"Peter Allen" <pdaNOSPAM@melbpcDOT.org.au> wrote in message
news:mhfb315jg435vpq83oh7l2csr2j70efcov@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:18:34 +1100, "Italo"
> <italotettoni.nospammingallowed@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >"Peter Allen" <pdaNOSPAM@melbpcDOT.org.au> wrote in message
> >news:ljs5315latdd01toerkp397ffc0972lm0c@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:00:03 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
> >> <rutlidge@<No_Spam>.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Let me state my bias first, though it is the bias of experience. I
> >> started getting into high resolution audio and multichannel with an
> >> SACD player and the trialing of both DVD-A and SACD disks about 3
> >> years ago. I have no doubt that the DVD-A format is equal in quality
> >> to SACD, so I am not going to criticise either on those grounds.
> >
> >
> >Yes but then you proceed to do just that without much technical
> >justification.
> >
>
> No, you are dead wrong.
>
> Nowhere do I compare or comment on the relative merits of the
> fundamental SACD or DVD-A audio formats (ie DSD vs MLP-compressed
> PCM).
>
> All I said was that I find both well-recorded SACD sound, and such
> well-recorded 96 kHz PCM that I have heard (not exactly DVD-A, but a
> good indicator), to be stunning, compared to CD. And Dolby Digital to
> be an embarrassment in the company of CD. There's nothing terribly
> revolutionary in that.
>
> I DO compare the backwards compatibility of DVD-A and SACD, and the
> practicability of the two media, and my perception of the focus and
> function of their design. Those comments remain valid, for me at least
> :-)
>
> >
> >> However, I am interested in many kinds of music, whether classical or
> >> not, and I ended up devoted completely to SACD for the meantime. Why?
> >>
> >> 1. Repertoire.
> >>
> >> 2. Repertoire.
> >>
> >> 3. Repertoire.
> >
> >
> >As it happens most of the 'repertoire' on SACD is owned by SONY or its
> >subsidiaries
> >
>
> Said without justification, and certainly not reflected in my
> collection.
>
> But does it matter? Even if it were true, anyway you put it, you're
> only reiterating my point. The format which provides the music we want
> to hear is the one we will buy, which is stating the bleedin' obvious.
>
> But, if you want to get anal about it, here's the stats for what I
> have, which is 66% classical, 34% jazz, blues, folk & "rock".
>
> I grant you Sony/Columbia leads the pack, but it in no way dominates
> the whole, even with "subsidiaries". However even that top position is
> skewed, since the only big SACD package purchase I've made is the
> Columbia Dylan box set. Take that out, and Sony/Columbia drops to 3rd
> place, beaten by Channel Classics and Harmonia Mundi. In the mid-term,
> I think that's closer to being realistic.
>
> If there's a salient point in gere, it's that my SACD collection is
> dominated by independent and specialist companies. And if the
> percentages add up to 105%, well, that's rounding for you.
>
> Sony/Columbia 20%
> Harmonia Mundi 10%
> Channel Classics 10%
> Chandos 6%
> Telarc 5%
> Linn 4%
> Abkco 3%
> Phillips 3%
> Pentatone 3%
> Decca 3%
> BIS 3%
> DMP 3%
> Hyperion 3%
> San Francisco Symphony 3%
> DG/Archiv 2%
> Virgin 2%
> Audio Fidelity 2%
> Mobile Fidelity 2%
> One Little Indian 2%
> Praga 2%
> Chesky 2%
> Marc Aurel 2%
> Bona Nova 1%
> RCA 1%
> Vanguard 1%
> Audite 1%
> Geffen 1%
> EMI 1%
> Verve 1%
> Analogue Productions 1%
> Rounder 1%
> Chess 1%
>
> >
> >> 4. The ability to play discs on any CD player (car, kitchen, bedside,
> >> portable, friend's place etc). Only applicable to hybrid SACDs of
> >> course, which means essentially all new ones for some time now.
> >
> >
> >Do a search on google regarding SACD and problems playing in standard CD
> >players as well as DVD players, you'll find plenty of examples.
> >
>
> I have hit no problems with a dozen or do CD players, including car
> players, portables, boom boxes and CD decks, nor has anyone else I
> know. This doesn't suggest there is a major problem.
>
> How many people who don't have problems rush to a forum to advertise
> the fact? You need more than complaints registered online - a more
> scientific approach is needed which gives an accurate idea of the
> percentage of problems with players of different types and ages.
>
> I'm not so stupid as to try playing a hybrid SACD on an ordinary DVD
> player. Why WOULD you expect that to work? These players aren't
> designed to filter out the existence of an SACD layer, they're
> designed to play single and dual layer DVD-Vs. And hybrid SACDs only
> claim to be playable in a CD player, not a DVD player that happens be
> compatible with CD as well.
>
> Having said that obviously there will a few cases of incompatibility.
> Heck, I've had a number of CDs over the years that will play on one CD
> player and won't on another. Manufacturer's tolerances etc. It's the
> same (worse, in fact) with DVD-Vs on DVD-V players.
>
> In any case, CD player manufacturers have long been aware that their
> players are expected to be able to play hybrid SACDs, since the
> overall thickness of the disc, and the characteristics of the CD layer
> comply with the CD standard.
>
> DuoDisk has a much, much bigger problem in this area, and little
> repertoire. The designers of DVD-A didn't even start off considering
> that it might possibly be a good idea to be compatible with the
> current existing music standard of CD (those that suggested it were
> outvoted), so what's YOUR point?
>
> >
> >> 5. A clear perception that SACD had been designed for the music lover
> >> and was developed "out of" CD, whereas DVD-A seemed to come more from
> >> a "DVD-Video" mindset.
> >
> >
> >SACD came straight out of the fact that SONY was going to lose the
lucrative
> >copyright to CD manufacturing technology and needed to come up with
another
> >propretary format, again all the info is freely available on the net.
> >
>
> G'arn with your conspiracy theories. Of course companies want to make
> money, but this is fundamentally about riding the DVD-Video wave to
> develop a better quality sound medium. Are you against that?
>
> If you don't want it, don't buy it.
>
> >
> >One indication of this is that the only
> >> "backwards" compatibility mandated on DVD-As was a Dolby track.
> >
> >
> >Or a DTS track or a stereo track etc... it depends on disc and
manufacturer
> >not on the DVD-A standard.
> >
> >
>
> Read my fingers. These other formats are optional. Dolby is mandated.
>
> That's why ALL DVD-As have a Dolby track, but only A FEW have DTS or
> stereo PCM.
>
> IMO they should have had 48kHz PCM mandated as well, so you would have
> DAT standard audio which is playable on any DVD player. It's a
> different approach to hybrid SACD, but it makes a bit more sense.
> However, perhaps that's not technically feasible on a one-sided DVD-A
> disk?
>
> >This
> >> has two problems - firstly a music lover (who doesn't haver to an
> >> audiophile) might have no interest in cinema or TV and home theatre,
> >> and therefore not be able to play the disc in any form regardless. Or
> >> they might have a DVD in a TV area with sound adequate (to them) for
> >> cinema, and stereo equipment for music listening elsewhere. Secondly,
> >> you don't have to have particularly Golden Ears to find Dolby at these
> >> compression rates unacceptable as a purely musical source. You can get
> >> away with a lot if there is a film to distract attention, but it must
> >> be remembered that we are talking about a music medium here.
> >
> >
> >Since there are many SACDs out there which can only be played on SACD
> >players your point about compatibility is?
> >
>
> Basically that the non-hybrid SACD is a rarity in recent releases.
>
> In more detail, firstly, that the position of the person with interest
> in audio and not video, and having equipment to suit that preference,
> is as follows:
>
> 1. This person can't play any DVD-As without buying extra equipment.
> And he will want a DVD-A player that doesn't require a TV attached for
> OSD setup or use.
>
> 2. These days I see very few new SACDs that aren't hybrid. Therefore
> this person can play most SACDs through their CD player, and without
> buying new equipment.
>
> 3. All this person requires to play any SACD (hybrid or not) is an
> SACD player, of which there are many that don't have DVD-V capability
> and have no requirement for a TV to be fully useable. I have one of
> these myself - it behaves exactly like a CD player in its basic
> functionality.
>
> Secondly, that a person interested in audio quality, but without a
> DVD-A or SACD player, and with a CD player and a DVD player, will find
> the Dolby Digital on DVD-A of poor quality compared with the CD layer
> of a hybrid SACD.
>
> >
> >> 6. You guessed it, repertoire.
> >
> >
> >See point 1-3
> >
>
> See response to same :-)
>
> >
> >
> >> Further to point 5, I will say that, even without a DVD-A player, some
> >> discs did give me pleasure, but by and large these were produced by
> >> very specialized, enthusiastic and SMALL companies.
> >>
> >> These discs tended to be ALREADY two-sided, and have up to 24 bit,
> >> 96kHz stereo PCM versions available through a DVD-Video player and a
> >> suitable A/V amplifier, and the quality of this can blow me away. The
> >> others that were sonically satisfactory, but rare, had DTS at 1500
> >> Kbps (cf Dolby's maximum of 448 Kbps).
> >>
> >> So where does this leave DualDisc? I don't know really. Obviously
> >> there is potential to obviate the previous lack of backwards
> >> compatibility with a genuine music audio standard rather than a cinema
> >> standard, but I wonder how these discs will fare in car players, for
> >> example. There always was the possibility of mandating CD or higher
> >> quality when the discs were used in DVD-V players, as indicated by the
> >> examples above, but this was the road not taken. Whereas, the SACD
> >> group knew they could include a CD layer on the same side as the SACD
> >> layer from the start.
> >
> >
> >Again do a search on google and see how many problems people have had
> >playing SACDs on either their car CD players and/or standard CD player.
Also
> >how do you play discs which are strictly SACDs without a SACD player?
> >
>
> First point you're repeating. Second point, answer is you can't. But
> you knew that.
>
> I think you're just being stubborn about hybrid SACD being so much
> better designed in the first place and so far ahead of DuoDisc. If
> Duodisc turns out to be a goer and cheap, so be it. It doesn't worry
> me and I'm ready to change formats if it pans out that way. I'm just
> stating facts as I experience them at this moment. We live in
> revolutionary times.
>
> In fact, I doubt that DuoDisc is the crucial factor in what happens
> over the next two or three years. That time is going to dominated by
> high definition video format wars, and along with that goes the
> decisions made about audio on those disks. It seems likely that the
> audio will be CD quality, and possibly better than that. If the
> latter, then the landscape changes completely for SACD and DVD-A. I
> ain't laying bets on anything!!
>
> >DVD-A discs from day one can be played on any DVD players regardless of
> >whether it is a DVD-A player or not. The manufacturer rightly guessed
that
> >CD only players would eventually disappear.
> >
>
> True at the low end of the market, and bad implications for people
> forced to buy DVD players just so they can play their CDs. You simply
> don't get the same quality for the same money.
>
> Very untrue for mid and high end equipment. Indeed, there has been a
> resurgance lately in good stereo equipment (no surround capability)
> and in high-end CD players.
>
> >
> >> Repertoire is another problem - if sticking a CD on the back of a
> >> DVD-A is going to make the medium, then there's a lot of catching up
> >> to do, and I wonder how easy it is to manufacture these disks.
> >
> >
> >About as easy as manufacturing a double sided DVD-video disc or a dual
> >layerd SACD disc I'd say.
> >
>
> Well, if that were true, it wouldn't have taken so long to figure out
> the layer thickness limitations etc that delayed the concept for so
> long. The DVD consortium has being struggling for years to get a
> viable design that incorprates a CD layer onto DVD-A.
>
> >
> >> I look at the above specific track listing, and the words that come to
> >> mind are "dog's breakfast". All those audio formats - why can't we be
> >> given the music in high quality form and be allowed to make copies
> >> into other formats as we see fit, so long as it's only for our own
> >> purposes (ie reasonable usage rights).
> >
> >
> >Agree with you there, maybe you should write to SONY about this since
SONY
> >are the main culprits.
> >
>
> Right on!!!!!!
>
> >
> >> CD-Rom features? - please just give me the website addresses (and a
> >> password if necessary).
> >>
> >> Video clip? - that's what DVD-Video is for. I'd rather have audio only
> >> releases, interspersed with well-thought out DVD-Video releases, than
> >> an assortment of bitsy "extras" on cluttered DVD-A's.
> >>
> >> Lyrics on the disk? - that was one feature that really excited me when
> >> I first went into DVD-As, until I discovered that I was expecting
> >> scrolling lyrics as the music played, whereas the reality was some
> >> eye-wearing static pages on the TV screen separate from the music.
> >> Give me a booklet anyday.
> >
> >
> >Since all those features are available on DVD-A and unavailable on SACD
I'd
> >say that's a plus for DVD-A.
> >
>
> You miss my point. They're badly done in DVD-A, and therefore better
> done on the media designed for the job; in this case DVD-V or a
> booklet.
>
> >
> >> Of course it is now a long time since I bought a DVD-A, and perhaps
> >> Things Have Changed. If so, I'll be glad to hear the other side of the
> >> story.
> >
> >
> >You now have.
>
> Sorry, it hasn't convinced me!
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
Peter,
Interesting reading, but are your references to "DuoDisc" a repetitive
misprint? I thought the thread was discussing "DualDisc" ?
Also you wrote:-
"Nowhere do I compare or comment on the relative merits of the fundamental
SACD or DVD-A audio formats (ie DSD vs MLP-compressed PCM)."
Just so some readers don't get the wrong impression - MLP is not a
"compressed" or perceptual encoded audio format like MP3, Dolby Digital, dts
or AAC, but a method of storing high resolution audio in a lossless reduced
data bitrate format. Kind of like the WinZip or PKZip for audio. What you
put in you get out with nothing lost in the translation. Decompression is
done on the fly during playback by the player.
Cheers,
Alan