"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
news:m7WRb.136950$nt4.600731@attbi_s51...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:31:32 GMT, Michel Hafner
wrote:

Nice is subjective. I want it to sound like the master, nice or ugly, as
the master is.

Then SACD sounds much more like vintage masters - quality analog stuff,
and
as good as any LPCM digital master.

If nice refers to the HF garbage, I can add that garbage to
PCM too if I want to. I can't get rid of it on SACD (except for getting
rid
of all HF content with steep filters). No advantage for SACD so far.

What you call garbage, and which is really a reduced SN ratio above 20 KHz
or so, has been demonstrated to be non intrusive and not perceptible in
controlled double blind tests.


Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD
"inferior".

I seem to recall some discussion about "measureable perceptible limits"?

(have you ever tried to listen to a DVD-A without having a monitor
connected.),

Yes. It depends on disc menu mastering if this is a problem or not.

Nope.

All of the DVD-A's I've tried - a couple dozens, representing something
like
30 % of what's available in Europe - require a monitor in order to pick
the
track, choose the format and so on.


Well, yes and no, if you remember to hit enter twice and have the defaults
set up properly it will "usually" work.

All SACD's I've tried - a hundred, representing maybe 10 % of what's
available - only require to push "Play", and, for dual versions (stero +
multi on the SACD layer) used with a multichannel player, to press
"Stereo/multi" in order to choose 2.0 or 5.1...

So, in theory, DVD-A can dispense of this clumsy, user-hostile interface,
but in reality it doesn't.


The DVD-Audio consortium seems to think that seeing still pictures and
playlists onscreen is a big musical advantage, I guess. I wonder if there
are any audiophiles among them?

The
standard does not prohibit consumer friendly solutions, including players
with built in LCD monitors if menu navigation is desired without external
monitor.

Agreed. But where are those user-friendly players and discs?


I guess that answers my question about the audiophiles?

SACD has no advantage in principle but on specific discs it can
be more user friendly.

It is with *all* discs.


Absolutely, and if you have it set for your setup (e.g. multichannel or
stereo) it will automatically default to the right format and then to the
next format below that if appropriate (e.g. put a stereo cd in a SACD player
set for multichannel SACD, and when it recognizes there is no multichannel
SACD, it will look for a stereo SACD and if it doesn't find that, look for a
stereo CD). DVD-A has nothing comparable.

has no audible spoilers built-in (a big non no in my book: why

Depends on the label if they want to add (audible) watermarking or not.
Not a principle issue of DVD-Audio as a standard.

Save for a few "audiophile" DVD-As, *all* discs are massacred by this
awful
spoiler. Why bother with a high definition format and then trash it with
some moronic copy protection scheme? People paying a premium for hi rez
formats don't want glorified MP3 sound!


Neither does the consortium, but *something* makes the sound brittle on many
DVD-A's.

Hybrid DVD-Audios are in the works.

And the check is in the mail.
:-)


They are having severe problems getting this to work, I understand.

The CD layer of SACD is a marketing advantage, not a sonic advantage.

It's more consumer friendly, period.


It was not pioneered by Sony or Phillips, but by others. But Sony and
Phillips had the good sense to realize when they were on the wrong course,
and to change course quickly. Ditto with multi-channel.

I have no use for it because
- if the master is high res PCM I don't get master quality but a
filtered
version.

If the master is DSD Wide, as more and more are, you get a nicely
decimated
LPCM version for CD or hi-rez LPCM as well as a high-rez DSD version
for
SA-CD. Best of all worlds.

SACD is not DSD wide.

Of course, it is plain jane DSD. We are discussing mastering solutions,
not
consumer delivery media!


And for consumer delivery, the mastering problems are irrelevant. For
consumer delivery, it is a simple and sonically wonderful solution with no
filtering involved.

The limitations of a 1 bit signal at ~2.8 Mhz remain
forever as long as the standard is not changed. The only thing you can do
is move the noise energy to different places to get the 'best'
psychoacustic
results. The HF content will never be clean and it will always lack the
resolution of 24/96 or 24/192.

Agreed: the agressive noise shaping used in consumer DSD is basically a
trade off. But as the HF noise isn't perceptible, why bother?


So it can be argued that it is "technically imperfect", I guess. :-)

Further advances of AD and DA stages can not
be delivered to the consumer since the limiting factor is the signal
itself.
Not so with PCM at 24/96 and 24/192 which have plenty of resolution to be
taken advantage of in better AD and DA stages.

There are *no* LPCM DA or AD converters with more than, say, 22 bits of
effective resolution, and the brownian wall must be at around 23 dB or so.
So much for better AD or DA stages in the future. Liquid nitrogen, anyone?

There can be 24/192 DVD-Audios with no loss of
audible information made form DSD wide masters. No?

AFAICT, yes, but none does exist at the consumer level.


And vice-versa.

What is stopping anyone from taking a 24/96 or 24/192 master and
oversampling
to DSD (better quality DSD than SACD!) and then use this signal for
digital
amps AFTER room correction etc?

Current technology. Upsampling 96 Khz to more than, say, 384 or 448 KHz is
currently impossible outside of research labs or by using muy expensivo
custom solutions.


Maybe Meriden will lead the way.