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

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/

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

(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?

-goro-

"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?

"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.

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

On 9 Mar 2004 16:38:43 GMT, (Goro) wrote:

(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?

What was unusual about it? Almost all DVD-As will play on regular DVD
players without being designated as hybrids.

Kal

(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.

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

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

"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?

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

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

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

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

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

I believe DVD-A's played in normal DVD players give 16bit 48kHz instead of
44.1 kHz. which is slightly improved.

"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.

"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?

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.

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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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