|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.187.128.3
In Reply to: Re: Universal Dualdisc Webpage posted by davcole on October 24, 2004 at 05:07:36:
It too bad they couldn't be dual layer like hybrid SACDs.I don't see why it couldn't have been designed so CD layer plays in CD players and the DVD layer plays in DVD players. The discs would be single sided and thus the individual layers would not be compromised. I think read somewhere that current DVD players will play the CD layer instead of the DVD layer could that is why this idea was abandoned?
Anyway I recomment showing support for REAL DVD-Audio's with high resolution 96kHz and 192kHz at 24 Bits and maybe DualDisc will go away?
If DualDisc does replace DVD-Audio I know "audiophile" companies will find a way to fit high resolution on the limited space available on the new DualDiscs.
In my book 48kHz even at 24 Bit is not true high resolution, though of course it is much better than 44.1kHz at 16 Bit but why settle when DVD-Audio machines output up to 192kHz?
Follow Ups:
The space on the DVD side of a DualDisc is exactly the same as it is on a regular DVD-5. This was confirmed ages ago by Cinram who are manufacturing the discs.Universal are just deliberately compromising the DVD-Audio content IMHO, they are primarily an SACD supporter after all.
> Universal are just deliberately compromising the DVD-Audio content IMHO, they are primarily an SACD supporter after all. <You have no idea what you are talking about. We put on whatever we can fit on a DVD5 for Dual Disc. If we could fit both surround and stereo 96/24 on a DVD5, we would put it on. On many titles that is not possible.
> You have no idea what you are talking about. We put on whatever we can fit on a DVD5 for Dual Disc. If we could fit both surround and stereo 96/24 on a DVD5, we would put it on. On many titles that is not possible. <For a unidentified Universal rep you're very defensive. I have a fairly good idea what I'm talking about; I know the size of a DVD-5, have made countless DVD-Video titles so know all about overhead (which for extras such as bios, catalog info etc., is far less than you contend) and just like John can also do the math about how much audio can fit on a disc. You should know that the MLP calculator is really quite reliable and while compression varies, remarkably efficient.
It'll be very interesting to see just what Universal put on their DualDiscs and how much space is left on the DVD side, space that could've been used for higher resolution audio but is probably going to be wasted on pointless extras such as a DTS track.
NotMe:On the title information at UMGs website, no mention is made of DTS and they are usually spot on about the contents of their discs.
Let's be fair about our criticisms.
I do agree with you, that the MLP calculator is definitely a good estimate of required space when comparing the calc vs. delivered product I'm finding it to be within 5-6% for most titles.
John, it's true that Universal haven't so far wasted space with DTS (regardless of the DTS vs. Dolby debate it offers nothing that MLP can't do, only better), sorry to imply otherwise, but Jimby wrote:"Dual Disc is marketed as having a lot of extra video content in addition to surround sound. Cutting videos is not an option, and the space that would be gained is usually not significant enough to make a huge difference."
That extra content, especially if it's video content, is sooner or later going to involve the likes of DTS. Incidentally, the idea that cutting videos doesn't save enough space to make a "huge difference" is nonsense, but that's not the issue here.
The concern is that DualDisc is going to be aimed at the masses, in which case everything but the kitchen sink is going to be on the DVD side and that means our precious high-resolution audio will suffer because nobody listens to DVD-Audio anyway, right?
With Universal being firmly behind SACD, it seems logical to assume they'll compromise their DualDisc releases and only present the "best" version of the audio on SACD.
> > With Universal being firmly behind SACD, it seems logical to assume they'll compromise their DualDisc releases and only present the "best" version of the audio on SACD. < <"Best version"?? Puleese! Gimme the 24bit PCM of the master (yes -- even if it's halved to 48kHz from 96kHz) any day, rather than some minced-up one-bit DSD facsimile. ;-)
"best" was in inverted commas for a reason! :-)
I can't remember a single Universal DVD-A with DTS.Setting aside arguments about whether DTS is truly better than DD (I'm ambivalent about this), I think there could have been an opportunity to release more titles with DTS 96/24 to tempt those with non DVD-A players but a fancy surround processor - in other words, the bulk of the HT market.
then again, on the one DTS 96/24 title I sampled, it didn't sound very good to me. Maybe there is something wrong with my DTS 96/24 decoding.
I suspect it's a moot point as the HT crowd would probably avoid buying DVD-As no matter how many DVD-Video features they have.
Jimby:Let's take Diana Krall's The Girl in the Other Room> , which has a running time of 55:33.
Using Meridian's MLP project calculator, I come up with 4GB for audio content assuming 24/96K Six-Channel and dedicated 24/96K Stereo tracks. Including the bare minimum for backwards compatibility for DVD-Video, a DD track (5.1 @ 448 kbits/second) still gives us about 500MB for video extras. Adding a DTS track does put you over the top, but IMO it's pointless to include both.
So either there are more than 500Mbytes of video extras, or you're encoding with DD and DTS. Why not a little less on the video side (I notice now there are 3 videos included) for a better sonic experience?
Well John,A couple of points:
1. Regarding your MLP estimates, it's obvious that you have never made a DVDA title before if you think you can produce a title based on the best estimates of that tool. :) The truth is that MLP compression is entirely dependent on music content and will vary significantly from title to title. We always start off planning a disc with the highest sample/rate bit-depth we have, but many times we get a call from our authoring engineers about audio that won't compress well and won't fit on the disc. This is exactly what happened on the Diana Krall disc.
2. Dual Disc is marketed as having a lot of extra video content in addition to surround sound. Cutting videos is not an option, and the space that would be gained is usually not significant enough to make a huge difference.
3. The major limit in capacity is not caused by videos or graphics, but by the fact that we are limited to a DVD5.
4. You forgot to figure in the disc overhead, catalog, and menus in your math.
5. Making a disc is NOT like a jigsaw puzzle where you get to move pieces around all day to see what is the best fit. We don't have that luxury. For example, solicitation sheets have to be created far in advance of release for retailers in which the content is locked down. And believe it or not, the artist frequently has a say in what content goes on the disc. Imagine that.
I hope you can answer.From little scraps of information I found the following:
That DualDisc is a trademark of the RIAA.
and that the DualDisc trademark seems free of licensing issues other than the license issues related to the actual content.Is this correct?
Jimby:1. Regarding your MLP estimates, it's obvious that you have never made a DVDA title before if you think you can produce a title based on the best estimates of that tool. :) The truth is that MLP compression is entirely dependent on music content and will vary significantly from title to title. We always start off planning a disc with the highest sample/rate bit-depth we have, but many times we get a call from our authoring engineers about audio that won't compress well and won't fit on the disc. This is exactly what happened on the Diana Krall disc.
Based on the values, I seem to be using the same estimate tool Christine used elsewhere for a 60 minute title. Any content going through any lossless compression algorithm (music, text, programs (binary data)) will have compression variations, but you can get quite good estimates of compression based on the material being fed to the compression tool.
When the disc comes out, it's going to be interesting to see what amount of space is being used up by which portions of the title. I would prefer that video take a back seat to audio on what is primarily an audio product to this consumer.
I did a test of some titles vs. the calculator and was surprised to find that the Three Doors Down title was the least accurate (within 10%). A couple of Diana Krall titles were .1 and .2 GB off (within 5%), and a Steely Dan title was also .2GB off (also within 5%).
IMO, these aren't terrible margins of error given the somewhat unpredictable nature of the material.
2. Dual Disc is marketed as having a lot of extra video content in addition to surround sound. Cutting videos is not an option, and the space that would be gained is usually not significant enough to make a huge difference.Where has DualDisc been marketed at? Nowhere that I've seen. Maybe that's how the product is going to be marketed, but to date there hasn't been any marketing to speak of for a format that is literally just getting off the ground.
3. The major limit in capacity is not caused by videos or graphics, but by the fact that we are limited to a DVD5.
We'll assume you're going for good video quality, with a 6 Mbits/second average rate. That translates to about 50 Megabytes of storage per minute. At 15 minutes of content, you've just chewed up 750MB of space. So yes, video inclusion does in fact limit available space for audio. Everything on the disc is competing for the available bits. The proof will be in the content -- seeing what average bit rate is dedicated to video, and video content sizes.
It's disappointing to me, as generally speaking the Universal discs have been of very high quality and I'm looking forward to some of these titles in High Resolution PCM.
4. You forgot to figure in the disc overhead, catalog, and menus in your math.
Speaking of strictly non AOB content, it's less than 50 MB per disc, and the Meridian calculater was very close (5% error) on 5 of the 6 titles I used from my collection.
5. Making a disc is NOT like a jigsaw puzzle where you get to move pieces around all day to see what is the best fit. We don't have that luxury. For example, solicitation sheets have to be created far in advance of release for retailers in which the content is locked down. And believe it or not, the artist frequently has a say in what content goes on the disc. Imagine that.
Content is a seperate issue from sampling rates that are provided in the final product. As a consumer, why shouldn't I prefer audio as a higher priority than video?
I don't see an extra days (or even weeks) worth of effort as being that big a deal if it makes a noticable impact on the delivered quality. It's not like we haven't seen titles pushed back for weeks or months in the past.
... you did it very well.i agree totally with your comment that many people don't fully appreciate the overheads, compromises and limitations that need to be taken in account when authoring a disc and releasing a title.
for what it's worth, i for one am glad that universal seems to be the only label that appears to be committed to both formats and you guys are doing a great job with the titles. keep 'em coming! i'll keep buying, as long as my wallet can hold out :-)
given the limitations of DVD-5 and DualDisc, will you guys release fully featured dual layered DVD-As in addition to DualDiscs? some of us would gladly sacrifice CD playback for better content.
Personally, Jim, I don't have a problem with the approach UMG is taking. Indeed, there are several 48kHz 24bit DVD-A titles in my collection which sound very good. "Tubular Bells 2003" and "Porcupine Tree" are case in point. IMO, the big jump in sound comes from moving from 16bit to 24bit.However, my preference would be for a full-length & full-rez 96kHz 24bit 5.1 program, and then a reduced bandwidth stereo track if space is an issue -- or no 2-ch at all on the DualDisc (leaving the CD flip side for that).
But for the wider market in general, I can see your logic. After all, the whole point of DualDisc is to get folks to move to DVD-based music, and many people haven't got their multichannel rigs yet, so the inclusion of 24bit stereo is probably logical -- and with this, folks will definitely hear the quality improvement over the 44.1kHz/16bit sound of the flip-side CD layer.
Has this been confirmed? as many are saying the playing time is limited, is this due to the compromised CD side?Anyway I guess we will have to wait and see.
You're right. Both Warner Bros are hi resolution. Simple Plan is 5.1 (surround) 88.2KHz/24bit and The Donnas is 5.1 & 2.0 (surround & stereo) 96KHz/24bit. However, Simple Plan 2.0 (stereo) is only 88.2KHz/16bit.
NotMe is correct - the DVD layer is a DVD 5.However, you will have noticed that most of Warner's releases are on dual layered discs (DVD 9).
if you calculate, the disc space required to store MLP 5.1 96/24 and MLP 2.0 192/24 tracks, plus DD5.1, DTS5.1 and DD2.0 will exceed the storage capacity for DVD 5 - that's why Warner switched to using DVD 9.
So, compromises will have to be made to fit material into a DVD 5, esp. if video is also required. either the playing time needs to drop, or resolution.
Transfer rate for MLP 5.1 96/24 (assuming 2:1 compression using MLP): 6.912Mb/s
Transfer rate for MLP 2.0 192/24 (assuming 2:1 compression using MLP): 4.608Mb/s
Transfer rate for DD5.1: 0.448Mb/s
Transfer rate for DTS5.1: 1.536Mb/s
Transfer rate for DD2.0: 0.256Mb/sIf we assume a 60 minute album, then total disc space required: 3600*(6.912+4.608+0.448+1.536+0.256)/8=6.192Gb (excluding menus and overheads)
Total disc capacity of DVD 5 = 4.4Gb.
As you can see, a 60 minute album at full resolution cannot fit onto a DVD 5 - it needs a DVD 9.
The maximum album length that can fit into a DVD 5 without sacrificing resolution is about 40 minutes. Less if some video is required.
So you can see the latest Universal dualdiscs adopted MLP 5.1 at 48/24 because they were forced to drop the resolution in order to fit a decent sized album onto DVD 5.
Actually, DVD-5 capacity is: (4.7 * 1,000,000,000 * 8) bits,
not: (4.4 * 1,000,000,000 * 8) bits (approx).This is a common confusion/pitfall which often arises when attempting to state DVD (and CD) media capacities because from IT speak we were taught that 1Gigabyte is:-
(1024*1024*1024 * 8) bits, hence the need for IT folks to re-express 4.7Gigabytes (DVD capacity) as approx 4.4Gigabytes (IT speak).So, given that our data-rate numbers are based on bits-per-second arithmetic (and not multiples of "1,024 bytes"), then all the DVD capacities should be factored likewise.
Therefore, when us audio folks talk of DVD capacities (as opposed to IT folks with the number "1024" on the brain), a "megabyte" should mean a straight eight million bits (one million bits times eight).
.
You clearly stated:-3600*(6.912+4.608+0.448+1.536+0.256)/8=6.192Gb
therefore your 6.192"Gigabyte" figure is based directly on the aggregate data-rates contained in the parentheses. Moreover, it follows that one such Gigabyte unit (as used here) therefore equates to (1000,000,000 * 8) bits.
But then immediately below you stated: "Total disc capacity of DVD 5 = 4.4Gb" — clearly where the Gigabyte here is the "IT-speak" one, i.e. based on (1024*1024*1024 * 8) bits. Moreover, to most folks, the word "total" implies "everything".
Now with respect, I simply don’t believe that you meant us all to assume that we should then add 300Mb onto that figure for "authoring overheads", taking it to 4.7Gb! ;-)
... the highest capacity DVD-A I've authored contains just under 4400MB of "raw" content, and this is with minimal menus, no video, and no still images. I did divide the content into 6 Groups, perhaps I could have squeezed a bit more if I didn't.So I didn't just make the figure up. As you can see though, it has nothing to do with 1024 vs 1000.
.
You can't be shure about the reason for some of those releases.
They actually might be recorded at 48ks.
(NIN and Keane 44.1/48ks is used for the stereo track as well.)Also not that DTS isn't used on these releases.
(DTS can also be encoded on with a lower bitrate)
Also 24/96 for stereo is good enough for most releases.That brings the requirement down to:
3600*(6.912+2.304+0.448+1.536+0.256)/8=4.464GbGranted that there isn't much space left for DVDV content on an 1 hour album.
Frank writes:"You can't be shure about the reason for some of those releases.
They actually might be recorded at 48ks.
(NIN and Keane 44.1/48ks is used for the stereo track as well.)"
The Nine Inch Nails release was recorded on a 2" Studer analog multitrack deck.
So not much happening beyond 22kHz then.
More declarations of "fact," Frank?Or is it now "rank?" :-)
Analog tape on a Studer has frequency response out past 30khz, easily.
Whether there is actually any information on the source tape above (pick any random high frequency number) is something I don't know, and neither do you.
And it doesn't make a bit of difference, unless you're a bat (are you?).
... no DTS, 96/24 instead of 192/24, yada yada yada ...
So why include dts in your calculation when it's not on offer in these UMG releases anyway.Also I somehow suspect that these titles where not recorded with 24/192 to begin with.
So what's compromized?
Note also that MLP is more efficent if stereo is encoded in substream one and the additional mc content in substream two.
So you're calculation holds little value to draw definite conlusions for the titles listed.
. . . . since you don't need to include either the DD2.0 or the DTS5.1 at all. (And what's the point of DD2.0 when the CD side is lossless redbook?)This then makes the equation as follows:-
=> 3600*(6.912+2.304+0.448)/8
which equals: 4.349GbThis leaves about 351Mb for other stuff.
(DVD-5 total capacity is 4.7Gb)IMO they should cut down the DVD side's 2-ch MLP track to 48kHz, and keep the 5.1 MLP as the main attraction in full hirez.
This would then yeild the following equation:-
=> 3600*(6.912+1.152+0.448)/8
which equals: 3.830Gb
(this leaves more than one Gigabyte free for bonus video + other extras)
... I'm referencing the "norm" or the standard set by Warner releases before they went on hiatus.Like it or not, Warner set a very high standard. Any compromise down from that is a compromise.
Sure, 96/24 2.0 instead of 192/24. Why not? well, that just made the disc a lot less attractive to stereo audiophiles (remember them?)
Lack of DTS will make it less attractive to those without DVD-A players.
48/24 5.1 will make it less attractive to m-ch listeners.
No video will make it less attractive to the home theatre crowd.
Every compromise is a compromise, period. remember when DVD-As just have 1 MLP 5.1 track in the early days? sure, they all fit into DVD 5, but people like me weren't buying.
Anyway, racerguy is right. The rule of lowest common denominator applies. The only track we can be sure of is Dolby Digital. Anything else is an "optional extra" to be potentially sacrified for "more video."
So whilst we are debating 192/24 vs 96/24, the labels are probably debating whether to include MLP at all.
Warner did indeed set a high standard. (Without DTS I may add).Nothing is stopping record labels to create 'special edition' full resolution DVD Audio releases.
Looking over the UMG DD release list it's fair to say that so far the stereophiles get the best deal in the bandwidth department.
*** Warner did indeed set a high standard. (Without DTS I may add). ***hmm, i just casually scanned my DVD-A collection (over 50 discs) and counted over 10 Warner discs with DTS tracks, and several of them with exactly the specs that I "fabricated".
that's very amusing!
would you like me to email you the exact titles and specs? i do like to help you build up your collection!
*** Looking over the UMG DD release list it's fair to say that so far the stereophiles get the best deal in the bandwidth department. ***
Thanks for the help. But I already have most of them.
The majority of Warner disc don't include dts.
(I have one boasting DTS9624)
Compare your statements:
*** Warner did indeed set a high standard. (Without DTS I may add). ****** (I have one boasting DTS9624) ***
So, which is true? Does Warner support DTS or not?
as to whether it is a "norm" or not, i believe just about all Warner titles released since late 2002 or so have DTS. since you have "most of them" i'm sure it will be easy for you to point out an exception, if there is one.
.
> > Lack of DTS will make it less attractive to those without DVD-A players. < <That was indeed the case a couple of years ago when DVD-A playback equipment was (a) still very rare, (b) expensive, and (c) lacked a one-cable digital hirez link.
But today, anybody has access to low-cost DVD Audio based playback hardware — with many now sporting HDMI single-cable A/V interfaces. Panasonic, Pioneer and Denon, Rotel, Arcam, Toshiba, Yamaha, etc. provide MLP-capable machines to suit every pocket.
Moreover, in-car DVD-A (both OEM supplier-furnished, as well as aftermarket retrofit) machines will become increasingly common. And tellingly, Philips is at last getting in on the act with its partner Harman who are together developing a MLP-capable in-car player.
Another thing, if folks are so concerned about the sound quality difference between DD and DTS, then these folks would surely be aware now of the availability of DVD-Audio. In short, that tired old cry of: "I’m not upgrading my system to play DVD-Audio" is inevitably sounding fainter and fainter (especially as discerning consumers will get it anyway with their HDMI).> > So whilst we are debating 192/24 vs 96/24, the labels are probably debating whether to include MLP at all. < <
I think the labels are looking at this issue more strategically than skeptics give them credit for. Indeed, we already see that future HD DVD media will be backwards compatible with DVD-Audio (i.e. MLP). There are many reasons for this. Copy-protection is obviously one of them. And MLP is also now regarded as a proven, high-quality, and convenient system which works.
*** That was indeed the case a couple of years ago when DVD-A playback equipment was (a) still very rare, (b) expensive, and (c) lacked a one-cable digital hirez link. ***as far as i can tell that is still the case.
(a) i am confident that more non-dvd-a players are sold every day compared to dvd-a players (just check out the "supermarket specials"). and most consumers do not upgrade their players every year. there is a large installed base of non-dvd-a players.
(b) also, last time i checked, the dvd-a players still command a price premium over non-dvd-a players. for every dvd-a player you care to name, i can point to a non-dvd-a player at a cheaper price from the same manufacturer.
(c) finally, show me the "one-cable digital hirez link." firewire? nope, too many incompatibility issues between brands. hdmi? show me a single working hdmi player today that passes full 96/24 5.1. the spec only just got finalised a few weeks ago.
*** Indeed, we already see that future HD DVD media will be backwards compatible with DVD-Audio (i.e. MLP). There are many reasons for this. Copy-protection is obviously one of them. ***
you seem to be confused between a format (DVD-Audio) and an encoding scheme (MLP). I struggle to understand your comment about backward compatibility. and copy protection is not a feature of the encoding scheme (MLP) - it's a feature of the format (DVD-Audio). so, in short, i have no idea what you are trying to say.
A DVDA is just a bunch of files sitting in an AUDIO_TS folder on a DVD disc.If HD DVD uses the same file structure it's nothing more than a bigger disc. Just like a DVD9 is a bigger disc than a DVD5
or a bigger harddrive in a computer.
would love to read more about it. if you can post a link would appreciate it very much.
I'm not shure if that will be the case.Have to look into that in more detail.
It boils down to the player ability to read the files from the file structure. Just like it doesn't matter for an excel or a word file stored in FAT32 or a NTSF file structure. The files are exactly the same. It's just the storage that is different.
Since future Blueray/HD DVD players must be backward compatible with the current DVD format it's only logical to assume that file structure compatibility isn't a problem.
Frank
*** Since future Blueray/HD DVD players must be backward compatible with the current DVD format it's only logical to assume that file structure compatibility isn't a problem. ***current DVD players are "backward compatible" with CD but the file structure is completely different. DVD-A players are "backward compatible" with DVD-V but the file structure is different, except they share the underlying filesystem.
Current DVD players don't have difficulties reading different underlaying file systems.
So why assume that this would be a problem in future HD players?
> > *** That was indeed the case a couple of years ago when DVD-A playback equipment was (a) still very rare, (b) expensive, and (c) lacked a one-cable digital hirez link. ***
as far as i can tell that is still the case. < <Re (a) and (b): I can now even find DVD-Audio compatible cheapo music systems (Technics, Panasonic, Pioneer etc.) in "Dixons" — here in the UK. (Now that’s saying something!) I also saw them in an Atlanta shopping mall, when I went there recently for an aviation conference.
> > i am confident that more non-dvd-a players are sold every day compared to dvd-a players (just check out the "supermarket specials"). and most consumers do not upgrade their players every year. there is a large installed base of non-dvd-a players. < <Agreed, but those very cheapest ones are often for folks who have no real interest in audio, and just want a simple DVD machine for their small bedroom TV, and/or to keep their kids occupied with Disney DVD movies etc.. But as I said above, I have seen some very cheap DVD-A/V players. (I have one in my bedroom, for example -- a Panny.)
> > last time i checked, the dvd-a players still command a price premium over non-dvd-a players. for every dvd-a player you care to name, i can point to a non-dvd-a player at a cheaper price from the same manufacturer. < <Agreed, but the premium is not that great (see above).
> > finally, show me the "one-cable digital hirez link." firewire? nope, too many incompatibility issues between brands. hdmi? show me a single working hdmi player today that passes full 96/24 5.1. the spec only just got finalised a few weeks ago. < <Points taken, but the industry is undeniably moving in this direction. Denon have had their perfectly satisfactory Denon-Link for some time now (between their receivers and upper-end DVD players), while Pioneer have pitched their i-link hardware at a more mass-market level. Arcam’s new DV-79 player already features HDMI (probably updatable to the latest spec via firmware), and the rest will inevitably converge in this standard (along with AV amps, receivers, pre-pros and video displays etc.). In short, Firewire, DVI and i-link are neccessary, logical, and evolutionary steps in this 'one-cable' AV solution.
> > you seem to be confused between a format (DVD-Audio) and an encoding scheme (MLP). < <
I’m not confused at all.
> > I struggle to understand your comment about backward compatibility. < <No need to struggle. ;- ) i.e. Just stick a DVD-A in them, and they should play the DVD-A content.
> > and copy protection is not a feature of the encoding scheme (MLP) — it's a feature of the format (DVD-Audio). < <Actually, DVD-A’s MLP makes it quite difficult to copy the audio. This is something which many observers generally overlook. Meridian have not published the fine details of the decoding algorithm.
Couple with this techniques like "muxing" — separating out different elements of the program into separate files; CPPM encryption, and Watermarking etc., makes copying DVD-A content more trouble than it’s worth. These measures will surely be carried through (and enhanced) to future audio/video hardware and software, whilst every effort will be made to drop Dolby Digital and raw LPCM in their current forms. Moreover, I don’t think it takes a genius to see that DualDisc is a "gateway" product and part of the strategy which will help make this all happen. :)
Let's analyse your "confusion", shall we?***Actually, DVD-A’s MLP makes it quite difficult to copy the audio. ***
How so? i can assure you, the MLP tracks on DVD-As without CPPM are very copyable.
*** Couple with this techniques like "muxing" — separating out different elements of the program into separate files ***what has this to do with MLP?
*** CPPM encryption ***
ditto
*** Watermarking ***
ditto
*** These measures will surely be carried through (and enhanced) to future audio/video hardware and software ***
These "measures" have nothing to do with MLP whatsoever.
*** Moreover, I don’t think it takes a genius to see that DualDisc is a "gateway" product and part of the strategy which will help make this all happen. :) ***
I'm obviously not a genius - I totally fail to see how DualDisc will provide any sort of gateway to "future audio/video hardware and software" Perhaps you can explain further and help mere mortals like me understand?
Firstly, I note that you’ve declined to contest my other points about low-cost DVD-A hardware, hirez digital link evolution, and HD-DVD backwards compatibility.Now:-
> > ***Actually, DVD-A’s MLP makes it quite difficult to copy the audio. ***How so? i can assure you, the MLP tracks on DVD-As without CPPM are very copyable. < <MLP is not like any other form of packing, as it uses 3 different techniques to reduce filesizes, not just one as others do, plus it does not need to be decoded before playing — all the complexity is in the encoder, and the files can be played back in real time by a suitably equipped player. Sure, without CPPM, you can copy the AOB file, but the difficulty arises in extracting the six streams of original, uncompressed, editable LPCM (unless you have some sort of dubious contraption to intercept and hack the PCM from inside the player).
> > *** Couple with this techniques like "muxing" — separating out different elements of the program into separate files *** what has this to do with MLP? *** CPPM encryption *** Watermarking.
These "measures" have nothing to do with MLP whatsoever. < <
Well, not according to your definition. But DVD-A combines all these together (as does the hirez portion of DualDisc). Therefore they are associated. i.e. Together they form a product called "DVD-Audio" (which has not been hacked when all these "measures" are combined). So I don’t feel it is fair to say that they "have nothing to do with each other".
> > I totally fail to see how DualDisc will provide any sort of gateway to "future audio/video hardware and software" < <That is your sequence of words, not mine.
*** Firstly, I note that you’ve declined to contest my other points about low-cost DVD-A hardware, hirez digital link evolution, and HD-DVD backwards compatibility. ***I haven't contested them because you appeared to be agreeing with me. if you have data that shows that the % of DVD-A players in use today is greater than 50% of all DVD players then i'm happy to listen. if you can show one dvd-a player that's cheaper than any comparable non dvd-a player, i'll like to know about it. asserting that you can buy very low cost DVD-A players mean nothing - there's always a cheaper DVD-V player. if you can show at least one player capable of transmitting 96/24 5.1 on one cable in such a way that it can be decoded by at least three amps of different brands *today* i would love to hear about it.
until then, i still believe that DVD-A players *today* are (a) comparatively rare, (b) comparatively expensive and (c) there is no universally accepted single cable solution deployed. in the future, that may change. in the future, we could all be dead.
*** Sure, without CPPM, you can copy the AOB file, but the difficulty arises in extracting the six streams of original, uncompressed, editable LPCM ***
You said it was difficult to copy. You never said anything about extracting until just then. My original statement stands (there is nothing inherent in MLP that makes it difficult to *copy*). And by the way, MLP is not the same as AOB, just like MPEG2 is not the same as VOB. More confusion on your part, methinks.
as for extracting, anyone who owns a legal licensed MLP decoder should be able to do the extraction of non copy protected MLP content. of course, last time i checked, it's very expensive. but not "difficult."
*** But DVD-A combines all these together (as does the hirez portion of DualDisc). ***
yes, it's DVD-A that combines all these together, not MLP. Hence your confusion about DVD-A the format vs MLP the encoding scheme. If a new format also adopts MLP that doesn't imply anything about backwards compatibility with DVD-A.
*** That is your sequence of words, not mine. ***
OK, then. in your sequence of words, kindly explain exactly what you mean by DualDisc being a "gateway"?
Pioneer DV-59AVi using firewire into:
Yamaha RX-Z9
Pioneer VSX-56TXiI should have a 3rd unit, from a 3rd manufacturer in by year's end.
It's definitely working, as advertised, but I don't want to comment on something I haven't personally tested.
i admit to being deliberately cruel to Martin by artificially setting the bar at 3.
> > i admit to being deliberately cruel to Martin by artificially setting the bar at 3 < <
Well, I'm only commenting on what I've tested. The 3rd one will likely be met shortly, if the sample ships as expected.I'll be glad when single cable connections (either HDMI or iLink) are the norm rather than the exception. There's just too damned many cables that I need these days!
Puleese Christine -- I'm not "confused" about what MLP is. I've have read and understood Bob Stuart's papers etc. 'FIFO buffers' and all the rest. And like you, I studied engineering at university and I have read many technical "white papers" in my time.And you must also recall that last year we both exchanged significant info about CPPM etc.
I think if any confusion does exist, then it is probably more to do with how I perceive what you are saying, and how you perceive what I'm saying. Maybe we should leave it at that. :-)
.
If Dualdisc really is targeted at the "average consumer," then by necessity it will tend to focus on the lowest common denominator as the primary. Add-ons for "niche" consumers will be secondary.It stands to reason that 5.1 MLP will be the least utilized tracks on a Dualdisc since it requires a specialty player AND the appropriate multi-channel cabling/speakers/amplification.
No matter how you slice it, 48k MLP is a big step up from lossy DD 5.1, so Universal probably figures they're doing everyone a favor :-)
Since all the Universal Dualdisc releases are also available/soon to be available on SACD, Universal probably figures that people who want more than 48k 5.1 will buy the SACD instead of, or perhaps even in addition to, the Dualdisc.
"...will buy the SACD instead " the only thing it buy's them is extra noise."If Dualdisc really is targeted at the "average consumer," then by necessity it will tend to focus on the lowest common denominator as the primary. Add-ons for "niche" consumers will be secondary. "
This is a flawed argument. There is no necessity. If that where true wo would have seen lot's of albums on DVD Video next to CD releases.
DualDisc is not supposed to replace DVD Music video releases. (mainly used for live concert registrations.)
DualDisc is an enhanced album concept that complements DVD concert video releases.
Yes, "Universal probably figures..."Unlike you, I don't declare my speculation to be incontrovertible fact.
"the only thing it buy's them is extra noise."
"This is a flawed argument. There is no necessity. If that where true wo would have seen lot's of albums on DVD Video next to CD releases."
I guess you haven't been CD shopping lately (hint: there are a whole bunch of CD/DVD-V combo releases out there).
"DualDisc is an enhanced album concept that complements DVD concert video releases."
Well, someone here said, not too long ago, that Dualdisc is a "lifeboat" created to save a sinking ship. Wait...that someone was...YOU! :-)
"Dualdisc is a "lifeboat" created to save a sinking ship."I never said that.
Lifeboats are not created to save sinking ships. Everybody knows that.PS
(sa-cd is a sinking ship without lifeboats)
of keeping track of your posts so I don't have to do it for you.Frank sez: Dualdisc is DVDA's lifeboat..
Frank
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: