Will DVD-Audio Survive (1 Viewer)

[Craig_Kg]

One of my friends plugged in a Super Audio player into an input to a boombox. You could still hear the difference! You can't beat a sampling rate 64x that of 16/44 CD

I still suspect that a VERY good (and thus VERY expensive) CD player or DAC would close the margin appreciably - maybe to the point where the advantage was debatable. The main thing I have seen is that the hires players can be produced more cheaply to get to the very high quality playback level.

Of course, a hires player does diddly for all those redbook CDs sitting in our collections...

 

[Iver]

Some interesting points here, though it's unfortunate to have people tagged as being "proven wrong" just because they stray from the concensus.

That said, the following is one of the more accurate points thus far in this thread:

[for] "audiophiles" ... stereo is and has been the presentation of choice.

Personally, I won't claim to have my finger on the pulse of the audiophile world. However, if you look at a publication like The Absolute Sound, their most recent issue included something like ten CD reviews and only a single SACD review.

Based on what I hear from people involved in the audiophile world, high-quality CD players are still the playback mechanism of choice among ardent music lovers. Heck, there are even turntables selling for $25,000.

I would imagine this stems from the importance most people put on having a wide selection of available titles (and analog warmth, in the case of vinyl adherents). Anybody with any kind of musical taste would probably find very little to entice them in the current offerings on high-rez formats.

I'm not saying they wouldn't find ANY title that interested them, but, even if they are heavily into, let's say, Dave Brubeck, maybe the one or two Brubeck titles now available on SACD are not their cup of tea.

Or maybe they're very fond of Kenny Burrell. Can we find a great deal of the Burrell catalog on high-rez discs?

Look at the list of titles posted for SACD earlier in this thread. Mariah Carey? Celine Dion? Not artists I have an uncontrollable urge to hear in super-high-rez audio or, for that matter, any kind of audio. James Taylor? Maybe a few fun hits to hear on an oldies station but, again, not where I'm going to invest the funds for my music library.

As far as jazz, I'm a fan of Nat King Cole's vocal stylings. I'll bet it's way easier to find Natalie Cole on a high-rez disc than it is to find a recording of her father's.

There may be a certain kind of consumer who has very undeveloped musical tastes and who will be sufficiently impressed with knowing they have the latest-and-greatest audio technology that the lack of choice won't bother them.

At the moment, though, the high-rez formats simply don't come anywhere near satisfying the desires of anybody who has any kind of thoroughly-evolved idea of what kind of music they like.

CD has the selection and, especially with a high-quality transport/DAC combo and an HDCD disc, reproduction quality that even many (if not most) audiophiles find perfectly satisfying

Mr. Genovese made a very good point. If the record companies would simply drop the price of hybrid SACD titles down to the same level as CD's, the format would have a chance of catching on with the "masses." As he accurately points out, the popularity of MP3 sharing indicates that the general public is not even that enthusiastic about prices of regular CD's.

Oddly enough, with the SACD hardware Sony has taken the approach of keeping the players at quite modest prices. Taking a page from Gillette's marketing playbook, they're subsidizing the cost of razors to stick us with cost of high-priced blades.

As for DTS, I must admit that many of the points made in the thread are soemwhat confusing to me. I would appreciate it if anybody could give me some more information on DTS. Many people here seem to think its one step above a tin-can on a string.

First of all, at 24-bit/96 kHz resolution, isn't DTS quite an improvement over Redbook CD's 16-bit/44 kHz level?

Also, I was under the impression that DTS is a really rockin' format for soundtrack audio, even a bit better, because somewhat less compressed, than Dolby Digital. If DTS is so great for soundtrack audio, good enough to feed a set of high-quality surround speakers and a powerful subwoofer, good enough, even, to bring us every thundering note of a Maurice Jarre score, why is it suddenly the Devil in Disguise when it comes to playing back music?

Moving on to a more practical point, one really annoying thing about SACD and DVD-Audio is that they allow the record companies to employ highly-effective copy protection, thus denying us our fair-use rights to make copies of the music software we purchase. Along with the new Supreme Court decision upholding ridiculously long extensions of copyrights, the new copy-protection is just another victory of the corporations over the consumers.

As far as price, I'd be curious to hear some of the actual recent prices people have paid for DVD-A, SACD, DTS-CD, and Redbook CD titles. I just purchased a copy of Steely Dan's Aja, a very nice little CD indeed, remastered in 1999 (an excellent job, by the way), for $6.99. Then again, I did pay $14.99 for the new Sheryl Crowe disc C'mon C'mon.

But I will also be expanding my classical collection soon with some $5.99 titles from Naxos, reputed to be an excellent label (according to reccomendations from fellow HTF devotees).

There's an electronics superstore near me, The Wiz, that sells most CD titles for $11.99, basically a way to bring people in past the displays of new consumer electronics.

So what are the real-world prices for DVD-A, SACD, and DTS-CD titles?

To wrap this up: DVD-Audio and SACD are as much about gadget collection as truly appreciating music. Sure, if somebody has very little taste, maybe they'll be content to sit back and be blown away by Billy Joel's Greatest Hits.

For true music lovers with truly developed musical taste, selection is just too crucial to give up for an increase in audio reproduction quality, especially when that step-up in sound quality is from a medium from which most audiophiles are already milking very satisfactory sound quality (especially those who are dedicated enough to invest in a decent disc transport/DAC combo, HDCD capability and discs, a high-quality two-channel analog amp (even if it's a subset of an A/V receiver), and a decent pair of full-range speakers.

If CD's with high-quality playback gear provided noticeably defficient audio quality, it would be a different story. In that case, music lovers would be far more motivated to accept that the great decrease in musical selection entailed in adopting one or more of the new high-rez formats. But CD is still very good, often indistinguishable from excellent. Combine that with the massive disc selection and you have a combo that's going to be very difficult for the new high-rez formats to even make a dent in, much less beat.

 

[John Kotches]

As usual, Mr. Scoggins leaves out a few details.

Of those noted, many are Universal, which means the manufacturers are also making DVD-Audio players:

Bel Canto (not to market), Denon (not to market), Lexicon (not to market), Linn (not to market), Luxman, Marantz (Universal and SACD only), McCormack (not to market), MSB (not to market), Onkyo, Pioneer, Teac, Yamaha and Zenith (not to market).

Of 30 brands noted, a minimum of 13 are also providing DVD-Audio playback. I might have missed a couple like MBL and Lindemann, but I don't have specifics on them.

Let's play another game, and start reciting brands that have DVD-Audio playback and see what names come up:
Bel Canto, Linn, Denon, Luxman, Marantz, McCormack, MSB, Onkyo, Pioneer, Teac, Yamaha, Zenith, Meridian, Panasonic, Toshiba, Kenwood, Arcam, Muse, Apex, Samsung, and others I know I'm leaving out.

Of course I don't have Ole doing my research for me, which has me at a slight disadvantage.

Regards,

 

[Tony Genovese]

Let's play another game, and start reciting brands that have DVD-Audio playback and see what names come up:Bel Canto, Linn, Denon, Luxman, Marantz, McCormack, MSB, Onkyo, Pioneer, Teac, Yamaha, Zenith, Meridian, Panasonic, Toshiba, Kenwood, Arcam, Muse, Apex, Samsung, and others I know I'm leaving out.

Excellent point. Then why is there so little program material for the format? Why has industry support, i.e. content providers, been so lukewarm. Give Sony credit: they took the ball and ran with it. Heck, I can go into my local Best Buy and find a rack of SACD's. DVD-A's are relegated to a two foot wide section (1 row only) stuck among the musical DVD-Videos.

Those who point to Beta and Mini-disk as evidence that SACD will fail forget one thing: Sony owns a lot of the content now, and Philips owns a lot of the content, too. The top three classical labels in my collection, Decca/London, Philips and DG are owned by Philips. The fourth CBS/Sony is owned by...well you get the idea. And even at Best Buy, SACD's are going for $14.99 at regular price. About the same as CD's.

I think there is room for both formats: at the point at which there are hybrid disks for both, it really won't matter which hi-res format is also on there when you pop it into your CD player.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Mike Up, please keep posting. It is obvious to anyone who knows about these formats that you are extremely misinformed about hi-rez issues. Your posts are educational to anyone who truly wishes to further these hi-rez formats.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Of those noted, many are Universal, which means the manufacturers are also making DVD-Audio players

So what John? He asked for SACD players and universal players certainly count on this front.

And why not use Ole as my personal research gofer? He does good work and is really on top of this as a Super Audio CD designer. And he is a real nice guy to talk to at shows.

 

[Justin Lane]

For true music lovers with truly developed musical taste, selection is just too crucial to give up for an increase in audio reproduction quality, especially when that step-up in sound quality is from a medium from which most audiophiles are already milking very satisfactory sound quality (especially those who are dedicated enough to invest in a decent disc transport/DAC combo, HDCD capability and discs, a high-quality two-channel analog amp (even if it's a subset of an A/V receiver), and a decent pair of full-range speakers.

Ivar,
I am glad you defined who true music lovers are for everybody here. I guess anyone who gets into DVD-A or SACD are just "gadget guys" and have yet to obtain the pinnacle of developed musical taste you have acquired. :rolleyes
J

 

[John-Miles]

Not everybody is going to jump on board right away with these new formats, but you can be that in a few years many artists will be walking into studios asking about this dvd-a and sacd stuff, because like any true artist theya re going to want to put their best forward, and they will be able to do that with these new formats. But right now i would imagine it is just cheaper and less hassle to keep pumping out the cd's like they ahve been doing.

Also its just my speculation but i think if both formats survive we might end up seeing (if we are lucky) SACD Stereo and DVD-A multichannel. I say this because I would imagine soem artists want their music listrened to in stereo and others probably would prefer a multi channel experience.

but this is just my guess.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Sorry folks, I had to do it....

ATTENTION ANYONE REALLY INTERESTED IN KNOWING ABOUT THE NEW HIGH-REZ FORMATS:

IGNORE THIS ENTIRE THREAD. IT IS FULL OF SO MUCH MISINFORMATION THAT IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. CHECK OUT THE MUSIC FORUM IF YOU'RE REALLY INTERESTED IN THESE EXCITING NEW MUSIC FORMATS.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Iver: To wrap this up: DVD-Audio and SACD are as much about gadget collection as truly appreciating music. Sure, if somebody has very little taste, maybe they'll be content to sit back and be blown away by Billy Joel's Greatest Hits.

Don't much care for "BJ's Greatest Hits", but I love my SACDs of Kind of Blue, Round about Midnight, In a Silent Way, Time Out, Mingus Ah Um, Ella and Louis, Louis Plays Fats, Louis Plays WC Handy, Saxophone Collosus, Way Out West, A Love Supreme, Standard Coltrane, Waltz for Debby/Sunday at the Village Vanguard, Jazz at the Pawnshop, Headhunters, Getz/Gilberto, Straight No Chaser, Blonde on Blonde, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Cheap Thrills, Willy and the Poor Boys, Legalize It, Tapestry, Stardust, Live at Folsom Prison, Muddy Waters-Folk Singer, Gould's Goldbergs, Mahler's 6th...

And if you don't like these, there are over a thousand more titles in addition to the Billy Joel... but then my taste in music is underdeveloped as compared to the almighty Iver.

 

[AaronBatiuk]

Also its just my speculation but i think if both formats survive we might end up seeing (if we are lucky) SACD Stereo and DVD-A multichannel

I would rather see the other way around. SACD uses exactly the same resolution for 2 channel as 6 (5.1) channel. DVD-Audio on the other hand can use 192 kHz for 2 channel but is limited to 96 kHz for multi-channel.

SACD in multi-channel has better frequency response and dynamic range than DVD-Audio in mutli-channel. For stereo, DVD-Audio uses up more data (192/24 uses 4.6 Mbits/s per channel; SACD uses 2.9 Mbits/s per channel always), so some people translate that into meaning that it has better fidelity. (here's a thought: with MLP compression, DVD-A at 192/24 uses 2.3 Mbit/s/channel which is < SACD).

Actually, I beleive that SACD is superior in all regards, for mutli- and two-channel music. The sigma-delta sampling theory is by far the most "analog" way to represent a signal in the digital domain. You can litterally pass the bitstream through a simple RC low pass filter (at around 50 - 100 kHz or so) to get the analog signal. No complex D/A conversion is necessary. SACD is a pure music format; the format has no provisions for value-added content ("special features"). DVD-Audio was designed from the start to be consumer-oriented and is intended to offer value-added content. It's unfortunate that DVD-Audio can be so awkward to operate, especially compared to CD or SACD.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Yes I know Ole is a real nice guy, we exchange e-mails from time to time, and we talked for about 45 minutes on Friday at the Alexis Park. We only broke off the discussion as he needed to speak with a couple of dealers of his.

It was a very informative discussion, and we both agreed that Sony/Philips got it wrong. If they had chosen 5.6MHz as the sampling rate, a large portion of the discussions about DSDs flaws would simply vanish.

Of course this means they'd have to introduce the Super Duper Audio CD, because they didn't get it right, again.

Ask Ole yourself if we discussed this if you think I'm making it up.

Regards,

 

[peter m. wilson]

Hi,
quite frankly this is getting really boring.
you can discuss all this technical stuff till the cows come home.
I's not about the format it's about the music and if the music sounds good to enough people any format can survive.

peter m.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If they had chosen 5.6MHz as the sampling rate

Why is this a better rate than 2.8 Mhz?
If this ultra-fast sampling rate is better, then you must be disappointed with the 192khz rate of better DVD Audio...
I guess you agree with me then on the 32 Super Audio brands then, since you did not refute that.
And conveniently changed the subject as you always do, just like the post in the Music section on oscilloscopes.

 

[StaceyS]

Here is a list of 35 DVD-A manufacturers, which include Car audio, Portable, Home, and PC DVD-A players. It just did a quick search to find these. I know of two more, but they have not announced yet.

Adcom, Alpine, Arcam, Apex, Aspire, Belcanto, Creative Labs, Cyberhome, Denon, Integra, JVC, Kenwood, Lafayette, Lexicon, Linn, Luxman, Marantz, McCormack, McIntosh, Mitsubishi, Meridian, MSB, Muse, onkyo, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung, Tag, Teac, Technics, Toshiba, Yamaha, Zenith.

If you add up the models between them, it is over 150 different players.

The Novembe DVD meeting that was held in Japan estimates 5700 titles by end of 2004. I believe it was >2000 by end of 2003.

 

[Justin Lane]

2000 by end of 2003.

Stacey,

I do not see DVD-A even coming remotely close to 2000 titles by year end. Right now there are probably about 400-500 discs on the market. January is almost over and Warner has yet to put out a DVD-A this month to my knowledge. Of course this lack of titles could be due to a Hybrid or some other sort of announcement in the pipeline. We will have to wait and see.

J

 

[Phuong]

The two formats signed their own death warrant the day they announced that the capacity for DVD-A and SACD would be 74 minutes per disc. We are living in a much more crowded world, in which space comes at a premium. Many, many people own a CD collection numbering in the hundreds, and that kind of purchasing power would be swayed to pay more for a format that offers greater capacity and higher resolution to boot.

And contrary to what some people think about DVD, people did not switch over simply because of the higher resolution. That's only part of the package. Let's not forget the small CD-size format, user-friendly menus, and single-sided format. The small size makes sense of laserdisc collectors. They can repurchases titles that will eventually take up less space after they get rid of their laserdiscs. And VHS was never a great format to own, only to rent. DVD's success has come as both a sale and rental format. Now that's a monumental leap from VHS/laserdisc.

Neither DVD-A nor SACD have the total package. Even if the discs could hold only 100 of audio, it could still be used as a marketing point. But no, the engineers had to bow to the pressures of the recording industry. So we're stuck with a half-ass innovation. The disc is the same size, the sound is a little closer to the master recording (if you have the hardware and time to exploit the difference), and the discs cost more. And you wonder why Target and Walmart aren't falling for this gimmick.

Maybe one of the formats will survive, but it will always be a niche format at best.

 

[StaceyS]

Phuong
DVD-A is not limited to 74 minutes. Depending on the resolution, it can hold a lot more than that.
I am working on a project now where I plan to stuff 12 standard CDs worth of music onto a single DVD-A with MLP. I will include cover art as well.
I am going through my CD collection now and ripping all my favorite songs as wav files and will MLP encode later. Then I will create 1 DVD-A with all of my favorite songs on it. This is my changer on a disc.
The above is at CD quality. You can stuff a lot more MP3s on a single DVD-A.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Re: Puong's last post, please refer to Philip's previous.

The primary advantage of DVD-A and SACD over CD is storage capacity. The following info is easily attainable to anyone interested in not just sounding smart, but actually being smart:

A DVD-Audio holds 4.7GB of data, about seven times the capacity of an audio CD. This can be used not only for 2-channel stereo playback that far exceeds an audio CD's, but also for high quality multi-channel sound, text information, graphic data, and so on. By using two storage layers on one side of the disc, capacity can be raised to 8.5GB; A disc with single layers on two sides would offer 9.4GB and a 2-sided, 2-layer disc would hold 17GB. Such long playing times permit live concerts, operas, and the like to be stored conveniently on one disc.

The storage capacity of the high-density layer of a SACD is also about 7 times higher than the storage capacity of a conventional CD (4.7GB). And speaking of the conventional CD, many SACDs also offer that on a separate layer of the same disc.

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the endless misinformation in this thread to be utterly tiresome. If you folks are interested in these formats, look elsewhere. This thread rarely rises above the rank speculation of the truly uninformed.

 

[Greg_TSL]

Hey Rich,
Not to be picky but before you accuse misinformation mongers, make sure you state the capacity of a conventional CD correctly.