Home DVD-Audiobahn

New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.

Except for.....

"I agree, SACD is not targeted for home/personal recording. Infact, its this very reason which is why no embedded watermarking is required. Your comments on how excellent DVD-V is for personal recording I agree with entirely. Your Sony $$$ conspiracy theory & diatribe I won't bother commenting on."

For DVD-A, only the METHOD of watermarking is mandated, not the INCLUSION of the watermark. I point you to the titles from AIX, MDG, Tacet and others for titles that are not watermarked. Surely you would understand this subtle difference, but from your words above it seems that you do not.

As far as the Sony/Philips conspiracy, Sony is losing ~US$1billion in essentially free profits as all the CD patents expire. That's a substantial contribution to the financial health of the company. Helping recoup those lost $$$ is certainly a substantial part of the
reason that SACD even exists.

"Meaning, that I think DVD-V is possibly better if you can't afford to buy the software for DVD-A or the DACS to record 192/24. I was a bit dissapointed to find that to take advantage of MLP, it was going to cost an addition US$5k+ or something. Would have been great to have MLP to make long DVD-A albums."

You need an ADC to capture, you need a DAC for playback. This is probably a typo.

Assuming (in theory) DSD were to be made available to consumers as a recording technology, Direct Stream Transfer would probably require a similar charge for a software package. The programming hours involved for development of the software and the small market vs. the sales potential (for either technology) helps determine the steep price.

The playback time on a single layer DVD-A disc with 24/192K encoding is about the same as the time limitations imposed for SACD, 75 minutes vs. 74. While it is quite possible to get more on the order of 130-140 minutes of stereo material on the disc with SACD, the specs mandate 74 minutes to allow adequate space for stereo and MC.

With DVD-A, for longer playback times, you have the choice of either reducing your sampling rate (or depth), changing the number of channels or using MLP. There is no such choice with sampling rates/depths for DSD/SACD, there is only one sampling rate. Note here that the choice is for the recording engineer, not arbitrarily imposed.

DVD-V, with no MLP can manage up to 150 minutes of 24/96K material, and frankly I doubt many recording hobbyists could get much better results at 24/192K than they would be able to get at 24/192K.

"Still, SACD is better for commercial music purchasing, that is all. Hence my suggestion of a Universal player, because, as you pointed out, SACD is unlikely to ever be a home recording format."

In your OPINION. Others here don't agree, including myself.

If the target is in providing an immediate difference on more systems, the answer ISN'T SACD since it requires an SACD capable player. Otherwise, if you buy the right disc, all you've got is a CD. If you buy an SACD only title, you have a coaster.

OTOH, DVD-Audio discs are playable on ALL DVD players -- and the inclusion of DD and/or PCM tracks in VIDEO_TS means that all can utilize the included tracks (stereo, or if equipped Multi-channel) not just the population with DVD-Audio players.

In addition, DVD-Audio has the possibility of inclusion of content such as music videos, interviews etc etc that are not yet implemented for SACD.

Better sonics (and both provide better sonics) is irrelevant to the vast majority of people. Also, audiophiles and other enthusiasts are a very small drop in the bucket of the greater overall market.

I have thoughts to add on the watermarking issue, but I don't have time to respond for now.


Regards,
John Kotches


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.