|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Note that I did say it was good for recording. posted by snaggs on April 25, 2003 at 22:32:37:
"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.
Follow Ups:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: