Is DVD-A dead?

soundboy · « **Reply #40 on:** 2 Aug 2005, 09:50 pm »

Looks like Sony is licensing its titles to Mobile Fidelity for release on SACD....MoFi just announced a new Edgar Winter Group SACD. This in addition to previously announced SACDs from Earth Wind & Fire and The Byrds.

John Ashman · « **Reply #41 on:** 2 Aug 2005, 10:01 pm »

I think you're totally right, Nathan. CD is 98% perfect. SACD is 99% perfect. DVD-A is 99.9% perfect. We can barely get more than a few recordings that max out CD, let alone the others.

What would have been a *great* format would have been MLP CD. A lossless 5.1 setup that would play over a digital out, like DTS. The thing that prevented the success of DTS was that they refused to mix a CD properly. I had an argument with Scott Esterson of DTS about it and it was like "Oh. You're one of THOSE people (his emphasis) that like to be in the audience instead of up on stage with the musicians". Uh, yeah. We're simply not used to hearing people from behind us.

Multi-channel has two major advantages that are almost never used on a disc.

1. Giving the voice the ability to be heard from only one speaker, not two for more natural vocals.

2. Adding subtle ambience in the rears (or crowd noise). But NOT musicians. Every 5.1 recording studio needs to put a picture of the band on the front wall so they remember where the musicians are.

Dan Driscoll · « **Reply #42 on:** 2 Aug 2005, 10:50 pm »

Quote from: John Ashman

What would have been a *great* format would have been MLP CD. A lossless 5.1 setup that would play over a digital out, like DTS.

I believe DVD-Audio is a 6 channel Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) format. And some high end DVD-A players do offer a digital output, although IIRC, they may all be proprietary at this time.

rmihai0 · « **Reply #43 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 01:49 am »

First of all - there is a misunderstanding about DVD-A and SACD. These formats have been created for having more space to stock more information to get better audio quality. There is NO relationship with 5.1 or whatever number of channels. Very late someone thought to relate SACD and DVD-A with the growing "Home Theater" market.

There are a bunch of SACD and DVD-A out there recorded just in 2 channels!!! And they are the best!

Now, coming bacj to HD-DVD. This will be just a new support that will allow in the future even better audio quality if it will be used just for this purpose. As we have today DVD-A we will have HD-DVD-A. What that will mean in terms of sampling, bits and hertz? I cannot tell you - yet.

Feisal K · « **Reply #44 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 03:22 am »

DVD-A/MLP and SACD/DSD do not play over the standard digital-out (SPDI/F or TosLink) because the bitstream cannot be protected from copying.

John Ashman · « **Reply #45 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 04:13 am »

Quote from: rmihai0

First of all - there is a misunderstanding about DVD-A and SACD. These formats have been created for having more space to stock more information to get better audio quality. There is NO relationship with 5.1 or whatever number of channels. Very late someone thought to relate SACD and DVD-A with the growing "Home Theater" market.

There are a bunch of SACD and DVD-A out there recorded just in 2 channels!!! And they are the best!

I can't understand that reasoning. DVD-A was designed from the ground up for multi-channel and even SACD had in as part of the spec by the time it appeared. Seems like a relationship to me.

I'd also debate the "2-channel is best' argument. Stereo is terribly limited and a center channel is critical to getting a major sonic improvement. I'd rather have 5.1 DTS, done well, than 2.0 SACD done well. No comparison, the extra channels offer far more potential. Unfortunately, many 5.1 discs are done by people who only understand 2.0.

John Ashman · « **Reply #46 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 04:18 am »

Quote from: Feisal K

DVD-A/MLP and SACD/DSD do not play over the standard digital-out (SPDI/F or TosLink) because the bitstream cannot be protected from copying.

And why not? It would require a change to the SPDIF input, that's all. Meridian does protected MLP content over a modified SPDIF out/in. It's just software.

Watson · « **Reply #47 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 05:21 am »

Quote from: rmihai0

First of all - there is a misunderstanding about DVD-A and SACD. These formats have been created for having more space to stock more information to get better audio quality. There is NO relationship with 5.1 or whatever number of channels. Very late someone thought to relate SACD and DVD-A with the growing "Home Theater" market.

There are a bunch of SACD and DVD-A out there recorded just in 2 channels!!! And they are the best!

This schizophrenic attitude towards multichannel doesn't help the new formats. A certain segment of consumers feel let down when they buy a SACD and it doesn't come with a multichannel mix. For example, there was one poster earlier in this thread who said he doesn't buy SACDs unless they're multichannel.

Selling the improvement in stereo sound quality is hard, especially to the iPod generation, because it's not tangible. Ordinary people just don't appreciate the "it sounds X% better" argument, especially if it also costs Y% more and may not play on their iPod. One step forward, one step back.

At least multichannel is something tangible that people can grasp. Perhaps the new formats might have been more successful if every SACD/DVD-A had to come with a multichannel mix, even though many of those might have been cheesy from an audiophile perspective.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #48 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 06:09 am »

I generally let people have their preferences without browbeating them, but I must say that well done MC leaves stereo for dead. Without being presumptuous, anyone who doesn't like MC probably either 1) hasn't heard a good recording or 2) hasn't heard it in a properly set up system. Please, no flames! I'm just speaking from my experiences and to my own personal preferences. YMMV!

Without getting into perceptual studies and DBT's, I really think DSD has some problems. JMOHO, but hi rate PCM is superior. The popular belief among audiophools with a preference seems to be that SACD is better, but in my experience DVD-A is the better sounding format. But higher resolution is the smaller part of the improvement- the big edge DVD-A/SACD have over CDs is MC sound.

There, I've said my peice. Let the flames begin.

Dan Driscoll · « **Reply #49 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 02:46 pm »

Quote from: rmihai0

First of all - there is a misunderstanding about DVD-A and SACD.

It is correct that SACD was originally a 2 channel format and that 2 channel is part of the SACD specification. A lot of early SACD disks and players were 2 channel only and I believe all current releases also include a 2 channel track. There are also a number of high end 2 channel only SACD players on the market.

However, DVD-Audio was specifically designed for and specified as a multi-channel format from the ground up. Many DVD-A disks do not have a 2 channel track and even among those that do, it is often 24 bit/48KHz, not the 24 bit/192KHz of the DVD-A specification.

There are 2 channel only high resolution disks with 24/96 PCM and 24/192 PCM, but these are not DVD-Audio. 24/96 is called DAD (Digital Audio Disk) and 24/192 is called HDAD (Hybrid Digital Audio Disk). Neither of these formats meets the DVD-Audio specification requirements because they do not include muti-channel audio.

John Ashman · « **Reply #50 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 03:22 pm »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

There, I've said my peice. Let the flames begin. .

I am standing behind you with my fire extinguisher

nathanm · « **Reply #51 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 07:49 pm »

Quote from: Babs

I generally let people have their preferences without browbeating them

Yes, but where's the fun in that? It's a well known fact that anyone who likes multi-channel is a dirty low down creep and should be socially ostracized and talked down to like the scumbags they are! I mean that in a good way.

I think it's highly unlikely that any multi-channel format will gain the same kind of success that 2-channel has, regardless of digital resolution. Multi-channel is strictly a living room thing, it's not portable. iPods have taken off cause they're portable (although how anyone can tolerate earbud headphones is beyond me). You can't sell the coolness of multi-channel unless you're in the crosshairs of those 5 speakers. Hell, I can't even sell the coolness of multi-channel to myself if I move one seat over on my own damn couch. If you go to the kitchen to make a sandwich while your fancy 5 channel music is playing it just doesn't matter anymore, it's just "sound over there", no different than if just 2 speakers were playing.

Redbook 2 channel "just works" in the same sense that the blue hologram worked for the people in Star Wars. From way before Luke was born until R2D2 plays Leia pleading to Ben Kenobi they were doing just fine with the shitty blue, staticy hologram. Okay, so maybe it wasn't JUST like having the person in the room, but it was close enough. Why re-invent the wheel, right?

I would go so far as to say that if you released the popular Top 40 artists' records in mono a lot of people would not even notice. Maybe that's a stretch but I honestly don't think "soundstage" means anything to anyone except people who read boards like this. Most people don't get off on the phantom imaging thing on two speakers much less five! I think any kind of multi-channel audio format is an extremely hard sell for the mainstream audience. I hope it sticks around for the nerds, but it will never sway the iPod crowd unless humans start growing five ears to stick five earbuds into.

Non-audiophiles are all about multi-tasking and they want to be doing other things while music is playing. You can't pin them down to a chair, they'll be bored. So multi-channel audio is a lost cause in the sense of mainstream acceptance. People will only sit down if there's something to look at. No screen, no surround sound.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #52 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 10:34 pm »

I doubt many would notice if it was mono. It's not like a boombox with the speakers 1' apart will give much stereo effect. I can't speak to the ipod thing- I've never heard one and at the price of them I probably never will. Mostly I just don't know what the hell I'd do with one if I had it.

To carry it a bit further, hi fi in general is a lost cause, MC or 1/2 channel. 99% of people simply don't care.

Mathew_M · « **Reply #53 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 10:51 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

Redbook 2 channel "just works" in the same sense that the blue hologram worked for the people in Star Wars....

Yeah those shitty blue, staticy holograms were not exactly THX Certified.

Watson · « **Reply #54 on:** 3 Aug 2005, 11:02 pm »

People would notice if things were mono. With stereo recordings, you do get a decent "headstage" using iPods and the like, even with the stock earbuds. Mono recordings would produce an exaggerated "single blob in the middle of your head" experience that most people would find irritating.

Dokter_doug · « **Reply #55 on:** 4 Aug 2005, 02:01 am »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

...but I must say that well done MC leaves stereo for dead. Without being presumptuous, anyone who doesn't like MC probably either 1) hasn't heard a good recording or 2) hasn't heard it in a properly set up system.

I agree heartily. And the emphasis here has got to be on...

1. "Good" artists.

2. True high res recordings, and in the case of SACD, the Meitner-corrected DAC's.

3. Identical speakers all round for multichannel playback...or at least the same family of speakers with timbre matching.

Number 3 can be very pricey. I'm currently running PMC IB1 mains and PMC LB1 centre and surrounds. I simply can't afford 5 PMC IB1's.

Doug

John Ashman · « **Reply #56 on:** 4 Aug 2005, 03:08 am »

What, no one here bought "Insane Clown Posse" in DVD-A?!?

Digi-G · « **Reply #57 on:** 4 Aug 2005, 03:51 pm »

Who gives a shit if multi-channel doesn't appeal to the masses? This hobby and hifi in general (like a previous poster said) doesn't appeal to the masses. We're an elite (maybe 'minority' would be a better term) bunch.

Okay! Alright! Uncle! If it appealed to the masses we would have more selection. And cheaper discs. And an easier, digital connection for hi-rez audio (maybe). Maybe I should give a shit...

FWIW, I won't ever have an ipod as long as they sell for $400 - do you know you can get a brand new Dell computer (with monior) for $600 (or less)? Considering the technology involved, somebody is being gouged.