DVD-A or SACD

[Alan T]

After shopping around with a friend who has lots more discretionary money I have come to the conclusion that both formats are not the digital panacea that I first thought.

DVD-A – Took home both JVC and Toshiba DVD-A players, neither would cue up tracks properly. Told by local JVC service center that JVC is aware of the problem but has offered no solution. The service center will not accept DVD-A players for repair. Is this a problem with the format that will be corrected?

SACD – Is the digital watermarking a problem within this format? Does this negate the advantage DSD technology?

Why aren’t there standards for digital hookups on either system? Because of copy protection, you’re forced to use the analogue outputs. When we tried to hook-up the 5.1 discreet analogue outputs from the SACD player we found the volume control does not work on this input on his surround processor.

Anybody found any hardware that negates these problems?

[Grant]

Thanks for the post, Alan.

I knew about the copy-protection in SACD but it does not interfere with the sound on any level.

I was all set to buy an SACD player but you know, i'll think i'll wait a little longer to see where things shape up. I think we're also going to see the DVD-A and SACD war heat up this spring. I'll stick to CD for now. No need to spend the money on a player of either type yet.

I do have a DVD player now but have been wary of trying out any DVD-A titles on what I know to be inadequate playback.

[MagicAlex]

but have been wary of trying out any DVD-A titles on what I know to be inadequate playback.

GRANT what exactly do you men by "inadequate playback"? I was told that any DVD player can play DVD-A. Am I mistaken? I am a newbie to this....obviously. Still stuck on 8-bit gold CDs!

[Grant]

Originally posted by MagicAlex


GRANT what exactly do you men by "inadequate playback"?


Bass management.



Still stuck on 8-bit gold CDs!

Just don't try to make a living on designing recording studios!:p

[MagicAlex]

And again that would be 16-Bit Gold!

[Alan T]

I don’t think paying 25 to 35 bucks for an audio only DVD and playing it on non DVD-A machine is not a very good value. Most DVD sound great as Dolby Digital surround but, if I am going to pay twice the asking price versus a CD, I want the higher sampling rate which is the whole point of the format.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Alan T
I am going to pay twice the asking price versus a CD, I want the higher sampling rate which is the whole point of the format.
Playing a DVD-A on a DVD player doesn't have higher resolution than 44.1/24-bit?

[Dan]

I believe only DVD-A players can access/process the high bitrate tracks like 24/96KHz or 192/24. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A friend of mine has a JVC DVD-A player, one of the earlier ones too. No problems tracking whatsoever and he owns probably 10-12 different DVD-A and DAD discs.

[Beowulff]

I believe only DVD-A players can access/process the high bitrate tracks like 24/96KHz or 192/24. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dan,

You're quite correct. The high resolution stereo and surround tracks are not accesible on a standard DVD player. They require a DVD-A unit. There are however a few DVD-A's out now that have a 24/96 DTS track on them that will play on a standard DVD player, but it depends on the player. A lot of older units aren't up to speed.

[Richard Feirstein]

Single layer SACD disks only play on SACD players. Dual layer (hybred) disks can play on any SACD player and most CD players (but only stereo on CD players using conventional 16 bit PCM). SACD multi-channel disks usually have the true stereo mix stored as a different file on the disk rather than relying upon mixdown of the 5.1 source.

DVD-A disks can only play as a DVD-A audio source on a DVD-A player. The DVD-A disk always has a Dolby Digital 5.1 track (capable that is). This is conventional data reduced Dolby Digital. Most disks lack a stereo mix and require in player stereo mixdown.

Copy protection issues prevented, until now, digital output of the SACD and DVD-A data. Next year players and receivers will start to sport such interconnects and receivers will do full bass management and time correction in the high resolution digital modes. Just recently some SACD and DVD-A players have started to sport bass management but few if any do timing adjustments. Even then, current bass management is very basic.;)

[luke j. chung]

Denon is releasing a DVD-A player with full resolution digital ouput THIS MONTH! The model DVD-9000 will have a proprietary interface to link it digitally with their new AVR-5803 Receiver, which also allows full analog 5.1-channel bass management for other models. So, DVD-A with digital output is happening a lot sooner than you think, Richard!:cool:

[Richard Feirstein]

Yes Denon has their unique approach with DVD-A and Marantz has a unique approach with SACD. These are non-starters. The DVD-A camp just set a group standard for DVD-A in which Sony and Philips did not enter to include SACD. The first product announced for this interconnect is the APEX 7702 for the second quarter of this year. Receiver announcments are still to come. Give this about 12 months to sort itself out.:rolleyes:

[bmoura]

Originally posted by Richard Feirstein
Yes Denon has their unique approach with DVD-A and Marantz has a unique approach with SACD. These are non-starters. The DVD-A camp just set a group standard for DVD-A in which Sony and Philips did not enter to include SACD. The first product announced for this interconnect is the APEX 7702 for the second quarter of this year. Receiver announcments are still to come. Give this about 12 months to sort itself out.:rolleyes:

Actually the SACD folks completed their standard for the IEEE for digital signal transmission sometime ago. That explains why they were not part of the more recent DVD-A group efforts.

[Beagle]

The DVD has several classic Beatles tunes mixed into 5.1 surround sound....exactly the same as any DVD-A disk would have.

I often cue up my copy just to hear "Nowhere Man' and 'Eleanor Rigby" in mind blowing 5.1 sound. On "ER", they have seperated the string section so that it envelopes you...its a totally incredible listening experience.

I really cant agree with your prediction that the music biz will abandon DVD-A. Too many DVD players out in the field alreadyI find it odd that songs that were originally meant for mono are now in surround sound. If they're anything like that horrid "Yellow Submarine" digital remix disaster, forget it. I find surround a dumb concept. When you go to a concert do you hear the cellos behind you and the brass in front of you and the woodwinds off to the side?

And it does not matter if there are lots of DVD-V players out there. They are not compatible with DVD-A. You can only use the Dolby Digital portion, which sucks. You need to buy a DVD-A player, so DVD-A is the same as SACD in that respect.

[MikeT]

. I find surround a dumb concept. When you go to a concert do you hear the cellos behind you and the brass in front of you and the woodwinds off to the side?

Why does everyone feel that music, to be enjoyed, must be presented in a home environment in a 'realistic' manner.

I always chalk surround sound mixes of music up to an "alternate experience", one that doesn't have to be rooted in reality.

Are we all that "stiff" that we can't loosen up to other experiences in life that might be different from the norm.

I love music, I love stereo music, I love surround music - I view them all as equally valid in what they represent.

Granted, if what you want to do is ONLY listen to music that is presented in a more or less two-dimensional stereo environment - and mimic what you might hear at a concert that is all fine and good - nothing wrong at all.

But just as some people take drugs to view life as an alternate experience, or go to movies (and don't tell me the most popular movies even begin to present anything in life in a realistic fasion) to experience alternative viewpoints, so should surround sound be looked at in this manner.

Just an opinion which I feel is valid. But I really believe that people who firmly put down surround sound as something that shouldn't exist, and is incongruent to the purist way of thinking just don't have an open enough mind to see it for what it really is - "the rollercoaster ride of audio".

Ok- flame away. :)

[Richard Feirstein]

Mike, music at home does not sound "real." In large part popular music is overly compressed, EQ'd, bass reduced and stereo spread reduced so that music can be played over a poorly run AM station with their compressers and limiters and signal processers run into overdrive to give the illusion that they have a loud and powerful signel that can be listend to on a one watt one poor quality speaker in the car or boom box.

No wonder people find such material OK to download with low bit rate date reduced codes such as MP3. If the industry wanted to fight this they should get real about quality sound. Make it obvious to everyone that the CD or vinyl source material is vastly superior to what they get off the radio or MP3 download. But everything is mixed and mastered to the lowest common denominator.

But I have yet seen a recording or a speaker setup in the home that would sound "real", in that real live players were in the room. (Not that this has to be our objective, since many recordings are magic and intended not to be "real" in the first place. I think you were trying to make this point; yes?):rolleyes:

[MikeT]

Richard,
Basically that is my point. But I think most audiophiles might disagree. They talk about their systems and music reproduction in the home as one way they can strive to bring the "realistic" representation of music into their own little listening space. Some go to the extremes that they will only purchase music from "audiophile" sources - since these labels and people "know" how to record music the way it was meant to be heard.

I think the biggest point that I was trying to deflate to an extent is the notion that music MUST be presented (whether based in reality or processed) in a 2 channel fashion - so that instruments, vocals, etc. only present themselves in the front soundstage, with natural ambient cues from room reverberation creating the "surround experience" - AND IT MUST BE ONLY DONE WITH 2 SPEAKERS.

But anyone that has been to a pop/rock concert can attest that what is presented live is no more real than what is presented (compressed, eq'ed, processed) on vinyl, CD, SACD or DVD-A.
Most of the tiime it is so loud (i.e., overdriven) that in no way can it represent what we would even want to experience in our own homes. Other times, as much as many might not even no or care, it might even be presented with some sort of "surround component" involved. Many rock shows position speakers all around the venue, and at many times different sounds are mixed to these speakers to create a "surround" experience.

On the other hand, a live symphony orchestra is presented in it's purest form - and this might be where people have a problem with surround music when instruments are presented in rear speakers that in no way would ever present themselves as such in a concerthall. But my argument is so what - if you can have a surround mix of a symphony orchestra that places instruments in the rear - it isn't "dumb" - it is just a "alternate" way of presenting music that otherwise would be presented in a 2-channel space.

As long as we continue to provide both stereo mixes of this music along with the surround mix - then we should be alright, as both camps can have their preference. It is, as Steve Hoffman has pointed out in the past, a problem when classic music (rock, jazz or classical) is presented in a surround fashion without preserving the original 2-channel or mono mix for those who want it is when we run the risk of altering the musical art form as it was originally intended. You wouldn't have someone re-paint (or god forbid - paint over) a Picasso and hang it in the MET and call it an original, would you? Neither should we attempt this with classic music.

On the other hand - if future music is to be presented in surround sound, without a true stereo counterpart - that would be fine - as in the present day we have almost all new music presented in a stereo format with no mono mix at all. It would merely mean that people would have to adjust. That's part of life.

Again - flame away. :D

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Richard Feirstein
Mike, music at home does not sound "real." In large part popular music is overly compressed, EQ'd, bass reduced and stereo spread reduced so that music can be played over a poorly run AM station with their compressers and limiters and signal processers run into overdrive to give the illusion that they have a loud and powerful signel that can be listend to on a one watt one poor quality speaker in the car or boom box.

No wonder people find such material OK to download with low bit rate date reduced codes such as MP3. If the industry wanted to fight this they should get real about quality sound. Make it obvious to everyone that the CD or vinyl source material is vastly superior to what they get off the radio or MP3 download. But everything is mixed and mastered to the lowest common denominator.

But I have yet seen a recording or a speaker setup in the home that would sound "real", in that real live players were in the room. (Not that this has to be our objective, since many recordings are magic and intended not to be "real" in the first place. I think you were trying to make this point; yes?):rolleyes: Right. Agreed. We are still trying to get mono and stereo right, why are we jumping to 4-channel?

I agree that it is a persons choice in how they listen to their music but I cannot truly believe that Beatles songs were meant to be taken apart with tweezers and listened to with each instrument in a separate location in the room.

It's like a great recipe that tastes good with all the ingredients blended together in proper proportion. Why do you want to break that down?

I don't want to turn my sound system into a Nintendo game or a sound effects system, I want to feel the soul of the music.

[Richard Feirstein]

Heck, that comes through on a 78!:D

[guy incognito]

Originally posted by Beagle
I cannot truly believe that Beatles songs were meant to be taken apart with tweezers and listened to with each instrument in a separate location in the room.


I readily agree. But what about current or future music that's recorded expressly with surround playback in mind?

[petzi]

Originally posted by Dan
I believe only DVD-A players can access/process the high bitrate tracks like 24/96KHz or 192/24. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I have a Sony DVP-NS900 DVD/SACD player, and it can access the 24/96 PCM tracks on DVD/DAD just fine. This is explicitly not a DVD-A player (cause it´s a Sony).
The good thing is, it can downsample the 24/96 PCM to 16/48 and present it at the regular S/PDIF digital output, so it can be recorded with a DAT recorder for example (unless the copy prohibit bit is set and your recorder honors it...)
This downsampling of PCM tracks for the digital output is configurable via a menu. At the same time it will play the hi-res PCM track via its built-in DSD D/A converter.

--
Michael

[Mal]

Originally posted by MikeT
.....systems and music reproduction in the home as one way they can strive to bring the "realistic" representation of music into their own little listening space......

.......But anyone that has been to a pop/rock concert can attest that what is presented live is no more real than what is presented (compressed, eq'ed, processed) on vinyl, CD, SACD or DVD-A.

Most of the tiime it is so loud (i.e., overdriven) that in no way can it represent what we would even want to experience in our own homes......

For me, the goal that I am striving for is the accurate (of course, the mastering process is a factor here but has a less drastic effect than a remix does!) reproduction of what is on the original master tape. That is to say, the mixdown master be it in mono, stereo or whatever. It just so happens that the music I like to listen to generally comes from an era when mono and/or stereo were the standard formats.

I don't think that the "live" sound that audiophiles talk about should be interpreted as the sound of a modern rock concert! The way I read it is that they (we?!) are reffering to a sound akin to the real sound made by the instruments if that is what is on the master.

There are two kinds of "audiophile" recordings available:

There are the recordings made with audiophiles in mind wherein the performance is often recorded "live" either in a studio or an acoustically pleasing venue (without an audience) to either multitrack or even straight to stereo. Generally, these are attempts at capturing the real live sound of the performances. Although I don't own/listen to recordings of this nature I can see that surround mixes of these (where possible) would be anathema to the "audiophile".

Then there are the recordings which, while not recorded in the way described above, are mastered lovingly to create the best possible reproduction of the original master in order that "audiophiles" or anyone who cares to can hear the original mixed recording in the best possible way. Again, for recordings originally mixed to mono or stereo, it would be defeating the object of the exercise to present them in surround (mixed from the multitracks).

Of course, I'm not saying that surround mixes should be outlawed, if that's what people want then thats what they should be given - so long as it doesn't mean that the mono/stereo masters lie neglected in some dark corner of a vault somewhere!

I guess what I am trying to say is that "audiophiles" aren't against surround mixes because they are blinkered or are unwilling to "open their minds" to the new possibilities afforded by surround mixes. They just want the music they love to be available in the way it was intended (by the artists/engineers/producers) to be heard. While stereo mixes are preserved on SACD, DVD-A does not decree that they must be there. Even the SACD stereo mix may be a remix (eg the Byrds) so we are at a point where I think "audiophiles" are understandably concerned over the future of some of history's most precious recordings.....

[Richard Feirstein]

This is not an ideal world. Back in the good old days of vinyl some mono and stereo master tapes were mixed and mastered streight and pressings were eq, compressed and otherwise tampered with to make they play on AM and cheap mono and stereo players from a dub. But many first generation masters were derived from recorders with built in compressors and limiters, set up in various ways depending upon the phases of the moon, etc. Then the tape was messed with to meet commercial vinyl requirements of the day. Sometimes the earlies generation master has fewer of these alterations. Thus if you find a early generation 4 or 5 or 24 track, etc., master you can remix and remaster and eliminate some of the compression, limiting, and eq, and phase alterations, and echo, etc., that were never the intention of the producer. But this means that the person doing the remaster must know what the artist had in his head to get back to what was intended (like anyone really knows). Sometimes this works. But when you take a multi-track master and convert it into a 4.0, 5.0 or 5.1 SACD/DTS/DVD-A creation you are going places where no man has gone before (and likely should not try to go). Usually the messed up master gives the person little room to fix the bad things done in the name of poorly manintained AM radio transmission/lowest common denominator fixed in stone sound. But at least it sounds a lot better than the copy of a copy of a copy release master most vinyl and CD releases were based upon. Even classical recordings did not escape this (look at what RCA did with Dynaflex). Another factor; some mixing was done with bad speakers. Columbia Records at some locations in the 60's used speakers with excess bass. If you could go back and re-eq using accurate speakers you gain fidelity.:rolleyes: