|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
.
Follow Ups:
We wern't wrong, just forced them to bring their secrets out of the closet. Nice bit of PR from the spin doctors I grant you, but what else could they do now the cat was out of the bag ?
> > but what else could they do now the cat was out of the bag ? < < ????But there was never any "cat in the bag" in the first place, so to speak. It was just that muppets like you (and Guthrie) simply didn't understand (or overlooked) the most basic principles and physics of lossless compression in relation to input signal entropy. MLP was designed with that in mind, so as to afford the required headroom to losslessly compress six channels of 24-bit/96kHz music to EASILY fit into to 9.6Mbps of the DVD’s databus.
The reason Guthrie’s comments were so surprising, was that somebody of his supposed calibre would make the mistake of completely mis-interpreting something which, in reality, is a total non-issue.
Moreover, the technical papers explained all that ages ago, and it seems that neither of you actually assimilated those papers when they were published. These papers naturally made it clear as to what the factors are which actually affect filesize — and hence the amount of capacity which a file will take up on the disc. And none of that is any "cat in a bag" — as you are trying to imply. In fact, the only thing covered in a bag, it appears, was your own head — and for a very long time. Furthermore, that bag still seems to be firmly in place.
...that there would rarely be a problem in practice. Your linked article doesn't refute this, it simply strongly emphasizes that the difficulty is rarely encountered, and admits to a provision in the spec to reduce bit depth in the surround channels to compensate. It seems as though our understanding is unchanged. Mr. Guthrie (and any other engineer with similar misgivings about MLP) is the only person you need to convince. : )
I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that the same issue is faced by DST for SACD.Once you start talking about highly decorrelated data (ie near random), any compression algorithm will struggle when dealing with a finite absolute bandwidth, even with prefetch and store.
I particularly like the line:"Jeff Dean, who was recently named President of Silverline Records, feels that Guthrie may have been “…theorising potential problems rather than talking from real working experience.”"
This sounds almost identical to people around here who have "theoretical" criticisms of Sony's DSD, none of whom have actually worked with it.
I wish people on both sides would stop this, but unfortunately I'm sure they will not.
Either format is quantum leaps over what is required to faithfully reproduce anything mastered from analog tape. It's just a big waste of time pissing match. The one getting pissed on is you for getting worked up about it. 8=)
Is that also a 'quantum leap' over what's necessary to faithfully reproduce anything that's mastered from analog tape?Curious -
.
...nothing wrong with that.No personal attack; no non-audio related matter raised.
An awful lot of Asylum threads contain posts that go off on various tangents, as you know. That mine happens to be one of them is scarecly worth making light of.
.
1. > > The source media is analog tape < <
If you are dealing with legacy material, then I suppose so. Otherwise, the recording studios have moved on since the days when 15ips tape was considered 'state-of-the-art' (in case you haven't realised).2. > > . The one getting pissed on is you for getting worked up about it. < <
No. The only ones getting 'pissed-on' are those individuals who originally peddled the incorrect information about MLP, and then used it as a justification for going with a DSD release of DSOTM! LOL
And the other people getting pissed-on, are those who slavishly believed such misinformed nonsense. 10=)
.
nt
.
nt
Just in case you were naive enough to think that truth has any currency on the Highway. A completely unfounded malicious rumour becomes a soapbox for another diatribe against universal players.
Michi and Dave Kingsland corrected the factual aspect of things, but still, this is strange.I saw a similar thread about the DV8300 not being better in SACD than a $200 Sony player, which really puzzled me.
I wonder what is going on. I'd better keep up with the latest party line: Universal players are now considered a threat?
I hope I won't have to burry mine in the garden.Best
Just a question, on that.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
The short answer:
I'm happy with my universal player
- One box
- one set of cables
- one set of controls and adjustmentsThe Long answer
Overall, I'd say a universal player is an easy way to test the waters of either and both formats, without having any issue related to an investment made in one or the other.
When I bought my Marantz, in fact I was looking for a replacement for my DVD player. I was more curious about DVD-A, and SACD was a nice "extra" which I picked up thinking "I'll try that some day". It turned out I really liked a lot of the software on SACD, and the sound quality as well. I also realized that my player said "DVD-RW compatible", and that got me started in the idea to try to burn music on DVD.
Anyway, I can see now the points made by other inmates: to get the best of each format, it is probably wiser to invest in separate players, and optimise each choice separately. Also, I think you get better value for the same budget (the Marantz was 2000¤).
However, pushing this logic a little further, I think you would end up with different receivers, amps and speakers as well. Since I have a small setup, that is not an option for me :)I have one caveat about universal players, which is to check whether they are fully compatible with DVD-Audio specs, and allow to read more than 30-34 tracks in Group 1 (Pioneer models). If you don't, you may have to buy other DVD-A players to play your discs, like me...
Best
Eric
PS: I have not used my Marantz as a DVD player more than once or twice, because it got me more interested in music, and I stopped watching movies.
.... Any idea why they couldn't do this? I can't imagine it being an actual design limitation, sounds like an oversight in firmware and bad QC to me...
Michi,The limitation is 30 to 34 files (sometimes less) in Group 1, but only if they are PCM files (WAV or AIFF).
If the files are encoded in MLP, no problem at all. As soon as you have more than one group, you can have more files in total. So in practice, this is almost never a limitation for commercial titles, which have several groups and are encoded in MLP for MCH tracks. Some commercial titles also have limitations, and the pulishers group the number of tracks into larger tracks (1-4, 5-8, etc). The Teldec Matthaus Passion is an interesting example of structure.This is definitely a limitation of Pioneer models (including universal players like Marantz and Onkyo), because other brands like Toshiba, Technics, Panasonic, etc, do not have that problem. I don't know about the Yamaha and the new Denon.
Best
Eric
PS; I discovered very recently that the limitation of the number of files in a group (the DVD-A spec allows for up to 99 tracks in a single group) actually includes each file of multichannel tracks (1 track in 5.1 = 6 files). So, in effect, if you do not use MLP, the number of multichannel tracks allowed is actually much lower. I'll post something about this soon, as I am still checking with various combinations.
I suspect the Pioneer software problem is somehow related to this.
But personally I will buy seperates.There are design issues starting at the laser that diverge for both systems.
But most people will not be bothered by these issue's though.Quit another issue is the recording and production side of the matter.
I think that 64*fs with high order noise shaping is not the best option for recording audio. I'd much prefer a higher bitrate of at least 128*fs to push any artifacts that still exist out of the audio bandwith.Multibit processing will always be a better solution because the final end result can always be properly dithered down into the final delivery format.
Ending up with different recording formats is a awkward situation.
Michelle,If there is sufficient DSP power to do time alignment, channel level and bass management in native mode I think that a universal player plugged into a transparent 5.1 passthrough is the best solution. I'm hoping that the Linn or Teac will satisfy these requirements. I was hoping to get HDCD as well, but I'm close to giving up on that.
I didn't know they were still in the game. Huh.Okay - Actually, yeah, I'd love to see one that does HDCD, as well... No prospect on this yet, then?
They stoop very low to discredit MLP (and pcm).
Now they have made real fools of themselves with this pot shot.Guess who's lining their pockets.
NT
Frank
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: