DVD-Video & DVD-Audio Digital Interface announced (2 Viewers)

[Craig F]

It isn't particularly well suited to "real time" type data operations, but is great for computer data which isn't time or order sensitive.

John, I also would like more info here. I know you are very knowledgeable, but one of the many touted features of of firewire is isochronous (real time) data transter. I could understand if there were many devices on the bus all trying to get their data through, but with just two devices linked together, there would be no contending for the bus.

 

[BruceD]

Apple is already using firewire (since it originated the development) in it's computers to transport "Live" time sensitive real-time video & audio.

What specifics are lacking in this standard for real-time-based control?

BruceD

 

[Ashford Little]

John, I remember a discussion that you contributed to a few weeks back regarding Firewire's limitations or drawbacks with regard to DVD-A, but I don't remember the details.

Would you rehash and educate us on that again.

Thanks

 

[Joe_H]

I understand that people may have just bought new equipment (I just bought a DVD-Audio player 3 days ago as well), but I don't see any reason to be mad at this announcement. DVD-Video players have digital connections, and they stil are equipped with analog connectors as well, so I see no reason why the receivers or DVD-Audio players will be obsolete because of this. There may be something better on the market, but hey, if it sounds good, does it honestly matter that its not digital?

 

[Andriy Zolotoiy]

Outlaw 950 is going to be delayed again

 

[Will]

I wonder when pre/pro's will have firmware/software written

and debugged that support DVD-Audio firewire decoding and

decrypting and integration with time alignment and bass

managment. My guess is we won't see consumer pre/pro's using

a DVD-Audio firewire anytime before the second half of 2002.

 

[RicP]

So, with this announcement, I think that DVD-A will leapfrog SACD in about 6-9 months

Based on what? The fact that everyone now has to run out and buy a new reciever or pre-pro?
Id virtually guarantee you that there will be maybe 2 machines on the market that can take advantage of this interface in 6-9 months and maybe one receiver or pre-pro.
You're absolutely fooling yourself if you think this announcement will have any bearing whatsoever on the market in 6 months.

 

[John Kotches]

Ric,

We'll see, is my reply and only time will tell.

Unless Sony starts releasing more of their technology, the ease of bass managment and time alignment for PCM will win out over DSD. This is regardless of arguments for sonic superiority of format S or format D.

Sonic superiority will not be the trump card in the end of this battle. Ease of use will.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

To all who asked,
Here's why I don't like firewire, but (as they say) it's better than nothing at all:

• Firewire data (in every case) is packetized. Audio/Video operations are better suited for bitstream operations.
• Provisions in the standard, especially out of order packets will be problematic even with a single transmitter/receiver on the bus. This will grow worse the more devices we put on the bus. So, the ultimate solution might be multiple firewire buses on the centralized controller.
• Aggregate bandwidth of the Firewire bus is only 400mb/second. Either DVI or SDI (I don't have my reference materials handy) are measured in the gigabits/second range, and as such are more suited to be a long term connection standard. Decoded MLP data (not counting any protocol overhead) is going to chew up between 13 and 18Mb/second of the available bandwidth. Video would have to remaing MPEG encoded, to keep from running out of space very quickly.
• Real time A/V operations require substantial CPU horsepower, let's not kid ourselves here. To do the same requires more $$$.

There are advantages to Firewire (or DVI or SDI) as well:

• Standardized high bandwidth interface can carry Audio/Video and Control information
• One decoder of each type is all that's necessary (examples: MPEG, DD, DTS, MLP, Video DAC, Audio DAC). No need to duplicate across Receivers, DVD Players, TV sets et al.
• We get a lot closer to end-to-end digital signals, which is the next big thing IMO.

So, I really am enthusiastic about a digital standard -- I think Firewire was the expedient choice, not the best.
Regards,

 

[Craig F]

Thanks for the info JK. As for the 400 Mbps limitation, it is now upped to 1600 Mbps as 1394b is now available. But it looks like the DVD Forum's document is not very forward looking and is based off the 1394-1995 spec.

 

[Greg Cellini]

Hi Ric,

Based on what? The fact that everyone now has to run out and buy a new reciever or pre-pro?

Ok, you know as well as anyone that no one will HAVE to run out and buy a new receiver or pre/pro. It will be a painfully tempting option the way upgrades always have been and always will be. If past history on CD and DVD players is any indication, these new players will have analog outputs; I've yet to see any digital-media-based product without them. Common sense dictates that Receiver manufacturers would not want to compromise compatibility with the installed base of current DVD-Audio players, so it's logical to assume that there will be analog inputs on the new firewire equipped models. My guess is that noone will be left out in the cold.
As for SACD, I truly feel that it is a completely extraneous format-its just not needed. As per my initial post in this thread (Page 1), the recording industry and all of the equipment manufacturers that supply it are supporting PCM technology. Pick up a copy of MIX magazine or Electronic Musician or Keyboard or anything else dealing with the professional community to acquire a perspective from the opposite end of the industry. You'll find that nearly EVERYTHING is PCM based. Does Sony actually think that SACD is so superior to PCM that an ENTIRE INDUSTRY will completely retool itself with DSD hardware? As previously stated, Sony's LATEST professional 48-track digital recorder, digital mixer and state-of-the-art digital reverb processor are not DSD, but PCM based. So, one could assume that they don't expect the industry to retool itself. They'll apparently be happy to supply the recording industry with PCM based hardware and then have the resulting PCM based product converted to DSD for no other logical reason than to collect royalties for another 20 years. Since no one, at this time, can empirically state that one format is audibly superior to the other (you even stated that the difference was subtle), I see no need for SACD. IF (big if) SACD was a competing PCM based format, I'd feel completely different.
Best wishes and a Happy New Year, Ric.
Greg

 

[PatrickM]

John,

Thanks for the info on the pros and cons of Firewire. But, like you said, a digital interface for high resolution audio and video is a welcome thing even if the implementation isn't the absolute best.

Happy New Year to all,

Patrick

 

[Rob Curtis]

I think Phillips is sitting on "blue laser" until these interface questions get cleaned up.
I think you are right about chasing technology. Awfully hard to buy anything with the latest and greatest just around the corner
Might just as well buy it knowing it will need to be upgraded in 3 years anyway.

 

[RicP]

Quote:

And the very same to you and yours Greg. Ill catch you on the flip side.

 

[John Kotches]

Ric,

With Firewire implementation, DVD-A gains the ability to do digital domain Bass Management and Time Alignment.

The tools still don't exist to do this for SACD/DSD, except for Sony's DSD-DSP which only performs bass management. To date, Sony has not licensed this to another manufacturer. It also has no flexibility, supporting just a single crossover frequency.

Should products be demonstrated at CES for DSD that allow the same digital domain options that PCM already has demonstrated for a number of years then I'll be wrong very quickly.

Otherwise, we'll see where we are in 6-9 months. Hey wait, isn't CEDIA 2002 in 6-9 months? There must have been a reason I chose that time frame.

Regards,

 

[PatrickM]

I think that you are confusing DSD with SACD. DSD is the codec used to carry the digital audio and SACD is the format that is based on DSD. SACD could conceivably use PCM as the codec rather than DSD, but of course it doesn't

Ric, since Sony decided that DSD is the codec for SACD they can't be separated so DSD is what SACD is at this moment and where the majority of differences lie.

Could you elaborate more about what SACD is that makes it more than DSD and what it is that SACD brings to the table that is over and above the sound quality?

I don't see what the the big advantage is other than the fact that you can have dual layer discs so that you can get CD sound from the second layer. Or, maybe I'm just not getting it.

If you could elaborate I would appreciate it.

Patrick

 

[Craig F]

In fact it trumps DVD-Audio in virtually every aspect without even discussing sound quality.

Enlighten us and name a few. Such a statement has no meaning when you don't back it up with any examples of what you are talking about.

 

[BruceD]

I've been reading that Sony chose DSD-SACD, because they could control it's distribution (read copy protection from digital copying) unlike DVD-A.

Don't you think this has more to do with why Sony chose to go this way (read-> Money) than any increased sound benefits?

I do.

BruceD

 

[RicP]

Quote:

Please. Have you ever even listened to an SACD?

 

[PatrickM]

Ric,

Thanks for the info. I presently own only a DVD-A player because of the fact that it was part of a RP91 and have really enjoyed the high resolution audio. I have been looking long and hard at a SACD player and would like to get one this year.

I agree that some audiophiles will jump on the SACD bandwagon rather than the DVD-A but just for the mere fact that SACD has been setup as an audio only, high end system whereas DVD-A does involve video.

I guess the relative merits of the SACD format that are better for you than DVD-A are of course a personal preference since hybrid discs don't appeal to me at all. In reality its just like buying a DVD-A for the DTS or DD tracks. I would never think of buying a DVD-A unless I had the ability to decode the high resolution portion of the disc or else I wouldn't put out that type of money for something no better than a CD.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this whole format "war" will end up but it doesn't matter to me who wins as long as we get a digital interface for one of these high resolution formats.

Thanks,

Patrick