|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Why DSD is the best choice as a digital format : Read the PDF posted by snaggs on April 29, 2003 at 06:44:16:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: