Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon
but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? Thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon
but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? As of right now, CD is the winner and still champion, with MP3s and other download formats posing the most direct threat. SACDs are certainly outselling DVD-As; the latter are barely visible. But SACD is such an insignificant factor in the market right now that a good marketing move by somebody/something else could still bury it. (On the other hand, good marketing moves have not been plentiful on the DVD-A side.) So if your question is, which of the two hi-rez formats is more likely to survive and grow, the answer appears to be SACD. But if your question is, will SACD become the de facto standard disk, that's tougher to say. It's possible that there will be a total shift over to hybrid SACDs. But I think it's more likley that SACD will remain a niche product of audiophile recordings and boomer reissues (essentially what new vinyl is now). For as long as prerecorded disks continue to exist, CD is likely to be the market leader. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
Bob Marcus wrote:
In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? As of right now, CD is the winner and still champion, with MP3s and other download formats posing the most direct threat. SACDs are certainly outselling DVD-As; the latter are barely visible. But SACD is such an insignificant factor in the market right now that a good marketing move by somebody/something else could still bury it. (On the other hand, good marketing moves have not been plentiful on the DVD-A side.) So if your question is, which of the two hi-rez formats is more likely to survive and grow, the answer appears to be SACD. But if your question is, will SACD become the de facto standard disk, that's tougher to say. It's possible that there will be a total shift over to hybrid SACDs. But I think it's more likley that SACD will remain a niche product of audiophile recordings and boomer reissues (essentially what new vinyl is now). For as long as prerecorded disks continue to exist, CD is likely to be the market leader. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ Well, if JVCs XRCD were to become THE common mastering format for CD, CDs unwillingness to die would not be such a bad thing at all. CD |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Goro" wrote in message
... (andy) wrote in message ... In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? Thanks yesterday at BestBuy, they had an endcap with one of Diana Krall's cds and i noticed it was a DVD-A/DVD hybrid. apparently it plays on dvd players and dvd-a players. anyone know about these? Yes, the Diana Krall SACDs sold so well, they brought the same albums out on DVD-A a year later. Available now in both formats as well as straight CD. I wish I liked her CD's more so I could talk myself into duplicating my SACD's on DVD-A, but I just don't, so I won't. Some Krall aficionado can do the three way comparison. :-). Perhaps you? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Codifus" wrote in message
... snip Well, if JVCs XRCD were to become THE common mastering format for CD, CDs unwillingness to die would not be such a bad thing at all. Actually, XRCD is nothing more than a determination by JVC to use state-of-the-art technology and techniques every step of the way between the original source and the commercial release. As such it is technology available to every company that puts out CD's. It is just that most of them do not care enough about ultimate quality to be willing to invest the money and effort into doing it at that exalted level. Both DVD-A and SACD make it easier to get better sound, so there is even less incentive today to do an XRCD-level quality job. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
Well, if JVCs XRCD were to become THE common mastering format for CD,
CDs unwillingness to die would not be such a bad thing at all. I never tried the XRCDs from JVC - they are expensive @30 US$ while the SACD price is getting lower - but I would be happy this will happen - provide the prices swill stay the same as the regular CDs (whicha re already too much expensive. But: - is there any special reason in the process for the extra price (I quickly checked the web site just now) - will the majors embrace the standard or will it be an HDCD-like story (the royalties were so high to discourage the majors from going to it)? The good in xdcd is that no decoding chip is required - is XRCD competitive in sound quality with the high density? I sometimes suspect the majors just put a better remastering on the SACD just to let people claiming how better the new format is. I still believe the *support* (CD,SACD,DVD) marginally affect the sound. The *A/D process* (PCM vs DSD) and the data density (16/44.1 vs 24/192 vs DSD) may affect: I can still enjoy the vynil nirvana when I burn a CD after A/D'ing @24/48 the pre-phono output. The XRCD seems an effective way to distill every single nuance from the 16b/44.1K format and get the ebst from the red book CD, though. Regards from Milan, Italy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
What was unusual about it? Almost all DVD-As will play on regular DVD
players without being designated as hybrids. But, the audio that will play is just low-res CD quality, right? That's what it says on a number of DVD-A's from Rhino records. A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution version. By contrast, the DVD's from Classic Records encode 24/96 PCM for regular DVD players. So they are sort of like (half-res) DVD-Audios for regular DVD players, while real DVD-A's just play like CD's in a regular DVD player. Right?? -Sean |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:18:34 GMT, Sean Fulop
wrote: What was unusual about it? Almost all DVD-As will play on regular DVD players without being designated as hybrids. But, the audio that will play is just low-res CD quality, right? That's what it says on a number of DVD-A's from Rhino records. A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution version. That depends on the disc. Ordinary DVD players can handle higher than CD data rates if it's on there. By contrast, the DVD's from Classic Records encode 24/96 PCM for regular DVD players. Yes. They use the DVD-V specs. ;-) So they are sort of like (half-res) DVD-Audios for regular DVD players, while real DVD-A's just play like CD's in a regular DVD player. Right?? Nope. There are DVD-As with high(er) resolution stereo tracks that will play in a regular DVD player. Kal |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:w873c.86636$ko6.440084@attbi_s02...
In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? As of right now, CD is the winner and still champion, with MP3s and other download formats posing the most direct threat. SACDs are certainly outselling DVD-As; the latter are barely visible. But SACD is such an insignificant factor in the market right now that a good marketing move by somebody/something else could still bury it. (On the other hand, good marketing moves have not been plentiful on the DVD-A side.) So if your question is, which of the two hi-rez formats is more likely to survive and grow, the answer appears to be SACD. But if your question is, will SACD become the de facto standard disk, that's tougher to say. It's possible that there will be a total shift over to hybrid SACDs. But I think it's more likley that SACD will remain a niche product of audiophile recordings and boomer reissues (essentially what new vinyl is now). For as long as prerecorded disks continue to exist, CD is likely to be the market leader. bob I hear a lot of people say that DVD-A's are scarce compared to SA-CD, but I usually find a better selection of DVD-A's than I do SACD. Maybe it's just musical taste. It's seem slike most of the SA-CD's are jazz or Classical. I like rock, blues and alternative, and I usually find a better selection of these genre's in DVD-A than i do in SA-CD. As far as overall quantity, the record stores I go (Tower mostly) to seem to have about the same number of each. Am I alone on this observation? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
But, the audio that will play is just low-res CD quality, right? That's
what it says on a number of DVD-A's from Rhino records. A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution version. That depends on the disc. Ordinary DVD players can handle higher than CD data rates if it's on there. Well, OK, the Rhino records web site specifically says "A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution audio version." So, while it may depend on the disc, apparently the Rhino discs are the way I described. They give no advantage over a regular CD when played in a regular DVD player (unless of course you're listening in surround, which is also on the disc). -Sean |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On 10 Mar 2004 21:50:44 GMT, Sean Fulop wrote:
But, the audio that will play is just low-res CD quality, right? That's what it says on a number of DVD-A's from Rhino records. A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution version. That depends on the disc. Ordinary DVD players can handle higher than CD data rates if it's on there. Well, OK, the Rhino records web site specifically says "A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution audio version." I didn't see that quote although I do not doubt you about it. I did find the following: "DVD Audio discs offer much better mastering than standard audio CDs, as well as supplemental visual material. In particular, DVD-A titles have been mixed for six channel surround sound (all discs also include a stereo mix) for playback through home theater systems. To experience DVD-A in all its glory, you need a DVD Audio player, which will also play regular CDs (and in many cases, DVD movies). If you have a DVD Video player, you can also listen to DVD-A discs on it, though you won't be able to see the extra visual content." The underlying issue is whether the mixes are MLP encoded or not. If they are, then they are playable only on DVD-A players. If not, and as I said many are not, they will play on a regular DVD player. What I will have to do is see if I have any Rhino DVD-As at my house this weekend and, if I do, take them to my apartment where I have a regular DVD player. Let you know. Kal |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
The underlying issue is whether the mixes are MLP encoded or not. If
they are, then they are playable only on DVD-A players. If not, and as I said many are not, they will play on a regular DVD player. Thanks for offering to research this question, but I'm still not sure I get you. There is no question that the Rhino DVD-As will play on my DVD player, because I know they are designed to do so. The question is whether they play in better than 16-bit PCM when playing the two-channel mix, which apparently they don't given Rhino's documentation of their contents. This is why there would be no point to my buying them instead of CDs; they would sound exactly the same as a CD, especially since my DVD player is also my CD player. Classic records' DADs, on the other hand, will play a two-channel mix in 24-bit PCM on my DVD player. Thus I would expect they might sound better than a CD in the same player. -Sean |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:59:52 GMT, Sean Fulop
wrote: Thanks for offering to research this question, but I'm still not sure I get you. There is no question that the Rhino DVD-As will play on my DVD player, because I know they are designed to do so. The question is whether they play in better than 16-bit PCM when playing the two-channel mix, which apparently they don't given Rhino's documentation of their contents. This is why there would be no point to my buying them instead of CDs; they would sound exactly the same as a CD, especially since my DVD player is also my CD player. You are right and I will try to find out. I may still have a Rhino DVD-A or two although I gave most of them away. My DVD-A players do indicate which formats/bitrates they are playing so, if I have one, I can tell you. Classic records' DADs, on the other hand, will play a two-channel mix in 24-bit PCM on my DVD player. Thus I would expect they might sound better than a CD in the same player. Yes and, note, they are not MLP-encoded and are made to the DVD-V spec as are the Hi-Res discs. Kal |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
IMHO high end audio (and video) is killing itself by it's use of acronyms.
But, the audio that will play is just low-res CD quality, right? That's what it says on a number of DVD-A's from Rhino records. A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution version. That depends on the disc. Ordinary DVD players can handle higher than CD data rates if it's on there. Well, OK, the Rhino records web site specifically says "A DVD-A player is required to access any higher-resolution audio version." I didn't see that quote although I do not doubt you about it. I did find the following: "DVD Audio discs offer much better mastering than standard audio CDs, as well as supplemental visual material. In particular, DVD-A titles have been mixed for six channel surround sound (all discs also include a stereo mix) for playback through home theater systems. To experience DVD-A in all its glory, you need a DVD Audio player, which will also play regular CDs (and in many cases, DVD movies). If you have a DVD Video player, you can also listen to DVD-A discs on it, though you won't be able to see the extra visual content." The underlying issue is whether the mixes are MLP encoded or not. If they are, then they are playable only on DVD-A players. If not, and as I said many are not, they will play on a regular DVD player. What I will have to do is see if I have any Rhino DVD-As at my house this weekend and, if I do, take them to my apartment where I have a regular DVD player. Let you know. Kal |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Wessel Dirksen" wrote in message
... I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved. Yes, but isn't that derived from lossy compression? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On 13 Mar 2004 16:48:21 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen"
wrote: I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved. Can you perceive a difference between 44.1 and 48Khz sampling rates, all else held equal? Doubtful. Kal "Long Rod Penetrator" wrote in message news:Yso3c.221252$jk2.773922@attbi_s53... (andy) wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? Yeah, I think it's over. I think Warner supports DVD-A, but the other four all favor SACD, and it's pretty easy to see why. I have nothing against hi-rez PCM technology (many say it's technically better), but DSD is pretty good, and the simplicity of SACD is where it really shines. DVD-A was doomed by its arrogant backers who ignored the issue of CD cross-compatibility and thereby: 1. Expect retailers to stock two catalogs (CD and DVD-A). 2. Expect you and I to buy our favorite titles in parallel, one for home, one for car/portable. 3. Expect you and I to store two catalogs, which is a big deal because -- oh my -- they're in different-sized packaging that won't fit on the same rack! 4. Expect you and I to use a video monitor to navigate among audio tracks. Someone tell me, what were they thinking? Hybrid SACDs, meanwhile, have excellent performance, they have a "pop-in-hit-play" user interface, and they're "single inventory," which satisfies me and the retailers. When I upgrade one of my old disks to SACD, I give the old CD away. If I buy something new, I buy the SACD, and I'm done with it. As others have pointed out, neither hi-rez format is likely to be more than a niche product, but DVD-A, from an implementation perspective, is a train wreck. I think the way DVD-A has been brought to market is the dumbest thing since the DIVX DVD. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:37 GMT, "Charles Tomaras"
wrote: "Wessel Dirksen" wrote in message ... I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved. Yes, but isn't that derived from lossy compression? Generally, no. The DVD-V spec, which is what you are using on a regular DVD player, can accomodate sampling rates up to 24/96 as was used in the Chesky and Classic DADs and currently by a number of labels. Kal |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news:vPM4c.1708$JL2.44649@attbi_s03... On 13 Mar 2004 16:48:21 GMT, "Wessel Dirksen" wrote: I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved. Can you perceive a difference between 44.1 and 48Khz sampling rates, all else held equal? Doubtful. You're probably right. I discovered the sampling rate difference by accident with the only DVD-A I have; an REM compilation. I play all my audio with the computer over a Lynx soundcard. (I also discovered that DVD-A's are useless to me at this point with this arrangement, but that's another story) When comparing the original "Automatic for the People" CD with similar tracks on the DVD played at this 48 kHz, there at first seemed to be differences in the very high frequencies. Later I wasn't so sure. Extremely subtle at best. Wessel Kal "Long Rod Penetrator" wrote in message news:Yso3c.221252$jk2.773922@attbi_s53... (andy) wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? Yeah, I think it's over. I think Warner supports DVD-A, but the other four all favor SACD, and it's pretty easy to see why. I have nothing against hi-rez PCM technology (many say it's technically better), but DSD is pretty good, and the simplicity of SACD is where it really shines. DVD-A was doomed by its arrogant backers who ignored the issue of CD cross-compatibility and thereby: 1. Expect retailers to stock two catalogs (CD and DVD-A). 2. Expect you and I to buy our favorite titles in parallel, one for home, one for car/portable. 3. Expect you and I to store two catalogs, which is a big deal because -- oh my -- they're in different-sized packaging that won't fit on the same rack! 4. Expect you and I to use a video monitor to navigate among audio tracks. Someone tell me, what were they thinking? Hybrid SACDs, meanwhile, have excellent performance, they have a "pop-in-hit-play" user interface, and they're "single inventory," which satisfies me and the retailers. When I upgrade one of my old disks to SACD, I give the old CD away. If I buy something new, I buy the SACD, and I'm done with it. As others have pointed out, neither hi-rez format is likely to be more than a niche product, but DVD-A, from an implementation perspective, is a train wreck. I think the way DVD-A has been brought to market is the dumbest thing since the DIVX DVD. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:37 GMT, "Charles Tomaras" wrote: "Wessel Dirksen" wrote in message ... I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved. Yes, but isn't that derived from lossy compression? Generally, no. The DVD-V spec, which is what you are using on a regular DVD player, can accomodate sampling rates up to 24/96 as was used in the Chesky and Classic DADs and currently by a number of labels. I guess I thought that the "V audio" on DVD-A was encoded as Dolby Digital AC3 which is a lossy compression scheme. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:22:37 GMT, "Charles Tomaras"
wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... Generally, no. The DVD-V spec, which is what you are using on a regular DVD player, can accomodate sampling rates up to 24/96 as was used in the Chesky and Classic DADs and currently by a number of labels. I guess I thought that the "V audio" on DVD-A was encoded as Dolby Digital AC3 which is a lossy compression scheme. Not on these discs but often. kal |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
Charles Tomaras wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:12:37 GMT, "Charles Tomaras" wrote: "Wessel Dirksen" wrote in message ... I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved. Yes, but isn't that derived from lossy compression? Generally, no. The DVD-V spec, which is what you are using on a regular DVD player, can accomodate sampling rates up to 24/96 as was used in the Chesky and Classic DADs and currently by a number of labels. I guess I thought that the "V audio" on DVD-A was encoded as Dolby Digital AC3 which is a lossy compression scheme. It usually is DD or DTS. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On 15 Mar 2004 05:54:25 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Charles Tomaras wrote: I guess I thought that the "V audio" on DVD-A was encoded as Dolby Digital AC3 which is a lossy compression scheme. It usually is DD or DTS. For multichannel, that's so. If there's a stereo track, though, it is usually plain PCM. Kal |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
I found a Rhino DVD-A and it has a MCH 24/96 track and a stereo 24/192
track on it, according to my PC. Will try it tonight on a few players. Kal |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
andy wrote:
In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? For those of us who do our own recording, DVD-A is the clear winner. With DVD burners selling for under $150 and discWelder Bronze (from Minnetonka Audio) soon available for $99, anyone can burn high-res DVD-A disks. Not so with SACD. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
I agree, DVD-A is going to be more mainstream, but my experiences owning
both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. DVD-A, in my humble opinion sounds better in 2 channel mode (try Neil Youngs HARVEST)...all the surround sound stuff is a great novelty for music (which wears quickly) but in the end, good imaging, soundstage and good sound is all we want right ?? "Len Moskowitz" wrote in message ... andy wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? For those of us who do our own recording, DVD-A is the clear winner. With DVD burners selling for under $150 and discWelder Bronze (from Minnetonka Audio) soon available for $99, anyone can burn high-res DVD-A disks. Not so with SACD. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:19:10 GMT, wrote:
I agree, DVD-A is going to be more mainstream, but my experiences owning both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. DVD-A, in my humble opinion sounds better in 2 channel mode (try Neil Youngs HARVEST).. Perhaps but not all of DVD-A has a 2 channel mode whereas all SACD does. surround sound stuff is a great novelty for music (which wears quickly) but in the end, good imaging, soundstage and good sound is all we want right ?? True but it's done better, when done right, in multichannel than in 2channel. After all, MCH is stereo. ;-) Kal "Len Moskowitz" wrote in message ... andy wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? For those of us who do our own recording, DVD-A is the clear winner. With DVD burners selling for under $150 and discWelder Bronze (from Minnetonka Audio) soon available for $99, anyone can burn high-res DVD-A disks. Not so with SACD. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
If SACD is the winner why are companies like Adcom and Rotel making only
DVD-A players and not Universal players? Thanks Randy "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message news:qOWcc.91368$JO3.45584@attbi_s04... On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:19:10 GMT, wrote: I agree, DVD-A is going to be more mainstream, but my experiences owning both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. DVD-A, in my humble opinion sounds better in 2 channel mode (try Neil Youngs HARVEST).. Perhaps but not all of DVD-A has a 2 channel mode whereas all SACD does. surround sound stuff is a great novelty for music (which wears quickly) but in the end, good imaging, soundstage and good sound is all we want right ?? True but it's done better, when done right, in multichannel than in 2channel. After all, MCH is stereo. ;-) Kal "Len Moskowitz" wrote in message ... andy wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? For those of us who do our own recording, DVD-A is the clear winner. With DVD burners selling for under $150 and discWelder Bronze (from Minnetonka Audio) soon available for $99, anyone can burn high-res DVD-A disks. Not so with SACD. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:03:31 GMT, "Randy and Michelle"
wrote: If SACD is the winner why are companies like Adcom and Rotel making only DVD-A players and not Universal players? 1. Did I pick a winner? Nope, I merely pointed out a difference. 2. Adcom and Rotel are only two companies and I cannot know the reasoning behind their choices. They seem to be in the minority but I wouldn't draw much inference from that. Kal Thanks Randy "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message news:qOWcc.91368$JO3.45584@attbi_s04... On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:19:10 GMT, wrote: I agree, DVD-A is going to be more mainstream, but my experiences owning both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. DVD-A, in my humble opinion sounds better in 2 channel mode (try Neil Youngs HARVEST).. Perhaps but not all of DVD-A has a 2 channel mode whereas all SACD does. surround sound stuff is a great novelty for music (which wears quickly) but in the end, good imaging, soundstage and good sound is all we want right ?? True but it's done better, when done right, in multichannel than in 2channel. After all, MCH is stereo. ;-) Kal "Len Moskowitz" wrote in message ... andy wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? For those of us who do our own recording, DVD-A is the clear winner. With DVD burners selling for under $150 and discWelder Bronze (from Minnetonka Audio) soon available for $99, anyone can burn high-res DVD-A disks. Not so with SACD. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
wrote:
I agree, DVD-A is going to be more mainstream, but my experiences owning both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. DVD-A, in my humble opinion sounds better in 2 channel mode (try Neil Youngs HARVEST)...all the surround sound stuff is a great novelty for music (which wears quickly) but in the end, good imaging, soundstage and good sound is all we want right ?? I disagree that SACD sounds better. When I've heard Sony's demos at AES I've been distinctly underwhelmed. And now Steinberg has included DVD-A burner support in Wavelab 5.0. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
Most of the concern over who makes which players has nothing to do with
technology or which format is better. Its more about the LICENSING of technology. Sony and Philips own the rights to SACD technology. Some companies cant justify the added expense (which trickles down to the consumer eventually) of paying extra fees to license technology. Adcom and Rotel, and many others may have taken this path. Others such as Marantz ,Denon,Yamaha and Pioneer have purchased the technology , thus the influx of uni-players. Tony "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:03:31 GMT, "Randy and Michelle" wrote: If SACD is the winner why are companies like Adcom and Rotel making only DVD-A players and not Universal players? 1. Did I pick a winner? Nope, I merely pointed out a difference. 2. Adcom and Rotel are only two companies and I cannot know the reasoning behind their choices. They seem to be in the minority but I wouldn't draw much inference from that. Kal Thanks Randy "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message news:qOWcc.91368$JO3.45584@attbi_s04... On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:19:10 GMT, wrote: I agree, DVD-A is going to be more mainstream, but my experiences owning both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. DVD-A, in my humble opinion sounds better in 2 channel mode (try Neil Youngs HARVEST).. Perhaps but not all of DVD-A has a 2 channel mode whereas all SACD does. surround sound stuff is a great novelty for music (which wears quickly) but in the end, good imaging, soundstage and good sound is all we want right ?? True but it's done better, when done right, in multichannel than in 2channel. After all, MCH is stereo. ;-) Kal "Len Moskowitz" wrote in message ... andy wrote: In the sense SACD is the winner? I see lot of SACDs on sale on amazon but I can hardly fond DVD-A. What is the situation with the majors? I feel UMG is also SACD. Which one is pursuing DVD-A, then? For those of us who do our own recording, DVD-A is the clear winner. With DVD burners selling for under $150 and discWelder Bronze (from Minnetonka Audio) soon available for $99, anyone can burn high-res DVD-A disks. Not so with SACD. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:26:58 +0000, Len Moskowitz wrote:
And now Steinberg has included DVD-A burner support in Wavelab 5.0. For me, this is the key difference. DVD-Audio is a format that home users on a budget can get involved with. Computer audio interfaces that do 24/96 and 24/192 PCM are readily available. Software that can burn DVD-Audio discs is now affordable. (Discwelder Bronze at the low end is a mere $99; the more full-featured Wavelab or the fancier versions of Discwelder are available if you want more capability. I had been hoping that DVD Architect would add DVD-Audio, but now that it's owned by Sony, that probably won't happen, alas.) You can even get DVD-Audio playback capability for your computer, albeit under restrictions (you have to buy specific models of SoundBlaster cards, and of course there is no digital output). The one thing missing is an afforable MLP encoder, which is necessary if you want to make 24/96 surround recordings. (The least expensive encoder is currently $2500, presumably due to onerous licensing terms by Meridian. Alas, it's too late to get the format to use FLAC instead.) 24/192 stereo and 24/48 surround are possible without MLP. I don't know if DVD-Audio permits a mixed-mode disc where you use 24/96 for the front channels and 24/48 for the rears; that might be a solution if it's possible. By contrast, SACD is completely inaccessible. There is no affordable DSD hardware. There is no affordable software for editing DSD. And there will probably never be hardware to play SACD discs on your computer, because manufactured SACD discs use an encryption scheme that depends on additional data written on the disc in a special way that computer DVD-ROM drives can't read. (It's certainly not technically impossible to build a drive for computers that COULD read them, but I'm not expecting to see one anytime soon, because that would break the encryption on the DSD content and allow people to copy it.) What all of this meas is that SACD is strictly a game for the big boys; the rest of us haven't been invited. This is bad news for the bands that have decided to stay away from the big label game and do their own recordings; if high-resolution discs catch on, they'll be forced back to the big record companies. DVD-Audio lets them continue to use their home studios, with only a modest investment in new hardware and software. The need for a special transport, rather than a commodity DVD-ROM drive, means that SACD players will probably also remain more expensive than DVD-Audio players. The low-end companies that put together cheap $50 DVD players can add DVD-Audio capability as an inexpensive model step-up (mostly they haven't yet, but it will come); SACD would require them to shift to a transport that isn't a commodity item made by the millions, and would probably double the price of the player. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
Randy and Michelle" ha scritto nel messaggio
newsx1dc.87641$gA5.1096748@attbi_s03... If SACD is the winner why are companies like Adcom and Rotel making only DVD-A players and not Universal players? add also Meridian, NAD, Cambridge Audio, Harman Kardon to your list -- Se escludi il cibo, tutto è epifenomeno: la sabbia, la spiaggia, lo sci, l'amore, il lavoro, il letto: epifenomeno. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
"Long Rod Penetrator" ha scritto nel
messaggio news:Yso3c.221252$jk2.773922@attbi_s53... I have nothing against hi-rez PCM technology (many say it's technically better), that's not precise. DSD is simply an ingenuity whose main purpose seems to set a new standards and new royalties. but DSD is pretty good, it also a sample rate very, so lots of informations. But it does its best to wast such many data. A poor encoding. The supposed "naturality" of dsd is also mainly a marketing creation. DSD use harde noise shaping: moves the noise around 50000 hz, beyond the audible, BUT there is and it has energy. You don't listen but your amp and your speakers do! Indeed they are reproduced by the encoding (till about 100000 hz) Some also told that this noise could be a cause of the well known "euphonic" behaviour of sacd: intermodulation distortion from very high frequencies. DVD-A was doomed by its arrogant backers who ignored the issue of CD cross-compatibility in my knowledge the contrary is true: Sony and Philips forbid the release of hybrid DVD-A, according to their red book. Actually, all dvd forum agreed with the adoption of DVD-A as a natural successor for SACD. It was a unilateral decision of Sony/Philips to go on their own way to earn $$$ in royalties and they launched the thing about DSD, i.e., simply, 1-bit encoding. Essentially: nothing new. It was new only beacuse of the poorness of that type of encoding. It is a great waste of memory... if CD were released using 1-bit encoding.... they would probably sound ****ty. When I upgrade one of my old disks to SACD, I give the old CD away. If I buy something new, I buy the SACD, and I'm done with it. these doi not seem to be inherent features of the format. It's only commodity. It depends essentially on red book. Anyhow, the strategy of hybrid sacd is also late. Initially, they were not planning that way. As others have pointed out, neither hi-rez format is likely to be more than a niche product, but DVD-A, from an implementation perspective, is a train wreck. I do not think it is a so big disaster. They made market errors, but I still think the future will naturally bring towards dvd-audio. It is DTS and Dolby which count. Cinema is going that way. DVD-A is versatile and pc friendly, while dsd is lock and untrictable, unless you convert it to PCM.... I would not be sure sacd is a sure winner. -- Se escludi il cibo, tutto è epifenomeno: la sabbia, la spiaggia, lo sci, l'amore, il lavoro, il letto: epifenomeno. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ibMcc.80772$gA5.1018387@attbi_s03... but my experiences owning both formats is that SACD is clearly the winner for sound quality, and will probably be embraced by the high end crowd, especially those who like the warmth of analogue..where SACD is clearly the winner. I think this is just a mixture of 'euphonic marketing' and an essential difference in the avalble catalogue. Sacd has mora classical and more jazz, sax, trumpets, etc. Easy to appear more 'analogue'. I think is maianly a suggestion. Someone has tried to catch analogue outs from a staereo sacd, putting it in a CD recored and seeing what happens? I'm almost ready to bet that you obtain a CD which sound identical to SACD [thogh it should be degradeted, for the extra AD/DA conversion], which would demonstrate that sacd, as a format, is by no mean superior to ordinary red book cd. It may 'sounds different and warm' just because is somehow 'warm' the content. -- Se escludi il cibo, tutto è epifenomeno: la sabbia, la spiaggia, lo sci, l'amore, il lavoro, il letto: epifenomeno. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
DVD-A vs SACD: is the war over now?
On 4/27/04 9:19 PM, in article yEDjc.213$lz5.74764@attbi_s53, "h a r v e y"
wrote: Randy and Michelle" ha scritto nel messaggio newsx1dc.87641$gA5.1096748@attbi_s03... If SACD is the winner why are companies like Adcom and Rotel making only DVD-A players and not Universal players? add also Meridian, NAD, Cambridge Audio, Harman Kardon to your list DVD-A players are cheaper to make if you are making a DVD player, and you don't have to pay licensing fees for the SACD technology nearly as much. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Most of the concern over who makes which players has nothing to do with technology or which format is better. Its more about the LICENSING of technology. Sony and Philips own the rights to SACD technology. Some companies cant justify the added expense (which trickles down to the consumer eventually) of paying extra fees to license technology. Which begs the question, which technologies do they hope to find that doesnt cost them anything to develop or anything to license? They'd be stuck with oldertechnology that the major companies have already seen paid development expenses back. The major companies are using current technologies to move the market, and I fail to find any technology that any small company could ever hope to become bigger or grow big using. IMO such small companies are doomed to remain small as they cannot afford to invent and market unless they team up with a major company. And even that is risky as the major companies will want unlimited use of the technology at a small cost if the customers decide it is good, and minimal losses if the customers decide otherwise. Small companies are small for a reason, many of them started out with one idea perhaps even started off by research funded by government/private interests, and when the company stops making money the needs for more investments in new technology (or a fusion) becomes acute. Mikkel |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Any SACD Experience to Report? | High End Audio | |||
Sony Digital Amps (and SACD) vs. Sony Analog Amps | High End Audio | |||
Is the war over yet? DVD-audio vs SACD | High End Audio | |||
SACD stero & multi report. | High End Audio | |||
No surround channels playing Dark Side of Moon SACD | High End Audio |