SACD & DVD-Audio - Dead?

[Tim]

Now that it looks like Bluray has won the next generation video format
war. I was now wondering about the format war no one cared about
DVD-Audio and SACD. Are both these formats near death? Is there any
new content or hardware for these formats? It would appear that the
mp3 has been chosen as the next generation audio format.

It would appear that this is just one more nail in the coffin for
high-end audio as well. Right now I use a PC to play DVDs, Bluray
DVDs, CDs, and DVR. I also have about 2,500 CDs that I paid a kid to
rip using EAC to a couple of 750GB hard drives. The covers were
scanned and the files were encoded using a lossless format. They were
then burned to double sided dvds and stored in slim jewel cases. On
avg I was able to get about 30 CDs on one disc so with the slim jewel
cases about 60 CDs now take up the space of 1 CD.

However this was just for backup storage. I basically now have a PC
that makes no noise in my living room hooked up to the TV. Using two
hard drives I have instant access to over 2500 CDs using winamp to
manage the media library of over 100 days of music. The media library
makes it very easy to find things in seconds. Expensive audio cables?
Well since I am using a digital audio cable and they are all the same
the answer would be no. Basically I have spent money on a nice Amp
and speakers, the rest of the high-end industry will be replaced by
computers.

[[email protected]]

> It would appear that this is just one more nail in the coffin for
> high-end audio as well.

It's "high end" if you use high end DAC's (Benchmark, Lavry, etc.), or
at least a high end soundcard (Lynx, Emu 1616m, ESI Juli@, etc.) It's
not "high end" if you use a $15 soundcard or built-in chip with 70dB
dynamic range. And its high end if it feeds a "high end" speaker
system or headphones.

It's high end if you use 24/96 sources and transmission. Or at least
WAV or AIFF. It's not high end if you use MP3, obviously, or any
lossy compressed format.

I now feed SACD into my digital preamp, EQ and crossover with a 24/96
ADC. That way, FWIW, I'm preserving the greater midrange dynamic
range and frequency response. But most often, I just listed to the
hybrid PCM layer, when available, because it's much more convenient.
Haven't checked if I can feed 24bit PCM from DVD-Audio (or 2496 DVD-
Videos like those from Classic Records) from any of my players. That
would beat using the ADC.

*Right now I use a PC to play DVDs, Bluray
> DVDs, CDs, and DVR. *I also have about 2,500 CDs that I paid a kid to
> rip using EAC to a couple of 750GB hard drives. *The covers were
> scanned and the files were encoded using a lossless format. *They were
> then burned to double sided dvds and stored in slim jewel cases. *On
> avg I was able to get about 30 CDs on one disc so with the slim jewel
> cases about 60 CDs now take up the space of 1 CD.

It's high end if you use EAC or take other measures for exact copying.

What kind of lossless format gives you 30-1 (or even 15-1?)
compression?

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim" > wrote in message

> Now that it looks like Bluray has won the next generation
> video format war. I was now wondering about the format
> war no one cared about DVD-Audio and SACD. Are both
> these formats near death?

You just said that this was the format war that nobody cared about. Hold
that thought and fill in the blanks!

> Is there any new content or hardware for these formats?

There is a pipeline of products that have been in development for some time.
Ask this question say, 3 years in the future when the current pipeline
contents run out.

>It would appear that the mp3
> has been chosen as the next generation audio format.

For what?

> It would appear that this is just one more nail in the
> coffin for high-end audio as well.

If high end audio were really healthy, its cash flow would have floated the
DVD and SACD boats up into the mainstream.

> Right now I use a PC
> to play DVDs, Bluray DVDs, CDs, and DVR.

You have a BluRay drive in your PC?

> I also have
> about 2,500 CDs that I paid a kid to rip using EAC to a
> couple of 750GB hard drives. The covers were scanned and
> the files were encoded using a lossless format. They
> were then burned to double sided dvds and stored in slim
> jewel cases. On avg I was able to get about 30 CDs on
> one disc so with the slim jewel cases about 60 CDs now
> take up the space of 1 CD.

Cool!

> However this was just for backup storage. I basically
> now have a PC that makes no noise in my living room
> hooked up to the TV. Using two hard drives I have
> instant access to over 2500 CDs using winamp to manage
> the media library of over 100 days of music. The media
> library makes it very easy to find things in seconds.
> Expensive audio cables? Well since I am using a digital
> audio cable and they are all the same the answer would be
> no. Basically I have spent money on a nice Amp and
> speakers, the rest of the high-end industry will be
> replaced by computers.

Good for you! You are probably the future of high end audio, such as it
will be after all the boomers retire.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Jan 27, 2:04 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Tim" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now that it looks like Bluray has won the next generation
> > > video format war. I was now wondering about the format
> > > war no one cared about DVD-Audio and SACD. Are both
> > > these formats near death?
> >
> > You just said that this was the format war that nobody cared about. Hold
> > that thought and fill in the blanks!
> >
> > > Is there any new content or hardware for these formats?
> >
> > There is a pipeline of products that have been in development for some time.
> > Ask this question say, 3 years in the future when the current pipeline
> > contents run out.
> >
> > >It would appear that the mp3
> > > has been chosen as the next generation audio format.
> >
> > For what?
> >
> > > It would appear that this is just one more nail in the
> > > coffin for high-end audio as well.
> >
> > If high end audio were really healthy, its cash flow would have floated the
> > DVD and SACD boats up into the mainstream.
> >
> > > Right now I use a PC
> > > to play DVDs, Bluray DVDs, CDs, and DVR.
> >
> > You have a BluRay drive in your PC?
>
> NBL.
>
>
> Arny has been ****ting on high end audio for a decade-plus and then
> he wails about the poor performance of high end audio.
>
> Some people will be spending big money on audio because of the male
> compulsion to measure dicks

And you would certainly know about that...

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Good for you! You are probably the future of high end audio, such as it
> will be after all the boomers retire.

Actually, probably the future of home audio in general.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 27, 6:33*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> *Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> > *Some people will be spending big money on audio because of the male
> > compulsion to measure dicks
>
> And you would certainly know about that...

I, for one, am unaware of any other poster who has posted the alleged
measurements of his dick on RAO.

I would also assume that anybody who would do so is embellishing those
measurements, probably by a factor of two or more.

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message

> On Jan 27, 2:04 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Tim" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now that it looks like Bluray has won the next
>>> generation video format war. I was now wondering about
>>> the format war no one cared about DVD-Audio and SACD.
>>> Are both these formats near death?
>>
>> You just said that this was the format war that nobody
>> cared about. Hold that thought and fill in the blanks!
>>
>>> Is there any new content or hardware for these formats?
>>
>> There is a pipeline of products that have been in
>> development for some time. Ask this question say, 3
>> years in the future when the current pipeline contents
>> run out.
>>
>>> It would appear that the mp3
>>> has been chosen as the next generation audio format.
>>
>> For what?
>>
>>> It would appear that this is just one more nail in the
>>> coffin for high-end audio as well.
>>
>> If high end audio were really healthy, its cash flow
>> would have floated the DVD and SACD boats up into the
>> mainstream.
>>
>>> Right now I use a PC
>>> to play DVDs, Bluray DVDs, CDs, and DVR.
>>
>> You have a BluRay drive in your PC?
>
> NBL.

>
> Arny has been ****ting on high end audio for a
> decade-plus and then he wails about the poor performance
> of high end audio.

Read what you just wrote Bret. My complaint with high end audio has been
with its poor performance. The poor performance caused the complaints. You
can't blame me for the poor performance, since poor performance preceeded my
complaints.

> Some people will be spending big money on audio because
> of the male compulsion to measure dicks, so to speak.

Since high end audio is rife with poor performance, you don't get better
sound from it, all you get is bragging rights associated with blowing a lot
of cash.

> Instead of making sure the inevitable high dollar
> equipment reflects its price in build cost, driving
> excellence, Arny just ****s on the industry in general.

You've completely missed the point as usual, Bret. This discussion is not
about build cost but perforamance. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, build
cost is no guarantee of improved performance.


> MP3 or any compressed lossy format is inherently no good.

Why do you blame MP3 on me? Where have I advocated it?

> Highbit is what we want,

No, improved actual performance is what we want.

> and SACD and DVD-A are the best
> things going-despite their flaws.

I don't you're following the bouncing ball, Bret. SACD and DVD-A are dead as
mainstream products, and are on life support as niche products. If you blame
that on me, then you're saying that I have a heck of a lot power over the
marketplace. Do you want to say that?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> I, for one, am unaware of any other poster who has posted the alleged
> measurements of his dick on RAO.

Actually, there was such an exchange some years ago. Several RAOers
contributed. I think the tenor was jocular.

> I would also assume that anybody who would do so is embellishing those
> measurements, probably by a factor of two or more.

Well, of course. This ain't a locker room.

[Tim]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:17:30 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>> It would appear that this is just one more nail in the coffin for
>> high-end audio as well.
>
>It's "high end" if you use high end DAC's (Benchmark, Lavry, etc.), or
>at least a high end soundcard (Lynx, Emu 1616m, ESI Juli@, etc.) It's
>not "high end" if you use a $15 soundcard or built-in chip with 70dB
>dynamic range. And its high end if it feeds a "high end" speaker
>system or headphones.
>
>It's high end if you use 24/96 sources and transmission. Or at least
>WAV or AIFF. It's not high end if you use MP3, obviously, or any
>lossy compressed format.
>
>I now feed SACD into my digital preamp, EQ and crossover with a 24/96
>ADC. That way, FWIW, I'm preserving the greater midrange dynamic
>range and frequency response. But most often, I just listed to the
>hybrid PCM layer, when available, because it's much more convenient.
>Haven't checked if I can feed 24bit PCM from DVD-Audio (or 2496 DVD-
>Videos like those from Classic Records) from any of my players. That
>would beat using the ADC.
>
>*Right now I use a PC to play DVDs, Bluray
>> DVDs, CDs, and DVR. *I also have about 2,500 CDs that I paid a kid to
>> rip using EAC to a couple of 750GB hard drives. *The covers were
>> scanned and the files were encoded using a lossless format. *They were
>> then burned to double sided dvds and stored in slim jewel cases. *On
>> avg I was able to get about 30 CDs on one disc so with the slim jewel
>> cases about 60 CDs now take up the space of 1 CD.
>
>It's high end if you use EAC or take other measures for exact copying.
>
>What kind of lossless format gives you 30-1 (or even 15-1?)
>compression?

Monkey's Audio at "Insane" compression level. It really depends on
the type of music. The majority of my collection (70%) is classical
which compresses better especially piano music and other chamber
music.

[[email protected]]

Tim wrote:
> Monkey's Audio at "Insane" compression level. *It really depends on
> the type of music. *The majority of my collection (70%) is classical
> which compresses better especially piano music and other chamber
> music.

Thanks for that.

BTW, "high end" digital interconnect would not be toslink optical or
ordinary stranded audio interconnects. AES/EBU on balanced 110ohm
cables (I use Canare) or, for spdif, 75 ohm RG6 (solid core) with
"true" (well, nearly) 75 ohm RCA's (once again, Canare, who figured
out how to make an RCA connector closest to 75 ohm) crimped with
Canare tools, not soldered, to preserve the 75 ohm impedance. A
better protocol was out there for awhile but never stuck. Most "high
end" or good pro gear has the balanced AES/EBU, which is preferable to
spdif, or uses master clocks, which is better yet for a complicated
system.

But even optical works surprisingly well, actually. I use up to 30
foot ADAT (rated for 16 channel pro audio) opticals for toslink, and
they seem to work fine, even if not "high end". Even powered from PC,
such a connection can give nearly jitterless audio with a good jitter
immune DAC like Benchmark. There is some evidence to suggest that
using a USB connection from PC doesn't meet high end standards
(Stereophile January 2008) or is at least problematic (though it may
sound fine for casual listening if not more). Dedicated firewire
connections (Emu 1616m, Lynx, and Digidesign are built on that) seem
to work better than USB for realtime audio.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> BTW, "high end" digital interconnect would not be toslink
> optical or ordinary stranded audio interconnects.

Modern consumer audio interconnect would be something like audio transmitted
over HDMI.

> AES/EBU on balanced 110ohm cables (I use Canare) or, for
> spdif, 75 ohm RG6 (solid core) with "true" (well, nearly)
> 75 ohm RCA's (once again, Canare, who figured out how to
> make an RCA connector closest to 75 ohm) crimped with
> Canare tools, not soldered, to preserve the 75 ohm
> impedance. A better protocol was out there for awhile
> but never stuck. Most "high end" or good pro gear has
> the balanced AES/EBU, which is preferable to spdif, or
> uses master clocks, which is better yet for a complicated
> system.

While concern over preserving impedance of digital cables over the length of
a connector is commendable on the grounds of hygiene, in fact there is no
AES-3 line that has a high enough data rate for it to matter one tiny bit.

> But even optical works surprisingly well, actually. I
> use up to 30 foot ADAT (rated for 16 channel pro audio)
> opticals for toslink, and they seem to work fine, even if
> not "high end".

The purpose of the equipment that is at the receiving end of a TOSLINK cable
is to make the signal sonically perfect, no matter what happens to it in the
plastic optics.

> Even powered from PC, such a connection
> can give nearly jitterless audio with a good jitter
> immune DAC like Benchmark.

....or just about any competent surround-sound decoder, whether the signal is
surround or just stereo.

> There is some evidence to
> suggest that using a USB connection from PC doesn't meet
> high end standards (Stereophile January 2008)

IME Atkinson's ideas about jitter amount to pseudo science and magic,
illustrated in color on log graph paper. I'm sure he found some, but he will
probably die before he shows that it is audible based on any reasonable
listening test.

> or is at
> least problematic (though it may sound fine for casual
> listening if not more). Dedicated firewire connections
> (Emu 1616m, Lynx, and Digidesign are built on that) seem
> to work better than USB for realtime audio.

On balance, no. Firewire's biggest advantage is that it is far older
technology than USB. At this point, USB is getting mature enough that it is
starting to catch up, or is caught up in its most recent implementations.
USB-2 audio probably owes its greatest debt to USB flash drives.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 28, 7:45*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> > There is some evidence to suggest that using a USB
> > connection from PC doesn't meet high end standards
> > (Stereophile January 2008)
>
> IME Atkinson's ideas about jitter amount to pseudo
> science and magic, illustrated in color on log graph paper.

Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Coming from you, this is
praise indeed (vide Dr. Glen Zelniker's public views on
your knowledge of digital theory). But as always, you
would do better actually reading what I write before
criticizing it. Yes, some USB implementations suffer
from surprisingly high amounts of word-clock jitter -- as
high as 10s of nanoseconds -- but my primary concern
of late has been the fact that it is all too easy for
consumers _not_ to get bit-transparent transmission
of audio data via USB in both PC and Mac worlds.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jan 28, 7:45 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>> There is some evidence to suggest that using a USB
>>> connection from PC doesn't meet high end standards
>>> (Stereophile January 2008)
>>
>> IME Atkinson's ideas about jitter amount to pseudo
>> science and magic, illustrated in color on log graph
>> paper.
>
> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Coming from you, this is
> praise indeed (vide Dr. Glen Zelniker's public views on
> your knowledge of digital theory).

Well you know, I don't have Glen to kick around any more, John. I guess he
lacks what you might call staying power. Sort of like your other supporters,
what was his name - that guy who helped a lot of old-time RAO regulars lose
big bucks on some investments?

> But as always, you
> would do better actually reading what I write before
> criticizing it.

Aren't you still using that test that has no known relaible correlation with
proper listening tests?

> Yes, some USB implementations suffer
> from surprisingly high amounts of word-clock jitter -- as
> high as 10s of nanoseconds

Just numbers.

> but my primary concern
> of late has been the fact that it is all too easy for
> consumers _not_ to get bit-transparent transmission
> of audio data via USB in both PC and Mac worlds.

Trust you John to make a big fuss about problems that are > 90 dB down, in a
world where just about every recording has a noise floor that is less than
75 dB down. For a guy who makes a big fuss about subjectivity, you seem to
be long on numbers and short on reliable listening tests to back up your
concerns.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Ian, 15:36, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> Well you know, I don't have Glen to kick around any more, John. I guess he
> lacks what you might call staying power.

Since you miss him so much, gonna round him up and deputize him, and
stick him in my get Arny posse. All I want to do is make you happy.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Well you know, I don't have Glen[sic] to kick[sic] around any more, John.

> Since you miss him so much, gonna round him up and deputize him, and
> stick him in my get Arny posse. All I want to do is make you happy.

I heard from Dr. Z recently. He asked about RAO, and I gave him a link to
a thread in which Krooger and Witless were having one of their pointless
arguments on a subject they know nothing about. He said he was nauseated
by the thought of trying to talk sense into either of them.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper yapped:

> > I heard from Dr. Z recently. He asked about RAO, and I gave him a link to
> > a thread in which Krooger and Witless were having one of their pointless
> > arguments on a subject they know nothing about. He said he was nauseated
> > by the thought of trying to talk sense into either of them.
>
> You're lying.

Does that thought really bother you, Scooter? Zelniker doesn't consider
you a peer in any sense, you know. His opinion of you isn't as harsh as
mine, but it's a long way from "somebody I'd be glad to talk engineering
with".

Sorry to bring you down, but it's absolutely true. It's also good to know
that when you accuse somebody of "lying", it's likely to be a purely
emotional outburst on your part, unconnected to any facts.