|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Just make sure your informed... posted by snaggs on April 24, 2003 at 20:23:47:
If you want to make a point to someone like me, who's just entering "the format wars," try to sound a little less unbiased? You're not convincing.Regardless, I'll tell you my point of view.
As an amatuer concert archivist, SACD/DSD is priced way out of my reach. That makes me angry; why should the average man not have access to the technology to create wonderful recordings, without paying Sony a sh|tload of cash?
Fortunately, PCM audio is a standard, and I can freely record at 24/48, 24/96, or if I had the ability 24/192 without paying anyone any fees or buying any special equipment that all consumers have access to and can afford. I like that. My 24/96 A to D converter cost me $500, and the sound quality is spectacular. Try getting a portable DSD A to D for $500, or even $5000. Good luck.
And the technology to reproduce my 24 bit recordings is available in the vast majority of homes in america; DVD players. With the proper DVD Authoring software and a DVD burner, everyman can burn DVD-V discs. Or if you'd like more flexibility, potentially greater sample rates, and a more CD-like interface, you could burn DVD-A.
So that's where I shake out, from that end, the amateur recordist. I *despise* Sony right now and their singleminded, moneygrubbing push for DSD. Unlike some, I don't believe Sony gives a hoot about audiophiles; I believe they're pushing DSD as a cash cow. I'm not going to be a part of it...
OTOH, I do *not* agree with *either* format's decision to not allow hirez streams out of their units. That is just plain dumb. I like my dCS DAC, and since it's 24/192 capable, why can't I use it? That angers me about DVD-A. Now I *could* upgrade my dCS to take a DSD stream, but it's going to cost me $$$$; and I'm not going that route unless SACD eventually "wins" the format wars.
And as a final note, you should really try to listen to DVD-A with an open mind (or form your arguments with more substance and less rhetoric??). Sampling rate between formats is not comparable; DSD is not PCM audio.. SACD is *not* clearly the superior format sonically. Both are quite good. I don't like the watermarking "feature," either, but that's just yet another marketing mistake in this crazy world of hirez audio...
Follow Ups:
I agree, SACD is not targeted for home/personal recording. Infact, its this very reason which is why no embedded watermarking is required. Your comments on how excellent DVD-V is for personal recording I agree with entirely. Your Sony $$$ conspiracy theory & diatribe I won't bother commenting on.I said as much in my post
"DVD-A is a good format for extra's, video clips and possibly home recording if you can afford all the gear needed"
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.
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.Yes I'm biased against DVD-A in the area of commercial software, but somebody has to put forward all the points which the others here forget to mention with regard to DVD-A. Otherwise you would get a very one sided view. Note I also recommended a Universal player, I didn't say don't get something with DVD-A capability.
As for those who say why don't I tell them what where I can hear the watermark. I've already addressed this by saying, how can I do this comparison without a Verance free recording to compare with ?
Recording engineers have done this comparison and found the watermark clearly audible, Warner themselves addmitted it was audible, by definition the watermark must be audible, so why is this even in doubt ? They may be correct it saying the difference is so small, its hardly worth being concerned about. This is different from denying its audible. It is these inaccuracies and untruths I find offensive.
Anyways, I had stopped posting here, until Frank and cohorts started at me in the SACD forum. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Daniel.
"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.
My slight complaints about the cost of buying MLP were just a comment. As it would have been nice to have MLP. I was not suggesting that somehow SACD was better in this regard.My friend and I record about 6 hours a week of radio onto MiniDisc. At 16/48khz with MLP, we could have really crammed alot of music on a DVD-A disk. Also, when archiving Vinyl on DVD-A @ 96k, MLP again would mean more albums per disk.
SACD is clearly not, and will never be a home recording medium.
SnaggsYOU DO NOT NEED MLP unless you want to go MCH at 24/96, or need to have more than 2.5 hours in 24/96. Uncompressed PCM works fine. In fact, 24/88.2 works in MCH up to 4 channels if you feel like doing Quad transfers...
Best
Eric
PS: And forget your minidisc, ATRAC is worse than MP3. If you need to compress things, try Monkey's Audio (50% compression, lossless) and has a Winamp plug-in. Free.
Specifically did comparisons of SACD, CD, ATRAC-R, LP2, MP3 192, MP3 3something. The ATRAC-R was way better than MP3, and whilst not as airy as CD, was never offensive.This was done double blind, averaged over 20 trials.
Daniel.
For once :)ATRAC sucked initially, and got MUCH better as time wore on. The last group ATRAC-R recording devices were quite good. I used to use one for concert recording, and I could NOT TELL A DIFFERENCE between ATRAC-R and PCM (16/44.1) DAT on *consumer gear*. On my hifi, yes, but not on consumer gear.
BUT if you're archiving radio, SNaggs, why do you want 24/96+ PCM on DVDs? You can put 16/48 on ANY DVD-Video disc, with any number of consumer authoring packages. You can fit over 7 hours of 2-channel 16/48 on a DVD-V. No MLP needed unless you want 5.1 surround FM radio :) And 16/48 is plenty good resolution for FM archiving.
Bit as for Snaggs other comments, see my responses, and his, in the thread above :)
Imagine that :)
You could get more time with MLP... But if you're archiving FM radio broadcasts, why not use MP3?You can fit a whole ton of MP3s on a CD, and lost of DVD/CD players will read them nowadays...
And there is nothing to easily do timer recording of radio on MP3.... many of the shows we record are even from AM. You can still tell the difference between MP3 and ATRAC-R on AM Mono Radio.Daniel.
PS. I also like having my music on a disc type format, MP3's on a hard-disk is not the same. It destroys the concept of the "album", everything just becomes one hugs "greatest hits".
is this why you're so interested in Watermarking? All ATRAC recorders have a built-in protection that will prevent recording from a digital source, and sometimes even from the analog out.You should really investigate recording directly to CD (I read that some set-top recorders do a good job recording on the fly), or even to a hard disc using a good sound card. Then you can do all the editing you want in the digital domain.
If you use ATRAC recording and edit in PCM, you're going through many A/D conversions, filters, etc.
Best
I don't do the editing, but my friend edits all the disks recorded on the train each day! We just used MD as it was convenient, the MD mini-systems have radio timer functionality built in etc etc.As for Watermarking, just against it in principle and for commercial recordings I'm paying for. Though, it is the beginning of the end, they specifically designed/tested watermarking to be intact through radio transmissions, and that would certainly bother me. Though that aspect of watermarking is not directly related to DVD-A.
He does the editing, you do the listening.. : )Best
Daniel: I would like to make one more comment on my Sony "diatribe." Why do I think Sony has ulterior motives in pushing DSD? Because of their licensing fees. Look into it and tell me why this isn't true; because it's pretty well known in recording circles that DSD provides LESS fidelity than good old 24 bit PCM (which requires no licensing fees).For fodder for argument on that point, open last month's Stereophile (the one with the Verdi on the cover). Open to Fremer's article on the Verdi/Purcell/Elgar+, and read through JA's measurements of the Elgar +. A few quotes:
"...DSD encoding used with the SACD medium results in very high levels of random noise extending from just above the audioband up to the region of the 2.82MHz sampling frequency. The residue of this noise, following the Elgar's low-pass filtering, can be seen in fig.2, well above the noise level of the 24-bit LPCM signal, though this does show a much smaller rise above 100kHz. The DSD peaks at around -42dBFS between 80kHz and 100kHz, meaning that the SACD medium has only about 7 bits of resolution in this region. In the audioband below 10kHz, however, the resolution is much better than the CD's 16 bits, evidenced by the Elgar's noise floor reaching almost -140dBFS at low frequencies. However, as the Elgar's 24-bit LPCM noisefloor in this region is even lower in level, this appears to demonstrate that DSD is not quite up to 24-bit PCM encoding in terms of ultimate resolution. "
AND
"Fig.2 graph shows 1/3-octave spectral analyses of the Elgar's analog noise floor while it decoded DSD data representing dithered tones at -90dBFS and -120BFS, as well as the 24-bit LPCM equivalent of the latter. The reproduced levels of all three tones are correct, implying excellent linearity, and no harmonic spuriae can be seen. However, with the -120dBFS DSD tone, a second peak can be seen between 600Hz and 700Hz. This was repeatable, and was also absent from the LPCM spectrum. It might well, therefore, be due to an idle tone of some kind associated with the DSD encoding. "
Every technology is a give and take, I think. And I'm not arguing that SACD sounds good, because it does!! But when good old PCM proves to be theoretically higher fidelity and doesn't incur licensing and distribution fees, I don't think it's only good for home recording.
In practice, I find both formats to sound EXCELLENT..! I just don't think Sony has audiophiles on their mind when they created DSD.
*sigh*The reason DSD has more noise at 80khz is that it uses noise shaping to shift noise out into the ultra high frequencies. This is the point, there is no point wasting bits on the utlra high frequencies, they are only needed such that a gentle filter is possible, and a side effect of the samlping rate needed within the audible range.
This is why SACD quality is greater than 192/24, and possible on all 8 channels stored on the disc (i.e full rez on the 2 stereo channels and full rez on the 6 MultiCh Channels). You can't achieve 192/24 on all channels on DVD-A, because it wastes its bit allocation keeping the same ultra-low noise floor all the way up to its frequency limit.
Fact is, the ultimate noise floor has never been the issue with digital. Vinyl has an attrocious noise floor compared to CD, but still creams it. SACD's noise floor within the audible range is way more than needed, and ultimately not the limiting factor in any complete system.
Finally, comments relating to a particular player can't be taken as gospel for entire format. Of course Sony are interested in making money, theyre a commercial enterprise. Are they interested in Audiophiles ? This is clearly evidencesd by their marketing approach, and the fact that SACD does not have watermarking and has mandated stereo as requested by audiophile circles.
So let's back a format with less fidelity, and then tell people it's BETTER, because "it's all you need."That's basically what your argument is at this point. Initially you responded to me that DVD-A is good for amatuer recordists, and DSD/SACD is better for commercial industry. I countered with fact that DVD-A / 24/192 has *better* resolution at all frequencies. Your current argument is, because I'm an amatuer I should have more bits and bytes to play with, and commercial music houses shouldn't because of *storage issues*, and the fact they "there is no point in wasting bits at higher frequencies"? PLEASE... As audiophiles, aren't we searching for the BEST format available? Isn't that what we seek? ESPECIALLY in the recording chain, so 30 years down the road when the next higher-rez format is available, we have good recordings for our reissues to be made from? ;)
Storage is NOT a problem anymore with growing harddrives, archival backup systems, etc. Storage is cheap. Sony is pushing DSD as an "archival" and "recording" format. So why not record and archive in the higher resolution format (24/192 LPCM)? Why should music houses have to buy equipment with high licensing fees to record in a LOWER RESOLUTION FORMAT? To save space? Because it's good enough (i.e., you don't need those bits)?
Multichannel: If consumers want multichannel, give them multichannel, I agree. They are where the money is. And you're right on the money here, because showing off 5.1/6.1/7.1 rigs is a probably a priority for the average consumer. My feeling is, though, that the VAST majority (99.5%?) of 5.1 rigs cannot even reproduce the full fidelity available on a *CD* let alone a DVD, so maintaining 24/192 on all channels isn't a priority for me. I don't feel the main stereo track should be compromised with a lower fidelity archiving system (DSD) so consumers can have the same quality 5.1 on their home-theatre-in-a-box rigs.
This has turned into a DVD-A vs. SACD spitting match, when really it shouldn't be. I have MANY beefs with DVD-A, too, among them *watermarking*, no digital out spec, no hybrid discs! At this juncture, DVD-A is dying as a viable commercial format, the DVD-A camp had best get their heads out of their asses or it'll go the way of Sony beta..
What we're really arguing about is 24/192 LPCM vs. DSD. Don't delude yourself into thinking DSD is the better format, because it isn't. Remember, if we all played something that had "enough bits" according to the engineers, we would all think MP3 sounded pretty damn good.
And recall the early days of CD, and Sony's marketing giant that spread the now-fateful words (perfect sound forever). "You don't need any frequencies above 22.05khz" they told us. Hmmn, that turned out to be wrong. Now the Sony marketing giant spreads "DSD has all the bits you need" and (my favorite one I hear audiophiles spouting all the time) "DSD sounds more analog!"
If you ever get the chance to listen to untouched 24/96 or 24/192 material, Snaggs, you'll understand what I'm driving at. The marketing geniuses are ruling this format war, not the quality gurus.
And it's all not rah rah chearleading. Let's call it like it is.
Here are some excepts from a paper presented to AES.--------------------------
At 750kHz the signal is only 10 dB down. Hence, it is clear that DSD as a carrier provides a signal bandwidth which exceeds 100kHz by far. Obviously, the SNR decreases for high frequencies.
As far as experimental evidence shows [17] the human auditory system is sensitive to ultra sound only if it is correlated with the signal in the 0-20 kHz band, hence, the increase in noise at high frequencies is not important. The excess in bandwidth can subsequently be used to allow for very slow low-pass filtering, which keeps the time response very accurate.
This effect is clearly illustrated in Fig.9. The impulse responses of 4 different systems in a multichannel configuration is depicted : a 48 kHz system, with a bandwidth of 20 kHz (that is, 8 kHz transition bandwidth is allowed for anti-aliasing filtering), a 96 kHz system with 35 kHz bandwidth (26 kHz transition bandwidth), a 192 kHz system with 75 kHz bandwidth (42 kHz transition bandwidth) and an SACD system with 96 kHz bandwidth. Though none of the systems reproduces the input exactly, the DSD system shows the least artifacts.
Clearly, the 48 kHz system has great difficulty in reproducing the click; due to the steep filtering it starts ringing at a -30 dB level approximately 1ms before the click, which is very audible. Also at the higher sampling frequencies, the rining phenomenon cannot be remove, though it is reduce significantly. Only the DSD system is very effective in suppressing the ringing effect, due to very slow filtering above 95 kHz.
....
read stuff about bit rates
....
Moreover, it is argued that the DSD format complies with the minimal requirements set by the human hearing system in order to avoid audible artifacts caused by digitizing the analog signal. For example, the minimal sampling rate needed is about 350 kHz, which is not covered by a 192kHz PCM recording. Moreover from 20 kHz and onwards the neccessary signal-to-noise ratio becomes increasingly less important, which is in concodrance which the natural behavious of a SDM. Due to the latter feature of DSD, the signal becomes very bit-efficient compared to existing PCM formats closest to the afore mentioned minimal requirements. These statements include lossless coding for both kinds of signals. For example, on SACD a 6-channel DSD recording of 95 minutes can be stores where for 20bit 192Khz PCM only 55 minutes can be stored.
http://www.sacd.philips.com/b2b/downloads/dsd_2.pdf
"This effect is clearly illustrated in Fig.9. The impulse responses of 4 different systems in a multichannel configuration is depicted : a 48 kHz system, with a bandwidth of 20 kHz (that is, 8 kHz transition bandwidth is allowed for anti-aliasing filtering), a 96 kHz system with 35 kHz bandwidth (26 kHz transition bandwidth), a 192 kHz system with 75 kHz bandwidth (42 kHz transition bandwidth) and an SACD system with 96 kHz bandwidth. Though none of the systems reproduces the input exactly, the DSD system shows the least artifacts.
Clearly, the 48 kHz system has great difficulty in reproducing the click; due to the steep filtering it starts ringing at a -30 dB level approximately 1ms before the click, which is very audible. Also at the higher sampling frequencies, the rining phenomenon cannot be remove, though it is reduce significantly. Only the DSD system is very effective in suppressing the ringing effect, due to very slow filtering above 95 kHz."This is highly misleading rubbish from the Philips AES paper.
Highly misleading and false assumptions.DSD isn't reproducing the click correctly either! The click is at -6dB from full scale input and in the presented graph you see .25 on the vertical scale. (-6dB is .5)
It's a mere 'coincidense' that he puls mimics the input pulse and not by dsd virtues.
It would be interresting to see how dsd copes with such a pulse at lets say -60dB from full scale.
Also the 3us pulse is outside the bandwith of the pcm sample rates.
(Sample duration for 192kHz is 5us) This alone make this 'comparison' invalid. Any idiot knows that the signal must be below 1/2*fs.
(The wine tasting habit must be gotten out of hand the evening before the day he cooked this one up!)This test is a fraud designed to made pcm 'look bad' by intention.
It proofs only that dsd is a blatand marketing lie.Another lie exposed:
"Clearly, the 48 kHz system has great difficulty in reproducing the click; due to the steep filtering it starts ringing at a -30 dB level approximately 1ms before the click, which is very audible."
Ringing at 24kHz is NOT very audible.
Frank
Why don't you submit a paper for peer review to the AES ? This might give what you say some credibility. I content that your comments are biased to cover up good research and proof that DSD is better than PCM 192/24.What about Meridian ? Their paper supports most of what is reported in the Philips white paper. Didn't they have something to do with DVD-A ? Or are they biased for SACD too ? How come they debunk your comments to ?
Maybe the truth is, you don't know what your talking about ;)
I'm not either. But that doesn't prevent me in spotting these blatand flaws in the AES paper.There is no proof in this document that dsd is better than 24/192 or even 24/96.
You are only fooling yourself.My only beef with dsd is that low 64*fs sample frequency. It should have been at least 128*fs.
You obviously missed the part about the pcm processing in the Sonoma and the Pyramix systems...
Frank
This is the DVD-A forum, and I've been a bit naughty argueing for so long here. So I'll leave you with the last word on that.Just out of interest, if we limited bandwidth to 8kHz, which would you prefer then ?
24 bits is more than sufficient resolution.The biggest advantage for pcm is still that digital processing is much simpler to implement.
Great link, thanks!I just don't agree with their self-imposed limitations. Ringing is audible, absolutely. And as you point out, each format has it's issues. Ringing is tremendously low at the 96khz and 192khz sampling rates, and I'm willing to live with that to have better fidelity in the audible band, with very little ringing at 192, than pay Sony licensing fees to use something quite obviously designed for multichannel..
And there you go. Absolute proof Sony doesn't care about the audiophile, but rather the home theatre crowd.
:)
Good discussion the past few days, good food for thought :)
I want to make clear that I think SACD is a good sounding format. I doubt, given equal equipment, whether I would ever hear enough of a difference between the two to choose one or the other. And ironically enough, though I don't agree with DSD and Sony's push for it, and truly believe it's yet another way for Sony to shake $$ out of our pockets (as the music companies and production houses will certainly pass on licensing costs to the consumer)... And hate the fact I can't use it personally... I most certainly will have SACD in my house. Since I own a dCS, and dCS isn't on board with the standardized IEE1394, and DVD-A doesn't have their act together with it... My only choice for hirez audio is SACD!
I agree, DSD is not a home format and I wouldn't suggest for a minute that your 192/24 recordings are shit, I'm sure theyre brilliant.However, I take note with one, remember SACD mandates stereo, the disks for the first two years were all stereo. You can buy MONO SACD's.
My worry about DVD-A is not whether it can support stereo, we all know it can, and many (most?) disks do at the moment. However, we know Joe Bloe Sixpack doesn't give a shit and tends to like stuff which comes out of all speakers, since his speakers are never in the right space, so he doens't even know what "soundstage" is.
So, lets look into the future, DVD-A becomes the standard, CD is a distant memory.. they're filling the disks with the multi-media clips and photo albums... 24/96 Hirez 6-channel, DTS 96 6-channel, Dolby Digital ES 7.1 mix.... umm, theres not enough space for stereo on the disk, "WHO CARES" says MR. Beancounter, they can use the mixdown feature of their DVD-A. Its not that far away.
Yes, you can say Sony want $$$ for SACD, but
1) Theyre a commercial operation, theyre supposed to earn $$
2) Did you know that SACD fee's are less than half DVD-A fees ?But, No, you can't say they don't care about the audiophile, there is no watermarking, we have mandated stereo, because, even if SACD becomes popular, it will suffer from the same tendancy for "ping-pong surroud" on mainstream releases. At least I know I will get a regular stereo mix to go alongside it, as it is compulsary. Don't you agree ?
Finally, you say "I just don't agree with their self-imposed limitations." Which are these ? How is any other format not limit by the technology of the day ?
mandating a 2CH mix and doing a good job of it are two different things. I agree that having 2CH mandated is a good idea - more so for the current situation then the long term. 2CH stereo was a limitation imposed on 3CH stereo due to the introduction of the LP (try a google search on W.B Snow for Bell Laboratories in 1933) so MCH is actually a good thing if done properly. Now if the mass market dictates MCH and the effort is spent making that the best mix, what is to stop them from taking short cuts in creating the 2CH mix? Unfortunately the market will drive how music is presented on both high-rez formats and if the majority of the market doesn't care about higher quality 2CH the effort to create a great 2CH mix will suffer. Small labels will remain in the game creating 'audiophile' recordings of both 2CH and MCH.
DVD-A or SACD: SACD by a slight margin. Long term tie.Then the watermarking issue. From what I see http://www.mpg.org.uk/watermarkingreport.htm SACD *does* have a provision for watermarking too. It could be that they have been clever enough not to implement the third type of watermarking for the time being to allow the format to become entrenched. Why ruffle any feathers if you can ignore it for the time being? Protection of the material is likely to happen but this will be at the option of the label.
DVD-A or SACD: SACD by a slight margin. Long term tie.
Since watermarking can be present on any audible signal, that means you can say LP supports audible watermarking. However, we know that realistically its not the case. Same with SACD.Thing is, with SACD Sony specifically designed it to be resilient without watermarking, its not part of the recommended specification, never was. It is the absoloute opposite for DVD-A, where until the last minute watermarking was compulsory and every player had to detect it, every disk had to include it. We know that every SACD doesn't had watermarking and that nearly every DVD-A title does (except for audiophile labels). So their is no need to debate this, the proof is in the pudding.
Finally, with regards to mandated stereo, if its compulsory, at least they'll have to include it. Given the fact that nearly every recording engineer understands the value of music and quality, chances are they will always include a quality mix. The Beancounters can't stop it being included. With DVD-A, Mr Beancounter can just say "We use MixDown, a valid part of the DVD-A specification for legacy 2-channel systems". For all historical recordings, there will always be a 2-channel mix in some format for them to include. For new recordings, well Stereo becomes less important, since they can be recorded well in 5.1 if that is what is intended. Still, if they are forced with a decision to appeal to mass market, they can always ensure the stereo mix is sorted for audiophiles. Mandated stereo always encourages them to do the right thing.
Daniel.
The watermarking is added as an option to the spec on request by the record labels representatives.Eventually they will use it for sacd as well.
They havn't so far.... rememeber, SACD can't be recorded at home and is a protected media. Now your grasping at straws.
It's a logical assumption.Philips demonstrated watermarking technology so it's there.
There are additional 'features' possible with watermarking.
-Tracking pre-release copy's leaking out of studio's.
-Royalty gathering from airplay.
-Control over (future) digital recording devices that read the
watermark.
You may be right in the future, it is a valid path for things to take. However, its not the case at the moment, which is the important thing.
Yes, absolutely; it angers me that DVD-A doesn't require 2-channel mixes. You are right to be afraid, I completely agree. I do love 5.1 for movies, but it has no place in music, IMO. ESPECIALLY with high bitrate material; 24/96 + and DSD 2-channel creates an enveloping, surround-like environment anyway (on a good rig). A few people at my home have even thought I had all 6 channels running, when in fact it was just the front two...The limitations I speak of is that I believe Sony developed DSD for multichannel; they always point out that 6 full DSD channels can be slapped on a disc. I don't care, Sony! I want 2 channels of absolute highest fidelity. THAT's the limitation I want to live by :)
I did hear SACD's fees are lower, but you forgot the DSD fees. Sony's licensing is SO DAMN EXPENSIVE for DSD, it makes the mastering chain incredibly expensive. That will get passed down, too. And 24/192 is FREE!! (if you buy the gear, LOL)!!
Remember, DSD is just a marketing term for PDM or SDM. Sony only own patents over a specific implementation.I agree, Sony developed DSD for Stereo + Multichannel on a single disk, with maximum compatability with CD. Unfortunately, it is what it takes for a medium to have a chance in this day and age.
One thing, remember even before SACD existed, DSD was originally developed as an archiving format for their masters..... given these are 100% 2-channel, this would indicate that DSD's specific design for multi-channel may not be supported by evidence.
As for prices being passed down, its so insignificant for record companies if its sells, SACD or DVD-A. In Australia, many of the hybrid SACD's have been priced even cheaper than full price CD!!! Some are a bit more, some at full price, and a few less. So the price arn't that bad. To be honest, I'm happy to pay if I get the quality.
With regards to Multi-channel, and this applies to DVD-A and SACD. If its done correctly, it does actually sound good. Tubular Bells for example, which was originally conceived for Quadrophonic sounds awesome on SACD (a 4.0 mix). I've also heard some excellent classical Piano solo SACD's which just used the rears for ambience and sound brilliant. I'm sure the quality DVD-A releases can be just as effective. So 5.1 doesn't have to be all bad, though you'll never be able to count on it always being used sensibly.
Its absurd to suggest otherwise. Both formats are limited by the disk capacity and maximum transfer rate of the mechanism.DSD achieves the maximum fidelity given the limitations. DVD-A can only achieve 24/96 on all channels. DSD achieves a 2/1 efficiency over PCM by the use of its noise-shaping. This achieves better than PCM 192/24 within the audible band, and less outside the audible band. Certainly much better than 24/96.
Since Sony made there "perfect sound forever" comments, our knowledge of digital has increased immenseley. Its always easy to criticise things in hindsite.
"DSD achieves the maximum fidelity given the limitations. DVD-A can only achieve 24/96 on all channels. DSD achieves a 2/1 efficiency over PCM by the use of its noise-shaping. This achieves better than PCM 192/24 within the audible band, and less outside the audible band. Certainly much better than 24/96."I do not agree with the "limitations" put forth by Sony.
DSD does NOT achieve better fidelity than PCM 24/192 within the audible band, it achieves LESS fidelity. That is my beef with it.
If the "limitations given" are having full 5.1/6.1/7.1 rigs with multichannel surround, I do think DSD wins this game. But I could give a crap about multichannel; it's expensive enough to get 2 killer channels, there are very few who can afford maximum fidelity across 6 channels.
That's why I like 24/192 LPCM. Maximum fidelity for 2 channel folk, 24/96 for everyone into multichannel. Believe me, 24/96 is PLENTY good for multichannel, I seriously doubt your or I will have a rig that could even take full advantage of 6 channels of 24/96 in the near future.
.
n/a
I crashed my CBR1000 a couple of years ago, and havn't been "allowed" to ride since. Family + Wife have chilled a bit since, so I think I can get away with being a weekend rider, so no point getting anything practical, though I don't want a Ducati which puts my wrists down near my feet!
As comfy as a Duc gets, at least ;)Seriously, I have ridden minde 4+ hours with no issues. Rode it to a wedding 2 hours away in a suit and wingtips once..
You should check 'em out, especially now that they're injected (mine is carb'd), and the motors have been upped in power... They are lots of fun, the perfect combination between sportbike (the old superbike frame, old desmodue torquey motor) and hooligan (more upright stance, naked).
My first question.1) How is DSD not better than 192/24 ? It has less ringing, wider bandwidth and a much higher sampling rate. We know that until PCM 384, the sampling rate isn't high enough, regardless of bitrate. Infact, it has been proven, that for most commercial pop music releases, no more than -45 dB S/N is neccesary, that equates to only 9-bit, even CD has well in excess of the dynamic range for most recordings.
2) Even if we for the sake of argument agree that 192/24 is at least as good as, if not better than DSD overall. What relevance is this when we havn't had a single commercial 192/24 release ? Theyre all 96/24 as the mainstream public want multi-channel, its the only way to sell a new format to Joe Blow, he can hear shit (doesn't matter what it is) coming out his rear speakers and he can say, CD doesn't do that. Yes you will get the occasional audiophile 192/24 release in the future (maybe not ?). Yes you can record on DVD-A at 192/24, which really is brilliant for live recordings. However, you don't loose this ability if SACD takes over DVD-A as the commercial release medium.
MiniDisc never really took off as a release medium outside Japan, but who cares ? I have a recorder and couldn't care two hoots, I can still record my radio shows. Recordable mediums don't have the same success criteria as a playback only. For this reason, DVD-A will never die. It will always be around for home enthusiasts and small backyard recording labels.
I just want it to die for the majors, as Stereo and Watermark Free recordings are not part of its future. IF there was a media release tommorow, that even just stereo 96/24 was mandated, and audible watermarking scrapped, I'd jump on board with both formats. Whilst I'd prefer my Neil Young on DSD, as you say, 24/96 is plenty good enough. Not perfect, but I could live with it, especially considering how CD has improved. However, given SACD exists, and provides the best quality overall, I want it to succeed. I can still have DVD-A as a recording medium (or DVD-A LPCM), but at least when I buy my disks I know that the worst case scenario is still ok, stereo for me even if the 5.1 is ping-pong and watermark free.
1) DSD does not have less ringing than PCM @ 24/192K, contrary to your assertions. Clearly DSD has substantial ringing:http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_07.shtml
In terms of qty of ringing, even 24/96K has less ringing although response on transients is slower.
2) The Eagles "Hotel California"
Neil Young "Harvest"
The Doobie Brothers "The Captain and Me"
Linda Ronstadt "What's New"
Stravinsky Firebird Suite / Ravel Bolero (AIX Records)Those are off the top of my head, others also exist.
So which of these would you like to discuss?
What is Harvest like on DVD-A ? Sorry for asking, but is it Watermarked ? Are the rest of his titles coming out 192/24 ?As for SACD having less ringing, the credibility difference between a web blog and a paper submitted by academics working for philips to the AES are on substantially different levels.
Perhaps you should do a little homework on who the principal producer of the study was.Also, could you tell me Craig fudged the oscilloscope tracings?
As far as Philips' papers go, it's hardly unbiased material.
Is Harvest watermarked? I don't know, but it is highly likely.
Do I care? Nope. The material has never sounded better.
and hear a difference? Please see Page 19 in this PDF:http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF
When you say no commercial records at 192/24, do any of these meet the criteria?
http://www.dvd-a.dk/start.php?page=P2&format=1&Filter=Recommended2ch&Menu=Recommended stereo recordings
I didn't realise Harvest was 192/24. That really is good.As for the PDF very interesting, and funnily enough confirms that DSD's dynamic range of 120db is enough! They also talk about how sensible and beneficial noisehaping is to digital audio, also confirming DSD's strategy in this regard.
Just goes to show that the two camps arn't so far apart really. I bet Meridian could do a ripper SACD player. As for whether people can hear the difference between 96/24 and either 192/24, 384/24 or DSD, well theres few people who havn't been able to hear the difference.
I content that Merdian are correct within the scope of their research, except with regards to the sample rate. It has since been shown that higher sample rates are needed to represent the analog waveform in real implementations. On the whole, you will see that there is nothing in the Meridian paper is really at odds with the DSD paper. Both are good science.
I believe that DVD-A is technically better then SACD, however I suspect there is something in the psychoacoustic noise shaping on SACD that makes it pleasing to many people resulting their ‘more musical’ arguments. Doesn’t mean that the recording is truer to the original then a high-rez PCM recording but it sounds better if you are predisposed to the SACD noise shaping.The small number of people who I’ve talked to that have listened to both formats lean towards SACD. BUT, they usually relate hearing an exceptional DVD-A recording as well AND they usually comment that they didn’t like the gimmicky surround ‘tricks’ on DVD-A. This brings me to a second thought – Much of the differences perceived by people could be related to how the material was mastered. DSD recordings could be less processed then PCM recordings as PCM has more established tools to manipulate the recording and this could be affecting the final product.
Your observation that DVD-A appears to be behind seems to be true. The lead afforded by the hybrid CD/SACD for popular titles is likely part of the reason. IF DVD-A gets the flipper, then I believe we will see DVD-A start to gain ground. This coupled with the fact that many mainstream consumer DVD players will soon have DVD-A playback as a standard feature will allow the casual user to experience high-rez (depending on if the system is up to it) and maybe even pursue it.
...I have considered that, too. I think more likely, though, is most people prefer SACD for 3 reasons:
1. SACD players are better at this stage in the game, IMO. dCS' combo is FANTASTIC, there isn't anything in the DVD-A world up to that task yet.
2. Sony has planted the "SACD is more analog" idea, and people want to believe it. I *really* think this is marketing futz, as LPCM in my experience is *very* close (if not "there") to the best analog. I think BOTH DSD and LPCM 24/192 are very very good.
3. As you said, it's all about mastering. Who is doing a better job? I don't know, as I haven't listened to enough hirez commercial recordings to know. Sounds like SACD...
With response to1) The Meridian 800/861 combo is comparably priced to the dCS top of the line solution and has the advantage of multi-channel or stereo operation.
It is every bit as good as the dCS solution sonically IMO -- and I've heard them both. The substantially less expensive Meitner solution might sound a little better than the dCS, but I have yet to hear them side by side.
If you haven't heard top of the line solutions from BOTH sides, you are short changing the comparison.
2 and 3) No argument from me.
You're absolutely right. No Meridian around here, unfortunately. But I'll take your word for it, I know every Meridian digital piece I've heard in the past has been very good.I'm *really* hoping dCS implements standard IEE1394 in future upgrades. Now that I own a Delius, this is the only way I'm going to get killer DVD-A anytime soon.
For example the 800 (v3) series Meridian. I'm running the 500 series and it sounds excellent to my ear. Now if only I could get more material to play on it....I'm begining to suspect that it is more difficult to do a very good DVD-A player then a very good SACD player. Speculating that it is something to do with a single bit DAC?
Listening to the Mickey Hart DVD-A at the moment at 24/96 2CH upsampled which reminds me. If I follow what Meridian is saying, 24/96 is all that is need for excellent playback. Have you noticed a difference between 24/96 vs. 24/192 for the same material?
I do think it's rather difficult to do an excellent 24 bit DAC. When trying to find a DAC to playback my personal recordings, I listened to anything 24/96 capable that I could get my hands on. I quickly concluded that just because the DAC is 24 bit capable doesn't mean it will even come close to resolving all 24 bits. dCS has some fantastic whitepapers on this... I'm not sure about DSD/1-bit, I don't have the ability to record DSD so I can't really comment on that intelligibly. dCS says 1 bit DACs has their own inherent problems, too, tho..As for DVD-A players, I haven't heard that many. Most of the Pioneers and Denons. None sounded as good, IMO, as my Cary CD308 feeding my Delius 16/44.1. 24 bit is hard to do. Now if DVD-A allowed 24/192 LPCM out, I'm certain when coupled with the dCS it would SMASH 16/44 in my house. I've done many 24/96 vs. 16/44.1 comparos via my dCS (with my concert recordings) and 24 bit is SUBSTANTIALLY better, especially at 96khz.
I have only heard DVD-A players at 24/192, and I don't have the ability (currently) to record 24/192, so I can't comment on a good 24/96 vs. 24/192 comparo. I will say that my ears hear a fairly substantial difference between 24/48 and 24/96. I don't know whether that means I will hear a similar benefit with 24/192, but I am willing to try someday :)
Didn't Meridian say that 20/58, or something weird like that, was all we needed? I recall reading a whitepaper on it...
That said, I would *love* to hear (and own!) the Meridian 800 series DVD Player. Nice.
I'm still hoping dCS will implement a *standard* 1394 interface (vs their proprietary one) that will accept both DSD and DVD-A. Here's to hoping...
nt
...I run Microtech Gefell M300 mics into a modded Edirol UA5 (www.oade.com, I have the "warm mod") into a Dell Laptop via USB.Sounds *fantastic*!!!
If portable 24/192 harddrive recorders come out soon (Sound Devices has one on the horizon), I'm going to sell my UA5 and buy a Grace Lunatec V3... That's the only portable 24/192 solution I know of right now.
24/96 was a great leap over 24/48 in my experience, and 24/192 is even better... MMMN. To tell you the truth, I love analog LPs. But 24/96 is so damn close, and better in some regards... and it's portable for live on location recording! Not a bad time to be digital. :D
Although I have found the DAC you use to listen makes a HUGE difference. That's why the lack of LPCM output on DVD-A players really makes me angry!
So you feed your laptop through the Edirol UA5 and record in 24/96... right?
You must have huge dynamics, great for concerts.
What soundcard and software do you use?Best
...the UA5 is a nice little unit, especially with Oade Bros. preamp mods. I also have the digi mod, which enables coax and toslink out, if I choose to use a DAT or something instead of my laptop. The UA5 has USB out, too, and most of the time I use my laptop and record at 24/96. 24/96 sounds *incredible* for concert recording, alot of the "live" feel translates very well at 96khz. I have recorded 24/48, too, and it's good; but 24/96 is much much better.I don't use a soundcard on my laptop for recording; recording software picks up the USB feed as .wav in, no soundcard needed (actually, it kindof "sees" the external device as a soundcard). There are lots of choices for recording: samplitude, cool edit 2000, nTrack studio. nTrack is nice in that it automatically stripes files (to get around the ~2 gig .wav file limit that is an old windows holdover).
For playback I use an EMI 2|6 USB device hooked up to my laptop just like the UA5. It has coax out, and I feed that to my dCS. It's fantastic...
But the music of a triple sounds as good as a twin to my ears now. If Kal Rubinson can't distinguish between 192/24 PCM and SACD by listening, how can Snaggs?
It's good to read some sane stuff once in a while.What software do you use for your DVD-V discs?
We have been discussing several DVD authoring packages, but none seems to be "user friendly" and allow 24/96 at this point. Any experience you could share would be useful.Just a small note on the use of external DAC: I think you can still take advantage of your DAC through your digital out, on a DVD-A in PCM, up to 24/96, and maybe higher. Digital out is not available for some commercial software, and if your material is encoded in MLP.
Whatever you do in redbook, you can also do in DVD-A, if that's what you want. Of course, the installed base of compatible players is not as large.
Best
Eric
PS; (personallly, I liked the old Triumph... Vrrrrrrmmmmm : )
I have verified with Denon that their DVD-A players *will* output up to 24/96 PCM via the coax out, if the DVD-A allows it (which all consumer-burned ones do). So that makes DVD-A a great choice for me, unless I can find a DVD-V authoring package that's affordable and does 24/96!Also, a cheap solution for 24 bit listening right now, and one I'm using when I can't get my friend to author a DVD (LOL he does have a job, unfortunately, other than doing my bidding LOL) is to run directly from my laptop (.wav files stored on hard drive, CDROM, or DVD+R data disc) > USB > EMI 2|6. The EMI 2|6 is a nice little piece of hardware, it has coax out that I then send to my DAC to do it's DACly duties on my 24/96 signal. It has surprisingly good fidelity for a cheap (~$250) piece of gear; it resolves a finer level of detail than my Sony NS400 DVD player will with a DVD-V of the same material. Of course, my Sony DVD isn't the greatest, and I'm looking to replace it (hence the DVD-A questions).
I think I am now understanding: *some* commercial DVD-A discs allow digital out, then? And if they do, I *could* send the PCM to my DAC. That would rock :)As for DVD-V software, I've been checking into it for awhile. I have a friend who films and produces movies, and he's helped me a great deal by authoring some discs for me (or having the discs authored for me?? Dunno). I don't own the software to do it myself as of yet; I am waiting to make a decision on DVD-A or not, as if I go DVD-A I want a DVD-A package for the redbook-type flexibility it gives me. Discwelder Steel and Chrome appear to be good choices here.
But for DVD-V, my friend is very knowledgeable (and his company owns) some Sonic packages. I know Sonic offers some DVD-V authoring programs that you can author DVD-V's with 24 bit audio tracks. What you do is drop a bitmap in the video track as a "slide show", and extend it out in the timeline to the length of your audio track. Then drop your audio track in and burn away. What results is a DVD-V that plays one bitmap and a 24 bit audio file. Obviously you could mess with menus and such, but I just like to drop it in and play without having to turn on the TV, etc., and since I do concert recording one big long track is fine with me (just like my LPs!!). If I recall correctly, he told me Sonic ReelDVD will do 24/48, DVDiT Pro *might* do 24/48, and there's a "big Sonic package" that does 24/96... He said it's expensive, tho, and really for high end movie authoring; and that if I wanted to go that route I should just buy Discwelder Steel as it's much cheaper (and of course I'd have to buy a DVD-A player).
I am also looking into a software called "Gear." I got a message from someone at Gear the other day, and he said their package burns DVD-A discs. Whether it authors them, as well, I don't know yet. I need to look into it. As I recall, Gear is only about $130!! Wouldn't that be sweet? :D
Edit: I'd like to add that the newest version of Nero Burning Rom has DVD-A burning greyed out; I wonder if this will be another cheap option soon? Of course, the authoring part probably will be another software package, but if it comes from Nero it should be affordable (and stable), too!!
I don't know if you have searched in the archives, but there's quite a lot of information about DVD-V / DAD and DVD-A authoring, including recent threads about Minnetonka discWelder Steel. Several people use DVD-A authoring software for archiving or publishing their music: Akimball / anevski, niconico, and also some professional users. Several good threads have been developed on soundcards, as well.As for authoring packages, the best option for authoring audio content is always using SlideShows. However, DVD-V authoring packages tend to resample to 48kHz (the basic sample rate for DVD-V). If you go through those packages, it's probably wiser to change the sample rates of your audio files through a dedicated audio software before authoring your DVD (Sound Forge, Cool Edit, etc or Samplitude? - Akimball uses that one).
If you want to keep up the highest resolution for your concerts you should definitely try DVD-Audio. My experience has been very poor with many DVD-V authoring packages, so I gave up and went for discWelder Steel, which I use a lot now and couldn't recommend more. Akimball has indicated a website where you can get Steel for $379...
The Chrome package allows both DVD-V and DVD-A content (hybrid disc) to be authored on the same disc, so maybe it's an option you will want to consider (tip: it's cheaper as an upgrade :)I don't think you want Gear for DVD-Audio: Gear is only a burning software (it's actually the OEM plug-in software of discWelder Steel, included in the price). You would still need to author the files for DVD-Audio.
As for Nero, I have enquired many times with them about this "shaded" option, but with no response from them. I keep checking out their upgrades once in a while, but now I'm doing just fine with DW Steel (although it has some limitations, to be sure - make sure you read all posts about it).
If you consider DVD-A autoring for the future, one of the things you need to check out before you buy a DVD-A player is the compatibility with consumer (home-made) DVD-A discs. There have been many posts about that also (by me). Denon is one of the brands I don't know for sure if they are compatible.
If you need a test disc, let me know.Have fun,
Thanks for saving me the step of evaluating GEAR. Looks like Discwelder is the way to go.. I have done alot of reading on it in the archives here, and I can live with the limitations I've dug up (most principally, no gapless burning).I would much appreciate a consumer-burned DVD-A disc to use for testing DVD-A players. I plan to bring home a Denon DVD-2900 in a few weeks for a home trial (it's been shipped now), and that would be most helpful. Denon claims compatibility with DVD-R's, is this not what I am looking for? That is to say, even if I have a consumer-burned DVD-V disc that works in the player, a consumer-burned DVD-A disc might not?
Shoot me and email and we'll hash out the DVD-A.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: