Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music' started by Bobby T, Aug 27, 2005.
what does enhanced stereo mean on a dualy disc?
it sounds better then the cd (to a point where is you have a decent system, you would notice the difference. It doesn't sound as compressed, and each instrument comes out better.
I don't believe so. Usually enhanced stereo simply means 16 bit/48 kHz instead of 16/44.1. The sonic differences between the two are negligle.
i guess it would also depend on how the original cd sounds.
So instead of the hi-res 'DVD-A' layer they just do 16/48 & call it enhanced stereo? What's the point?
Thanks, that answers my question. I have the AC/DC Back in Black remastered CD. Yesterday I saw the Dualy version and was wondering if it would sound better. I'm guessing no.
"Usually enhanced stereo simply means 16 bit/48 kHz instead of 16/44.1
This is certainly true of most Sony discs (*never let the truth get in the way of good sales pitch " is the Sony mantra ) Any one remeber 'perfect sound forever ?
A lot of more decent manufacturers who actually really back Dvd-A and Dualdisc do try to put a real hirez track on there at or above 24/96 . I completely agree with the stance taken over at quadraphonicquad.com here
Surrounds better anyway ?
Incidentally, it's absolutely true that the CD was designed to play back Beethoven's 9th Symphony without interruption. I found it in the Journal of the AES, that Sony's representative to the Digital Audio Disc Working Group, a Mr. Doi, stated that his company could not agree to the changeover to a 48-kHz sampling frequency because it would reduce the play time below 70 minutes, which his organisation considered the absolute minimum to reproduce that particular piece of music. Of course, the idiotic thing is that a year or so later, when the Sony and Phillips engineers revisited the spec', they were able to squeeze 80 minutes out of what had been a 74-minute disc, and that would have allowed 73.5 minutes at 48 kHz.
This is my pet peeve with Sony DDs, and the reason why my sole DD purchase was returned about 3 hours later...
Well at least CD+ is better than CD-
If they dropped it to 40K talk about nasty death threads
Of course, the idiotic thing is that a year or so later, when the Sony and Phillips engineers revisited the spec', they were able to squeeze 80 minutes out of what had been a 74-minute disc, and that would have allowed 73.5 minutes at 48 kHzOf course, the idiotic thing is that a year or so later, when the Sony and Phillips engineers revisited the spec', they were able to squeeze 80 minutes out of what had been a 74-minute disc, and that would have allowed 73.5 minutes at 48 kHz
The good people at AVSForum claim that the DVD soundtrack is pre-filtered.
In reality though, the way that most pop and rock recordings are mastered these days using way too much limiting and compression, that -6 dB doesn't mean so much.
Another way to put it is that the euphemism "enhanced stereo" is a sure fire indication that you're not getting high rez. If it the disc did indeed have high rez, it would say so/"Advanced Resolution."
Thx for the QuadraphonicQuad link, Manus. Unfortunately I note therein that Capitol is releasing on Dual titles that they have already released on DVD-A (Document, Nick Of Time, Crowded House). At least they're supposedly including high rez.
As is Warner, if the Clapton Back Home Dual listing is accurate/any indication.
That list's use of red for low rez titles and green for high rez makes Sony's lack of high rez support on Dual painfully/amusingly obvious.
My impression is that Sony's angle with S-L SACD and now Dual-y Disc is just to attempt to move folks away from buying CD's. That seems to be their objective, given their actions. From Sony's point-of-view, one could extrapolate that they believe what they need now is formats with reduced user rights and recording options. The ultimate goal...? Move us to buying Blu-Ray music discs with no recording at all...? Well, it's a theory that fits the SORRY facts.
I have to commend the original poster, Bobby, for his spelling choice of dUALy dISc!
But that failed, at least for the version I prefer (Böhm on DG) since it clocks in at 78 mins . It is a great 2CD set with the 9th and 6th, but the 9th final movement is on the second disc. Of course, nowadays I could just rip the thing and burn it on one 80 minute disc...
And the so-called "CD" side of a dual-disc sounds worse and has a shorter playing time than a real CD:
Somebody run tell Sony!
Incidentally, there seems to be no publicly-available spec' for the run time of a SACD. Does anybody have an idea what the figures are? Are they different for the stereo-only vs the stereo+multichannel discs? I'm no fan of DSD, I think it's a dreadful way to make recordings -- especially now that fast, precise multibit ADCs and DACs are easier and cheaper to make than ever -- but I'd like to know.
And yes, we can probably all agree that DualDisc, at least the pseudo-CD side, is a poor kind of record -- although I think the 44.1/16 side is actually about 0.8 mm thick, resulting in a disc which is substantially thicker than a standard DVD, if only to add insult to injury.
SACD Running times
stereo: 109 minutes
stereo+surround: 70-80 minutes
The disc itself can contain 4.7 gigs, (same as a single-layer dvd).