Universal DVD-Audio press release. (long) (1 Viewer)

[Felix Martinez]

For the guitarists in the audience, the Laurence Juber disc is loaded with cool stuff including a printable TAB file, master class with 4 camera angles, interview, bonus tracks (wait till you hear his arrangement of Strawberry Fields Forever in DADGAD tuning!)

Mark is probably back to work, but I just wrapped a nice interview with him which will come out in the Oct. issue of DVD ETC., along with a review of the Laurence Juber: Guitar Noir disc.

I met with Mark in L.A. at the AIX studios and was extremely impressed with his set-up, philosophy (no EQ or dynamic processing!!), commitment to quality, and yes - acceptance of critical input.

One of the many things I was left with was our wonderful conversation about the love for good music and good recording technique to capture the essence of a good performance, regardless of format.

And BTW - that Juber disc is absolutely amazing in every respect.

Cheers,

 

[Phil A]

Felix, thanks for the positive comments and contributions. Hopefully more will follow this example. Having arguments or picking apart every word is not going to resolve anything. I just ordered the Juber disc and am looking forward to hearing it.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I cited several players that emphatically do not display the track title.

Ken stated that no player could show the song title. Sure some players don't show the title but of the several dozen out there, most do.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Lewis, Brand New Day is listed on Universals site as coming out in the first batch of DVD-A releases in September. Can't wait to get this one.

I was inquiring about Sting SACD.

 

[Justin Lane]

Lee said:

Where have you been Justin? All of the audiophile labels from Harmonia Mundi to Telarc to Universal have announced big releases coming...Universal to release 80 alone in the Fall. DVDA is the one struggling for releases from the independents. Outside of the majors and a few like AIX, releases are very slow in coming on that front.

So am I still missing the announcement from the 180 some odd labels who are putting out titles of somesort each month. If each of these 180 labels cannot put out at least one SACD title a month, I dont see how they can stay in business. Methinks label support is a bit overblown.

Anyway lets get back to discussing these great new Universal releases which will be a welcome edition to the library of music fans.

J

 

[John Kotches]

Lee asks

Another bad day John?

I haven't had a bad day in some time... Thanks for the query about my well being though.

You haven't really addressed the upsampling topic... your initial contention is that upsampling to DSD always makes improvements -- Mark correctly challenged this.

While being preferential to you that doesn't mean the sound has been improved. Changed, yes. Improved? That's another matter altogether.


Regards,

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I have heard some good examples where upsampling can make a difference. Perhaps it is one of personal taste, but I don't think that you can claim its not factually true.

No more than you can claim it is factually true. Let's see, you like to color sound by running it through an unneeded step/stage/process (something 'audiophiles' have been telling us to avoid through years), and you feel it is a 'fact' that the sound has been 'improved'. Well, my buddy Dave likes to color sound by cranking bass and treble way up, but he knows better than to state that it is a 'fact' that the sound is 'improved'.

One more thing...what is your definition of 'grass roots'? I've never heard big corporate subsidies described as 'grass roots' before.

 

[Al B. C]

The constant SACD vs. DVD-A, DSD vs. PCM debate on this forum has become tiring, tedious and quite frankly boring. My enjoyment of logging on here to learn about music and new hi-rez releases has reduced exponentially. I ask this one question to all. Isn't this hobby supposed to be about the enjoyment of music? Whether it be SACD, DVD-A, Vinyl or even redbook for that matter.

Greg

For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree.

I find myself contributing a lot less today then I did in the past.

I really don't see what the big deal is all about. Both formats sound great. Bring on the new titles.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

No more than you can claim it is factually true.

Perhaps but who is to say who is right? Can we even know who is right?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I haven't had a bad day in some time...

Well let me tell you why it seems that way...you challenge me on Ken's post but you do not comprehend that he is refering to Super Audio's lack of song titles. This is just flat wrong as Super Audio does specifically feature this ability. The fact that he does not know this speaks to a fairly great lack of understanding about the format. Whether a few players do not implement the feature is a different minor argument of little or no relevence.

 

[Tim Hoover]

Screw all this arguing, I'm going back to vinyl

 

[Tim Hoover]

On the other hand, maybe I won't be. FedEx just brought my 563...

 

[Mark_Waldrep]

Lee,

I'm heavily in the middle of several productions with deadlines but here's my comments on the world of upsampling.

When something is digitized, be it analog audio or analog film, the resolution of the capture is forever locked according to the density of the information acquired during the recording. It doesn't matter whether the process is high-frequency 1-bit DSD or multibit/high-frequency PCM...there is an amount of information stored that establishes the "fidelity" of the recording. This is my whole point in creating new tracks rather than simply rehashing oldies.

Upsampling is a process which attempts to increase the resolution of a digital recording by infusing additional data into the original set of values by interpolating, basically "guessing", where a new sample or value might have been if the sampling rates had been higher at the time of capture. The process is based heavily on statistics, information theory and mathematical calcuations...but in simple terms it's an algorithmic attempt to smooth out a digital signal by creating more points...BUT the points were not created from the original analog audio source and therefore can never be 100% accurate. I have heard and enjoyed what expensive upsamplers can do to a 44.1 kHz digital audio stream...it creates a new sound, perhaps a more pleasing sound reproduction. What it cannot do is create fidelity out of thin air. IMHO there is more "audio voodoo" and "green magic marker" to the world of upsampling than it deserves. Especially, when we have high-resolution recording systems at our disposal.

You may prefer the sound of an upsampled PCM file, but it is another thing altogether to state that it improves the sound or has greater fidelity. Converting a PCM digital file to DSD is a degradation of the original fidelity not an improvement, even if it results in a playback stream that is more likeable to you. I have been asked to convert my PCM tracks to DSD...I have no plans to do it. Well recorded high-resolution PCM tracks are as warm, clear and dynamic as the real thing...in fact, people that hear our stuff routinely say that they are better than the real thing...I agree.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If anybody wants to upsample, they should go out and get an upsampling DAC or player (which can use various algorithms so that the sound can be colored in a manner that pleases you). If we buy a recording that has been upsampled for us, the studio is taking away our choice to hear the original master format if that is what we desire.

Now if we could only get the studios to let us know if a digital master was a source for a high-res release, and what the rate/depth of that master was. Fortunately with the Steely Dan disc we know that a 24/96 master was the source for the surround version. Those of us who want the original format can buy DVD-A and get the 'real thing'.

And if a release was sourced from a DSD master, I would certainly buy the SACD version if possible.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Screw all this arguing, I'm going back to vinyl

Yeah, 'cause there's no arguing over that.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Well recorded high-resolution PCM tracks are as warm, clear and dynamic as the real thing...in fact, people that hear our stuff routinely say that they are better than the real thing...I agree.

Mark, while I tremendously enjoy your work and likely would vote your DVDAs among the best of the best, I do not think a recording can sound better than the real thing. There is just something about the tonality and transients of a real instrument that are exceedingly complex to capture. And even with your very good microphones, there are still circuits that degrade the sound to some small degree or more.

Of course, I would be happy to be proven wrong. Perhaps I can visit your playback room and listen in at some point. In the mean time, please keep the 192K recordings coming.

 

[StaceyS]

Actually, Chesky and Telarc would tell you the best test they have already conducted: comparing DSD and PCM conversions of live mic feeds. Most prefer DSD, all else being equal.

Please don't include David Chesky in the pro DSD. David has told me, as late as last week, that he prefers DVD-A and likes PCM, but has to release SACD because that is what sales best for him.

David has no plans to EVER change his recording and mixing gear out for native DSD. In fact, he told me has not even spoken to you since he started workin with either SACD or DVD-A. You were an intern for him a very long time ago.

 

[Justin Lane]

Thanks for the update Stacey on Chesky's dealings. PCM still is the industry standard and will be for a very long time to come. Sometimes we tend to forget that sales are sometimes more of a driving force behind releases then actual sound quality.

J

 

[KeithH]

Lee, the truth is that we rarely, if ever, get to compare sampling rates. 96 kHz should be better than 88.2 kHz, but whether one can hear the difference is certainly of interest to me. That said, I am disappointed by the specs. of most of the upcoming Universal DVD-Audio discs. I'm not sure they are doing the best they can with the format. As you probably know, I have said that the key lies in the mastering, not the sampling rate (see my Donald Fagen The Nightfly DVD-Audio thread), but not all recordings and masterings are done as well as what we have come to expect from Fagen/Steely Dan.

All we can go by is what is on paper (or our computer screens ), which means specs. In this respect, my enthusiasm for Universal's DVD-Audio releases is tempered.

 

[Kier]

A fundamental problem I have with SACD / DSD is the fact that Sony are pushing it as the format of choice for studio masters, when it is common knowledge that DSD fundamentally alters recorded sound. Surely a master copy should be as true to the original sound as is possible (I needn't point out the origins of the word 'HiFi'...)?

Shouldn't the end user be given the choice of how to shape the sound they listen to using their own equipment, rather than having an 'improved' version shoved down their throats by the recording technology itself?

As a software engineer, one of my most oft quoted phrases is "You can't polish a turd". This refers to the fact that once you have sampled some data (whether it be a sound, an image, a person's user profile etc.,) any additional data that comes after that sampling must by definition be 'made up'. You can invent the most ingenious algorithms for adding detail to pad out the data you have sampled, but the constructed data will never be better than an educated guess.

Let's take a very simple example, using a simple image as our metaphor. The picture contains three large blocks of colour in a row. The image looks like this:

[RED][ORANGE][BLUE]

We have two methods of storing this picture. One uses a PCM-style storage method, the other uses a DSD-style upsampling method. The PCM method has a higher innate sampling, and can store the image verbatim, while the DSD method has a lower innate sampling and can only store every other block, choosing to recreate the missing blocks by upsampling (interpolation).

Therefore, the PCM method samples and stores
[RED][ORANGE][BLUE]

On the other hand, the DSD method samples
[RED][---][BLUE]

Using simple interpolation, the DSD method decides that the missing colour block should be the colour that creates a smooth graduation between the two blocks that is has stored, and therefore the image it stores appears as
[RED][PURPLE][BLUE]

This creates a softer gradient of colour in the image, but is it true to the original? Absolutely not.

Now obviously that is a huge simplification of the difference between the two paradigms of data storage, and it does not acknowledge the fact that PCM is limited by its own inability to store all the data (although of course DSD has the same limitation,) but it does clearly illustrate the fact that DSD does not store a 'high fidelity' copy of the data being sampled. Sure, the upsampling/interpolating system produces smoother wave forms (or colour gradients using my example), which may or may not be more pleasing to the ear in certain cases than the PCM recording, but the fact remains that the PCM method is more true to the original recording, without including any 'best guess' data.

An excellent article detailing the problems with DSD can be found at Independent Audio/Video Review. The authors of the article organised as scientific as possible a comparison between the recording capabilities of DSD and Multi-Bit PCM, by doing a true blind A/B/R test using a live microphone feed passed via DSD encoding. To quote the article:

What Turtle Records did, according to our understanding, was to simply take a single feed (two channel) from a set of mikes and recording console, and then insert that same single feed simultaneously into the electronic professional master digital encoders of the two competing recording systems, thereupon preserving those digital encodings on a master recorder hard disk (as is common for master studio recording). What I then heard in the presentation was the very same digital signal from this very same master recording hard disk, played back through the professional master digital decoders of the two competing systems. Thus, I was hearing the master generation recording, which had been through only one encoding and decoding, using only the professional mastering electronics certified for these two competing systems.

Avalon Acoustics contributed their largest, most expensive speaker system to this demo, the Sentinel Reference. This speaker was awesomely revealing, very natural, and wide ranging, so it was an excellent choice for revealing differences, and without bias.

The results are quite startling, and the authors do a very good job of explaining the benefits and pitfalls of each recording system (warning: maths and science!). The article is very long and detailed, but is well worth reading. I would advise anyone interested in the differences between SACD and DVD-Audio to give it a go.

The article is located at http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html