dvd audio worth buying?

It's hard to say now whether either SACD or DVD-A will survive, & as John said, there's precious little evidence of either on the High-street, or in terms of mass market demand. AFAIK both were really introduced as a (doomed) attempt to prevent copying, but that said, both have got a chance, as long as the price is right for the mass market:

SACD could work for a while (i.e. the lifetime of CD) if they follow John's idea and they keep the price the same as CD. That way, all the portables, bedroom systems, car stereos etc will be able to play them, & it'll be a some time yet before they all get replaced by DVD hardware.

DVD-A looks likely to have a longer future simply on the back of DVD-V. There's certainly plenty of DVD-V players which can play the discs at "V" quality, which is plenty good enough to the masses, so again if they price the discs on a par with CD, people will buy them.

Mind you, if you weight things by the number of column inches in the hi-fi press, then both of them have already won, & of course no-one is buying those "old fashioned" CDs anymore...

J

PS - if I was to consider either, I'd probably go for both, i.e. a Universal player, although Arcam have suggested they stuch with DVD-A alone as to try both would be too big a compromise.

i only asked as i saw a dvda/dvd player with a great saving in a sale the model was the pioneer 939a i won't say how much of a saving there was but it was cheap as chips.
thanks for your imput.
frank.

If the price is low enough it could be worth a punt. Could also be worth having a look on Play to see if there's any music you want out there 1st though...

I have been wondering about this, for archiving vinyl.

My PC sound card does 24bit 96kHz recordings, and this could then be recorded straight onto DVD-A.

Still, I wonder if the money spent on a DVD-R drive for the PC and a DVD-A player for the hifi would be better spent on something like an HHB (or is it HBB) CD-R drive, which can do some superb CD copies. Not limited by the PC's A-to-D converion then, and I could play them back on the CDS2.

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com

Martin - FWIW, I spent days recording my vinyl to CD's. I then found the sound quality so lacking compared to proper CD's that I have now bought most of them again (remastered where available). Complete waste of time. I'm just too fussy.

Just to clarify...

Jason wrote:

"...There's certainly plenty of DVD-V players which can play the discs at "V" quality..."

Does this mean that ANY DVD player can play DVD-A disks? I thought the player had to be specificaly marked as a DVD-A player to do it...

...or do you mean that the DVD-A players that also do DVD-V are lower in quality than dedicated DVD-A players (if there is such a thing).

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Greg

My understanding (& I could be wrong here) is that all DVD-A discs include a DVD-V layer / portion, so can be replayed effectively as an audio only DVD-V quality disc on a DVD-V only player i.e. much the same quality as a standard DVD-V movie's soundtrack.

I'll have a little dig & see if I can confirm this.

What I'm more sure about is that all DVD-A players are also DVD-V players by default, i.e. there's no such thing as a player that will do DVD-A but not DVD-V.

Best take a break there as my V key's nearly worn out

Back from the dig

It turns out that I'm "mostly" right, according to this Digital Audio Guide FAQ I just found...

quote:

---

Most DVD-audio discs are compatible with DVD-Video players. To provide compatibility, most DVD-Audio discs are including Dolby Digital (some also include DTS) audio tracks that satisfy the DVD-Video specification. These tracks are playable on DVD-Video players. A DVD album which includes these features will carry the DVD-Audio and DVD-Video logo.

However, a DVD-Video player will not recognize and play the ultra-high fidelity PCM and MLP encoded audio tracks on a DVD-Audio disk. To play these tracks, a DVD player is required that meets the DVD-Audio specification. These players can be identified by the DVD-Audio logo.

---

Greg

Jason is correct. One of the requirements of the DVD-A format was that it be playable in a DVD-Video player. When played in a DVD-V player it is output as a digital signal and decoded into 5.1 DD or sometimes also offered as DTS.

The sample frequency out through the digital connection is limited to 48 Khz PCM (the same as normal CD and the DD & DTS signals). This is part of this copy protection obsession which is applied to high bandwith signals such as DVD-A & SACD for that matter.

When played in a DVD player which is DVD-A capable the DVD-A signal is decoded internally based on a frequency of 96 KHz PPCM for multichannel and on some discs at 192 Khz for stereo. The signals are then output as discrete analog channels into line level inputs on a multichannel amp. The same approach io used to decode SACD signals. Both are treated like this so you can't copy the high resolution signal in the digital domain.

DVD-A players are invariably also capable of playing DVD-V because the two fromats are tied together so intimately. For that reason typically DVD-A discs carry video menus and pictures + lyrica for you to look at whilst you listen. This can be quite annoying because on some DVD-A discs to get them playing you have to turn on your TV and navigate the menu which is silly for a pure audio format. Occasiuonally DVD-A discs will self start without needing video access.

SACD palyers are also CD playesr by nature and are purely audio with no added video content. It is typically easier to switch from multichannel to stereo on SCAD players ( a button press on the remote).

I have both SCAD and DVD-A in seperate dedicated players. I have been listening to these disks for about 18 months and slowly building an opinion. Currently I do feel that SACD is more the "audiophile" format. A lot of previously recorded amterial, particulalrly classical, is released in stereo rather than playing tricks and expanding it to multichannel. In stereo there ia extra "air" to the music which gives it a more vinyl like sound. Modern first time recordings done well in multichannel are also often excellent as long as they don't go crazy and move whole sections of the band to individual rear speakers.

Most of DVD-A seems to be released with multichannel as standard regardless of the original recorded fromat. Often however there is a 192 Khz PPCM stereo track included which again can be very vinyl like. However the feeling is there that it is more of a "play musical tricks" format than SACD and not quite so involving ultimately.

There has been quite a push recently by SONY to expand SACD by releasing all the classic Rolling Stones recordings on SACD capable CD's. They are also now doing the same with Bob Dylan and of course the release of both "Dark side of the Moon" and "Tubular Bells" has been interesting. Both of these recordings lend themselves to multichannel and sound pretty bloody good to me.

regards
GEOFFP

Jason

I was write my disertation whilst you were digging so I maybe duplicating efforte but hope it's generally usefull

GEOFFP

The problem with both of the new digital formats is lack of software.

Who wants to buy another version of a Dire Straits album after the vinyl, tape, CD versions?

I too occasionaly browse through the offerings at the shops, and they are laughable.

These formats have simply not caught the public imagination like DVD vs VHS as above.

They have a minority appeal, like top class record decks, audiophile pressings etc.

One of them will have to die for the other to survive.

Bets on which one will win?

DS

OTD - Vidna Obmana - Eardome for memory

I still haven't figured out the draw to multichannel music. It seems we're always searching for the best hardware to make us feel we're right in front of the artists or part of a live performance.

Now with multichannel, parts of the band can be behind us or to the side of us or wherever. I have yet to be to a performance where any instrument was behind me.

quote:

---

I have yet to be to a performance where any instrument was behind me.

---

Never played in a band then?
(I have, but that's all behind me now!)

Paul Rowlands

Thanks for your reply Geoff - much of my post was recollections culled from reading various reviews / articles, but first-hand experience is always more reliable

As far as multi-channel vs Stereo goes, & can see the potential of both.

192KHz Stereo gives those with a decent stereo hi-fi a source that could ultimately challenge LP in terms of musical realism.

Where 5.1 could score is in its potential to re-create the acoustics of a live event. Front L / R / Centre can be used to replay the musicians as recorded directly, & rear L & R can be used to replay the recorded reflected sound from the back of the auditorium, giving a far more realistic atmosphere than any of the (Jazz Club / Rock Concert / etc) artificially processed effects they seem to push on most Surround Amps / processors.

Mind you, for myself, financial constraints mean it'll be a few years before I could begin to afford a 5.1 system to a standard equal to the stereo...

What do you think - have you heard any surround recordings making use of this technique? Does it work?

-------------------------------------------

David - to be honest, I can easily see neither taking off in a big way, from past experience. Both could be seen as a technological solution to a problem no one's got & I'm not sure the mass market will bear being told to throw all their music away & start again too frequently.

That said, if one of them "has" to succeed long term it'll probably be DVD-A, based purely on "DVD" being perceived as the next big thing, & less & less new CD hardware being produced. SACD may well be a better format, & Sony aren't without influence, especially as the major large scale combined hardware & "software" (hate that term) vendor (no offence to Naim), but look where that got them with Betamax...

right then cats out of the bag after reading some opinions on this page i took a small gamble and paid £300 for the pioneer 939a dvd/dvda player brand new, thats a saving of £900 on its rrp i will report back on the sound soon i only have 2 channel at the mo but i will compare this with red book.
thanks again.
frank

minime - hope the adventure goes well.
(Hmmm, I wonder why the unit was so heavily discounted - could it be a portent?)
Personally I think DVD-A and SACD are stillborn - they're just silver disks that don't work with our current players.
I seem to remember a discussion a while ago, and I said the next big format would have to be solid state (no moving parts, instant access, hopefully high quality, etc.). I reckon it'll happen this decade. (Some others came up with ideas about download music, subscription stuff, etc.)

Paul Rowlands

quote:

---

Where 5.1 could score is in its potential to re-create the acoustics of a live event. Front L / R / Centre can be used to replay the musicians as recorded directly, & rear L & R can be used to replay the recorded reflected sound from the back of the auditorium, giving a far more realistic atmosphere than any of the (Jazz Club / Rock Concert / etc) artificially processed effects they seem to push on most Surround Amps / processors.

---

Quite a lot of DVD-V Music discs are live recordings. The (in)famous demo disk is "till hell freezes over" by the eagles. In truth ithas a bloody good DTS 5.1 soundtrack which uses the channels the way you describe.
It works when done well.
Clapton has a few live DVD-Vá in DTS which are also excellent.

Minime. I have a Pioneer 939A and I am jealous as hell since I paid about 900 GBP for it about 18 months ago.
You should enjoy it, it does a good job. I won't comment further I will leave you to find out, except for one thing.
See what you think of standard CD replay. The manual claims it "upsamples" to 96/24 when replaying a CD.

Once you have a report I would be interested to compare notes.

regards
GEOFFP
(geoff_phillipps@compuserve.com if you want to contact me)

hi jeff is the manual wrong, does the player not do the upsample bit
frank

quote:

---

Originally posted by prowla:

quote:

---

I have yet to be to a performance where any instrument was behind me.

---

Never played in a band then?
(I have, but that's all behind me now!)

Paul Rowlands

---

So does that mean you listen to your music with your back to the speakers?

[This message was edited by Taylormade on WEDNESDAY 22 October 2003 at 01:50.]

Taylormade wrote:

quote:

---

So does that mean you listen to your music with your back to the speakers?

---

I do that quite often. That means I do it quite often the times I'm actually IN the music room while listening to music. Most of the time I'm in the kitchen, working on the modell railroad etc. etc.

And on occasion I have been "sitting in" when my friends cover band has been rehearsing. Hearing the instruments of rock music "live" in the flesh (without sound quality killing PA:s) is quite an experience, and it has nothing to do with soundstaging and such silly stuff!

JohanR

Minime

quote:

---

hi jeff is the manual wrong, does the player not do the upsample bit
frank

---

I assume it is correct. I have an opinion about waht sort of result this gives on CD playback but I would be interested to hear what someone else thinks (you), especially since "upsampling" is another lovely subject for a debate.
-----------------------------------------------
A comment about bandwidth.
Give the media transmitters bandwidth and they see it as an opportunity to pack more compressed data in and recover more money rather than a great chance to supply higher quality high bandwidth media.

In conversation with a friend from the USA, he confirmed that the bandwidth available for HDTV was being abused by the cable suppliers who wher using it to add more degraded "HDTV" channels & charge more.

My so called "broadband" cable Internet connection comes at 3 different prices. To get the accepted full braodband speed you have to pay two extra charges

We have probably seen Barry Fox ranting (quite rightly) about the misuse of DAB and that most of the output is not full bandwidth so you are getting ripped off by the BBC in this case.

This fits in with the overarching driver for all apparent advances in media supply, the profit motive

regards
GEOFFP

HDCD?

Most of the people on this forum have a Naim CD player which offers this format. I have around 2000 CD’s and out of those only 5 are HDCD and this format has been around for over 5 years.

System: CDX/102/250/HiCap/NAPSC

Sean

Sean

I heard from someone somewhere that Naim used HDCD decoders simply cause they sounded the best. Not because they were HDCD.

DVD-A and SACD are total tripe and the players, being universal, sound like a CD player worth 1/3 the retail price. I've compared a Denon DVD-2900 (a great DVD-V player) to a Rega Jupiter and (surprise, surprise) the Jupiter ate the Denon. It made it sound like a cheap CD player.

Joe90

quote:

---

HDCD?

Most of the people on this forum have a Naim CD player which offers this format. I have around 2000 CD’s and out of those only 5 are HDCD and this format has been around for over 5 years.

---

Personally I'm chuffed that the CDX2 I'm about to buy has an HDCD decoder, since about about 50 CDs out of about 250 I own are HDCD. (Mainly U.S. Christian stuff).

I have some tracks contained on HDCD discs that I also have on non-HDCD discs so I am able to compare the difference. Even on my current lowly £300 NAD CD player, the difference is significant, so I'm hoping the CDX2 will further enhance this.

in reply to geoff cd replay is awful same mains ic's as my cd player playing tori amos's new album it almost sounds distorted compared to my avi cdp do you find this also?
i will p"£s you off even further by saying i got a further reduction of £200 so it cost me £300. long story.
my findings
so far dvd-v=great pic and sound
dvd-a limited audition sounds different in multi channel mode not sure i can get used to it. but in 2 channel gives my cdp a run.
cd replay = a pile of s**t.
i mainly bought this for dvd-v so for the price i can't complain too much do my findings compare to yours?
frank