On 27/11/2010 17:36, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard wrote in
message
On 27/11/2010 07:38, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
Umm, because they were snake oil?
DVD-A is/was hardly snake oil,any more than SACD, which
(unlike DVD-A) employs DSD, unless you consider
multi-channel surround as snake oil.
You seem to be badly confused. DVD-A and DSD are a whole different thing
than multichannel.
Actually, I have no interest in or opinion on DSD (which stands in
contra-distinction to PCM - nothing to do with surround as such). DVD-A
and SACD were/are delivery formats for (among other things) surround
sound audio (with the option of higher sample rates than CD), delivered
virtually exclusively for the 5.1 speaker layout. That is arguably
their only real point of interest, unless you are the type who
incessantly argues the pros and cons of this or that sample rate, etc.
They failed, while multichannel has been mainstream in
the home for at least a decade, and were mainstream in theatres for at least
a decade before that. One of the lesser reasons that DVD-A and DSD failed
was their inconsistent handling of multichannel.
Begs the question of what "consistent" means. 5.1 is simply a delivery
format to a defined speaker layout. The audio content may be anything
from five independent discrete signals, to a B-Format decoded horzontal
soundfield, via any number of variations of pair-wise intensity panning.
That is decided by the artist/engineer, not by the delivery format.
Surround sound artists are limited by the available multi-channel
reproduction formats.
The fact that the
great public at large seems not to consider surround
important at all except for the (mostly) relatively
primitive examples of it in films, does nothing to
invalidate consumer audio delivery formats supporting
multi-channel audio (albeit horizontal-only).
Now you seem to be stealthily changing issues by means of synonyms.
Multichannel and surround are actually two different things. Multichannel
generally means 2 channels, while surround refers to speakers next to or
behind the listener.
Or above and below. It that really all you think surround means - the
location of a few extra speakers? It is really the content - as above,
either discrete per-speaker signals, or some number of arbitrary
pair-wise panned phantom images (which doesn't work well for lateral
images, which is why so much film surround audio is so poor), or a more
or less complete representation of the soundfield. 5.1 being so
irregular a layout, it is very difficult to achieve a "consistent"
surround image with it. A regular layout such as a hexagon or cube (for
with-height reproduction) is so much better. There is a whole world of
surround sound audio technology out there (by no means predicated on a
dominant front stage) that people who know only about 5.1 are hardly
aware of at all.
Of course,
there is little point in buying recordings in either
format if you are only going to play them in stereo. In
which case, DSD is much the same distillation of snake
oil as Dolby 5.1.
Which formats are "either format"?If you're referring to DSD and DVD-A,
I was referring to DVD-A v SACD. I guess DVD-A recordings are pretty
scarce, but SACD (which would seem to have largely won the format war)
is still very much an active medium, with a steady stream of new
releases each year. But in no way can either DVD-A or SACD be considered
snake oil - they do exactly what they are defined to do, which is to
deliver surround sound/multi-channel audio; within (or despite) the
limits imposed by the compromised 5.1 layout.
One useful advantage of the DVD-A format is that you can DIY using
standard DVD authoring tools and DVD blanks. SACD production is a whole
different can of worms.
Richard Dobson