? Here are a few starters:

Focus on core value-- Distribution of content

Keep costs down. Profit is fine, but the margins should be thin enough that real piracy isn't viable. Again, focus on core value, and make an efficient, effective distribution system.

Understand the consumer's needs--

1. People want to be able to bring music with them on a portable device. MP3's are adequate for that from a quality standpoint.

1. People want to be able to listen to music in the car, at home, and at work. For effective distribution, this is important... it spreads the message!

1. People want to be able to have more than 40 minutes of music on physical media. Personally, I like having about 60 hours of music, to manage repeats and moods. Maybe "Random" isn't good for distribution effectiveness, but there are ways to improve identity.

Understand that "renting" the content has much lower value to a consumer, and they may very well realize that they don't need what you offer as badly. DRM does actually have some interesting applications, but... it just may be too late with audio. Analog audio out and "good enough" quality really makes the digital issues obsolete. The problem for consumers with any "protection" that is provided is that it limits the effectiveness of the labels free promotion.

Re:Everything they do is bad?

[fyonn]

There is no reason that 90% of the artists out there should be earning more then average Joe

well, to be fair, 90%+ of artists probably earn less than the average joe, 90% of high level music company exec's however... thats a different story (I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...)

dave

Re:Everything they do is bad?

[JudasBlue]

There is no reason that 90% of the artists out there should be earning more then average Joe.

Man, I don't know where you hang out, but I want a membership. About 99.9% of the artists I know don't make dick, especially compared to code jockeys. Hell, I make more when I am technically out of work than most of the _signed_ musicians I know.

And I keep seeing this "well, the industry should lower prices so the whole thing is their fault" argument a lot on here. You know what, you gotta be a retard or an Eagle scout to go the store and buy something that you can get for free over broadband with no real hassle.

"But lowering prices worked for DVD's!" Yep, and that is cause it takes too long to download DVD's and DVD burners don't come on every new machine shipped yet. Both of those things will change in the future and DVD's will be in the same boat.

The RIAA is doomed in the long run, and good riddence to them and their cracked crap. But all of this slashdot kneejerk about just lowering prices every time this subject comes up is bunk. Lower prices are only going to work if you are getting some kind of value added. And for every person who wants the CD cover art, there are going to be ten who will pull down the free product if it isn't much more hassle than going to the store and buying the new CD, no matter how cheap it is.

Re:Everything they do is bad?

[zbuffered]

Here's what it is. The Music Industry doesn't realize that some of it's customer base has changed. Most still buy LPs, tapes, and CDs, but some are looking for more. They want to sample music, they want to buy individual songs over the internet. Because it would be more convenient. The Music Industry doesn't comply, so we protest by setting up a sort of free-for-all situation rampant with piracy. They should simply see that those people who would rather download music than buy it at the store are a target they should aim for. We're willing to spend money on music, but please, give us something we want. We don't want CDs any more.

Behold "capitalism"...

[Travoltus]

... and the total subversion of the free market principles which lie at its core.

The consumer's opinion means nothing now.
"All your music are belong to us." - The Oligarchy.

Re:Behold "capitalism"...

[aronc]

... and the total subversion of the free market principles which lie at its core.

The consumer's opinion means nothing now.

Actually.. the 'opinion' part ceases to matter when everyone is convinced we are consumers instead of customers.

Re:Behold "capitalism"...

[Dyolf Knip]

Capitalism's biggest enemies are successful capitalists, after all. Fortunately, these guys think they have a total monopoly and can therefore screw everyone over forever with impunity. As there are alternatives to the big labels (P2P and indies), public opinion is definitely turning against them (lots more articles on CNN regarding this than there used to be) they're only digging their own graves. I hope.

Re:Behold "capitalism"...

[Okojo]

What we are seeing is the beginning of western capitalism's demise. Ironically, it is collapsing into a form of privatized communism. Never before have people had such debt as they do now. Never before have there been so many articles concerning the power wielded by megacorporations. George "Dubya" Bush profitted over $300,000 from Enron and I have yet to see him return any portion of it to the Enron employees who lost their money in the scandal. Let's face it, America's government is corrupt. Politicians will get away with anything as long as Joe Blow remains glued to his television set or Bill Gheek writes a letter to his congressman, which for all practical purposes means he sent his thoughts to /dev/null. The United States is no longer a democracy. Both political parties merged into a "non-bipartisian" mediocrity whose will follows the money trail, not election votes.

Remember the second amendment! A government can only do good if it fears its own people.

No Digital Output?

[nitelifer]

It's just a matter of time till someone mods their SACD player.

Re:No Digital Output?

[tigga]

It's just a matter of time till someone mods their SACD player.

What's then? What someone will do with 2.8MHz bitstream?
There are no receivers which understand such signals...

Contradictions

[zelphi]

In the second paragraph of the article it says "But many audiophiles are cool to the virtual padlocks, which could prove the undoing of one or both formats." WTF? Who exactly is "cool to the padlocks"? They don't give any names...

Further down in the article it even admits that "In a recent Gartner G2 survey, 88 percent of respondents said they believed it legal to make copies of CDs for personal backup use while 77 percent felt they should be able to copy a CD for personal use in another device. "

Regardless, if it can be played, it can be recorded. I'd like to see the look on David Migdal's face when the encryption is broken before the first disk is released...

Re:Contradictions

[mjprobst]

Certainly the context shows that "cool" doesn't mean they like it in this case. Think of "hot, lukewarm, cool". I think they tried to get too fancy in saying that audiophiles don't like the DRM technology.

Re:Contradictions

[dr_dank]

I'd like to see the look on David Migdal's face when the encryption is broken before the first disk is released...

I think he will be smiling when he has the guilty party arrested for violating the DMCA.

Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Studios might get their own writers&readers, but those will just have no protection and their readers will simply not read protected media. So the worlds will stay completely seperate, and they will have to send their discs away off-site to be mastered before the protection will be added ... so you cant use their writers for pirating either.

Re:Unlikely

[gl4ss]

'pro' in this means more probably high-end than professional, very close in terms sometimes.. high end hobbyists have money: true. they'll want digital output(some of them at least) to their dedicated high end amp, or very high quality analog output: true. somebody will provide them with this: very true. this is enough for the releases to hit the net: Very True. you got any idea how many audio cd's are published? sure nintendo can get away doing their gc games dedicatedly in place x. but no way for all audio producers to embrace such tech. anyways, cd's are cheap to make(now), offer enough for the consumer, are widely spread, and convinient(Sp?). any 'upgrade' to that just won't cut it. and if all else fails coverbands with home studios could be the next big thing in p2p music sharing.

Recording Industry is its own worst enemy

[cyber_rigger]

The "Old School" recording industry is self-extinguishing itself.

New methods and business model will prevail.

No....

[gibbdog]

This time around they are just going to ban markers.

They are a device that can be used to circumvent a copy protection device, so they have to be illegal.

last paragraph, what good is that?

[DewDude]

"Copyright owners are entitled to use whatever formats they want to use," von Lohmann said. "If they really want to protect their content they can go back to vinyl."

How is THAT going to stop people? It simply makes it harder to rip?

With the proper equipment (read - PROPER) you can produce vinyl rips that are BETTER than some CD sources. Naturally the equipment is expensive, and there's always the inevatible static click or pop, but, with good digital procecssing, you can clean it up. I've done several albums off vinyl and burned them to CD with excellent results.

Which remins the question, did the mention vinyl beecause of sound quality, or because some people look at it as lower sound quality than cassette?

Re:last paragraph, what good is that?

[Hadlock]

i'm just curious, but i've heard that vinyl sounds better than CD, and it's probably true; it's an analog recording. my question is, at what point in time did the quality of (consumer, not professional) record players eclipse that of the consumer CD player w/digital out? will my dad's 1978 hi-end consumer sony (or whatever brand) record player with a new needle sound better than my 1990 cd player with digital out? it's always been my assumption that an off the shelf consumer CD player with digital out will sound better than 99 out of 100 consumer record players, and as a result, the CD actually sounds better to the majority of the population.

Re:last paragraph, what good is that?

[Dyolf Knip]

I think by "PROPER" the parent was referring to one of those laser-needle record players. They'll generally put you back 20 or 30 grand, though. I have yet to actually be in the same room as one. :)

Re:last paragraph, what good is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I saw a tv commercial about this, at least the end of one. It was late at night so I was tire, but I believe it was some fellow stating "some music isn't available on vinyl", and then him putting the needle to a record, a computer, and then pulling a CD.

Now, I definitely knew people did this (a guy at the University was asking about doing this a couple of years ago for his collection), but I was surprised someone had an ad for it.

It was for a software product...Roxio I think.

Re:last paragraph, what good is that?

[DewDude]

there's too much involved to read a phonograph by laser, you have to measure too many axis to do it with a laser, it'll also eat your vinyl, possibly. By proper I mean a good turntable. I have a 1984 Technics SL-q200, often reffered to as an AudioPhile turntable. The key here is the cartridge, it's an electromagnet, the cartridge determines a good bit of the sound quality, shitty cart/stylus...crappy sound. Calibration is also important. The main issue is your ADC...I use a SB Audigy because it was good for the money..I'd like an Audiophile 2496.

Re:last paragraph, what good is that?

[DewDude]

a LOT of it has to do with the cartirdge involved. and I mean A LOT. if it was a higher end turntable, it probably has a stylus cartridge that plugs into the arm, this is an electromagnetic cartridge. magnets mounted inside of the "stick" the stylus is attatched to vibrate according to the grove, coils (electromagnets, but, there is no electricity to the cartridge) pick it up and make an electric signal, much like a generator. this is a low power output, so, it's preamped then amped. this produces a highy accurate output. there are other (Read CHEAP) mounts commonly seen on newer turntables and some 80's bundle models which have a snap on stylus, and a piece of carboard picks up the vibration, this produces bad quality. also, weight and calibration have A LOT to do. my technics SL-Q200 is listed as an "Audiophile" table on several pages, and has a electromagnet P-Mount cart, so, I can get better sound by buying a better cartridge, or ok sound from a cheaper cart, I have a diamond eplittical stylus on it right now, smooth sound. I'm not sure what the sony's used. But, it seems recently and in the 80's, when vinyl started going out, that companies stopped producing good turntables, they were mostly provided for "legacy" support, if I may put it.

Few flaws

[nachoman]

There are a few major flaws with all these new systems.

- Until you can readily get SACD or watever in the music store, you won't find people jumping to sign up. Plus if there is no significant improvement over a regular CD, then people will stick with CDs. What will the price be? Will they cost more than CDs? That will certainly deter people.

- I don't get this watermarking crap. Yes, watermark will not let you make unauthorized SACD (or insert other format here). So that just means that there will be no independent artists which can use this new format. They will be stuck with the old CDs.

- Also, a watermark won't stop someone copying the disc, it will just stop them making a disc with the same content. Look at the Dreamcast. Why would I need the disc anyway when I can play it on my computer, on an iPod, or throw it on a regular CD.

And they can't try and convince me that putting only Analog outputs will stop copying. Analog to digital is no big deal. Some quality will be lost but whatever people will still do this to be able to listen to their disc elsewhere.

If it does fly, it will probably end up with way of the DVD. Great technology, but not fulfilling its purpose (ie the non-copying).

Re:Few flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get this watermarking crap. Yes, watermark will not let you make unauthorized SACD (or insert other format here). So that just means that there will be no independent artists which can use this new format. They will be stuck with the old CDs.

Or, more accurately, they will be forced to go to a licensed authoring house, and pay them to manufacture their SACDs. The reason for the watermarking is to prevent musicians from mastering their own albums, and distributing them on consumer DVD-Rs.

Re:Few flaws

[quintessent]

Will they cost more than CDs? That will certainly deter people.

Will they cost as much as CDs? That's already a very prohibitive price.

Does it offer any other additional functionaly?

[GuardianBob420]

Besides all of the good points you've just made, these new formats don't offer any additional functionality to the end user. CD's are (were?) cool because you can skip directly to the track you want to hear, and the thing sounds great even after you've played your favorite track about 200 times (remember what that did to your tapes?). DVD's didn't appeal to me all that much until I realized the advantages they offered an anime fan such as myself - multiple languages and the ability to toggle subtitles - all on one disk! I also do love the fact that DVDs don't wear out like my old VHS collection did.
Ok, kinda roundabaout, but how about offering new features like the ability to select a single (or set of) instrument at a time, so you can listen to just the rippin' baseline (or maybe the just the strings section)... oh, and nice digital outs, of course. Since when are we all criminals before the fact? Jeez...

Re:Does it offer any other additional functionaly?

[doug363]

Something that could be really popular in certain markets is to control the voice volume for Karaoke purposes...

Anyway, you're 100% spot on. I think many people buy into new formats because of features like that, even if they'd never use them. <<Insert ficticious anecdote here>>

from the article

[soreno]

"None of the dozens of DVD-Audio and SACD discs examined at Virgin Megastore in San Francisco mentioned the underlying copy-protection scheme in their outer packaging."

Game over. Would you like to try another game of pick the disc without copy-protection ?

Re:from the article

[angle_slam]

If SACD is inherently copy-protected, wouldn't placing a copy-protection logo on the packaging be redundant?

The EFF's response is disappointing

[dstone]

From the article:

Fred von Lohmann, an intellectual property attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the onus will be on consumers to make sure they're aware of what they're buying.

"Copyright owners are entitled to use whatever formats they want to use," von Lohmann said. "If they really want to protect their content they can go back to vinyl."

What kind of snarky remark is that?! 1) This probably makes the recording industry laugh! "Sure they'll go back to vinyl." 2) I really don't think consumers want to protect their content with -that- amount of sacrifice.

It could simply be CNN's editing, but I would have rather the EFF pointed out something like "consumers will protect their content by continuing to rip from consumer friendly formats."

PWM is innovative huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, what will they think up next.

Innovation is overrated, DVD-Audio has higher frequency cut-off and better dynamic range ... pretty cut and dry I think.

A new copy protection scheme!

[Karhgath]

The RIAA is currently, and has been for quite a while, working on a new foolproof copy protection mechanism. With this system, no one will want to even try to bypass the copy protection mechanism and rip the CD, it will be futile and useless to even try.

I was at their secret meeting on a undisclosed island in the pacific[shaped as the head of Hilary Rosen] and I was floored to hear of this new mechanism. They were working on it for many, many years, they were quite visionary. Slowly it is entering the unsuspected consumer's home even now. They call this new scheme JPCM: Just Produce Crap Music.

No one will ever want to rip any CD anymore... Enter the complete DRM system for music!

Old is New Again

[limekiller4]

SACD, meet DivX. DivX, meet SACD.

Re:Old is New Again

[fyonn]

SACD, meet DivX. DivX, meet SACD.

err... wtf?

sacd is a music only format with the potential for very high quality. DivX is a video codec...

dave

Re:Old is New Again

[Dyolf Knip]

DivX the video rental scheme, not the codec. You know, it was a nice little "Fuck You" to the MPAA to name the most popular pirate codec (not only is it used for piracy, but it's actually pirated from another proprietary codec, MPEG4!) after a failed copy-prevention widget, but it really does get confusing.

Re:Old is New Again

[fyonn]

DivX the video rental scheme, not the codec.

ahh, gotcha :)

not quite so sure it's as cut and dried like that but yeah the old skool divx was indeed an excellent example of consumers telling the industry uite where they could stick it

dave

Re:Old is New Again

[lostchicken]

DivX is the MPEG4 codec.
DIVX is the DVD rental system.

The capital 'X' in DivX is to prevent confusion.

Re:Old is New Again

[Erik K. Veland]

Actually MPEG4 is an open standard.

Re:Old is New Again

[Erik K. Veland]

Not quite. DivX ;-) with the smiley-wink is to prevent confusion. Not many bother with it though, not even the "official site".

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what I've been waiting for, the Betamax of audio technology.

Guess I'm lucky...

[Sebby]

My Sony DAV-S500 does have digital out, as well as support for SACD.

Re:Guess I'm lucky...

[fyonn]

My Sony DAV-S500 does have digital out, as well as support for SACD.


well, you're not alone. virtually all sacd/dvda player have a digital out, often 2. however when you play an sacd/dvda in the players you'll find the digital out has gone strangely quiet

dave

Not a contradiction.

[autechre]

It's not the same as "cool with the padlocks", i.e. willing to accept them. "...cool to the virtual padlocks..." means that they are giving the padlocks a so-so reception; they are only slightly interested in the technology because of the padlocks. Think cool as in lukewarm, not cool as in "Cool, man!"

Re:Not a contradiction.

[zelphi]

Oops, read that wrong, you're right. My bad.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!!

[(H)elix1]

I've never heard a SACD player, so no comments on how great or lousy the sound might be, but this pounds home what some marketing folks really want....

SACD = AMAZING, assigning something

rather than...

SACD == AMAZING, something is equivalent.

I growl every time I see the "drive=love" commercials, and my wife tells me to get over it. Guess drive.equals(love) just does not have the same warm fuzzy feeling, and technically if you make the assignment, I guess equality would be true.

I know you care, however... right? Hello? (slinking away from my soap box)

Can you say...

[beldraen]

MiniDisc? There really isn't issue here. Sony has always tried to release products that they reserve the right to control and then the public ignores enough for Sony drop it and try again. I think Sony keeps trying it because it appears that the Japanese are always willing to rebuy products. I guess they figure if they try enough, Americans will go along with it.

Re:Can you say...

[zardie]

We saw this with the Philips Digital Compact Cassette (DCC). Designed as a cheaper and more mainstream alternative to DAT (digital audio tape), it used a compression scheme comparable to the older ATRAC compression routines use in the older MD units but was priced way too high to gain market share.

MD has taken off. Many of my friends have MD players. I've bought two in the last few years, the most recent is the NetMD MZ-N1 (bought it upon release, OpenMG, the software used to transfer audio via USB SUCKS).

Interestingly enough, I like to be able to transfer my completely legal CDs to MiniDisc (it's also better quality than MP3 and ATRAC is almost perfect now). I just chose the MD platform as it was small and not solid state storage based. Oh, and hard drive MP3 players suck up too much battery and didn't sound as good.

Re:Can you say...

[karnal]

As far as minidisc is concerned, that would be my main priority -- how does it sound?

I currently own an MZ-R700 (I think that's the model...) and it rocks. My only real gripe is the headphone out is a little low (it doesn't have a truly dedicated "line out" for use with a stereo etc) but other than that, for the occasional work out, or music at work, it's awesome. I would be curious to see what people think of the hard disc based mp3 players in retrospect, because I have thought about purchasing one; I always go back to the minidisc recorder tho, because of the quality I get from it.

Re:Can you say...

[Dyolf Knip]

A lot of European slashdotters will tell you that MiniDisc is alive and well on their side of the pond. Never having been there, I couldn't say.

Re:Can you say...

[Mwongozi]

It's true. MiniDisc (and it really should be disk - short for diskette, bad sony) is an incredibly popular format both in Europe and Japan.

Here in the UK, whenever I see someone on a bus or train with headphones on, 90% of the time it's connected to a MiniDisc player.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!!

[NightRain]

SACD = AMAZING, assigning something

So, by this logic, 1+1=2 is assigning the value of 1+1 to 2. Which means that 1+1=3 would be just as valid, considering we're just assigning values an all :)

Don't try and take the syntax of a few programming languages and then tell the world they should rewrite the previosly accepted definition of the sign :)

Ray

Meanwhile, over at Evil Inc.

[Snork Asaurus]

Jack - come read this post. Who the hell do these people think they are whining about fair use and flexibility and choice and all that other liberal crap. Mass acceptance? Hah. Don't make me laugh. We're going to eliminate the standard CD just like we did the LP and combine it with all the legislation that we're buying and they'll have no friggin' choice! Well charge more for these and force the dumb bastards to buy their whole collection over again. Come on baby, Hilary needs a new Mercedes!

It's war, I say, war damn it! What makes these consumer slimes think that they can have what they want. Consumers exist for the sole purpose of feeding corporate bottom lines an padding my goddamn wallet. If we could do away with dealing with these %$#@ consumers entirely and just collect our money through taxes it would be a better world. Hey-wait a minute ... what are we paying those congressmen for? Get senator Payme Butgoode on the phone - it's time for some new legislation!

Summary of the state of play

[e.a.kendrick]

I'm an optimist - most likely a new DVD based format for audio *will* appear, but it is unlikely to contain DRM, and the player will have to be able to play CDs. When DVD-Recorder videos become commonplace, a DVD audio recording option will just become another feature of the home entertainment centre. I can dream can't I!!!

Feels like a slashback - but like many of you I've been following this for a while, I kept my own little list of interesting articles. Until now I've nowhere to put them, so this is as good an opportunity as any:

• BMI Declare that all their future music CDs will be copy protected
• While EMI Germany do likewise, they also insult the complainant. (I'm informed it is even harsher than the translation)
• And soon you won't be able to return the CD if it doesn't work (UK)
• And beware of innovations (this article, beat you to it slashdot - nyah nyah!), as they may be slipping DRM in the back door
• Web radio was getting very popular, everyone was getting in on the act. Not any more. Only the big radio stations still broadcast.
• Microsoft joined the party with their "Trusted Computing" initiative, meaning *you* can trust MS software, Which in reality is a DRM thing (MS software can't trust you)
• Oh, and extending copyright. Courts admit that it can't be extended indefinately, but how long is a piece of string?

Terrorism, Copyright, or hacking. Apply whatever label you want to what offends you

• Reuters sued for linking to a URL
• They haven't been the first to be sued for deeplinking. Check out This particularly fine example.
• How a single sniper is more dangerous than all the world's hackers combined

It would be funny if it wasn't true:

• Getting sued for silence
• Thanks to the CBDTPA, nearly everything *must* embed DRM. This includes cockpit voice recorders, digital speed cameras, hearing aids, and big mouth billy bass
• Even phoning a friend can breach copyright, 2 musicians copyright 100,000 phone numbers (dial tones).

But there's hope:

• A review of the technologies shows that it is futile to protect CDs, (based on the assumption that new devices will more likely circumvent protection rather than enforce it)
• Richard Stallman (Free Software advocate) jumps in with a cautionary tale
• And a felt tip pen can bypass some protections

Hope you find them interesting reading. I'll go back to lurking 8)

Re:Summary of the state of play

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice post, just a minor correction.

The EMI Germany article URL is actually here.

Re:Summary of the state of play

[halo8]

Getting sued for silence [bbc.co.uk]

Can some one explain that to me?
i read it.. but i dont get it? ive had my morning 'Dew.. but i just dont get it

Re:Summary of the state of play

[e.a.kendrick]

Music composer John Cage had an album with a track of nothing, nada, complete silence. It was called "4'33", and was four minutes thirty three seconds long.

Musician Mike Batt created an album which had a track of complete silence, lasting one minute, called "A Minute's Silence". He credited John Cage as co-writer as a "tongue-in-cheek dig" at the whole concept. John Cage's publishers then sued him.

The court case included various hijinx, where defendant/prosecutor tried to prove the compositions as different/the same by having live performances of the work. Mike Batt performed his silent work himself, while John Cage's work was performed by a musician not playing the clarinet.

Although very very silly, Mike Batt lost his case because it was obvious he knew about the prior work. But, in principle, he could have been sued even if he appeared ignorant of John Cage's work. If someone can claim copyright ownership of a stream of zeros on a CD, then there is no hope for the concept of Intellectual Property.

Re:Summary of the state of play

[e.a.kendrick]

Sorry, I should have said Mike Batt settled his case (by paying a six figure sum). I don't know about you, but I don't have that sort of money lying around.

Re:Summary of the state of play

[halo8]

wow.. and thanx... thats almost as wacked as a coke sniffing texan getting elected as president of the usofa

oh.. wait

Just Another Marketing challege

[Alien54]

I can see the Marketing Droids Just trying to finesse this. It requires a conspiracy of sorts, or maybe a change in federal law.

• Manufacturers make players with required features, and the ability to the new formats.
• Manufacturers phase out making old style players
• Media Makers phase in their products, lagging slightly the makings, but maybe using a few hits to push adoption of the new format.

Basically you finesse the adoption and push it in over time, ignoring the loud protests of the reasonably few who are in the know.

The best example of this is Microsoft with Windows, pushing it's product into market dominance despite obvious flaws, and technically superior competitors with inferior marketing.

Of course, this would require the cooperation of across and industry or two, which would be more difficult to do. But if enforced by fiat of law, etc. then this can be done. Witness the original founding histroy of the creation of the first networks and the very early Internet, where no body wanted to share resources on their comnputers, but were forced to if they wanted to work with the Military and the Pentagon.

Au Contraire [sort-of]

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no(*) receivers that support decoding this into the 120db dynamic range and 100khz frequency range that the format supports... (*) actually I just saw one the other day, a pioneer, with IEEE-1384 input for SACD/DVDA type formats, now to find a player with this output.

The WSJ had a fascinating piece [subscribers only] on SACD last year. Some excerpts:

The Future of Sound: SACD
By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
April 24, 2001

Mark Levinson, the archguru of ultra hi-fi musical reproduction, has stopped recording music on conventional CDs. He no longer even listens to them. And, while his name still is burnished on some of the world's most expensive CD players -- the Mark Levinson Reference CD Player, for example -- by a company which bought his brand, and name, years ago, he discourages clients at his own company, Red Rose Music, from buying conventional CD gear. Instead, he records all his music in the new Super Audio CD format (SACD) and recommends to his customers that, if they want digital music, they buy SACD players.

SACD, which was recently launched in America by Sony and Philips, the same partnership that, a quarter century earlier, developed and patented the CD, is identical to the CD in its dimensions and appearance but has a different and far superior way of encoding and decoding digital sound.

Mr. Levinson explains that this change is crucial to the future of digital sound. "SACD addresses what has become an international epidemic: PCM." PCM, which stands for Pulse Code Modulation, is the operating system used for all digital sound -- CDs, movies, television, DVDs, computers, etc. -- with the exception of SACDs. Mr. Levinson's concern about PCM goes beyond the quality of the music it reproduces. He believes that PCM induces toxic stress in listeners.

The Sony executives responsible for marketing this new format do not share Mr. Levinson's view about the toxicity of PCM. But they acknowledged that there were sonic problems with PCM, which had resulted in reports of "listening fatigue," as David Kawakami, who directs the Super Audio project for Sony, put it to me. All agreed that SACD was vastly superior. So why had PCM become the standard for digital sound?

Mr. Kawakami explained that PCM had come about as an engineering solution to "a bit-management problem." In the early 1980s, Sony stipulated two requisites for developing digital sound. First, the container itself, which was the CD disk, could not be more than 4.75 inches in diameter -- a dimension that would allow CD players to meet the European standard for an audio player on an automobile's dashboard. This meant, given the state-of-the-art technology then, that the CD could not hold more than 650 million bits of data. Second, it had to be capable of playing at least 70 minutes of music -- the length of a typical symphony -- which required more than 2.5 billion bits of digital data.

To meet these seemingly contradictory requirements, part of the signal had to be eliminated, but without degrading the sound so much that it became unacceptable to the public. Enter PCM. This ingenious electronic fiddle truncated the original bandwidth from 100,000 to 20,000 hertz, since humans cannot normally hear frequencies above 15,000 hertz, and "sampled," or took a digital snapshot, of the remaining information 44,000 times a second. This doctored data was repackaged into 16-bit packets capable of playing back a symphony in 74 minutes or less.

Of course, the acoustical engineers who invented PCM knew that the condensed 16-word product would be inferior to the original: For one thing, filters, on both the encoding and decoding ends, cause audible "errors." For another, chopping out all the information between 20,000 and 100,000 Hertz reduced the harmonic depth of the music itself...

Being an early adopter, I bought an SACD player as soon as it was available. But then I discovered my very expensive ($10,000) pre-amp redigitalized the SACDs into PCM. Aside from this sophisticated circuitry, there was the problem of the volume control. Like that of many other pre-amps, mine filtered out all bandwidth over 20,000 hertz. That is because, before the introduction of SACD, sonic information over 20,000 hertz would be heard as unintended noise. So I still was not getting the full benefit of SACD.

Surfing the Internet with key words like "audiophile" and "volume control," I then found in Boise, Idaho, something called a passive volume attenuator, made by Placette Audio and sold for $1,400. By using several dozen precision resistors, costing about 300 times as much as a conventional volume control, the Placette was capable of controlling the volume from the SACD without filtering out any of its bandwidth.

Once I had hooked up my Placette, I was finally able to listen to unadulterated PCM-free music. I listened on available SACDs, selling for about $25 -- everything from jazz and church choirs on the DMP sampler I bought to classical Bach on an acoustical guitar and a Rupert Brooke poem, read by "Sex and the City" actress Kim Cattrall (who is Mark Levinson's wife) on Red Rose Music's sampler.

Re:Au Contraire [sort-of]

[Bishop]

Wow. The technical details in is article aren't wrong, but they aren't correct either. PCM isen't the problem. PCM at 44kHz with 16bit samples is the problem.

The AC is right: This EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN guy is a poser.

Re:Au Contraire [sort-of]

[crucini]

To meet these seemingly contradictory requirements, part of the signal had to be eliminated, but without degrading the sound so much that it became unacceptable to the public. Enter PCM. This ingenious electronic fiddle truncated the original bandwidth from 100,000 to 20,000 hertz, since humans cannot normally hear frequencies above 15,000 hertz, and "sampled," or took a digital snapshot, of the remaining information 44,000 times a second. This doctored data was repackaged into 16-bit packets capable of playing back a symphony in 74 minutes or less.

First of all, PCM wasn't invented for CDs. It dates back at least to World War II, when the British PM and US President were linked by an encrypted digital phone line. This was covered on Slashdot.

Second, PCM is not an "ingenious electronic fiddle". It is the most obvious, straightforward way of digitally encoding an analog signal. In other words, "sample at a fixed interval and record the intensity as an integer from 0 to N". If the CD creators were looking for a "fiddle" to fit more sound in less space, they could have looked at delta encoding or other schemes that have less quantifiable performance limits than PCM. Of encodings, PCM is least deserving to be called a fiddle.

I don't know where this person got the idea that the "original bandwidth" is 100 KHz. The bandwidth of an accoustic instrument is theoretically infinite, but the upper limit of human hearing is roughly 20 KHz. Kids can hear higher - I think I was tested at 24 KHz when I was young, and middle-aged folks have usually decreased to ~ 15. The bandwidth of the original recording/mastering chain was probably 20 KHz.

He conflates PCM with 16 bit/44.1, and makes it sound like a horrible Procrustean truncation of the signal. This is nonsense. 16 bits allows 96 decibels of dynamic range. It's incredibly unlikely that a home playback setup allows this. Realistically, you might have 50 dB dynamic range between background noise and the level where the neighbors call the police. And if you enjoy listening to stuff above 20k, ask your owner for a new rawhide chew toy. You'll like it more than a SACD.

The article is fool of shit

[patiwat]

The CNN article is full of shit.

> Yet each format contains digital watermarks

The SACD watermark is actually an analog watermark. The surface of the CD itself is watermarked, not the data, which is pristine.

> Moreover, there are no digital outputs on any SACD or DVD-Audio players now available,

The Accuphase DP-100 transport has a digital output, although it isn't a coaxial or Toslink. The Meridien reference 800 also has a digital output.

Sure, these are high-end players. But if you want low-end digital output, just play the CD layer on the SACD, and get the digital outp of the 16b/44.1khz stream.

> The Audible Difference in Palo Alto, California, is refusing to sell SACD or DVD-Audio players until manufacturers can ship a hybrid unit that plays both formats as well as legacy CDs in the highest quality sound available.

Should've picked a more knowledgable or reputable dealer. The Pioneer DV-AX10 plays both SACD and DVD-A. Even low-end companies like Apex have DVD-A/SACD/MP3/CD players (AD-7701).

- patiwat

Re:The article is fool of shit

[seaan]

Should've picked a more knowledgable or reputable dealer. The Pioneer DV-AX10 plays both SACD and DVD-A. Even low-end companies like Apex have DVD-A/SACD/MP3/CD players (AD-7701).

Actually, The Audible Difference has a very good rep, and pretty much everything they were quoted in the article seemed correct. You seem to have some confusion about SACD/DVD-A digital outputs (not too surprising, both the RIAA and the equipment manufactures don't really want people to know about it). For example, the APEX you mentioned does not put out the full quality digital stream for DVD-A or SACD, instead it only puts out the lower quality CD stream.

There are a few disc players with full quality SACD/DVD-A digital outputs. These use proprietary content-controlled digital transport mechanisms, and require a same-brand pre-amp to be useful. The only one I've seen reviewed is the Meridian system (very, very expensive - the disc player and the matching pre-amp were well over $10,000). Another /. post mentions that Pioneer has introduced a connection scheme as well.

Despite the existence of these digital links, it does not change the general fact that SACD and DVD-A are designed with features that most audiophiles hate.

Re:The article is fool of shit

[patiwat]

Actually, The Audible Difference has a very good rep, and pretty much everything they were quoted in the article seemed correct.

Apologies for ragging on The Audible Difference, but when CNN paraphrases them as "refusing to sell SACD or DVD-Audio players until manufacturers can ship a hybrid unit that plays both formats as well as legacy CDs in the highest quality sound available," it makes them seem very silly.

For one, units that can play all the formats do exist (see my original post). But come on, play every format, perfectly? That's like saying that a car dealer wont sell cars until the manufacturers can ship cars that are as stylish as sports cars, perform like F-1s, have the imposing nature of SUVs, and the economy of the Prius... The Sony SCD-777ES plays SACDs brilliantly, and CDs better than 99% of CD players sold today. The Pioneer hybrid plays SCDs and DVD-As wonderfully, and CDs much better than any mass market unit. New hybrid products in every price range are coming out. What more are they looking for?

As for the digital output issue, its been argued time and time again. Correctly in Stereophile, TAS, and Audio Asylum. Wrongly in Slashdot. BTW, the Accuphase and dCS units also do DSD digital output, usually through firewire.

And despite being designed with some features that audiophiles hate, SACD is also designed with the one "feature" that any audiophile should be willing to forgive all sins for: beautifully realistic sound.

- patiwat

When will they use biometrics?

[nurb432]

So that only the proper ears hear the content you are leasing. Sort of like Bio-Macrovision

Only way to stop piracy.. key audio/video to indivdual DNA strands, or any other way of uniquely identifying an individual person. If you arent the proper person all you hear is static or see snow..

Yes its a joke. but its what they want.. Total control at the consumer level.

Oh, and im going on record that *I* invented this first.. so if some company out there sees this.. and wants to use it, pay up. This product idea is not released for public use. :)

Analog "ripping" won't be acceptable

[dstone]

Sure, you can take an end-run around the whole digital protection scheme with an analog "rip", but consider these problems: 1) the DAC -> ADC process introducing resampling artifacts (probably minor), 2) PC/EMF/motherboard/HDcontroller noise while in the analog stage (quite possible), and 3) your PC will need to be VERY close to your fancy new SACD/DVD-Audio player whenever you want to "rip" (pain in the ass, but you do NOT want a long run of analog cables to your PC). High quality soundcards with an isolated analog input section can help with #2, for a price. Here's a good site with soundcard performance benchmarks.

This seems like a step backwards: Consumers will need to upgrade PC hardware to end up with a lower quality analog rip of more expensive music media.

Not just a marketing issue but a technical one...

[zardie]

You'll notice that there is no current method of transmitting DSD (direct stream digital) encoded data over SPDIF and there's no receiver that'll decode it. DSD is what SACD uses, not PCM.

Even so, there is no standard for transmitting the multichannel DVD-audio signal, nor is there any method of sending 24/192khz stereo data to a receiver/preamp other than to have the audio decoded with an external unit (say, the onboard decoder on a DVD/SACD player) and then feed the discreet channels in, one by one, via a whole stack of cables going to your receiver/preamp.

We could use a new digital interconnect standard. I know a lot of people hanging out for a new upgrade to their audiophile-grade system as a result of this.

I should also note that FireWire sounds like an idea here - the Onkyo DS-TX989 and the Integra gear has an option to add a firewire port when they release the upgrade. Some other high end audiophile-grade manufacturers also have a similar plan.

price, quality, durability

[fermion]

So, there ar some questions that can be asked.

1) If the industry is losing so much money to so-called pirates(estimates up to 50%), and this format is meant to stop pirates, then why doesn't the industry price these discs, and other copy protected discs, for less in an effort to encourage sales. If the industry truly loses 50% of it's sales to pirates, the price of a disc could drop 25% and, even including increased cost of the copy protection, the industry would still be making more than it is now.

2)Is the sound quality, without digital outputs, really substantially different from a CD or vinyl record played over analog equipment. Does the lack of digital outputs in fact make these units glorified cd players for the terminally self-deluded.

3) Is the industry going to give free replacement for damaged or lost discs. A long time ago, we customers were fed the myth of durable CD. Pretty soon we realized that although the CD was tough, it was foolish to carry original media with us where it was more easily damaged or stolen, especially as the quality decreased and the reflective layer had a tendency to peel off. So we made tapes and wondered why we paid all that money for CD in the first place when we would have just bought vinyl or tape(which could be dubbed in 10 minutes). Then, one glorious day, the technology allowed us to make a copy CD, thus justifying the price of the original media. With the new formats, we are back to the tape backup, and still have to pay the full amount for the original media. I think we deserve lifetime replacement rights, even if we do not have the original media.

SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are intrinsic problems with SACD and DSD audio encoding. SACD is *nowhere near* refrence quality and, by design, can never achieve this. These "armies" of audiophiles who prefer SACD are the same audiophiles who pile on the vinyl rhetoric as if a needle lathing into a plastic groove was the be-all-end-all of the audio world. Vinyl does sound fantastic, but the very nature of the beast means that it cannot, nor will it ever, have the same sonic clarity that Linear-PCM can obtain.

SACD works by taking 2.8 million SINGLE BIT SAMPLES. That means that the same is 1 or 0, friends. It modifies the sample before it. Up or down. When you're talking about an audio waveform, imagine how many bits it will take to do a full wave sweep. SACD simply cannot keep up with PCM audio. This is not like a Linux vs. FreeBSD debate. This is proven, time and time again, through rigorous analysis of DSD.

Audiophiles tend to like the format because it "dumbs down" the sound, since DSD is incapable of reproducing the finer details, it resembles vinyl! A dithered and smoothed audio signal. DSD (SACD) relies HEAVILY on post-filtration.

Linear PCM is the correct progression of digital audio. Each second can yield up to 192,000 samples, each with 24-bits of accuracy. Only one sample is needed to sweep. DVD-Audio supports up to 192khz sampling frequency. SACD cannot sample much above 24khz if I recall. Sony has also purposely DEGRADED the CD track on their SACD hybrid discs to FAVOR SACD. The resolution is chopped down to around 14-bits.

DVD-Audio is a far more accurate future for digital audio. Anybody convinced that DSD/SACD is superior is living in their Clie-induced Sony hallucinatory candy land. Get with the times and get with the program. The future for audio archival will continue to be PCM.

An excellent URL that explains the plain truth about SACD/DSD versus PCM: http://www.iar-80.com/page38.html

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash: Vinyl is the ultimate sonic medium. Always has been, always will. Only vinyl can record the exact audio waveform as recorded. All those digital formats turn audio into a bunch of numbers, losing tons of information in the process.

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash to this AC from another:
Find out what format your favorite new CDs of the past two years from top engineers of MasterSound, Quincy Jones, Telarc, Philips Classical, and many more are natively recorded and archived in. You may be surprised that it is Sony DSD, the format found on SACDs. Reason: superior audio fidelity to live sound.
SACDs are thus the closest consumers have ever gotten to being able to buying the studios' master tapes. (note also that DSD is decimated to 24/96 DVD-A format in mathematically _lossy_ fashion.)

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what, it is just as easy to list people who use 24/96 and 24/192.

BTW conversion from DSD to 24/96 is not decimation in the usual sense of the word, and conversion the other way around is also lossy.

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[vigata]

You dont have a clue about what you are talking about.
Get some info about delta-sigma modulators please.

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you didn't know but fact is that the universe is quantified. *Everything* can be described as 1's and 0's.

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Chris Johnson]

Right, you're a loony. If you can't comprehend a system that doesn't show linear distortion with frequency, then you're totally out to lunch as far as modern signal processing theory.

Honestly, it's as bad as talking about 'stair-steps' on PCM digital. You're making the same type of error, and roughly the same severity.

Don't you understand that DSD concentrates error increasingly into the high frequencies? Maybe this will help: my own work including some PCM noise shapers with similar error distribution characteristics to DSD.

Now, given that- being able to radically suppress noise and error at very low frequencies, like 20 or 100 hz, has a profound effect because error is either a matter of incorrect amplitude, or spurious harmonics. You can hear LOTS of harmonics of 100 hz before they go out of the range of human hearing.

Let's say for the sake of argument that DSD has 10% harmonic distortion at 16K. It doesn't, but let's pretend that it does. Are you seriously arguing that spurious information at 32K is going to completely ruin the music for you? Are you a dog, or a bat? If you're arguing about even stronger spurious information at 100K or 200K, are you a tweeter manufacturer? Except that if you were, you'd be happy- *blow* woops, build up some more tweeters for the DSD users! kaching!

Sorry man- you couldn't be wronger. Or more anonymous, but then I can understand not wanting to be associated with opinions that are just loony :)

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[jwlidtnet]

>Sony has also purposely DEGRADED the CD track on >their SACD hybrid discs to FAVOR SACD. The >resolution is chopped
> down to around 14-bits.

This is where you lose me. Where do you have *proof* of this?

-D

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but it takes quite a few more than a 4.75inch disk to describe them.

Re:SACD quality questionable, DVD-A and LPCM rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD-Audio is a far more accurate future for digital audio.

Haven't you forgotten about in-band watermarks? (Shades of CopyCode and SDMI!) One magazine compared that type of "protection" to "protecting" a swimming pool full of clear, pristine drinking water ... by taking a leak in it.

Re:Please help with Linux driver

[stevejsmith]

Yeah, real smart. Give the one person who has told this guy to shut up an offtopic. Jackass...

Actually...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Minidisc had it, even though it is 10 year old technology. Digital recording? Had it. Quality? Well yes, actually. Even though audiophiles (myself NOT included) can definitely distinguish a MD recording from the original, the same goes for an mp3 rip. But, most importantly, MDs came with copy control. You could ONLY make one copy of a copyrighted album digitally. The copy of the copy was not copiable through the digital out of the MD player. Of course, there are always ways to circumvent this but they are expensive.

MDs have the technology to solve most of the problems of the music industry without branding their customers pirates, potential or otherwise. You could make a copy of your purchased cd on minidisk, with excellent quality and you were prohibited of making copies of the same recording ad nauseum.

Of course, it is much easier to take out all the digital outputs (an extremely stupid move on my opinion) rather than try to solve the actual problem.

Arizona Audiophile Society

[Tokerat]

...used to be named the "Arizona Sound Society", but no one would take them seriously.

<rimshot>

*ducks and runs*

SACD/DVD-A players dont have digi output??

[dmnic]

this is NOT true!!!

cant remember the exact model(Im at a friends house), but the Samsung DVD player I bought a year ago DOES support SACD/DVD-A(as well as CD/SVCD/VCD/MP3/CDR/CDRW) and DOES have optical and coax s/pdif output!

now whether the SACD/DVD-A formats will play through that output is another question, but the authors of the article are false.

Re:SACD/DVD-A players dont have digi output??

[Air-conditioned cowh]

You may find that the digitial output is limited to 16bits and 48HKz even when you are playing a 24bit 96KHz disk.

Re:SACD/DVD-A players dont have digi output??

[dmnic]

I'll take a 16/48 "copy"...better than standard "cd" quality anyways.
besides, 24/96 is only used for "surround efx" so it wont do you any good in a car cd player, boombox, etc...

It only takes ONE person...

[mesocyclone]

To take the audio output of his player, hook it to the audio input of a good sound card, produce an MP3, and put it on the P2P. For almost everyone, the sound quality would be adequate, and most people would never even know that it went through an analog step along the way.

So much for copy protection.

Re:It only takes ONE person...

[dmnic]

and some of us have pro quality TRUE 24/96 soundcards with digital inputs that can skip the analog step.
hell, my M-audio Audiophile 2496 can even act as a DSP and I can pipe my stand alone DVD players digi output through my Audiophile card and back to my receiver digitally.

oh yeah, I can also strip SCMS with my Audiophile 2496...

Step inside the world of an audiophile.

[zardie]

Audiophiles are excessive. If I had a job to support my audio lust, I'd probably be classed as one, too.

Audiophiles have gone for this sort of thing. These people don't play CDs with just a high end CD player, you'll find they use what is called a CD "transport" which is a CD player with a digital out. For a nice one, a few grand at least, ranging up to five figures for these things. Then you need to feed this wonderfully accurate string of 0's and 1's into a DAC. Not just the crappy DACs in your receiver of sound card, these DAC units are generally made to match the CD transport and will probably cost somewhere between half and double the cost of the transport itself. Then, with your thousand dollar interconnect cables (a pair of RCA plugs, for example, but you'll find preference towards 'balanced' connectors), they'll connect it to a preamplifier and then into a power amp, which may be a set of monoblocks (one power amp per speaker, sometimes they bi-amp them, too!). Then you've got the speaker cables and speakers and I'll be dammed when they stop paying thousands of dollars for a piece of copper wire. Yes, a well trained ear can hear the difference between speaker wire and it does stand to reason that each wire has its own characteristics and high quality speakers can help those characteristics materialise. Not all audiophiles are this obsessive/rich. You'll find some who spend a moderate amount of money and simply buy what's best in their price range. But deep down inside, we all know they want a pair of Krell reference monoblocks driving each channel (or a large house to entertain guests, whichever turns out to be cheaper).

They'll have a seperate unit for DVDs as well. Sometimes they'll have an entirely different *system*. (I've known audiphiles to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on a stereo system and spend only a few grand on their entire home theatre rig so it all comes down to priorities).

To them, you'll probably find that the analog outputs would suit them fine, assuming the quality of the DACs in the unit are up to scratch. For a new format such as SACD, the attraction is that digital sound encoded in DSD is a lot more freeform than PCM encoded material because you're not 'locked' in to a certain set of frequencies. The result is in a more natural, real sound with greater depth and image. A lot of the purists have avoided digital purely because vinyl 'sounds better'.

Oh, and the audiophiles won't care about copy protection too much. It'll degrade the quality of the recording anyway, no matter what you do.

Re:Step inside the world of an audiophile.

[riclewis]

"Oh, and the audiophiles won't care about copy protection too much. It'll degrade the quality of the recording anyway, no matter what you do." You're right about the copy protection--audiophiles didn't mind vinyl, and abhor compressed audio (MP3, OGG) anyways. Shoot--even copied CDs can introduce jitter problems that are noticable to an audiophile. SACD makes really purty sound. Just give me a portable SACD player and a guaranteed replacement if my disc breaks/gets scratched and I'm happy. One disagreement--you can digitally encrypt a signal without infringing on it's quality. It's no different from using a lossless compression scheme. SACD does a decent job of this. The problem will come when they start trying to add analog watermarks. --Come and get one in the yarbles. If you have any yarbles.

Re:Step inside the world of an audiophile.

[NomNet]

Audiophiles have gone for this sort of thing. These people don't play CDs with just a high end CD player, you'll find they use what is called a CD "transport" which is a CD player with a digital out. For a nice one, a few grand at least, ranging up to five figures for these things. Then you need to feed this wonderfully accurate string of 0's and 1's into a DAC.

They seem to be missing the point of the digital output. Somebody should tell them that the SP-DIF on my PC's £10 CD-ROM drive, outputs the EXACT same string of 0's and 1's !

Granted, the error correction algorithms may be better on the "CD Transport", but this is a non-issue if you treat your CDs correctly.

Preventing Copying - cheaper media ?

[hopbine]

/. has many posts concerning the prevention of downloading or copying Music and Video CDs (see next article for instance.) Well it seems to me that if we are all unable to copy then perhaps the music industry will stop demanding their cut of every blank CD and audio tape thats sold. It do not copy music, but I do backup my PC.

Re:Preventing Copying - cheaper media ?

[dmnic]

Im with you, in that Ive never copied a commercial release.
granted I do burn thousands of audio cds a year but this is done legally; many bands allow recordings of their concerts and there are VERY big trading rings that copy/trade just concert recordings(etree.org, furthur.com, archive.org/etree, etc...)
these groups ONLY permit the trading of shows by bands that explicitly allow it, and yet we still have to pay the "copy tax" to the RIAA....

Oh, that is a clever design!

[jonr]

Think about when some audiophile will try to play the newest SACD in his/hers perfect system: Total silence! I surely hope they complain to the store, "This fscking CD is blank!".
J.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!!

[moonbender]

Especially since it's the programming languagues which garbled the original, mathematical meaning of the operator '=': The equals-sign evaluates equality, the assignment operator is ':='. Some programming languages such as Pascal (and its derivatives) implement this, others, like C, don't, probably because it's not as comfortable. Some languages, like (Visual) Basic, don't even have seperate operators - the compiler decides whether '=' tests for equality or does an assignment based on context. Fugly.

Locks out original home recording

[Air-conditioned cowh]

"The watermarks must be present for the player to recognize the disc and play the content. A bootleg DVD-Audio without the watermark would fail to play". So if I record my own music and want to make a high quality disk out of it the players will act as if I don't own the copyright. This seems like the system is designed to lock out unauthorized musicians. I bet they are hoping this will superceed ordinary compact disks so that indie music will be crushed forever.

The betamax of audio technology that works in VHS

[zardie]

Most SACDs are dual layered - they will also contain the CD audio PCM track on there as well.
That's so that the record company can press media ONCE and have it applicable to both buyers. The other advantage is that if you bought enough of these dual-mode CDs, you'll have a strong desire to get an SACD player. Good work to the marketing teams for this one!

Oh, you can probably still rip the CD audio track, too! Haven't got an SACD disc here yet to try. The same with DVD Audio - most discs include an alternate audio track such as DTS, Dolby Digital or PCM - and you can rip that one straight through digital as it is.

It's probably downsampled

[yerricde]

My Sony DAV-S500 does have digital out, as well as support for SACD.

But not at the same time. When playing a SACD disc, your Sony player is probably sending either silence or a 44.1 or 48 kHz downsampled signal on the digital output.

Leadbelly, Jimmie Rodgers, Betty Boop, Felix . . .

[ahfoo]

One thing that I find very intriguing about P2P is that works from the 1910s and 20s and early 30s are very popular. Although I'm only in my thirties, I'm a huge fan of this stuff and I never had convenient access to it before P2P. One of the reasons you never see it isn't because it's not entertaining, interesting and informative, but because there's no longer any profit in it.
The rediscovery of our archived electronic entertainment history is a bigger challenge to the current entertainment industry than how to protect the latest warmed over reinventions of those old acts. The more I look and listen to the old media, the more astounded I am at how cyclical and repetitive the whole notion of recorded entertainment is.
And to address the topic head on, watching and listeing to those old recordings makes you very aware that quality is extremely relative. When you're really excited about hearing something you'll get up and dance and sing along to something that sounds like hell. The question is how to make people enthusiastic and obviously the entertainment industry if failing to even attempt to address this.
The recorded entertainment industry is like a lover who just didn't get it right one night. The consumer and the industry have been fucking for decades and then something happened and the recording industry says to the consumer --you've changed.
The consumer is like, no way baby. I'm still the same ol' cowboy. You know, let's get it on. But the entertainment industry is pulling this, no it's not the same anymore. You used to care about quality and now you try to get it anywhere you can. It makes me feel so cheap! If you really love me you'd at least spend some money.
And the consumer is like --what? Love you? What are you talking about? Why don't we just fuck like we always did. Nothing changed. It's the same ol deal. You say I changed, but you're the one who changed.
So, they don't fuck no more. But this relationship is special because it's all been recorded. So, the consumer goes back and starts watching the vids from back when things started and the fucking was still good.
Meanwhile, the recording industry joins the church and gets active in conservative politics and slowly starts developing these weird twitches.
Fucked up scenario. I'd hate to be the cop to do a domestic call on a couple like that.

OT - your .sig

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply.

What, are you trying to make a case for it or something?

Re:OT - your .sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Making an intelligent reply? You certainly weren't the one to do it.

Error-free recording from analog outputs

[Animats]

It's not fundamentally impossible to get error-free digital data from analog outputs, although it's difficult. 56K modems essentially do this on the receive side.

Take an analog player, and remove or bypass the final analog output filter. The output waveform should then show some artifacts from the sampling rate. Split the output, and feed one path through a notch filter for the sampling rate, then into a phase locked loop to recover the clock. Use that clock to control the sampling rate for an A/D with more bits than the D/A in the player. If you can keep the noise level low enough, and can calibrate a correction curve for the player's A/D, you can recover the original.

To calibrate, look for low-frequency waveforms, which will allow you to see all the stairsteps from the D/A.

This assumes classical D/A conversion, and fewer bits than the noise threshold. It's probably possible for 16-bit CD players, but not for 20-24 bits. Telephony only has 8 bits, so 56K modems have an easier job, although they have to compensate for a lousy transmission line.

Re:Error-free recording from analog outputs

[XNormal]

Possible in theory, but not in practice. The reconstruction filter is integrated into the DAC so it cannot be bypassed. And besides, if you are opening the player anyway why not just tap the digital interface between the DSP and DAC and connect an S/PDIF transmitter there? I won't be surprised if mod kits for doing this will start appearing on the internet pretty soon.

"Yes! you can now use your expensive external DAC with your new DVD-audio player!"

Next thing you know they're gonna put a crytographic handshake between the DSP and DAC...

Re:Error-free recording from analog outputs

[riclewis]

Actually, from what I understand of the spec, SACD has a cryptographic handshake between the servo and the DSP, and in fact Sony is hoping to do all DSP/DAC conversions internally on one chip. David Rich of Stereophile suggests in his arcticle that DSD signals are inherintly easier to "watermark." I for one don't care if my media is digitaly copy protected. If I can convert my LPs to MP3, it's no less trouble to convert anything else... --Come and get one in the yarbles, if you have any yarbles.

No digital out on DVD-A?

[NunFetishist]

Your wrong - Meridian's 800 DVD Machine (and possibly their lower-end 598, I don't recall) had the first offically allowable encrypted digital-out for DVD-A. (They did invent MLP, the lossless compression system for DVD-A, after all). The big Denon does too, but I've heard less details about if it has actually been rubber-stamped by the DVD-A consortium.

Interestingly, they also say that encrypting the output from the S/PDIF socket even makes it sound nicer. While I can just about fathom why that might be, I can't quite work it out!

you just need to realize

[SHEENmaster]

that pathetic little weenie basic programmers control the closed-source world.

Hot damn! M$ just released the sourcecode, WIN.BAS! Download it now!

I growl too btw.

Sounds like a bit of a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Or rather a poser.

Whats the point?

[Milikki]

I tend to be an early adopter of new technologies. Bought my first CD player in 1984 for $1600....

But I gotta ask, whats the point? Why would I want a new format to play the new noise that is passing for music? Except for compilations, I havent bought any "new" music since 1992.

I'll stick with the Carver CD player I bought in 1988 until it breaks.

Kevin

Re:Whats the point?

[crucini]

But I gotta ask, whats the point? Why would I want a new format to play the new noise that is passing for music? Except for compilations, I havent bought any "new" music since 1992.

I see this type of comment a lot. It's roughly true of me as well. Still don't know how much it's:

• Getting older. Maybe after 30 one can't fall in love with new music.
  
• Failure of commercial radio. Maybe if I took the time to scour the net for good music I'd find it.
  
• Music really has become very bad in the last decade. (I suspect this one.)
  

Personally, I experienced the change as an abrupt delta. One day the alternative stations were overflowing with great synthpop tunes - the next, they started playing boring cookie-cutter guitar music.

I think the last record that truly amazed me was 808 State, 90. I'd like to find more music like that, but I find the electronic music scene really confusing and full of repetitive thumping noises. Any ideas?

WHEN WILL THEY LEARN??

[famazza]

WHEN WILL THESE STUIP LAWYERS LEARN?

SACD will be "safe" (as they call it) as long as it is kept away from computers! Once digital data is inside the computer there's no control on what the user do with it! FACT!!!

What about all this discussion on digital convergence, TV+Stereo+Phone+Computer+Internet+etc all-in-one. Wake up man!

Every copy protection created will be a waste of money and time, no matter what laws can be aproved in US, there's always the rest of the world!

Create any standard they want they all have the same future, just like this dam CSS :oP

I sick of it!

Re:WHEN WILL THEY LEARN??

[Dyolf Knip]

What about all this discussion on digital convergence, TV+Stereo+Phone+Computer+Internet+etc all-in-one. Wake up man!

That's where the DMCA, CBDTPA/SSSCA, and whatever nonsense they think up comes in. The goal here is convergence, yes, but not into a PC. We want modular components that can be plugged into any hardware and run by any software we dream up. They want a WebTV-Phone that plays discs; a machine that gives you all the normal media capabilities of a computer, but lets you do absolutely nothing that isn't government/RIAA/MPAA approved. Nice thought, isn't it?

Full Resolution Digital Audio Outputs (Encrypted)

[stu42j]

Denon also sells a player with full resolution digital audio output, the DVD-9000. The problem is that it is a proprietary encrypted format. You have to have a compatible Denon receiver. They call it DENON Digital Link and it is based on CAT5 with RJ-45 connectors.

The problem is that, as far as I know, there is not yet a standard for digital encrypted audio.

Go back to records!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Idea for the "Record" Labels and for fair use. Then everyting that is digital is copied. If you don't own the record you're pirating. This is neat, clean, no new laws necessary, and records are so much cooler than CD's anyway.
Best part is you don't have to limit fair use to enforce it. If you hand out CD's you're an infringer, if you distribute MP3's you're an infringer. You can make any copy for any device for yourself, but if you don't have the record it's not yours.
This would work just like a book!

dvd? DVD!

[Coleco]

Er.. I'm not an expert.. but aren't these formats *dvd*? How are the disks formated and stuff compared to other dvd formats? Could some patch or hack the bios on a computer dvd player to rip or read these? Like some sort of clonecd thing and and just pull the raw data right off. Sounds to me like the watermarking and stuff is prevent people from playing copied disks in a *legetimate* player.

Just curious.

Re:dvd? DVD!

[angle_slam]

Er.. I'm not an expert.. but aren't these formats *dvd*?

No. SACD is an entirely new format. Currently, no computer CD-ROM drive can read the SACD layer. Many SACD discs (though apparently not the ones released by Sony music) have both a CD layer and an SACD layer. The CD layer is readily copiable.

See Sony's SACD site for a technical overview.

Using your idea

[WinPimp2K]

Sorry nurb432, but as CEO of SCOTI (Some Company Out There Inc.), I just wanted to let you know that we are proceeding to market with our WYD (Who's Yer Daddy?) DNA based content licensing scheme.

Next time you want to protect an idea, patent it. The best you can claim here is a copyright on your words - but no copyrights on ideas.

Of course, I have already gotten our preliminary patent claims filed - you'll be able to read them when USPTO gets around to granting our patent. However, we here at SCOTI are firm believers in the doctrin of "fair use" so we have also applied for patents on two important offshoot technolgies:

1> To allow fair use under copyright law, any person may claim a "fair use" exemption - even if they do not hold a license to access the content. This will invoke the IYB (I'm Your Bitch) module which overwrites the user's DNA with the default DNA provided by the copyright holder (Sony Music will be using either Mariah Carey, Thalia, or Jennifer Lopez - depending on who Tommy Mottola wants to f*ck that day - We here at SCOTI don't even want to think about who Casablanca Records (The Village People) might pick for their fair use defaults)

2> Of course, after invoking your fair use rights, you will most likely want to Just Be Yourself (JBY) again and you will find our licensing terms for our JBY algrithm both reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND).

Sony releases another "Beta" format?!?!

[farrellj]

Sure, Beta was better quality, but VHS was more convient....and these new formats are just like Beta, better quality but less convient for the consumer, and thus doomed to failure.

ttyl
Farrell

Re:Sony releases another "Beta" format?!?!

[alannon]

Pardon? How is a Beta cart less convenient than VHS? I'm not talking about availability of recordings, just the format itself.

What took VHS beyond the saturation threshold to ensure that Beta would not catch up was there was no licensing required to publish a title. Sony, if I remember correctly, would not license Beta to porn companies.

Re:Sony releases another "Beta" format?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Early implementations of Beta were limited to 180 minutes at SP.

That was less convenient, and more expensive, for everyone because many movies had to be shipped on 2 tapes.

The licencing thing is an urban legend. VHS won because the tapeshell was larger and the tapes were longer.

SACD releases are mainly re-releases

[angle_slam]

Many "new" SACD releases are actually old albums. For example, all of the Rolling Stones albums released on the Abcko label have been re-released as SACD/CD Hybrids. (BTW, you can rip the CD layer easily). The Sony SACD site has a list of available releases. Most of them are older releases. In fact, a brief perusal reveals very few "popular" music selections that were released this millenium. If the reason you aren't buying SACD is because of "new music" that is an wrong reason. It is also a boon for "audiophile" labels. For example, Telarc has a relatively large selection of SACD classical music.

I just got to thinking

[yoink!]

begin ramble

I got to thinking yesterday that we've nearly come full circle with audio technology. Thanks in part to the public's desire to "steal" that which is not theirs, and thanks in part to the greedy record labels who's only focus is to "steal" all they can from the public. I'm not going to go into detail on this, I'm sure you can all figure it out. What I do find rather amusing is a lack of perspective (more often than not, though this doesn't apply to everyone) on both extremes of the debate.

What I really wanted to talk about though, is how the audio industry spent years making conumer and professional audio gear with increasing fidelity and sound quality. Mono went to stereo then surround. The recorded mediums went from records, to 8 tracks, to cassette tapes (1/8"), to CDs. Now we have SACDs and DVD-Audio. The later is simply a much higher resolution PCM format while the former is a totaly new and actually quite exciting DSD format (Direct Stream Digital.) The DSD format is supposedly (though I have never heard an SACD for myself) of such high quality that it does make a noticeable difference. What makes these formats interesting, is that if we can't provide the players with quality digital to analog converters (which can be very expensive) then the whole point of the formats is lost because the system itself can't reproduce the streams properly. A more ideal setup for our increasingly digital-only entertainment systems would be that the signal remained digital up until the speakers, at which point the self-powered speakers could handle the conversion and amplification of the signal. Analog signal degredation (noise, interference, etc. although these can be problems with digital signals too but that's another story) would only occur for a short period of time and would be negligible. It would, in fact, be less expensive to implement such a system than to start the conversion process at the player and attempt to have high-quality, RF shielded analog components, and high quality connections all the way through the system to keep the audio pristine.

In essence, and in the end, we have both side shooting themselves in the proverbial foot. One industry (the record labels, which have several hands and a few feet in the consumer audio industry) are so terrified of ever increasing bandwidth at home, and millions of P2P users, they will stop at nothing to find a way to prevent end users from using their music with the fair rights that owning your own copy of Britney Spears' "So what if they're fake?" entitles you to.

Of course, the really funny thing is. The majority of consumers couldn't give, as Eminem puts it, "two squirts of piss" about SACD and DVD-Audio. Much of the world is happy downloading or compiling their music in MP3 format (yes there are OGG fans out there, and sheep who are hearded into WMA) and the fact remains that MP3 is not and will never be Red Book CD-Audio quality. So if we're happy listening to music in a format that degrades stereo imaging and has increased sibilance and harmonic distortion rather than a format made popular in the late 80s, it's the record companies and consumer audio companies who will loose in the long term because their focus remains on maintaining their empires, and that is one of the wonderful things world history has taught us, those who fail to adapt to the changes of the masses are ultimately overthrown by their own lust for control. That is not to say that the companies can't phase out CDs and DVDs, in order to replace them with formats that are so restrictive one can't even use them. In the end, and like any really good story, the people will prevail. We always do. Although I can't believe I just wasted 30 minutes typing this crap on /.

end ramble

Its still alive

[ArchieBunker]

MD players are still in use in japan and the only reason you can still buy blanks in the US is for concert bootlegging. Yeah I know its compressed audio but the codecs do get changed with new models. The high end magazine AudioXpress had a review of a MD deck a while ago. Why would a supposedly dead format still get printed in magazines?

...in the year 2000....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually someday... and it will happen... we will all have computer chips inside of us...

I can see these bastards forcing a hardware upgrade on your EarChip(c) ;) just so you can 'hear' the music.

Why troll???

[Anonymous Coward]

Why troll???

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!!

[(H)elix1]

Which means that 1+1=3 would be just as valid

I thought it was for sufficiently high values of one (grin)...

My bride, a math major, is especially unsympathetic to my plight. Just the timing - CNN ran the Dodge(?) commercial, I got smacked, saw the post and tried for support here (and was justifiably mocked again)...

Re:Behold "capitalism"... troll?

[Travoltus]

A true capitalist economy would not have these kind of totalitarian corporate policies.

Doesn't anyone read economic theory anymore?

better sound quanlity, not a good thing

[aeryn_sunn]

I don't need to hear Justine Timberlake and Britney Spears anybetter, they suck just fine with current technology

So how to I hook to my 5.1 dolby digital unit

[Anonymous Coward]

please explain, without digital output,
how would this thing hook to my dolby digital (ac3) amp?

If the answer is 6 rca cables, forget it. it's a step down from DVD. I won't downgrade my amp to analog.

Re:So how to I hook to my 5.1 dolby digital unit

[stilleon]

Dude, your amp IS analog. All signals (Dolby Digital, S/PDIF for CD) are converted to analog on output to the power amps. For SACD/DVD-A inputs, most units just directly send the pure signal from input to output because the datarate to resmaple is too high and bit rate too wide to make resampling affordable AND sound good. Downside: total lack of bass management that is so important to listening to 5.1 on smaller speakers. That really sucks. The thing I like about DVD-A is that most have a 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack that will play in DVD-V players. SACD does not have this courtesy which cheezes me off because there are some great Sony albums in SACD. I think it is so funny that Sony/Warner/Panasonic are opposed to digital outs now. Even with only analog outs I could set up a system to make killer 5.1 rips of the discs. I am in the video/audio biz as a poducer of material and am opposed to pirating, I believe we must look at the options to help defeat them) is purchase a multichannel soundcard with pultiple inputs. Record it then compress to a multichannel file (like WMA 9). The outputs sound so clean you shouldn't worry about resampling and noise.

Encouraging answer to copy protection?

[mccalli]

...most SACD discs are hybrid, meaning there is also a regular CD layer which can be read and copied as usual. Only the higher quality SACD layer is copy protected.

Now isn't this the perfect way to go about copy-protecting music? You see, if I want to encode to MP3 (and I do, I'm an iPod owner) then, as I read your statement, I'd be able to do it. I wouldn't get the best available quality, but so what? I'm compressing it to a lossy format anyway which is only going to get played over a set of headphones.

Is this the compromise we've been looking for? Non-protected mid-range quality which allows us to rip and encode as we choose, followed by a layer of higher-quality music which can't be ripped? I'd be satisfied with that.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Encouraging answer to copy protection?

[BlackHawk-666]

Why does everyone forget that music can be "ripped" using analogue gear as well. If you happen to have a nice little 24 bit 96khz sound card (say an Event Layla,or Pro Tools) then you can rip at the top quality level - even without a digital out. This is the same sort of gear the pros use (erh, well, maybe they use Apogge) to make the music.

Don't get me wrong here. I don't mind paying for the music I listen to. My album collection is much bigger than my MP3 collection. But I just wonder why they put so much effort into trying to protect this stuff, when the basic law is this simple:

If you can hear it, you can rip it

They'd be better off spending money developing some decent artists!

Re:Encouraging answer to copy protection?

[mccalli]

Why does everyone forget that music can be "ripped" using analogue gear as well.

Oh I don't. But analogue ripping is at 1x only, and if I've got decent enough source material to compress down to 128kpbs/192kpbs anyway, then that's all I need for portable use.

Cheers,

Ian

Re:Encouraging answer to copy protection?

[cioxx]

But analogue ripping is at 1x only

If everyone ripped just 1 SACD via analog out and converted said album to mp3s, you would have millions of those still out there to download.

Re:Encouraging answer to copy protection?

[mccalli]

If everyone ripped just 1 SACD via analog out and converted said album to mp3s, you would have millions of those still out there to download.

Yeah, but I don't want to download them. I'm legal - I buy my music. I don't use file sharing networks.

The point is...wouldn't SACD's trick of protecting its highest quality version whilst still allowing a lower-but-still-good version to be encoded be a good compromise when it comes to copy-protection? The studios protect their best, and I still get to make copies for the car and encode to MP3 for my portable. I'm not trying to rip off the studios and get free music - I'm just trying to make use of what I've bought.

Cheers, Ian

Re:Encouraging answer to copy protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

seems pretty simple to me. you audition the music on your computer - kind of like the radio except you choose. then you choose which sacds to buy to play on the king kong system in the listening room. i truely believe this will help record sales as long as there is a noticeable difference in quality. i still love music, but have lost intrest because of low quality recording. either the good producers have gone deaf or they just keep raising the recording levels for radio. i've heard less and less well mastered stuff since the birth of the cd.

CD vs. SACD

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they'll "go cheap" on future CD's quality while they really spice up the SACD's quality. Then they'll say, "Look SACD really does sound better!"

I sense...

[BTWR]

I sense that this billion dollar (or whatever) investment will become another use-a-permanent-marker-to-get-around-lock sorta embarrasment.

he's not informative, just ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

cost me $139 and it sounds far better playing SACD than my other CD-only player

Some SACDs have both SA and regular audio tracks encoded, with their own engineering and quality characteristics. Your CD-only player doesn't even see the SA track, much less play it.

The label put a lot of effort into cleaning up the SA track, and probably deliberately trashed the regular CD track, so the average person would infer the conclusion you did. It's called marketing.

And the moderator is just as dumb as you.

In reality, to appreciate the SA tracks, you need a better Harmon-Kardon receiver, not the crappy Sony stuff sold in WalMart. And you need great speakers, properly placed. Figure dropping 4 grand. Otherwise, the 90db separation in regular CD is just fine.

Re:he's not informative, just ignorant

[tigga]

The label put a lot of effort into cleaning up the SA track, and probably deliberately trashed the regular CD track

Not again.. - those conspiracy theories are pretty boring. You could listen to SACD and CD with same recording to hear difference.

In reality, to appreciate the SA tracks, you need a better Harmon-Kardon receiver, not the crappy Sony stuff sold in WalMart. And you need great speakers, properly placed. Figure dropping 4 grand. Otherwise, the 90db separation in regular CD is just fine.

In reality ;) to appreciate anything you need very good stuff which usually costs big $$$.
BTW there was nothing about receiver or speakers in original post - he might be listening to some decent stuff. And separation is not relevant at all ;) Mono recording on SACD will be better than on CD anyway..

Digital output: the article misses the point

[UserChrisCanter4]

A few others have mentioned the pioneer 1394-based unit, but no one has gone into why these things don't have standard optical/coax out: a receiver doesn't know what to do with the data.

When a CD player outputs the audio via a digital-out, it's outputting the PCM signal. It's 44.1K times/second of a "snapshot" of the audio. Receivers know how to decode this.

When a DVD player (or laserdisc or XBox or whatever) outputs a Dolby Digital or DTS signal, your receiver has to know what to do with it. You have to have a DSP chip in there that knows how to decode the DD or DTS feed. Most receivers from the past few years can do both of those formats. If anyone remembers the old 5.1 Amps that didn't have decoders (in the early/mid 90's, when Dolby Digital laserdiscs were out there) you had a separate decoder for the feed, which then output an analog signal. That's what these players have to do.

I'm not completely familiar with DVD-A (I think it is actually PCM just bumped up to a 96Khz feed), but SACD has nothing to do with the PCM format or any of the other formats out there. The DSD system it uses would be meaningless to a receiver. You might as well throw a digital feed of the kernel source at it, because the receiver's DSP isn't going to know what it's looking at. Hence, analog out: if you convert the feed to 5.1 and output it in analog, problem solved. We're at the point that those Dolby Digital LDs were at when there weren't any receivers with decoding built-in. The analog stuff still sounds amazing, and if this bit about the pioneer equipment is true, it'll sound even more amazing. So while the watermarking is explicitly designed to prevent copying, the lack of a digital-out is just a product of most receivers not having any use for the data.

Attention Slashdot Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Several of the articles linked above have been covered at /. already, but there is one that is a must read that I haven't seen before:

"MS software can't trust you" (TCPA / Palladium Frequently Asked Questions).

Perhaps this FAQ has been covered, but if not, please post it for discussion (with credit to poster e.a.kendrick for submission). I am about half way through reading it and it is a chilling analysis of, and speculation on the potential uses/abuses of TCPA/Palladium and related issues.

Let's experiment!

[TheSHAD0W]

First off, is the SACD layer independent from the red-book layer? Or does the new layer just add bits beyond what the red-book layer can hold?

Secondly, if they are independent, and you're comparing CD and SACD, how do you know they've been mixed the same?

Someone needs to get the digital SACD stream off this sampler disk, resample it down to 44 KHz 18 bit stereo, and burn it to a standard CD, and see if there's a real difference.

Otherwise, what will eventually happen is the record labels will put lousy mixes on the CD layer, and vibrant mixes on SACD, and if you complain about the sound quality they'll simply tell you SACD is better.

Re:Let's experiment!

[Anonymous Coward]

44 KHz 18 bit stereo,

44 kHz 16 bit stereo is what you'll want to resample it to.

Unless your burning software is going to drop those bottom 2 bits in a way that your resampling software can't. (Unlikely.)

Re:Let's experiment!

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, is the SACD layer independent from the red-book layer? Or does the new layer just add bits beyond what the red-book layer can hold?

The CD layer is independent.

Secondly, if they are independent, and you're comparing CD and SACD, how do you know they've been mixed the same?

You don't.

Someone needs to get the digital SACD stream off this sampler disk, resample it down to 44 KHz 18 bit stereo, and burn it to a standard CD, and see if there's a real difference.

The only way you can do this involves going through both a digital->analog conversion and another analog->digital conversion. Unless you have some seriously high end hardware, that's going to ruin or at least change the sound, making the comparison irrelevant.

Otherwise, what will eventually happen is the record labels will put lousy mixes on the CD layer, and vibrant mixes on SACD, and if you complain about the sound quality they'll simply tell you SACD is better.

Well, maybe. But they haven't been doing that so far, and the biggest label behind SACD, Sony, doesn't make hybrid disks (with CD layer) at all.

Re:Let's experiment!

[TheSHAD0W]

Are you sure? I thought red book audio specified 18 bits, and that most computers ignored the LSBs.

We don't need this!

[Artemis3]

We can keep producing our own fully compliant Red Book CDs, or our own fully compliant DVD Video discs.

Why DVD Video? DVD Video allows 24bit 96khz PCM audio streams. DVD Audio is absolutely not needed, in fact, you would find more DVD players accepting DVD Video discs used for audio than DVD Audio.

There is also DVD media used in data mode, where we can store either raw pcm or lossless compressed audio.

We can also use the lossy formats, say, for multichannel, like ogg vorbis which handles 255 of these...

We are producing our own standalones that can play mp3s, oggs, mpcs, currently using CD in data mode, why not simply use DVDrom drives and continue the trend? There is no need for these outrageous formats anymore, its time costumers have a word.

Besides independent artists can produce and distribute using these "underground" formats, there is no need for major labels to dictate "standards" anymore, specially when such "standards" are no more, only a bunch of closed, propietary and heavily copy-controled black boxes than can and will be cracked anyway.

24 bits is a good improvement. Sampling rates beyond 48Khz are not that good. Sure its easier to build cheap filters for 96Khz and 192Khz sampling rates (as most humans cant hear much above 16khz, or nothing beyond 24khz), there is little incentive to go beyond 48Khz sampling rates, let alone above 96khz. With that reasoning, i insist we are more than fine with the original DVD Video spec, which allows PCM audio at 24bit 96Khz.

For SACD, the implications are more far fetched than you may thought. I think you better head for http://www.hydrogenaudio.com/ boards and search for SACD. You will be suprised, how much is true, how much is pure marketing tricks. And the new problems introduced by the SACD system. Sony is at it again, this format will be a complete failure, just ignore it, and ignore DVD-A as well as any other DRM compliant format, we have the power to make and use our own standards, we don't need big companies dictating our needs.

We ARE the customers, we shall receive respect. Remember, this is all a battle for control. Big corps know they are losing control, they will fight for it.

I will copy what i said in another forum regarding the news about BMG decision to produce no more CDs without "copy protection":

This means that all BMG discs are now low quality. Only "backups" will be good and reliable.

Copy protected CDs are a guaranteed measure to prevent customers from trusting major record labels discs anymore, as a street made copy will give better quality and price, demand for such _reliable_ backups discs will only increase.

All means of copy protection are doomed to failure, and will only increase production costs, and will annoy who knows how many people.

I guess we will simply keep producing our own full quality Red Book CDs and start ignore the major brands, it could be a good thing, to promote independent artists, underground scene, and all.

Remember how Divx (copy/play controlled DVD) failed, look how SACD is doomed from the beginning, and any outragious format that they devise (unless easily cracked open) will face strong opposition from the public.

The people are starting to resort to their own formats. Divx/Xvid instead of DVD, Mp3/Ogg Vorbis instead of CD, we are even developing our own software and hardware, they are losing control, they are desperate to regain that control back, they have lost already, but they will fight, will declare the whole world illegal, the whole knowledge a sin, and freedom a crime, and put their money to buy all the politicians and fund the lawyers.

Even with Palladium, you will see how people will start thinking seriously about free software and probably hardware, when Microsoft asks regular fees to use Windows, Office, Messenger, and such things people are starting to depend on for without knowing that its exactly what they want, so later they can ask whatever they want. Its the drug dealer tactic, none the less, first for free, then you pay, then you owe, then you die...

(Note: Term "free" used as in Freedom of Speech).

Re:We don't need this!

[angle_slam]

For SACD, the implications are more far fetched than you may thought. I think you better head for http://www.hydrogenaudio.com/ [hydrogenaudio.com] boards and search for SACD. You will be suprised, how much is true, how much is pure marketing tricks. And the new problems introduced by the SACD system. Sony is at it again, this format will be a complete failure, just ignore it, and ignore DVD-A as well as any other DRM compliant format, we have the power to make and use our own standards, we don't need big companies dictating our needs.

If you got to the site you linked to (not the forums), you will find a lot of SACD reviews. Everyone that I read says the SACD sounds better than the CD.

Remember how Divx (copy/play controlled DVD) failed, look how SACD is doomed from the beginning, and any outragious format that they devise (unless easily cracked open) will face strong opposition from the public.

SACD is intended as a higher-quality product. It was not built for the express purpose of copy protection. It is a niche product and probably will always remain a niche product. SACD is doomed as a mass market product because they can't be played on the majority of players (except for the hybrid discs). But it was never intended to be mass market.

A hunk of burning FUD.

[ProtoCat]

I can't sit here and hope to convince you anything about SACD, since most of you are too busy speculating and screaming your heads off because you can't go and copy an SACD of a disc that has most likely been out in CD for quite some time. What I can do is tell you the following things and hope maybe at least one of you will actually go out and hear a high-res format sometime before posting without once even givng an honest listen to the format.

First off, there definately are SACD/DVD-A combo players. There's quite a few of them covering the entire spectrum of how much you want to spend on gear. Personally, I think a good purchase would be the Pioneer Elite 47Ai, which also has digital outputs, another thing that article is completely wrong about. The 47Ai has, by quite a few people's accounts including my own, some of the best video output of any DVD-Video player out there, especially at its price point.

Second off, most DVD-Audio discs *can* reach 192Khz for a sampling rate, however, most of them are released at 96Khz. Another thing is that Verance has actually changed their statement of their watermarking from being unperceptable to 'unnoticable'. That's because, well, you can actually hear it! This isn't a faint different, it actually colors the sound a bit from the original. There was a small test conducted by a person who obtained the Verance software and after doing a compare between the source and the watermarked version decided to isolate the difference between the two into a single .wav. It sounded like a poor AM radio version of the song playing, but that goes to show just how much info between the two were actually changed.

Third, SACD can be produced by independant artists if they wish to, there's actually several mastering kits out there ranging from $5k and up that you can save up, snag, take home and master stuff to. Products like SADiE, Pyramix, Sony's own Sonoma, are all available to be purchased by anyone who wishes to produce their own SACDs. Just searching on the web for 'SACD Mastering' brings up a lot of smaller production houses willing to do it for you as well. Slowly, places capable of pressing SACDs are catching up in pace as more plants are opened and the tech gets out there.

Also, claims about SACD not being higher than '24kHz' (when it's really around 100kHz) and the like are also rather bunk. There's a lot of people trying to test DSD by methods meant for PCM, which simply does NOT work because they are two completely alien methods of handling sound from each other with just enough in common that they both can be handled by some of the same processors. A good article found here will explain a bit more actually what's going on with DSD. There's been some people claiming that from a 'mathmatical standpoint' SACD is on par with a cassette tape (!), but even your layman doing an A->B between the two could tell you that's not the case. As a friend put it "If it measures bad, but your output is good, then you're measuring wrong".

Lastly, the bit about the CD layers of hybrid discs not sounding as good is also a lot of bunk thrown out by groups like Warner (DVD-Audio's big pusher) whom want to scare a lot of people away. However, one thing to keep in mind, is that SACD hybrid discs are being snuck in without any such labeling as to their hybrid status on the packaging. For example, that brand new set of Rolling Stones remastered stuff in digipak packaging are all SACD hybrids. Vivendi Universal has just begun releasing hybrid discs with the possible intention of switching over to exclusively releasing hybrids in the next year or so.

They don't cost anything more than the actual CD, and since SACD players can be snagged as low as $120 now, it's a bit easier to get into playing the the high-res layer. However, at $120, players I'd consider 'amazing' aren't many, in fact, it'd be just one that was recently discontinued. The Sony SCD-CE775 5-Disc SACD changer is one of the best players I've heard under $200, easily doing Redbook playback comparable to some $1k decks I've heard. Internally the SCD-CD775 is almost exactly the same as Sony's $450 SCD-C222ES SACD player, save its cheaper casing, slightly different power supply and a bit cheaper capacitors. If you really wish to get serious, you can have people like this guy spend some quality time with your SCD-CD775 or a few other models of players and have him upgrade and change a lot of the parts for better sounding playback. However, I doubt that'll appeal to everyone who doesn't own at least a good set of headphones (Sennheiser HD-600s, Sony MDR-CD3000s, Grado RS-1s, Audio Technica ATH-W100s, Etymotic ER-4S, etc.)

Also, most audiophile have been raving about some SACD players and their Redbook playback ability. I don't know about this Arizona group of '53 people' or one particular shop whom wasn't even aware of decks capable of DVD-A and SACD while also providing digital out, but you look for reviews of Sony's 'SCD-XA777ES' player and you'll find many saying it does some of the best CD playback you can possibly buy. Phillips, Denon and others are getting in on players of the same quality at comparable prices.

In short, I've found that article to be rather a lot of FUD, and the reactions of quite a few here to be playing into that quite nicely. Personally I own both a DVD-A and SACD player and titles for both, but I rather prefer SACD after spending a bit of time on each using decent gear (Carver CM-1090 amp, custom amps, Sennheiser HD-600 headphones, etc.) I also own about 350 legitimate CDs and continue to purchase CDs on top of higher-res formats. Am I at all alarmed that my ability for backups of these newer formats are limited? No, not really. I take care of my discs and my need to back them up or play them on my PC (although the new SB Audigy 2 can play back DVD-Audio on PCs) or portable unit is pretty unnessicary. One thing I will say, is that if interest picks up enough, I'm sure a DeCSS-alike will surface and so will another hailstorm of controversy and merry fun that Slashdot readers thrive on.

i hate this type of poll

[shams42]

This was mentioned above tangentially, but it bears repeating. From the article:

In a recent Gartner G2 survey, 88 percent of respondents said they believed it legal to make copies of CDs for personal backup use while 77 percent felt they should be able to copy a CD for personal use in another device.

I really despise this type of meaningless poll. Is doesn't matter one whit whether people think it's legal to make backups of CD's. No amount of misinformation spread by the RIAA can change the fact that it is perfectly legal to make backups of CD's, and will be until the Disney senator gets our fair use rights taken away! I know I'm preaching to the chior here, but damn, people. All this means is that 12 percent of Americans are ignorant about their rights.

probably isn't the format

[Trepidity]

SACDs, especially the sampler discs designed to impress you, are almost certainly mastered far better than standard CDs. Most CDs these days have a ridiculously high level of dynamic compression so that they'll sound "loud enough" to compete with other songs on the radio, which of course makes them sound like crap compared to a properly-mastered CD. Simply mastering a standard CD properly and carefully would probably get you most of the improvements you're hearing in the SACD -- the difference from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz and from 16- to 32-bit is very minute by comparison.

Re:probably isn't the format

[mcbevin]

the difference from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz and from 16- to 32-bit is very minute by comparison

minor nitpick - sacd's are not 96 khz / 32 bit .... instead they're a completely different system which is 1 bit and some insane number of hz which works quite differently.

thus its plausible that the difference is more significant, although people have also claimed to detect areas in which it sounds worse even than cds (mathematically the system used by sacd can't represent certain waveforms as well as a 16 bit signal ... whether it matters or not is something the audophiles can argue about for the next few decades, along with whether records are better than cds etc etc, while the rest of us can concentrate on actually listening to the damn music).

yeah, so i agree with your main point, and i seriously doubt 99% of people will hear a difference except for on specially selected samples. its all about hype, and anyone with more brains than money will hopefully realise that.

Only studios can make them!!!

[captaineo]

The biggest news in this article is not the copy-prevention system - it's the watermark. This represents a completely new kind of digital rights restriction.

"The watermarks must be present for the player to recognize the disc and play the content. A bootleg DVD-Audio without the watermark would fail to play, Winograd said."

Do you see what this means? All CD players will play home-made CDs, all DVD players will play home-made (unencrypted) DVDs. But SACD players will not play home-made SACDs, only studio-made SACDs! In order to produce a SACD, you must sign away your copyrights to a major music studio.

SACD is the first digital format that completely locks out non-studio artists.

(yes I know exploiting the full quality of SACD requires a bunch of fancy equipment - heck, so does DVD - so when I say "home-made" I mean "made by anyone without a studio contract")

SACD is a hoax!

[Neillparatzo]

Let's see if I have my facts straight...

- SACDs are better than regular CDs due to an extra layer of sound data, 2.8MHz delta-sigma modulation.

- Yet the discs themselves are playable in regular CD players, as they include standard 44.1KHz PCM data as a legacy fallback.

- And the SACD players themselves are closed, proprietary, with no digital outputs.

From this I conclude that the entire SACD standard is a hoax! ;)

Re:Au Contraire [sort-of] - the real deal

[Anonymous Coward]

PCM may be the most "intuitive" way to represent digital audio but notice that modern AD and DA converters, while they may input and output PCM, are *NOT* PCM devices internally! Instead, they are implemented as single or multi bit delta sigma modulators! Internal digital filters are used to turn the delta sigma bitstream into PCM. This is done because it is extremely difficult to fabricate high resolution PCM converters on silicon chips. (Even if you "go the whole hog" with laser trimmed resistive elements in a straight PCM converter, which is very expensive, you still can't equal the resolution of this "kludge" of converting delta sigma streams into PCM.)

SACD is better precisely because it eliminates this kludge! Instead the bitstream is recorded, in its native format, directly onto the disc and, conversely, is output in its native format during playback.

As to the requirement of "bandwidth up to 100kHz" - sure, most people can't hear discrete tones beyond, say, 15kHz. (That is one reason why many people don't hear the "ringing" artifacts in MP3.) However, our perception of acoustic "space" is in part determined by phase relationship between sounds. Even for moderate frequencies, you need a large bandwidth to preserve these phase relationships in a digitally encoded signal. (In other words, 44kHz PCM sampling does more than just limit the frequency response to 20kHz - it also distorts the phase relationships between sounds inside the passband.) As such, at least for "live" performance, SACD will sound more realistic - just like people are describing, "it makes it sound as if the musicians are in the room." With sufficiently advanced recording techniques, it should be possible to exploit this with popular (studio) recordings as well.

Well

[sulli]

The difference now is that SACD and DVD-A have substantially zero adopters now. By excluding digital output the makers are telling the logical early adopters (audiophiles) to go fuck themselves. So the chances of adoption are very, very low, I think.

It's just like DAT, which failed largely because of anti-copy provisions. If the manufacturers want these formats to fail, they're certainly doing the right thing now.

Re:Well

[tigga]

By excluding digital output the makers are telling the logical early adopters (audiophiles) to go fuck themselves.

Audiophiles do not care about digital outputs. They care about sound.
BTW what's wrong with analog output? Why is this obsession with digital outputs?
In case of CD player you could use different D/A converter but for SACD they do not exist. Anyway between D/A converter and receiver or amplifier you have to use analog connection...

The point of the post...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that there is a company, Placette Audio, which makes a pre-amp that will reproduce your SACD signal without any PCM filtering, or any other lossy stuff [modulo the small amount background lossiness inherent in any analog device].

Re:The point of the post...

[crucini]

...is that there is a company, Placette Audio, which makes a pre-amp that will reproduce your SACD signal without any PCM filtering...

Actually it's not a pre-amp. Just a passive volume control. You can make the same thing out of a log, stereo potentiometer and a stereo RCA cord, cut in half. Probably less than $10. It doesn't need precision resistors, as the Placette unit is alleged to have. Just to be clear, precision resistors in this application accomplish nothing unless you want a specific, numerically specified degree of attenuation, and are willing to go without continous adjustment. And you don't. You want to adjust the volume control for comfort, not for, let's say, 20.5 dB below max output.

Also, I'm not sure why the author has confidence in his amp(s) and speakers to reproduce 100 KHz.

There ARE DVD-A players with digital output

[bryanp]

"CNN has an article on Super Audio CD digital watermarking and the lack of digital outputs on any SACD or DVD-Audio players.

Sorry, not true. The player I'm about to buy, the Panasonic RP-82, plays DVD Audio and has optical outputs. The link below is to the modified (region selectable, RCE-proof, Macrovision disabled) version I'll be buying. You can get them unmodified for less $.

http://www.jvbdigital.com/jvb.asp?cur=2&section= dv dplayers&page=title&title=71

Re:SACD quality questionable - WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misinformed. These days, there is no such thing as a "PCM" AD or DA converter - all "PCM" converters are, internally, delta sigma modulators. (That's right, the converters that create your precious PCM bitstream are, internally, the single bit converters that you despise!) Such converters turn the delta sigma stream into PCM through the use of an on chip digital filter.

SACD is better because it eliminates these digital filters - DSD means the native bitstream of the converter is recorded onto the disc and, conversely, the native stream is output during playback.

convenience is king

[phriedom]

It has been said before, but it bears repeating.

I have over 1400 songs that I ripped myself from legally acquired CD's that reside in an MP3 player slightly larger than my hand. It has changed the way that I listen to music. This convenience has become the singal most important factor in my music listening. I have bought more CD's since I got my MP3 player than in the previous 7 years combined. I'm not going back. I won't go back to vinyl or tapes, and I won't move forward to a new format or copy protected product that won't let me play music the way I want to listen to it. If independant artists are the only ones who release unencumbered music, then I'll buy from them.

By the way, if all RIAA studios switch to copy-protected CDs, does that mean we can repeal the "tax" on blank tapes and blank CD-Rs that "compensates" the major labels for the losses they will no longer be suffering?

What next?

[AtomicX]

ah... I see that Sony and Panasonic have been taking lessons from Microsoft about DRM. Good corporation! sit, stay, follow the leader.

Isn't it fortunate that there will always be those nice Linux developers who always have some good reason to crack such technologies.

Boy, CNN didn't do their research

[the eric conspiracy]

I own a DVD-Audio player that has digital outputs, however I don't use them because I have a few DVD-Audios that are encoded at a 192KHz bit rate that my amp can't handle.

DVD-Audio diske sound is audibly superior to any CD I have heard, and not just marginally; in particular the audio stage is much smoother and well-defined because of the presence of a center channel. I am less impressed by the effects of a rear channel - at least with the current state of the art. Audiphiles have long been aware of the 'hole in the middle' in a conventional stereo system - this is gone with these new formats.

As far as copy protection, both SACD and DVD-Audio come with ripable alternative formats - SACD has a CD layer, and DVD-Audio disks have a conventional DVD format audio layer. Since it takes a good deal of stereo equipment to do justice to DVD-Audio I am currently happy with the lesser formats for my other uses - car stereo, PC playback at work, etc.

I do agree with the article's assertion that labelling as to the copyability of DVD's, SACD's etc. is important, and should be required by law. Buyers should be making informed choices. I would also like to see some sort of requirement that fair use rights are protected (one generation copy support, for example) as part of any copyright legislation.

Ultimately of course I expect that any copy protection scheme will be defeated - for example bootleg ROMs for SACD players could quite clearly defeat watermark requirements.

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

tool

No digital outs?

[autopr0n]

At first I was a little confused, after all digital outputs allow high quality transfer without buying insanely expensive 'super cables' or whatever for connection, but are there any digital audio interfaces that would actually allow the signal to be reproduced at its true resolution?

It would be kind of retarded to have SACD audio down sampled to 44.1khz 16bit PCM so that it can be pumped over a fiber line.

Re:The betamax of audio technology that works in V

[jwlidtnet]

You can indeed rip the CD track out of most hybrid SACDs...the only stumbling point comes when people try to rip the CD content on their DVD-ROM drives. As the DVD-ROM drive detects the SACD layer--but can't play it--troubles occasionally arise there. It isn't copy protection, but merely a consequence of the standard.

-D

CE Mfgrs & Media alienating their best custome

[FreeUser]

"Copyright owners are entitled to use whatever formats they want to use," von Lohmann said. "If they really want to protect their content they can go back to vinyl."

How is THAT going to stop people? It simply makes it harder to rip?

Exactly. I ripped some of my old vinyl years ago and encoded it to ... you guessed it, burnable CD. This was before MP3 became so popular.

It was easy ... just use a turntable, a good amp, plug the line out into the line in of your sound card, adjust a few settings in aumix, capture to wav format, run sox to convert to CD format, and burn. Obviously the last step could be replaced with "run oggenc/lame to convert to ogg/mp3."

What I find more interesting is how much the consumer electronics and media companies have alienated their best customers. Here we have a new format that truly is innovative, interesting, and does offer superior quality, and here, on a forum of technophiles, the reaction is almost universally skeptical, ranging from "no way in hell would I buy that crippled crap!" to "so what?" with only an occasional, lonely voice piping up with "hey, its actually pretty cool, and we CAN get around the copy protection nonsense."

This should strike fear into the hearts of the Sonys and Pioniers of the world ... the very people historically most inclined to buy these sorts of new formats (speaking as one who owns several thousand dollars of Laserdisks from the 80's and 90's) are completely turned off by the watermarking and copy protection crap they are putting into this.

That is the reason I do not own an HDTV, that is the reason I do not purchase DVD (well, actually the DeCSS suit is the reason I'm boycotting DVDS), that is the reason I will no longer be buying CDs, and it is the reason I feel absolutely no compulsion to upgrade my stereo equipment (who knows what they've crippled without telling us) ... and these were all things I used to spend a great deal of money on.

They've alienated many, perhaps most, of their early adopters, and that doesn't bode at all well for the future of any new formats that group tries to foist off on us.

Re:CE Mfgrs & Media alienating their best cust

[DewDude]

true.. also, what's interesting...a while back I ripped a CD via analog off my Apex DVD player..it was a John Prine CD but, it was HDCD, my Apex decodes HDCD, and no one noticed it wasn't a pure digital rip (no one complained that is)

Mastering

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I do agree that the quality of recording and production are more important than the format. The difference between the average CD and the best (in terms of sound quality) CD I own is huge. However, the best SACDs I own are still considerably better than my best CD, and almost every release I have on both formats sounds at least a little better on SACD, sometimes a lot.

Damn, I'm glad I'm not an audiophile.

[cascadingstylesheet]

These people don't play CDs with just a high end CD player, you'll find they use what is called a CD "transport" which is a CD player with a digital out. For a nice one, a few grand at least, ranging up to five figures for these things. Then you need to feed this wonderfully accurate string of 0's and 1's into a DAC. Not just the crappy DACs in your receiver of sound card, these DAC units are generally made to match the CD transport and will probably cost somewhere between half and double the cost of the transport itself. Then, with your thousand dollar interconnect cables (a pair of RCA plugs, for example, but you'll find preference towards 'balanced' connectors), they'll connect it to a preamplifier and then into a power amp, which may be a set of monoblocks (one power amp per speaker, sometimes they bi-amp them, too!). Then you've got the speaker cables and speakers

How do they mount all this stuff inside the cardboard boxes they must live in?

Headphone sound?

[Vegan Pagan]

Most of the tests seem to be done with speakers? How about a test with headphones, maybe high-end Sennheisers? Can SACD or DVD-A produce realistic outside-the-head sound with headphones?

No digital out? Not on my system then

[nsafreak]

Ok, so they make high quality audio CDs and DVDs but the equipment (most of it at least) that plays these CD & DVDs does not have a digital output. And they expect me to use analog inputs on my receiver to listen to it? I DON'T THINK SO. There is a noticeable difference in between the sound you'll get with digital input versus an analog input, no matter how high a quality set of cables you get for the analog. Not only that but I use digital in whenever possible since it is the least susceptible to any signal noise crossing the line, especially the optical inputs.

Re:SACD quality questionable - WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

PCM ADs work at "slightly" higher sampling rates and/or precision than what DSD records.

Re:Au Contraire [sort-of] - the real deal

[crucini]

SACD is better precisely because it eliminates this kludge! Instead the bitstream is recorded, in its native format, directly onto the disc and, conversely, is output in its native format during playback.

First, I wasn't advocating PCM per se, just objecting to the claim that it's an "electronic fiddle". But I'm really suspicious of this "nativist" claim to superiority. If the signal went through a digital delay or reverb, or a mixing console, or Pro Tools, it was PCM at one point. If the signal was born inside a computer, it's natively PCM.

The timing/phase argument is the best one I've heard, but still presents problems. If your ears are 6" apart, 44.1 KHz sampling should yield a 6" location error at 17.25 feet. In other words, an object 17.25 feet away could appear 6" to the left or right of its true location. Can you locate sound sources with this degree of precision? The phase error may already be beyond my perceptual limits.

You don't need digital out.

[The Sith Lord]

One of the clever things about SACD, is that you DON'T need a complex DAC to extract the audio signal (unlike CD or DVD-A).
Since SACD is the most "analog" of the digital formats, all you need is a low pass filter, and et viola, you have music!

Stereo vs. Music

[TXG1112]

Sometimes it seems to me that people who are seeking that holy grail of "perfectly reproduced sound" spend a little too much time listining to their stereo and not enough time listening to music....

"Dude, listen to the sound reproduction on my new stereo...." -someone I know

"You don't even like that song!" -me

Here's my idea for the foolproof system

[mdielmann]

There are a number of requirements to fulfill:

• The playback hardware must be ubiquitous.
• The media has to be cheap to produce.
• Recordings must always be of lower quality than the originals.

Of course, this already exists - cassettes. IF only RIAA could turn back the clock, they'd never have done that whole CD thing...

Re:SACD = AMAZING!!! or SACD == AMAZING!!!

[ThePeeWeeMan]

Actually, VB does have :=, it's not very often used though. And it's only really useful when calling methods with named arguments.

A few mistakes.

[Kjella]

You will find hybrid SACDs all over a CD store. Why? Because they play like a CD in a CD player. Doh.

Watermarking be good for RIAA. RIAA make better sound than garage band. (Yes, it's that kind of caveman approach)

Oh and as for *any* conversion, it'll hit home for the people who want to diss whatever copy you make of it. When audiophiles can claim their gold-connector-whatever-insulated-3-inch-thick cables help things, how do you think they'll say about a Digital/Analog/Digital conversion?

Kjella

digital revolution!!!!... .not!

[zoftie]

what blows me is that new disc format players out now don't have digital outputs. The whole point of digital is to bring "exact" quality of audio recording to listener. Making players without digital outputs, forces me to use analog transmission path, which is less exact and more suceptible to 'colouration'. To escape colouration of sound i must use very very expensive cable, no matter the player i use, wether its 100$ radio shack SA-CD player or 2000$ pioneer elite one.
Futher, when new upgradable amplifiers become cheap,with functionality like that of some anthem amps,i will use cd player as only reader, and update software from internet to decode any digital stream from a source / SA-CD / DVD-A / somefoo ... with decoders embedded in players I am fucked and have to buy a new player a new codec comes out.
I am sorry but this is retarted. To get good audio quality out of my DVD-A toshiba, into my kick ass Rotel amp, I had to spend 300$ on cables. I am rather pissed, while sound quality is very very good, i suspect placing decoder so far away from amp, is very bad idea, the whole point of
digital revolution in A/V, is placing decoding devices right near reproduction source, and using random source devices. no the other way around! gah.
Of course, with piss poor job market, I might as well start business of winding cables... intent of industry is clear, and only way to get decent sound out of sources is via decent cables.

No, get the 47Ai or the 45A

[Anonymous Coward]

Steer clear of the 47A. It has been roundly criticized for poor SACD quality. The 47Ai is not just a 47A plus the 1394 interface. Pioneer changed a number of other things too, including the DACs, and initial reports say the 47Ai performs much better on SACD.

Or consider the 45A, which is based on the 47Ai, except it lacks the Legato Pro upsampling feature for normal CD playback and the high end video DAC of the 47Ai. You won't notice the difference in video performance unless you have a higher end progressive scan display, and the 45A is under $500 US.

Last Post!

[alpg]

The Analytical Engine weaves Algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard
loom weaves flowers and leaves.
-- Ada Augusta, Countess of Lovelace, the first programmer

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...