Given that surround sound is usually associated with Dolby surround or
DTSand those formats do an MP3 type lossy compression to the audio
signal, does it really matter that SACD provides better quality of an
inferior medium? DVD-A seems to concentrate on producing the best audio
where it counts; stereo. But then if 192/24 PCM is unobtainable, then I
guess DVD-A is done. It's offering no advantage compared to SACD, and
it's already losing the battle.

CD

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:RkVQb.119549$nt4.516264@attbi_s51...

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:43:33 GMT, Codifus
wrote:


snip, not relevant to below


Here's a link to a site comparing DVD-Audio to SACD using a square wave.
Look at how the CD foramt using PCM, jsut falls apart trying to
reproduce the wave, but DVD audio, also using PCM reproduces the square
wave quite admirably;

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml

What does this prove, other than that CD has a restricted bandwidth of
22kHz, which we already knew?


Think about it a minute, Stewart. It shows that DSD/SACD have performance
essentially equal to 192/24 pcm. Yet the only place you can find 192/24 pcm
is on the stereo mix of a few DVD-A's. All DVD-A surround and most front
channels are recorded in 96/24 or even 48/24, which the square waves show
as inferior (essentially a matter of bandwidth). So SACD gives you five
channels of near-perfect sound reproduction; DVD-A gives you five channels
of sound reproduction ranging from cd quality to somewhat better than cd
quality (but not as good as SACD or 192/24, the "unobtainium" DVD-A signal.

Which is the superior commercial product?