Beck "Sea Change" DVD-A anyone compare it? (1 Viewer)

[David Scott]

I saw the Beck Sea Change dvd-a at Best Buy today and was wondering if anyone had done any direct comparisons to the sacd version. The Beck sacd and The Flaming Lips dvd-a are my two favorite hi-rez discs to date, but I don't think I'll double dip to get the dvd-a version of Beck. The packaging indicated the Beck dvd-a contains I believe 5 music videos along with 88.2 5.1 mix, dolby digital etc. Anyone heard it yet?

 

[LanceJ]

Nobody here bought the Beck dvd-audio?

Maybe they should have remixed happier albums like Odelay or Midnight Vultures into surround instead. :frowning: I own Odelay and Mellow Gold & while I think Sea Change is good music, it is kind of gloomy.

LJ

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I'm definitely buying it, even though I own the SACD. I haven't picked it up yet, though.

I think Sea Change sounds great in surround but I also think all of his older stuff would.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I am hoping for Odelay and Midnite Vultures.

 

[LanceJ]

Just came back from Pest Buy; the Beck disc was there for $14.99, with two in stock. I didn't see anybody fighting over them so maybe the first eighteen discs were already bought on Tuesday.

And there are still a lot more CDs in stock there than hi-res discs--anybody else notice this?



LJ

 

[Jeff Keene]

Another guy that has the SACD who will buy the DVD-A. Mainly because my player is a better DVD-A player than SACD player. I love this album.

Oddly, Odelay is probably my least favorite Beck album. Mutations may be my favorite. The Midnite Vultures CD doesn't sound that good on my system, so I'd welcome a re-master / hi-res release.

 

[robertLP]

Bought the DVD-A; in between songs my player (Pioneer 563) pauses & starts up again, as if it's trying to find a different area of the disc to read. Kinda annoying.

Also, when I hit the "play all' button of the music video menu, it just plays the first video. Again, a little annoying.

Notwithstanding any difference in sonic quality, it still seems to be a better value then the SACD single layer that sells for the same price of $14.99.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

My question is this: was this originally a DSD or PCM master?

Dan

 

[Felix Martinez]

My question is this: was this originally a DSD or PCM master?

Dan

My guess is the re-mix is PCM, but perhaps someone else who knows the inside scoop can chime in.

After grilling folks in the biz and interviewing talent, It's evident to me that the current and foreseeable future industry standard for re-mixing and archiving most popular music is 24/96 PCM for multi-track masters and 24/192 for stereo mixes. If the original recording was digital 16/48, then sometimes that's transferred to 24/48 to avoid upsampling. It is, however, somewhat common to have the stereo masters archived to DSD - Sony Catalog anyone

As was posted here a while ago, even the DSD killer app, Dark Side of the Moon, was apparently re-mixed to 5.1 in PCM.

Other than jazz and classical multi-track recordings (which usually use no more than 8-tracks), I do not see DSD used in re-mixing to 5.1 most popular recordings.

Cheers,

 

[JimBarrese]

Has anyone decided which is better for this release: SACD or DVD-A? I want to get one, but don't know which would be better. The fact that the DVD-A only has a 88.5 sampling rate concerns me.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

Ok, I've actually compared the two and to me, they are very similiar. Now granted, my set up isn't the best in the world.

Denon1802 with JBL 5.1 Surround.

But I'd say my system isn't crud either

My first listen was SACD and I was totally blown away by it. Sat and listened to it 3 times straight. This is one of the most agreesive surround mixes I've heard on SACD. A+

But guess what, the DVD-Audio is right up there with it. I swear I can't tell the difference! I want someone here to disagree, I would like that just so I could listen and compare for differences.

Now, I like the fact that the DVD-A has 6 new video's for this album, but it doesn't sound as good, even though it's in Dolby Dig. But I don't like having to turn on the T.V. to select stuff either.

Jim, the 88.5 sample rate concerned me as well, not sure why it was done like that, but it didn't matter. Still sounded great!

Either way you go, this is an awesome sounding disk. ...I think I'll go listen again.

 

[robertLP]

Yeah, I agree. I hate having to turn on the TV just to watch a video....

 

[LanceJ]

But I don't like having to turn on the T.V. to select stuff either.

What feature of the disc required the use of the on-screen menu?

And what were the videos like? Beck's website made them seem like something special.

LJ

 

[Chris Tedesco]

And what were the videos like? Beck's website made them seem like something special.

Well, I didn't think they were too special. I love this album, but I don't think the songs are very "video freindly".

It's not like "Two turn-tables and a micophone". That was just wacky!

One of the videos is just him chillin on the beach with a guitar, it's cool and all, but I'll just be listening to the music...you know?

 

[LanceJ]

A lot of studios record in the 88.2kHz format to make it easier/more accurate to downconvert it to CD's 44.1kHz format.

The following is a post I wrote on another forum regarding PCM sampling rates and how many people believe that past a certain point the number of samples becomes less important compared to other processes going on in your player.........

************************************************** ***********

I've read many times now where many pros and magazine reviewers I trust have said that the biggest reason that formats with higher sampling rates improve sound quality is not really because of the increased sampling rate, but instead, that the DAC used to reconstruct the 1's & 0's into an analog waveform can use much gentler filters. Here's a summation of what I have read:

The Compact Disc format uses what's called a "brickwall" filter to get rid of the PCM format's inherent noise. This filter is placed at @21kHz, right next door to the audible frequencies. This filter has to act quickly to keep the ultrasonic noise from entering those lower frequencies, which it does. But a ripple effect occurs from the noise slamming to a stop into this aggressive filter wall (figuratively speaking). This "ripple" bounces back into those lower frequencies, causing subtle but audible problems with cymbals, bells & other delicate high frequencies. And grain and other sonic nasties are born!

Very high quality DACs--as in pro-level equipment or high quality consumer components--have very sophisticated filters to minimise or prevent audible problems as decribed above. But they are quite expensive. And adding to this expense is the fact that many of these still use the multibit conversion system, the best type of digital-to-analog converter for PCM. Multibit types use 16 (or whatever the word length needed) precision resistors to provide the neccesary voltage steps needed to create the analog waveform; these resistors have to have very accurate chemical tolerances; additionally, they are physically trimmed by a laser as a final quality assurance. This all adds up to big $$$. All this is why I personally think some professionals report little to no improvement using the 96/24 or 192/24 formats.

But consumer level equipment is a different story. Here's the short version of why higher sampling rates sound better through my and other people's "affordable" hi-res players:

The filters are much different. For example, the filter for 96/24 is set at @45kHz, quite far away from the audible frequencies. Because of this they can be much gentler & in turn cause less signal ripple (i.e. distortion). And as a side benefit, since they are gentler and further away, they don't need to be very sophisticated >>> they're cheap to build. And unless I'm remembering this wrong, us consumers get 1-bit converters for the digital-to-analog PCM conversion but the better filters make up for the lower quality of this type of converter (1-bit DACs work at very high speeds which generates more noise but they are much cheaper to build compared to the multibit types).

Conjecture: the extended frequency response of hi-res digital might also contribute additional natural harmonics to improve the audible sounds, but the experts can't seem to agree on this idea.

And: those extra bits (20 or 24 compared to 16) also contribute to better sound because these extra bits give the converter and other associated circuits "elbow room" if any mistakes are made when handling the signal. This is especially true during additional digital processing during the recording process in the studio (compression, special effects, EQ, etc).

The end result is that consumers get a cleaner and less futzed-with analog signal. And with up to four times as many samples (192kHz rate) we get bonus snapshots of the original sound--I've never heard yet this causes any problems.

************************************************** ***********

So, since the pros can't even agree what makes a certain recording format sound better, I have pretty much stopped worrying about this myself. Nowadays, I just put the disc in the player & if it sounds good......great. If it sucks, I hope the quality of the music makes up for it!

LJ

 

[JimBarrese]

Sounds like the DVD-A might be the one to get if the sound is the same and it had extra videos. Although I have a Pioneer 563 and robertLP's post about it not playing right on his player concerns me a little. Anyone else have a Pioneer 563 and try this DVD-A?

 

[Chris Tedesco]

Hey Jim, Yup. I too have the Pioneer 563a. It is the one that I compared the two on. I didn't notice any problems on either on of the discs.

The only thing I can think of is when you first put in the disc, it takes a few seconds to get going, but that's all.

If you are into the frills, then DVD A might be the way to go...heck 6 videos is kinda cool huh?

 

[Justin Lane]

The fact that the DVD-A only has a 88.5 sampling rate concerns me.

Why would this concern you? Universal uses the original Digital masters when putting out their DVD-A. The SACD used this same 88.2 kHz master coverted to DSD. Audiophiles the world over perfer the least number of conversions possible. This is what the DVD-A gives you, the original digital master.

As for the original topic, I haven't picked up the DVD-A yet as I already purchased the SACD when it was first released. I really enjoyed the sound quality and multichannel mix, and would recommend this disc to any Beck fan. As happy as I am with the SACD, I can only imagine how good the DVD-A sounds with sound quality equivalent to the original master. I may pick this up down the road just to get the 6 videos on the disc.

J

 

[Will_B]

On the DVDA version, does the disc turn off when the music ends, or does it return to a menu with nauseatingly-repeating menu music? That would seal the deal for me: SACD for this one!

 

[JimBarrese]

I was only concerned about the sampling rate because it seemed kind of low compared to what it could have been. But if that's the sampling rate of the original source, then that's cool (I didn't know that).