[TheChairGuy]

In my reading this weekend, I came upon a bit o' news - DVD-A can be played on any DVD-A equipped player...without the need for a screen hookup.  You lose any video or commentary, etc. bundled with the DVD-A, but it'll play in it's full 96 or 192/24 glory, regardless.

Anybody out there know this for certain?

[rblnr]

It's too bad DVD-A is basically dead in the water -- it's a noticeable upgrade from RBCD.  It's especially worth hearing on Meridian equipment -- these are the guys that wrote the codec.  The immediacy and detail grab you.

[nathanm]

Playing without the TV is possible, but you may have to navigate blindly through the menu system or teach yourself the navigation structure with a temporary monitor (depends on the disc). Sometimes you can just press Enter, sometimes you can hit a track number and it will start playing.  I thought it would be cool to get one of those tiny CRTs (like in the movie Brazil)for use in an audio-only manner on top of a DVD player.  You may also be stuck with the default audio track, if for instance the disc defaults to the 2-channel instead of surround mix.  This whole business of different tracks and whatnot is also confusing to the non-enthusiast I've found..perhaps another black mark against popular acceptance of the format.  Hell, it's confusing to me sometimes.

[TheChairGuy]

I received the couple (gently used) DVD-A discs a week + ago and have been playing against their CD counterparts...I have to say, conclusively, that DVD-A is simply a better recording process than CD.

I simply cannot stand Neil Young's 'Harvest' on CD; it truly hurts my ears to hear it.  Despite my cleaning ritual of Koday optically lens cleaner, application of LAT International's C Diamond (CD Performance Enhancement and Anti-static Treatment) and a good dose of Bedini's de-gausser.  Usually, these things help a tad, but for this disc it's near useless.

The vinyl version sings with the pain that Young is experiencing - he reportedly recorded the album while in a body cast (he has never been a healtlthy guy); rich in glorious pain, for all the world to hear. The CD is simply abysmal - the only pain you hear is that of your own ears and wallet having been subjected to buying it in the bargain bin at Tower Records for $9.99.

The DVD-A, while it doesn't convey the 'wholeness' or soul of the vinyl version, is at last resloving and hints at it's greatness.  You CAN listen to it - even with a Class Z  audio/video system it's being played on.  It simply takes the analog masters and renders them far more faithfully then the CD version.  An interview with Neil Young in 2002 confirms his satisfaction with it.  It's more resolving, more whole sounding, has less irritating midrange, warmer, denser bass and a high end that extends fairly benignly.

It rivals vinyl in a ways CD never does and never can; but it almost as convenient (unfortunetly, I know of no DVD-A boomboxes, walkmen, clock radio's and only a couple DVD-A compatible car players  )

Digital recording takes a lot of space and I think the culprit lies with the limited space available on a CD, versus a DVD...perhaps more so than the higher sampling rate of DVD-A. 

Tho the format seems ultimaely doomed, there is so much good music on it now, an investment in a decent player seems warranted.  As I tried SACD was was thoughly dissatisfied, a universal player isn't needed; merely a good DVD/DVD-A player.  I'm leaning towards the Cambridge Audio AZUR 540....http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=16&Title=Azur%20540D%20the%20DVD%20player%20of%20choice%20for%20perfect%20pictures

You don't need to spend as much on a good DVD-A player because it starts off at such a higher level....merely very good will get you excellent sound for the money. 

Folks, spend as little as possible on CD...it's a has been/never was recording medium and process. No amount of lipstick (upgrades, doodads, addition of DAC's) will make that pig lovable.  Yes, you can get better performance from it, but if you find yourself frustrated at having spent a lot of money on it without satisfaction - it ain't nothing you're doing wrong; it's just not a great recording format.  It's convenient, but nothing more than that. 

DVD-A is simply better - confirmed completely to me now.

[Jim N.]

I've been using the Cirlinca DVD Audio Solo for a few weels now and have been quite pleased with it. I rip my CD's to my hard drive using EAC and then use the Cirlinca product to burn them to DVD at 24/192. Much better than plain Redbook. Using 24/192 you can only get about 1 hour of music on a DVD! At 24/96 you can burn 2 hours of music on a DVD. It's very touchy with media at 24/192, though. Taiyo Yuden works best. My Pioneer Elite 59avi indicates "DVD Audio" when the disk is in the drive but also sends out a digital signal to feed my external NOS tube buffered DAC. They (Circlina) have a limited free trial (5 full disks over 30 days).

[Digi-G]

Jim N, I wish I had the means to write Audio DVD's the way you are.  It would be a fun experiment, I think, to test the different sampling rates, etc.

Hey Chair Guy, what other DVD-A disks have you listened to?  While I like the Harvest disk it WAS recorded in a barn and isn't the last word in hi-fidelity.  Also, are you playing back 2-ch or multi-ch?  I apologize if you stated this already.   Congrats on getting into the DVD-A world. 

Unfortunately both formats (DVD-A and SACD (and DTS audio disks)) are probably dead in the water (sorta).  Isn't there a new hi-rez AUDIO format on the horizon now that HD-DVD is being released?  I forget what the audio portion is called.  Having yet ANOTHER format sure won't help matters.  I think the best we can hope for is a niche market of these type disks - I don't think these will ever catch on to the masses, but I think there will always be a small market for them.  The prices will probably always be more than CD's but that doesn't bother me too much (as long as they're under $25 U.S.).  I still remember when CD's were $20 each!

[TheChairGuy]

Hey Chair Guy, what other DVD-A disks have you listened to?  While I like the Harvest disk it WAS recorded in a barn and isn't the last word in hi-fidelity.  Also, are you playing back 2-ch or multi-ch?  I apologize if you stated this already.   Congrats on getting into the DVD-A world. 

Only 3 that I have.....a AIX sampler, Neil Young's 'Harvest' and Eric Clapton/BB King's 'Riding with the King'.  It's not alot, but it's enough to  tell me it's, on average, better than CD.

It's on 2.1 channel only - on my garbage video system with a $179 Pioneer DVD/DVD-A player as lead.  CD's were/are played on my carefully assembled audio-only system with $4500 sunk into CD hardware and Empirical Audio mods.  I'm as happy as I can be with CD, but I now know why I have found so many frustrating limitations along the way.

DVD-A is simply better.

[Jim N.]

Jim N, I wish I had the means to write Audio DVD's the way you are.  It would be a fun experiment, I think, to test the different sampling rates, etc.

For me it was a financial decision. I have a few thousand CD's (thanks Amazon marketplace!) and loathed the idea of a format change and having to buy so many titles yet once again. I had the PC with a DVD burner and a decent universal player so I just had to but a USB hard disk for storage, the software and blank DVD's. Eventually I'll just play the .wav files directly from the PC but I'm waiting for that technology to mature a bit. Also, my PC has a loud power supply fan and I do most of my listening from midnight to 3 am and it's distracting.

To my ancient and battered (Zepped/Sabbed/Stoned/Purpled etc) ears the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 with this software is subtle but worthwhile. The jump from 16/44 to 24/96 is more substantial. YMMV as I am no "golden ear". FWIW I listen to jazz mostly not as it's not as compressed.

[TheChairGuy]

I've been so busy travelling of late, that I have taken more time posting at AC than actually listening to the music.

Today, burnt like toast from 5 straight weeks travelling, I took a half day and chilled (cognizant of my 50 emails in my inbox  ) to listen to music for a few hours.

I find that DVD-A is simply better than CD...whether originally analog or 16/44.1 or 24/96 or 192 recording to begin with.  Even the couple XRCD's were missing a bit of something from the DVD-A's.  It's a good technology folks...albeit one that seems like it's doomed soon.

I've been thinking that at age 43 now, I've outgrown metal.  Well, that may be so to an extent, but it's because I've been trying to enjoy metal on CD, not vinyl, primarily.  One of my all time faves is AC/DC's Back in Black.  I haven't listened to it on vinyl in a decade, probably...and tried unsuccessfully to listen to the CD several times (with every goopy tweek imaginable to improve it).  I figured it was just me 'maturing' 

What a load of crap that was...today, I cleaned my 27 year old copy of Back in Black to a pristine finish and played it back - loud.  It never sounded better...it literally transported me back 25 years to a time when I had transferred to tape and listened before every run at every track meet my Junior and Senior years in High School...pumped beyond feelings when 'Hells Bells' rang in (which now seems to double nicely as my daughter's theme song - bless her wee heart,; she loved it as much as I today)   CD brings back no positive memories; only vinyl does...and DVD-A almost does.

As I've said elsewhere, save every penny you can from CD and put it into vinyl...lipstick on that pig ain't ever gonna' make that pig smooch-able.  You will try, mostly in vain, to coax music from that format at any price...yet each incremental hundred spot wrought on vinyl goodies will bring you more pleasure, more music.

In the pecking order of things, nothing fully compares to vinyl played on a good system.  As bloody inconvenient as it is, it's still the best out there.  The Hi-rez format for the last hundred years was invented 100 years ago in my book...let's see what the future holds for bettering it.