Interesting Conversation About DVD Audio Pros and Cons (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

Friends,

As you know, I am a big fan of Super Audio but I also work professionally with high resolution PCM formats such as 88.2 khz.

Well I had an interesting phone discussion today and some of the points we discussed may be of further interest and understanding to those of you looking at technical differences in the two formats. There is good news on both sides of the aisle and I wish to use the conversation to promote technical discussion and not yet another format flame war...so I will just keep to some interesting things he said.

I spoke with a friend who works with a major DVD Audio creator. We discussed many things and he raised some interesting points.

1. He believes that transient response is better in DSD than in DVD Audio 24/96. In fact, he says it is clearly better in DSD. He thinks DVD Audio at 24/192 is a very different story and gives the edge to DVDA there in terms of transient response. Transients are the hyper fast attack-sustain-decay of notes that really add to a realistic presentation.

2. DVD Audio can only do 24/96 surround as the current capacity of the format does not have enough room for six channels of 24/192. He understands that HD-DVD is well underway at the DVD Audio group. HD-DVD will allow I believe around 23 GB on disc thereby allowing 24/192 for all six channels.

3. He feels it is really hard to hear watermarking on DVD Audio discs but not some of the encryption schemes on redbook where differences can be "apparent".

4. He believes that the major DVDA powers will not release any stereo only 24/96 titles for the time being as the DVDA group seems centered on surround sound as a primary driver.

5. He feels that redbook CDs days are numbered principally driven by the "ripping" phenomena going on out there. Wired magazine has done an interesting story this month on this.

6. He feels that DVD Audio will continue to improve as time goes on (and says same for DSD) and that the really critical factor for sonics is the original recording and the mastering thereof, more so than the high resolution aspect. In other words, a bad recording still stinks even with fast sampling rates.

7. He believes the next big DVDA title is a collection of 14 tracks from Emmy Lou Harris titled Producer's Cut, due on Feb. 25th. Recorded at 24/96. (This should be a great title)

I just wanted to share this with the Forum and get your comments. I did not edit anything major from our conversation.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

A ton of what he says is common knowledge or common sense.

He's out of his tree on the 'redbook going away thing'. A desire of labels to eliminate insecure formats conflicts too much with market realities. The day the labels stop selling CDs is the day the rest of their sales evaporate. And the 'analog hole' will remain forever, so piracy won't go away.

 

[Justin Lane]

2. DVD Audio can only do 24/96 surround as the current capacity of the format does not have enough room for six channels of 24/192. He understands that HD-DVD is well underway at the DVD Audio group. HD-DVD will allow I believe around 23 GB on disc thereby allowing 24/192 for all six channels.

This is very good news. If a new and improved DVD-A is a part of HD-DVD specs from the get go, I think this could mean increased title releases and sales from the start. This could also mean we could get stereo DVD-A at 384 kHz sampling rates down the road which would be unbelievable. I wonder if Warner is being slightly lukewarm on their DVD-A releases because they know HD-DVD is closer then we think. Maybe they are thinking why do a ton of titles right now when something better that would require remastering will soon be available. Of course I don't beleive in this thinking and want as many titles as possible available right now.

Sony would not really have an alternative to DVD-A at these sampling rates. I wonder if they have a Super Super Audio CD planned as well.


J

 

[Justin Lane]

The 14 tracks on this release come from seven of Emmylou’s first eight Reprise albums, with an unreleased duet with Johnny Cash from the Roses In The Snow sessions included as a bonus. The tracks for this unique compilation were specifically chosen by Emmylou and original producer Brian Ahern, based on their suitability for Surround Sound mixing. This exclusive DVD-Audio album is not available on CD.

So this will be a DVD-A exclusive. I guess even Lee will have to pick it up on DVD-A

J

 

[Brian L]

6. He feels that DVD Audio will continue to improve as time goes on (and says same for DSD) and that the really critical factor for sonics is the original recording and the mastering thereof, more so than the high resolution aspect. In other words, a bad recording still stinks even with fast sampling rates.

Bingo.

I am sure we all have redbook CDs that sound damn good, and some that sound like sh*t. I would wager that the CDs that sound like crap probably would sound like crap no matter what format they use.

This cuts to a question I have always thought about.

How much of the sonic improvement we get from an SACD or DVD-A is really the result of the format, versus just finding a better master tape, and perhaps some well considered choices made during the mastering process?

Methinks the balance would be grossly in favor of the better source elements and process.

I guess the recent Stones Cds would be a good place to look. I have NOT been able to do a proper A/B between the SACD layer and the redbook layer because the levels are different and its impossible to get a match in real time.

That said, if the redbook layer and the SACD layer came from the same source, that would seem to be a good place to guage what the new format brings to the table.

That said, the SACD layer of the discs I have (Beggars, Let it Bleed, Ya Ya's) sounds incredible compared to the original ATCO releases.

BGL

 

[Michael St. Clair]

How much of the sonic improvement we get from an SACD or DVD-A is really the result of the format, versus just finding a better master tape, and perhaps some well considered choices made during the mastering process?

Methinks the balance would be grossly in favor of the better source elements and process.

Same here.

You won't see too many people running out and selling their Hoffman-mastered 'Pet Sounds' because a DVD-A is coming, for example. Too many 'audiophile' collectors have learned all too well that format means little when it comes to sound quality.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

That said, if the redbook layer and the SACD layer came from the same source, that would seem to be a good place to guage what the new format brings to the table.

Not necessarily. Just because they use the same source does not mean the mastering is identical, and THAT is where a fundamental difference will reside. That also assumes that the comparison is being done through an identical set of converters, and at matched levels.

While I won't argue that higher resolution doesn't equate to a better potential sound, one of the main reasons CDs may not sound as good as they should from the source tape is due to the low quality of the DA converters used in the commercial players. Using better quality converters will improve the sound a lot, especially in the high end, transients and imaging. It doesn't help these days when mastering engineers are being forced to squash what little dynamic range there is out of every release.

 

[Marc Colella]

I would wager that the CDs that sound like crap probably would sound like crap no matter what format they use.

Exactly. Train and Aerosmith's latest sound like pure crap on SACD. The problem stems from inside the studio, and we see alot of top 40 acts who's sound quality is terrible - and SACD or DVD-A won't offer much improvment on that.
Crap in - crap out.

 

[Yee-Ming]

in effect, "garbage in, garbage out".

hear hear. hence I've always thought the multi-channel aspect, which the DVD-A group are focusing on, is the real selling point of either hi-res format.

yet another stereo remaster, albeit on shiny new hi-res format, isn't going to convert a lot more, both due to cynicism as to whether it's really any better, or for non-audiophiles (such as me) even if it is better I can't really hear the difference, or am not sufficiently moved by such an improvement to go out and spend the dough.

multichannel, on the other hand, is something new. as someone who likes to listen to plain-old stereo CDs through CS5.1, even a plain DTS or DD5.1 mix of something would be an attraction.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

You won't see too many people running out and selling their Hoffman-mastered 'Pet Sounds' because a DVD-A is coming

It will depend if the mastering is at the same level. All else being equal the high resolution of DVDA will make a difference.

I guess the best way to think about it is that resolution is like a plate of glass over the original recording. As trasparency (better resolution, faster sampling rates) is increased one gets to see more of the original source. If the original source is poor then you hear more flaws, although some like this-tape hiss and all, and if the recording is good, you hear more of the strengths and detail.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So how are redbook CDs days numbered?

I think what he is saying is that the increased difficulty of copying high resolution audio is very appealing to the major studios. He is someone that works with many major creators/studios of DVD Audio and some with Super Audio.

We can certainly assume any protection scheme will be thwarted with enough time, but it can also become a matter of economics.

Take PSP, the scheme used in Super Audio. This involves adding equipment during the glass mastering process to vary pit length to make translation difficult. This would be IMHO extremely difficult to implement for all but the most well-capitalized "pirates". Even if broken, one may be able to limit such damage to just a collection of large, possibly prosecutable companies that would be attacked with vigor.

That is certainly better than the widespread ripping that occurs today.

Now Super Audio and DVDA players do have analog outs which can be copied but not at the higher resolution. If the industry moves to market, in part for protection of intellectual property, high-rez forcefully then that can set back at least for some period of time the pirates.

I think my view is undecided but the one I laid out is prevalent among many of my audio industry contacts and from what I hear several music unit presidents. And that is why my friend has the view as well I believe.

I personally am trying to understand better the degree of complexity in ripping off these next generation discs.

What do you think about this scenario where copy protection is strong enough to thwart pirates for a limited but material amount of time?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The pirates aren't thwarted, there is an analog hole. Pirates don't give a crap about keeping the whole chain digital.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Pirates don't give a crap about keeping the whole chain digital.

But my point is that pirates would not be able to offer high-rez sound quality to the consumer.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

But my point is that pirates would not be able to offer high-rez sound quality to the consumer.

Consumers that buy/accept pirated product don't even care if their pirated music is less than CD quality, never mind high-res!

As far as trying to duplicate commercial releases, pirates don't give a crap about formats until they become mainstream. Both SACD and DVD-A likely have years before professional pirates even try to crack their discs.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

As far as trying to duplicate commercial releases, pirates don't give a crap about formats until they become mainstream.

The assumption at the industry level is that they can push for mainstream acceptance as allies against digital copies proliferating.

 

[Justin Lane]

Yes, but a Super Audio proponent may say that since we can't get 192 for all six channels then Super Audio is the best sound available for multi-channel.

You could maybe (a big maybe) say that right now in comparison to 96kHz PCM, but there is no way you could say the same about 192 kHz PCM for all channels on HD-DVD. Hence the reason I wondered if Sony was working on an improved DSD for the future to keep up with what DVD-A will have when HD-DVD is finally on the market. If 384 kHz PCM becomes the standard for stereo tracks on HD-DVD, DSD will be in a big hole at that point.

J

 

[Thomas Newton]

I think what he is saying is that the increased difficulty of copying high resolution audio is very appealing to the major studios.

DRM is very unappealing to customers who pay for the product, and to the public who grants copyright with the expectation that the public domain will thereby receive an increased supply of undamaged goods.

Where the wishes of the publishers conflict with the requirements of the market and with the public policy goals of the Constitution, it is the wishes of the publishers that should give way.