SACD,DVD-A DEAD due to analogue outs? (1 Viewer)

[Shade Watson]

Another issue is that as our processors become more sophisticated (i.e. speaker correction, room correction, digital EQ), it will become even more important to be able to process the signal in the digital domain.

 

[Stan T]

Does anyone use the tone controls when listening to CDs? I sometimes like to turn the bass up on a CD but am unable to do that on DVD-audio. That is what I miss with DVD-audio. I run large front towers with small center & small surrounds & no seperate subwoofer. My front towers have 300W subs in both of them. If I had the ability to add the bass that I am used to in listening to CDs then I would buy more DVD-audio discs.
I have the Metallica DVD-audio disc & the Fleetwood Mac - Rumours DVD-audio disc. The Metallica disc has o.k. bass - not great, but o.k. & the Fleetwood Mac disc doesn't have any that I can hear. Does anyone else that has the Fleetwood Mac DVD-audio disc hear any bass? If I switch to the Dolby Digital 5.1 Soundtrack on the disc the bass comes through strong & clear. Maybe it's because I don't have a seperate sub & they are sending all the bass through the LFE. Hopefully someone can verify one way or the other for the bass issue on that DVD-audio disc.
Maybe the ICBM would be able to help me direct all the bass to the mains. It would be interesting to see if the bass would be what I am used to. When I listen to CDs sometimes I turn the tone control bass up because I like bass when I listen to music.
I have what I consider a higher end setup to listen to music. My receiver has 24-bit A/D Converters & 8 Channel Burr Brown 96k / 24-bit D/A . So CDs sound great on my system. I would like to enjoy the multi-channel DVD-audio discs as well.

 

[David Schamis]

RandyG,
There is absolutely no question that SACD sounds significantly better than CD.
I also have a Sony 555ES SACD - I recently did a Pepsi Challenge between a number of the same SACDs and CDs with both my mother and my wife.
My wife, who has spent many years in music, noticed a clear and obvious difference - she was able to pick out SACD from CD EVERY TIME without a single fail.
My mother, who has absolutely no idea about anything when it comes to stereo equipment, but does enjoy music, also was able to notice a considerable difference, and passed the test EVERY TIME.
The fact that the two of them had a 100% score is significant.
David

 

[David Schamis]

BTW, I do 100% agree with the fact that we need a digital connection, and that it is completely ridiculous that we don't have one, but I'm not about to deny myself years of enjoyment on principle.
I'm sure that this will go like DVDs went - the studios spend years arguing over formats and copy protection, only to have a 16 year old crack the code in 3 months!
David

 

[RobertR]

There is absolutely no question that SACD sounds significantly better than CD

And of course, you have absolute proof that there were absolutely no differences whatsoever in the CD and SACD recordings you compared, and absolute proof that the ONLY difference was the encoding used, and you're absolutely sure that there were absolutely no differences in volume levels for each format you compared (volume differences which are too small to be heard as such are well known to be heard as qualitative differences).
And of course, Sony has absolutely no motive in making sure that they use every possible mixing and recording technique to convince people how much better SACD is....

 

[Brian-W]

RobertR really does love SACD, he's just hiding it

Actually, I had a friend over the other day who works in the same field I do. He's been doing a lot of voice-over recordings and came over to listen to SACD.
He said after a minute listening to a bunch of recordings he could hear the differences pretty clearly. Before spending time in a recording studio, he said he'd have a harder time noticing the difference. But what he says is now apparent isn't so much the 'sound quality' in terms of better, but that he can 'hear' all the engineering going on in the recording.
Just an after thought....
-Brian

 

[KeithH]

Why is there such an X-Files-type of conspiracy theory regarding SACD? Why can't some of you entertain the possibility that CD is not the be-all-to-end-all in digital audio? If your answer is that you have compared the two formats and did not hear a difference, is it possible that certain equipment used was a liability or the recordings used were not representative of the quality of SACD? Is it possible that you were not being objective in your comparisons? Could this be an anti-Sony bias? Must it be so that Sony is playing games with the masters it is offering on CD and SACD? You may not like Sony, but I am pretty certain they understand the ramifications if they played such a game and were found out. Sony has a great track record of innovation in electronics (although their marketing of the technology often has left a lot to be desired). Why is it so hard to believe that they, in conjunction with Philips, have developed a format that outperforms the CD, which the two companies developed about 20 years ago? Sony and Philips obviously know a lot about digital audio. Is it so inconceivable that they came up with a better format than the CD?
By the way, Sony Music is not the only record label producing SACDs. If you do not have faith in the masters Sony is using to produce CDs and SACDs, listen to offerings from the smaller, audiophile labels. Labels such as DMP, Chesky, Telarc, and FIM are all known for offering first-rate recordings. Compare their CDs and SACDs. The SACDs sound better.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime
[Edited last by KeithH on October 23, 2001 at 09:37 PM]

 

[RicP]

And of course, Sony has absolutely no motive in making sure that they use every possible mixing and recording technique to convince people how much better SACD is....

Well that would be hard seeing as how the two different recordings I heard were not from Sony. One was from Telarc and one was from Chesky. But I suppose that they're in bed with Sony too right Robert? Keep those conspiracy theories coming...they're wonderful entertainment.
Take a listen to Rebecca Pidgeon's The Raven, CD and SACD and Telarc's 1812 Overture CD and SACD. Or don't...I really don't care.
------------------

Ric Perrott - My DVD's

 

[Kevin C Brown]

RobertR- I agree. Nothing like a good, double blind, ABX test, with levels matched to 0.1 dB, to see if one [pick your format] is "different" from another.
And someone else noted that only people with "high resolution" systems will be able to hear the differences between SACD (DVD-A) and CD.
Sorry mate, but most people out there *don't* have high resolution systems. (Not me of course!)
And if most people don't "hear" any difference between the two, then BAM, at best you have a niche product, and at worst, the El Cassette, DCC, [pick your own favorite dead and obsolete format].
------------------

 

[PaulKH]

6 analog connections between two components (or *NINE* if you include component video) is absurd. Those who think it's great probably still prefer vinyl over CDs.
100Mbit networking on a single inexpensive cable (not even fiber) is a commodity today and is PLENTY of bandwidth to produce audio and video of higher quality than anything available today.
We have WAY too much cabling as it is in home theaters - especially in a typical home theater setup in a relatively small cabinet or shelving.
DVD-Audio is a dead format, created by paranoid record companies.
Having said that, I'm not one who believes "stereo is perfectly good enough" because it's not. A surround music experience is immersive and unparalleled. But DVD-audio with analog connects is DOA.
[Edited last by Paul Higginbottom on October 23, 2001 at 08:07 PM]

 

[bryan_chow]

I keep reading that people think that DVD-A and SACD should have a digital connection... I can't figure out what the fuck for???

Because some clueless people think "digital = better".
Bryan

 

[bryan_chow]

100Mbit networking on a single inexpensive cable (not even fiber) is a commodity today and is PLENTY of bandwidth to produce audio and video of higher quality than anything available today.

But in that case you'll need to duplicate the DSD->analog circuitry in the preamp or receiver.
Bryan

 

[RobertR]

quote: I'm sorry that you're too cynical [/quote]
I'm sorry YOU'RE too cynical to see that I was poking fun at David's absolutist statement.
His little experiment was "absolute" proof of nothing.
Kevin, thank you.
Brian, you're right--I do like SACD
[Edited last by RobertR on October 23, 2001 at 08:49 PM]

 

[MatthewJ S]

As for the "aveage joe" not being able to tell the differance,well I'm going to have to state that while video still is the driving force in my buisness(I sell ht/audio gear), the typical middle class guy is wiring up his new house for EXPENSIVE HT and "whole house audio" and while his music tastes may not (at first) lend themselves to helping him distinguish between sacd and dvd-a, he has just dropped $20K ON HIS "MEDIA ROOM" and he damn sure wants music commin' outta all dem speakers. So, understand that while many of us have scratched and saved to piece together a system that is spectacullarly well thought out and refined (just like many of us remodeled our own basement) there are legions of normal people that are now folding "drop-dead gorgeous" set-ups into their mortgage like they're adding a whirlpool bath and built-in pool. These guys only want the best creature comforts for their homes and want to feel that it's all the latest/gfreatest/best technology, and seeing as how multi-channel moviesare now mainstream ,why not multi-channel audio? As for all the extra analog cables, I can hook 'em up for them just fine...just don't sell them a unit without a 6 channel external input and/or an upgrade path(Lexicon/meridian) or they may not refer all the other people they know to you!

 

[KeithH]

Kevin said:

6 analog connections between two components (or *NINE* if you include component video) is absurd. Those who think it's great probably still prefer vinyl over CDs.

From this statement, it is obvious to me that you have never heard quality vinyl (both in terms of condition and recording quality) on a first-rate turntable.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[David Schamis]

RobertR,
What is the difference "why" one recording sounds better than another? Maybe it is some Sony conspiracy to remix their SACDs better than their CDs so that we all run out and buy SACD players (I bet the guys at Sony also had something to do with JFK getting shot as well) - the fact is that it sounds better - isn't that what we're trying to accomplish here?
If Technology A sounds better to me than Technology B, I don't spend three years crapping on Tech A until it is proven beyond a scientific doubt that the reasons for the improvement are acceptable to me - instead, I go out and enjoy Tech A, and look forward to the next improvement!
I hope I didn't sound too self-rightous here - I'm just trying to make a point.
David
[Edited last by David Schamis on October 23, 2001 at 10:13 PM]
[Edited last by David Schamis on October 23, 2001 at 10:13 PM]

 

[Philip Hamm]

quote: From this statement, it is obvious to me that you have never heard quality vinyl (both in terms of condition and recording quality) on a first-rate turntable.[/quote]Thanks Keith for beating me to that comment.

Hell even a mediorce TT like mine sounds as good as CD with a good record on it. (BTW how do you like the new BNL DVD-A? I wish it had a stereo soundtrack like the box says in multiple places! The 5.1 took some getting used to since it's so aggressive, but I really like it.)
Actually the delay timing argument is the best one I've read for a digital connection. Well written, Greg Cellini, great point, probably the single most real practical important requirement for a digital solution. For all those who think it's somehow "worse" to hook up six analog wires than a single digital one, all I can say is

.
Stan, You need an Outlaw ICBM to get the bass to roll from the 5 channels into your sub. I had the exact same problem. Either that or if your DVD-A player has bass management set the speakers to small and see what that does. I won't comment on your penchant for "turning up the bass".......

------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on October 24, 2001 at 07:13 AM]

 

[RobertR]

quote: What is the difference "why" one recording sounds better than another? Maybe it is some Sony conspiracy to remix their SACDs better than their CDs so that we all run out and buy SACD players [/quote]
Conspiracy? Where did I use that word? I simply pointed out that you shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that a difference in the sound MUST be due solely to the difference in the encoding process. Your post acknowledges this.
This is no different than the DD vs. DTS debate, as in saying "DTS Saving Private Ryan sounds better than DD SPR!", and ignoring the known fact that it's a different mix.
[Edited last by RobertR on October 24, 2001 at 09:40 AM]

 

[John Kotches]

This is fun reading, and I'm so glad I've waited until now to join the fray.
I have DVD-A and SACD in my system. My system is a bit above average. I realize that this will be shocking to some of you, but the availibility of identically mastered DVD-A or SACD vs. Redbook CD is vanishingly small.
The closest I've managed to come is the Stereo mix of Two Against Nature on DVD-A and Redbook CD.
Miles Davis' Kind of Blue? I'm not 100% certain they're from the same masters. I do know that the SACD version has an immediacy to it that any CD version I've heard cannot match. I'm talking about things like the roundness of Miles' trumpet sound, the sizzle of the cymbals, PCs bass ringing out into the room. Measurable? Perhaps somehow. Certainly not with gear I have sitting around my house. I guess my training and experience as a musician are entirely irrelevant to the discussion, eh?
However, on a purely technical basis, DVD-A and SACD are demonstrably better than Redbook CD anyway.
As for the digital connection and the cheap 100mbit hardware. Well yeah 100mb/s Ethernet is cheap. It's also not appropriate for this type of data transfer. Ethernet is designed for packetized transfer, accepts out of order packet sequencing and is NOT intended for time sensitive transmission. You can add on QOS features to Ethernet, but it ain't cheap. Of course if you want to throw a Cisco router that supports QOS on Ethernet to guarantee a bandwidth feel free

Digital Connections for SACD and DVD-A would be very helpful. I already have too damned many cables in my system, and just started working with the ICBM. Let's see, with that added in I have 13 sets of analog cables in my system, because I only have SACD stereo. Were I to add in multi-channel SACD, I'd need another ICBM for proper bass management (a single fixed frequency is NOT proper bass management in my book) I'd be hitting 18 pairs of analog interconnects. Were my processor able to handle the signal, I would require one cable for SACD, one for DVD-A, and a rat's nest would be greatly diminished.
That being said, given the greatly increased musical enjoyment I'm receiving from both high-res sources, if the option was either lots o' cables, or not having them -- I side on lots o' cables.
Digital outputs I expect to start cropping up at either CES 2002 or CEDIA 2002.
Regards,
------------------
John Kotches
Contributing Writer
Link Removed

 

[Brian Perry]

Regarding mixing and mastering SACD vs. CD:
While I agree with RobertR that it is increasingly difficult to separate the benefits of the encoding scheme vs. a different mix, I do understand that in many ways it makes sense to master SACD and DVD-A recordings differently than CD to take advantage of the inherent technological superiority of the new formats. Certainly no one would have argued that we should master CDs the same as vinyl LPs just to keep the playing field level.
However, what bugs me is that CD technology is not often not used to its fullest ability. Using a vinyl analogy, I once read that most LPs (not MFSL or other specialty brands) were roughly 20% "worse-sounding" than LP's maximum available fidelity, only because record companies knew the average person had a crappy turntable and if the records were made with a larger dymanic range, too many people would be returning discs as defective when the needles skipped. Today many bands are reducing dynamic range to make their recordings sound better in cars and on boomboxes. And with there obviously being a need to promote SACD and DVD-A, many of us don't put it past record companies to "sweeten" SACD and DVD-A recordings to impress the public. Let's face it: using an equalizer, one could easily make a recording sound "better" than CD (even by using that original CD as the source).
I think most of us want to see technology move forward and understand that the future lies in formats with higher resolutions than CD. We just want the process to be done ethically (no secret sweetening of SACD and/or undermining of CD mixes) and for it to be consumer-friendly (allow a digital interface).
------------------
Home Theater Pictures