Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Charlemagne 8]

I know everybody is caught up in the December 1 celebrations (a day that will live in infamy) but I went to Circuit City a few minutes ago and realized who will win the SACD / DVD Audio race .....

A five disk Sony SACD player costs around $500 and the disks available for it cost $20 to $25 each.

A five disk Panasonic DVD Audio player costs around $225 and the disks available for it are around $15.

A not very thorough but equal (they were side by side) listening test revealed a slightly better sound coming from the DVD Audio setup.

.... so my conclusion is that DVD Audio will win. Go buy one. At this time, the titles for it are limited but, like everyone else who is interested in the outcome of the race, "they" are waiting for a clear winner before committing big bucks. When a winner is apparent, more titles will come.

Just my opinion. I'm excited.

CVIII

[phelt]

I don't find either of them compelling. My take on them is: somewhat like 1970's quad meets the original DivX  

Nothing against new technology, just that it has to provide significantly greater performance in realistic use. With SACD and DVD-Audio I remain unconvinced.

[zevele10]

Go buy one

Why? To do what?

You mean that all the vinyl you changed to cds have to be change again for DVD audio?
Again why? What is the difference? To listen to drums on 5 or more speakers put all around the room?

Just asking ,because i do not knowwhat new with DVD audio

[Matt]

I'm not sure you can legally rip and organize these formats with a computer.

Good for the industry, bad for people that like computers.

[Charlemagne 8]

OK. Jeez. DON'T go buy one. S'okay with me.
The quadrophonic analogy is a good one and I'd like to go back even further to the Edsel. It got a really bad reputation because things didn't work and things broke easily.

Quadrophonic got a bad reputation because there was really no medium for it to work in. Quad records were a joke and a quad tape deck was hard to find if not nonexistent.

The tie to both of these failed "experiments" is that the reason they failed was not because they were stupid ideas. Both the Edsel and Quadrophonic Sound were GREAT ideas ... neither had the technology in place to make them work.

Many items that didn't work on the Edsel are now commonplace on cars today because the technology caught up. Power brakes, power windows, automatic transmission, power steering, air conditioning on automobiles we take for granted. To Edsel Ford, they were unworkable dreams.

Same with Quadrophonic. The technology is here. It can work. It WILL work. And yes, DVD Audio may be the answer to the music industries prayers but there are SIX DISCREET CHANNELS.

Remastering an old 32 track tape would enhance the listening experience tremendously. It would be like sitting INSIDE the recording studio surrounded by the musicians.

Mono was one dimensional. Stereo is two dimensional. DVD Audio is multi-dimensional. Your ears CAN discern direction. Surround-sound would actually be just that.

And YES, drums from five different directions would sound exponentially better than from two directions.

People had this same argument when changing from Mono to Stereo and when changing from vinyl to CD.

Look what happened. NO monophonic Hi-Fi's are available and very few vinyl albums. The same thing will happen to two dimensional CD's. Their days are numbered.

My rant. Thank you for your time.

CVIII

Note: Facts submitted were not checked for accuracy. The point is still the point. Poetic License. I have mine. Do you have yours?

[phelt]

Remastering an old 32 track tape would enhance the listening experience tremendously. It would be like sitting INSIDE the recording studio surrounded by the musicians.   Mono was one dimensional. Stereo is two dimensional. DVD Audio is multi-dimensional. Your ears CAN discern direction. Surround-sound would actually be just that.

In an artificial way, maybe. I don't think most masters have any positional information (unless they're something like a true binaural recording), so that would have to be fabricated.

And YES, drums from five different directions would sound exponentially better than from two directions.

A matter of taste. Would not fit an accurate recreation of position though, unless it were taiko or similar  

People had this same argument when changing from Mono to Stereo and when changing from vinyl to CD.

Not sure what argument you're talking about. IMO, the move to stereo was an undeniable improvement in the quality of reproduction. The move to CD was similar for most people and had the additional benefits of portability and durability.

Now for a short rant of my own  
IMO, the primary reason for the slow consumer uptake of >2 channel audio is that music is not always experienced passively or in a focused manner. People travel, work, jog, and do a host of other things while listening to music. Surround audio for movies is just the opposite - it's often a pretty focused and immersive experience. Interestingly, the advance of multichannel audio systems for movies is probably helping the case for 'pure' audio applications of multichannel in the home. But it's a hard sales case to make for all the other venues and circumstances in which people groove to their tunes. Matt's point about restrictions is a good one, since it affects a fair number of potential early-adopters and evangelists.

I think we need to move past all this 'speaker' nonsense and develop fully subdermal, terabit wireless-enabled, audiophile quality cochlear implants  

You know, I do have a poetic license but I'm waiting to use it until my new computer arrives - I don't want to waste a restore  

[zevele10]

Poetic License. I have mine. Do you have yours?

I was born with ,and cannot exprim myself in another way .

Concerning thedrums on 56 speakers ,read my signature....

[Charlemagne 8]

Zevele (or "Back to Mono")
There are reactionarys in every group. I think we should still make our own soap.

Phelt,

I don't think most masters have any positional information

They don't ... but they do have 32 separate tracks that can be remixed into whatever configuration the engineer of the moment decides to do. Sort of like they do it now.

the primary reason for the slow consumer uptake of >2 channel audio is that music is not always experienced passively or in a focused manner

I know that's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. You may even be correct. I think that everything involving >2 channel has been on hold waiting for a "winner" to emerge. Nobody wants to get stuck with a "BetaMax". Beta format video is quite a bit better and the sound quality is much better but nobody makes the players (except for professionals - your local news on-location team probably still uses Beta cameras and players), you can't find either prerecorded tapes or blank ones. Better technology but it's still useless. Why? Because VHS became more widely available, so it became more sought after, so it became more affordable, so there's no more Beta.

The same is happening (or maybe "will happen") to SACD. It costs more to buy and to feed. People will go after the less expensive format so it will become dominant. Market dynamics.
Maybe only audiophiles will ever see the point, in which case it will remain expensive.

the move to stereo was an undeniable improvement in the quality of reproduction

My point exactly. So is multi-channel.

Surround audio for movies is just the opposite - it's often a pretty focused and immersive experience

That's the way I listen to my music and have since 1969 or so.
I am looking forward to the day when I can have Ginger Baker on my right, Jack Bruce on my left and Eric Clapton behind me.
Or maybe Jimi Hendrix not only bouncing back and forth from left to right but playing in slow circles around me. Maybe even above and below me. The possibilities are limitless.

Still more of my useless opinions.
CVIII

[Lynn]

When I listen to music, I visualize a live performance.  Since I am not asked to sit on the stage with the musicians, it is more natural to me that the music is presented in front of me.

I also have my hifi in the living room (TV is in the family room), and it would be  a cosmetic problem to add 3 more speakers to the room.

Lastly, in the interest of sound quality I have a reasonably good hifi.  It would be a real strain on the budget to buy additional speakers of similar quality.  I would rather have 2 really good speakers that can provide realistic tone and timbre, vs. so so speakers that provide sonic gimmicry instead.

IMHO, YMMV.

[zevele10]

my dear Charlemagne
Take a plane and have a stay in front of my stereo.
Take with you any format -lp,cd ,dvcder cds ,56 channels drums -
We will play them .
After that ,i will play you the first Pink Floyd mono -the Yarbirds Roger the enginer mono- the Mayal's Bluesbreakers feat Clapton mono-the first Who mono [not the junk out just now ] and many others .....
you may understand what i mean.

The less you are a good baker ,the more cream you put on the cake...... 2 ,3 ,5 or more channels in this case.

Now ,you are right ,all this stuff is quite psychedelic... in movie when a car come in front of me i get the sound of the car from behind me ,in real life i get the sound  of the car from front of me .
For the price of a movie theater ticket ,not bad ,no need to mess with cigarette roll paper and so on....

[Charlemagne 8]

Zevele,
Glad you still want me to come to your house. I don't see a thing wrong with your preferences but, at any rate, it's not up to me to approve or disapprove. Music is music and when it's good music, it's all good. Mono, stereo, surround sound, big speakers, little speakers. The thing IS the music. Crappy music on a full blown THX system is still crappy music. Good music on a transistor radio is still good music.

I also didn't mean to imply that you were not an audiophile. (After re-reading my post, I realize that's EXACTLY what I did but it was unintentional).

I suppose the true definition of an audiophile is someone who avidly listens to music in the manner that they enjoy best.

Your dedication to monophonic vinyl would qualify you as a true audiophile. Anyone whose search for the most enjoyable way to listen to music leads them to the way that they enjoy most is a true audiophile.

My way does not need to be your way for your way to be valid. And vice-versa.

I have been collecting amplifiers and speakers for the day when 6 channel is available but that's MY pursuit of musical happiness.

Actually, coming to your house to listen to music, maybe turn up a few alcoholic beverages and take in a live concert of Somebody-I've-never-heard-of-before sounds great. PROBABLY not something I would ever get around to doing, but it sounds great, anyway.

If the DVD Audio player drops another $50 or $75 and I can get a few decent disks, I'm going for it. THEN I can use my three old amplifiers and my six humongous old speakers and see if the wait was worth it.

CVIII

[MachineHead]

CVIII,

You seem to be following this in detail. Do you think these new formats will prevent the S.O B. mixers from making them sound worse then the current flavor of cds? I'm speaking of clipping. It is that bad.

If you ever get a chance, listen to 'The Foo Fighters' latest, you can even hear it over the radio. Another one that comes to mind is 'Incubus - Morning View'. No matter what you do with the encoder (mp3) it sounds like .... .

[Charlemagne 8]

MH,
That is always a danger and a fear. They don't seem to understand that people are watching.
The RIAA's are as much on trial as the P2P's but they seem to be oblivious.
Bad CD's will be bad even in 6 channel.
CVIII

[LeoH]

Do we have a winner? On the one hand, SACD seems to be more of a marketing move than a technology achievement vis-a-vis DVD-Audio. That is, there is no particular technological justification for SACD. On the other hand, unless one has exactly the identical mix on SACD and on DVD-Audio, it would be very difficult to say one is better than the other.

Their fundamental achievement is not multi-channel as much as their 96k sample rate (or the equivalent thereof in SACD), or even greater at 192k for stereo DVD-A. The 44.1k sample rate of the original CD format was a hack. It was the best the industry could do in 1975-77 when the CD format was devised. Sharp roll offs at 18k Hz are audible and negatively impact the sound stage which is one reason why vinyl still has a serious following in the high-end audio arena.

SACD and DVD-Audio are capable of significantly openning up the sound stage, significantly reducing listening fatique and, in their stereo configuration, are finally back to being close to vinyl in overall enjoyment of listening to well recorded audio. Surround mixes are not necessarily better.

Therein lies the rub, as Charlemagne stated above, if the mix is bad, no technology can help. But, if the mix is good, just the stereo version of either format is a delight (but the anti in the game is you need serious listening equipment). If one listens just casually (while working or working out) then CD's (and MP3's) are great. If one has a mondo stereo (not even a surround system) then either of the new hi-res formats are a real treat. Ironically, surround mixes can be a distraction if not done very carefully.

The best news is that Pioneer and others are marketing relatively affordable multi-format players (CD, HDCD, SACD, DVD-A, DVD-V, DTS, Dolby-Digital) so that the format doesn't even matter! (Anyone interested in buying my laser-disc collection?)

[Charlemagne 8]

Ah yes, FINALLY a supporter. Thank You LeoH. I did NOT know about the multi-format players. That is good news indeed. Thank you again.

CVIII

[Matt]

I'm all for anything that gives us better sound, but I think it's important that we (as computer users) take a stand against formats that aren't computer-friendly.

Lets create our own DVD format that's simply a DVD with WAV (or APE ) files on it.  No encryption, licensing, or other evilness.  Anybody on board with me?

[LeoH]

Matt

You da' man. Great idea for a no-format audio DVD. I would use APE just to be efficient. Not to rock the boat too much but we could use a 96k/24bit stereo-compatible version of APE.

Of course, with contemporary DVD recorders: -R, +R, -RW, +RW, -RAM (have our friends in Japan given us enough choices yet?), one can already create a PC compatible DVD by just laying files onto the disc like a CD-R.

For TV use, if you have access to almost any DVD application generator (DVD-It, Impressionist, etc), you can make an audio only DVD that will play on a consumer DVD player with just the audio track in stereo (or in surround if you have a Dolby Digital encoder). DVD accomodates raw wav audio (44.1k or 48k/16 bit and 96k or 192k 24 bit). These DVD generator programs create MPEG2 Transport streams and the necessary header info for consumer DVD players. If you are really creative, you can make video menus for the audio for display on PC screens or TV's.

[studentii]

CVIII  wote -

" .... so my conclusion is that DVD Audio will win. Go buy one. At this time, the titles for it are limited but, like everyone else who is interested in the outcome of the race, "they" are waiting for a clear winner before committing big bucks. When a winner is apparent, more titles will come.

Just my opinion. I'm excited. "


from:  Studentii

                     SACD  vs  DVD

I don't know -

There are two aspects here for me

1. Are these two separate and independent
   streams of technical development

                        or

2. Are Sony and Phillips just realising the're behind
   with this one and they'd better start catching up
   real quick.

   < as most will know, Sony and Phillips claim credit
      for the development of the CD >< it's probably
      true >

 " resting on Laurels " is not recommended operational
   or design practice.

I am reminded of the development of Calculus in
Mathematics, The version we use is the one developed
by Sir Isaac Newton, but he had an opposite Number in
Germany at the time, a Chap called Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz. Gottfried followed the same general
mathematical principles, but expressed the numbers
differently. The final result, the answer had to be the same of course, but the method of presentation was different. The other very relevant fact is that the use of Calculus in primitive form goes back at least to the time of Archimedes.

The point of this comparison is simply to say that most successful research comes from a great number of people , not just a few, and in quite a lot of cases, the end product is the same for all practical purposes.

If we are dealing with research at an equal level
( SACD vs DVD ) we have to ask ourselves the question  
is it one Company's ploy against another. or is it a genuine improvement in the status quo.

If we consider the major Players in the Digital Music Playback on you Computer Field, there are significant differences that can be objectively measured. We all
know which Player is one of the best ones around for that.

When it comes to Hardware, which is what we are talking about, if you cannot hear the difference, keep your money in the Bank. The only Hi Fi test that matters is what you hear and how you react to it. That is why there is no objectively valid Audio format. All formats are valid, Mono, Stereo, Multi Track. It depends entirely upon what you want and how much of it you can hear,
and the acoustic effect you want.

Some Hardware will improve,

the best speaker cable that you can afford
the best patching leads that you can afford

Some tecniques help,

 get your Listening Room as acoustically accurate
 as you can

A major improvement I made quite some years ago
was to install a DSP - Digital Sound Processor
The modern DVD Players are really no more than that,
a glorified DSP, although admittedly with far better electronic chips and DAC's.

The technology of Playback is not new. What is new is the Studio Mastering Techniques. I think that we should
wait and see.

What I have done is to install a DVD Player with a
192Khz/24 DAC ( yes there is a difference to the 96Khz)
and play Data CD's to MP3 VBR format which I have burned from my computer music database. The difference with just this one change is staggering. No
multi track, just ordinary old two channel CD's as the
initial source material. And no other changes to my Home Hi Fi except the addition of the DVD Player.

No, I am not knocking Multi Track which is the " top " of the " Quadraphonic Mountain ". But as to SACD,
I'll just wait and see.

Regards
Hilary Petrie
Australia

[phelt]

It's too bad this didn't pan out.

[studentii]

 let's  give  the  credit  where  it belongs

According to what I read, if I didn't know any different,
I would have to be forgiven for getting the impression
that some " modern " Companies developed the principles of Analog to Digital sampling. NOT TRUE.

The development of sampling techniques for Sine Wave
sampling ( in our case - sound ) is an American Credit.

Harry Nyquist,  (1889 - 1976 ) an American Physicist and Electrical and Communications Engineer, discovered that sound had to be sampled at twice the minimum audible frequency to be accurate. Thus the highest frequency that is audible to a Human with perfect hearing, given as 20 000Hz is sampled at           ~ 40 000  Hz. Because a Kb =1024 this comes to the
44.1 Hz in digital equivalent. Some samples are now done at 48 Hz. . Hence the CD. And " they" said it couldn't be done. " They" also said that Flat Panel Television was a day dream.

What Harry did not have were the electronic chips that could do the job. There is no doubt that someone else would have found the scientific principle involved, but Harry got there first.

Medical research in the same field has suggested that a
minimum sampling ratio from Ananalog to Digital should be a minimium of 5:1, not 2:1. to get a true mirror image of the original Analog signal. Without being obvious, I guess it's pretty important to get someone's
sugar level or blood pressure right.

That is why my favourite " Hobby Horse : with the Music is NOT DVD or SACD as such. My thing is the DAC convertor.

I presently run a DVD Player with 192Khz/24 bit DAC.
This is a Nyquist sampling ratio of approximately 4.3:1
A 96Hz/24 DAC is a Nyquist ratio of 2.2:1

So I found that for a 96/24, I might just as well go and buy a top line CD Player.

What I dream about is the entry of the 220Hz/24 DAC
This would give the magic 5:1 ratio that the Medicos have found so important in the design of their gear.

Do we need music reproduction that accurate.  YES.

As to the DVD as a piece of equipment it is simply a
Pre-Amplifier, nothing more, nothing less. The Heart of the matter is the DAC.

Buy a multi track DVD, so what!. I have the same result with a full surround system running on a Yamaha Digital Sound Processor I have had for years. No gain for me here.

Buy a multi track encoded music disc. Dolby already had that one.

Play Home Cinema.  Why should I even try to squeeze and " force " something into my Lounge Room that was specifically produced for a correctly designed and acoustically balanced Picture Theatre or Entertainment Centre. It just don't work that way. The big thing in Music today seems to be the Bass. Without digressing into the concepts of Musical composition and rendering,
effective bass is just not possible in the average home.
Reason: Room not big enough. Some bass frequencies need a listening distance of 25 - 30 feet. So how come the bass sounds so good on these speakers. Electronic trickery. The crossovers are designed to reinforce some the overtone Harmonics which are essiential to full bodied sound. And other speakers are cleverly designed with radiation grills to simulate that " surround sound ". I'm not knocking this. Engineers are really doing their best to please us.

And the sound track for a movie is quite specifically multi tracked for effect in the Picture Theatre which is designed with these things in mind.  My particular problem is I am not allowed to turn our Living Room into a Concert Hall or Music Studio. Love to do it, though!

I'm going to be really careful with SACD. No doubt, I'll experiment with it, slowly. DVD, as as been so truly pointed out by many, is more generic. And I think it's the one that will win for that reason. I am certainly going to be very dissapointed if I find I have to purchase a SONY or PHILIPS Player just to enjoy good music.

I'm going to wait til I can buy a DVD Player with a 220/24 DAC.

Good Listening
HSII

[zevele10]

Charlemagne Lafayette

first ,i  do think that we are beyond the point of one of us REALLY upset by posts from the other.
So i'am not .
As well i'am not an audiophile-even less since few days .
My 4 speakers are dead .
No money to buy the $1500 speakers i want right now ,so i have a 'sound system' means the kind of s---t  2 small speakers and a bass box.
I brought good ones,but ,even if the sound is amazing keeping in mind the size of this gear, it is still s--y stuff.

I have a very good ear ,really,but first of all i want NOISE= play VERY loud.

I prefer to be able to play loud on a very fair system that level 4 on a very top one.

You did not undersand what i mean ,because i did not state it in a clear fashion [as allways you may say ,and you CAN say it...].

I do not speak about the sound of mono -even if i do think it sounds better-

I speak about the music.
Artists did they records in mono ,not in stereo.
After thatsome bastards mixed it in stereo ,with a permanent feature ===LESS GUITAR SOLO.

I do not know why,but it is like it
All the album in my posts ,try to get a mono copie : you get more Syd Barret Clapton Beck guitar on the mono than on the stereo.
You get less music with the stereo than with the mono . What do you say ??
And listen to the mono Srt Pepper.

If you think it is my opinion ,here we go concerning the new Who first album redition.
First some history: the first Who was out ONLY in mono . The only cd issue i know about  is in US few years ago, and it is in mono.
Today we have a double cd AT FULL DOUBLE PRICE with a dreadfull stereo and some ' never before out songs ' not worth a penny,and not that much  rare songs not of big importance

Here we go:
'Stereo remix OF MONO TAPES is likely to prove controversial.
not only are P. Townshend's guitar contributions mixed considerably lower than on the original lp,but some guitar overdubs appear to have been lost completly"
This is NOT from Zevele -as youcan see english is good- but from UK magazine REcord Collector.
Now the very bottom of all this s...t :
'to the point that MONO VERSIONS  of 'My Generation' and A Legal Matter' are include in the cd "!!!!!!!!!!!!.
You put out a stereo version so bad that you include the mono one to try to calm down people.........

Now ,i am coming to your 600 speakers channels.
Or you have new records done for it .
The last Peter Gabriel was done with S5 -or i do not know what- in mind.
In this case ,sure ,better to listen to it on the proper system.
But they just want your money YOU KNOW IT. So they will kill thousand of records making another mix ,much much worst than the original one,as they did since ever..
Beside this it is a non computer friendly, they think they will beat P2p like it...

I do not see any improvrment to have the first Stones on 6 speakers .
I know they put colors on black and white movies ,like it MONGOLOIDES are happy.
Why not repaint Michel Ange ,Picasso and Gaugin paiting becuse we have new kind of colors chimicals today?
Why not change Rodin sculptures because we can use laser today
Why not paint and change to 3D your sculptures of the US presidents  in a rock moutain?

WE are going a way where fake and empty is the new religion...sometimes you cannot be 100% against Bin Laden

[Charlemagne 8]

I don't have anything else yet to say but I'm not done with this one yet so ... bump.

[xen-uno]

Not exactly sticking to topic...but this is interesting:

Excerpts:

"The first 27 GB version can already store 133 min of High Definition 1080P movie"

"Blu-Ray is the next generation large capacity optical disc video recording format. A Blu-ray Disc enables the recording, rewriting and playback of up to 27 gigabytes (GB) of data on a single sided single layer 12cm CD/DVD size disc using a 405nm blue-violet laser."

Here's the link

For what it's worth, the audio on a DVD movie is in DVD-V format (not -A). DVD-V actually has better specs than DVD-A, but I can't find them . So you really have 3 very hi res formats.

10^-27

[Galley]

I know everybody is caught up in the December 1 celebrations (a day that will live in infamy) but I went to Circuit City a few minutes ago and realized who will win the SACD / DVD Audio race .....

A five disk Sony SACD player costs around $500 and the disks available for it cost $20 to $25 each.

A five disk Panasonic DVD Audio player costs around $225 and the disks available for it are around $15.

Sony makes a very nice five-disc SACD changer (SCD-CE775) for $200.  You can also get a five-disc DVD/SACD changer (DVP-NC650V) for around the same price.  Discs are $15-20.

[Charlemagne 8]

Galley,
That's good. The disparity in price wasn't making much sense. I only tested and compared the two formats in one store. The displays were side by side. Maybe for some reason Circuit City is pushing DVD-A. The salesman seemed to be favoring DVD-A. Glad to see that shopping around can even things out.
CVIII