Agreed with you here. The uncertainty principle does indeed apply to particles in motion, but what I was asking in light of research done into audio perception is "does something similar apply". Badly worded, what!. I do think that in the ultrasonic range we are hearing an interpretation as opposed to the actual sound. Also, what are the filters our brain uses like in the aliasing department? With the DVDA players, 192 KHz is the upper end for stereo tracks in the DVDA format specs. I guess there must be players out there that will do this, but I've not yet seen one. You could just about get this information down an optical line, but you'd be using all 8 streams to carry 2 streams so the recombining of them could be interesting. As far as the last point goes, I just don't know the answer. Certainly going to make a few calls tomorrow and try to find out though. I guess - and emphasize the guess - that it depends on exactly what sound is - a particle or a wave, or more likely a quanta, the same as light is. It's an extension of the electromagnetic spectrum, as light is, but I really don't know.
Can sound be classified as a quanta? I wouldve though the main question would be is sound a wave or a particle. If its a particel, then measurement of sound would be taken on each particle. Since to measure sound it has to be sampled, then sound cant be a particle, since a particle is only one. However, if its a wave, and you sample it, it no longer becomes a frequency, but instead a range of frequencies, so it cant be that either. Well actually, my guess is that it can, but im generalising too much. Who really knows for sure? Yuo probably do Wilkes, i unfortunately do not :-(
Afraid I don't know either! I'm going to try and find out though. Could be fun, and I'll almost certainly learn something.
Wow. I did indeed bugger off for 2/3 weeks; I have much unanswered email, PMs, etc. My own fault. Just a couple of thoughts for the moment. Briefly, I believe genuine Hi-Resolution is on it's way. No one's heard (pun intended) the last of this by any means, because, well, up until recently(ish) damned few people have heard it period. Myself included. It's been so agonizingly slow in appearing in either dvd-a or sacd format; the software has been so skimpy in either format; and hardware costs have been so damn-ably high, one could easily wonder if it was *ever* going to arrive to Mrs. & Mrs. Joe-average consumer! Have many of you out there had an actual chance to hear either sacd or dvd-a content? Do many (a few?) of you have sacd or dvd-a capable equipment? I'd love to know of your hands-on experiences. All of them. I know very little of the inner nuts-&-bolts workings of hi-res audio - I'm more concerned with anyone's subjective opinion of either format. (24-bit/96K-sampled pcm is something I can easily fathom, but SACD's "DSD" <direct stream digital> has me thoroughly befuddled). In truth, I care not a whit as to the actual mechanism used to achieve hi-res audio, my question is - does either format, in your estimate, [bold]warrant[/bold] the term? It's easy to be 'taken' by an improved format. But we have been promised so much by so many for so damned long now, I'm highly skeptical. In this day and age, I don't see it as any miraculous, technical achievement to improve on the pre-historic dinosaur that is red-book 16/44.1. But perhaps the biggest miracle of all is that the multinational music corporations (labels) have finally grown tired of continually-eroding revenues, and now want to get back to rolling-in-the-clover. In my often shoddy opinion, I do [bold]not[/bold] think that P2P was ever the problem; I do [bold]not[/bold] believe that paid, lossy-format internet music subscription services are the answer, and if published prices for audio players (both formats) had not recently come down to something approaching normalcy for most consumers, Hi-Res Audio, for me, would still be what it has always been for me - a stupid, hopeless format war (it still is, really), with almost nothing to listen to, and frankly, until someone can convince me that that hi-res is a QUANTUM leap forward in every regard, I am quite prepared to sit on my ass for as long as it takes until one format or the other bites the dust (sorry, both formats cannot co-exist forever), and someone can convince me it's worth investing in. The MUSIC is worth investing in. I dunno about the rest. YET. -- Mike --
Mike. I hear you loud & clear. There really is an audible difference with DVDA, and I'm not just saying that. It really is almost like the difference between night and day. I agree with you about not being a miraculous technical achievement, but I think you miss the point. DVD has been designed deliberately from the ground up to be an evolutionary format rather than a revolutionary one. The quality really is there, and more people have it available than they realise. Admittedly there is a huge area of concern for me - I know of no sales staff who actually understand what they are trying to sell. This has the unfortunate side effect of many customers thinking they are getting a DVD-Audio system when all they are really getting is a Dolby Digital or DTS Surround DVD-Video system. DVDA bears no relation to this at all, indeed DD & DTS are almost comparable to MP3 against CD-Audio. The difference really is as much as that. Neither do I believe that P2P and MP3 filesharing are contributing in any way to the decline in Music sales. Personally I believe the problem to be due to the total lack of development spending by the labels - taking on an act with potential who write and play their own material and then putting them round the circuit a few times to learn their craft. Start looking to albums as being an independant creation in their own right and not just a collection of the last 5 singles with a few fillers thrown in for good measure. We have the talent out there. Finally - phew! - As is well known I believe that DVDA will be the "victor" if there can be one. What a waste of resources. Better to have spent the money on an advertising/educational campaign instead to educate the public about this format. DVDA will be the one because all the Majors, with the exception of Sony Music, have now signed up to a DVDA release schedule. Even the CEO of Sony admits he doesn't see SACD becoming dominant. There are also a lot of technical arguments between the two, but the one that wins it for me is that DVDA will be available to the small users - people like us. That is where the real development of the format will happen. It is a lot more flexible too - with a Universal DVDA/DVDV/CD/MP3/VCD/SVCD whatever etc. player, all your discs will play on the same machine. Video, music, photos, the lot. Think of the creative possibilities, and then try to tell me you can do as much with SACD!!!
What is this difference like? Have you performed tests about this trying to preserve equal circumstances (equipment used, same source material etc.)?
The difference between CDA & DVDA is clarity & depth. you can hear so much more detail. The only way to explain is to listen and hear for your self.
In case you're talking about multichannel DVD-A vs. stereo CDDA I believe that there's an obvious difference . But I doubt that there is an easily noticable difference (if it's noticable at all) if all conditions are equal (same source material, same (or quality-wise equal) DAC, same hardware). "Doubt" doesn't mean I am sure there is no audible difference, it means I have searched and read quite a lot about this but there seem to be no listening tests performed in a scientific correct manner that prove the existence of audible differences. From what I know about human hearing and digital signal processing 16bit/44.1kHz should be enough (given good playback equipment). It would be quite easy to perform a test like this. A good sound card (24/96 playback) or a DVD-A player + DVD-A authoring software and of course some samples of high resolution audio in a processable format (e.g. PCM/.wav) would be necessary. If anyone's interested in performing such a test (I'd do if I had the hardware) I'd be glad to help._X_X_X_X_X_[small]AFTERDAWN FORUM RULES: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487[/small]
I'll be up for it, if only to finally see for real what is going on. Send me the necessary instructions, and we'll see (or hear) what happens! Contact me offlist for details of available hardware. I can only test up to 96KHz, as the 192KHz converters are on order. Basically, I'm not getting them until a job for them comes in. 16/44.1 should be "good enough" in most cases, but only when prepped properly and not brickwall limited to a dB or two of full scale maximum! Also, what about consumer quality DAC? Most CD players filtering leaves a lot to be desired, whereas DVDA filters are much higher quality. The test will have to be well designed to be fair, and not merely monitoring the fifferent converters!
Wilkes Really?? I find this very hard to believe. I have heard MP3 and DD on a Marantz sr9300 with Monitor Audio Silver 6's as speakers. I strongly believe that DD and DD EX are a lot better than MP3. Bearing in mind that the amp is THX certified. Is this not the case? Great to have you back Klingon. Looking forward to reading the posts that you and Wilkes post in here. And of course Tigre, though i havent read as much of yours
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=12920& In this thread I've written how I'd design this test and asked for advice. ATM I'm trying to figure out what filters/resampler to use. Quality is important but if possible I'd prefer something free (e.g. foobar2000) or widely used (e.g. CoolEditPro -> free 30 days trial) so everyone who's interested can repeat the test ... soon.
Hi Oriphus! (What's up?) DTS and DD 5.1 are wonderful for their intended purposes, but they are not true hi-fi. No one cares, do they? When you're watching a Hollywood cops-&-robbers movie, does anyone really care if the car explosions are rendered in true hi-res? <DTS/DD 5.1> and <SACD/DVD-A> are two entirely different animals serving different functions, and they're only co-incidentally related. Since visiting here last time, I've been reading some pretty crummy things about sacd. If one is willing to dig around, they can usually piece together a general idea of where the format currently stands. Sacd is either the greatest miracle to bless mankind, or, it's the worst plague ever foisted upon us - depending on whichever website you happen to be on. But I've read some horrible disc reviews than slam a particular disc's sonics as being the worst they've ever heard. Creedence Clearwater Revival's 'Chronicles' sacd from 'Fantasy' Records get a one-star rating for sound. ("Two Words! Stay Away!"). Other titles fare equally poorly. It seems, as in everything else, it always comes down to 'Buyer Beware'. It would seem that some of the (huger) record labels, although they certainly have the know-how and financial resources to do so, will often cobble-together a release in a most shoddy and unprofessional way, and using very poor judgement for the emastering. They are not helping to further the sacd format at all. Some of the discs are not even labeled as 'sacd', and some of those which are, contain no information as to whether they are stereo renditions or multi-channel. One unhappy customer replied that he had to remove the shrink-wrap, and open the inner liner-notes to see exactly what it was that he had purchased. Deutch Grammophone are taking a lot of heat for using old, very lousy, lo-res masters. Just because an sacd has the potetential for awsome music reproduction, that doesn't mean the labels are always taking enough care to ensure their discs are top-quality, even when ultra-high quality masters exist. They are hurting, not helping the format gain wider acceptance. I don't know if these same problems plague dvd-a fans, but I expect they do. I'm not ready to buy a hi-res player yet. (sigh.....) Wilkes, you are in a very unique position, in that you are involved daily in the production of all the good things dvd-a has to offer. It will be because of your efforts and the efforts of others like you, that we, as consumers, will be able to realize the same benefits. Most consumers are not even aware of what those benefits [bold]are[/bold], or how wonderful they can be. We need responsible people producing responsible releases if either of the formats is going to reach critical mass. The major record labels need to be taught a lesson, methinks. I would hate to see either format succeed in spite of itself, but rather, because it has something vital that we have not had for years - Quality. (VHS succeeded despite the fact that betamax was a slightly superior format; music-cds succeeded despite the fact that it was anything by a high-res format). I would like to see either format 'win' because it _deserves_ to. But this waiting around is awful. I think there are too many 'video' issues tied-up with dvd-a discs, wilkes. Much of it is overhyped. When I'm listening to a music album, I couldn't care less about any video. (Rare exception: live concert performances). I think everyone tends to play too heavily on DVD's video (and other) non-audio-related capabilities. The only real over-riding concern should be the audio. I don't give a damn about dvd menus. I hate menus. I don't care about 'extras'. You wanna 'dazzle' me? Do it with music, please. I don't need (or want) all the bells and whistles that dvd-a carries. Interactivity is the LAST thing I want with a dvd-a disc. I would like to pop the disc into the player, just like a red-book jobbie, and press the 'play' button. I do [bold]not [/bold]want to have to wade through a setup menu for each and every disc I play, because each of those discs has separate functions. Negotiating some dvd's menuing systems is like taking on the aura of playing a video game, for god's sake. I truly believe that a dvd video disc should be 'a movie-only-experience', and that a dvd audio disc should be strictly reserved for the highest audio quality possible. Although you can see (and appreciate) all the extra things a dvd-a can do (as opposed to an sacd), I still think too much emphasis is placed on those abilities. Manufacturers [bold]need [/bold] to get the basic equation of SUPERIOR AUDIO squared away _first_ before they try to sell me (or anyone else) on either format, (but particularly with dvd-a, wilkes). If they can get that much right, then I'll look at the rest. (I can see a need for a *basic* menu). A menu to help set up one's playback machine to match their existing audio set up. (Be it Stereo, or multi-channel). Bass-management set-up is important, for example, in a 5.1 system. BUT, once the setup is complete, it should not have to be altered for each and every different disc that comes along. Those are just my random, meandering thoughts for today about the whole mess. The situation IS a mess. Record labels are treating sacd as a 'ho-hum' idea, and producing lousy products. Stores like HMV here in Halifax, are trying to flog $60 Pink Floyd sacds. (Try replacing your precious vinyl collection at that rate). No........ I'm nowhere ready to buy a machine yet. -- Mike --
Some very fair points raised here mike! Personally, I agree with you about keeping Audio & Video DVD as separate things. Problem is the trend for the labels wanting to do as little as possible for their returns. Again. For me, creating the pure audio discs is simple. You don't need menus - these belong in restaurants, IMO, or graphics. This is frippery, and unnecessary. Again, so many people want something for nothing these days. To my mind though, the BEST argument for keeping DVDA & DVDV as different animals is to avoid any possible misconceptions about content. If there's no DD or DTS track, consumers cannot possibly play the wrong one and get an incorrect idea about what is, and more importantly what is not, high resolution audio. BTW $60 for DSOTM?? seems a bit steep to me. It's around £15-20 here, depending on where you buy. That, of course, is the other problem as so many stores point you at the DVDV section when asked if they sell DVDA! When you try to tell them that music videos with a DD soundtrack is not DVDA, they usually shrug their shoulders & walk away! Shame, really. The quality difference between 16 and 24 bit is stunning. That's where you get the real improvement, to my mind. Wider words.
Yep. Wise words, all. (You know, I'm tending more and more towards your thinking all the time!) <gg> Isn't it just incredible how ineptly the major record labels are handling the situation? You suggest that ... Problem is the trend for the labels [is] wanting to do as little as possible for their return. Well, they're shooting themselves in the foot if that is the case. Perhaps they should take a look at what has happened with their dvd-video-making counterparts: It costs absolutely [bold]nothing[/bold] more to stamp out a superby-mastered, quality disc than it does a piece of crap. For any given disc, the replication costs are the same, right? The *quality* disc - if it contained ultra-high-quality content could easily command a higher price than a piece of junk, and audiophiles would glady pay the difference. It's really analogous to stamping-out money. Why stamp out (manufacture) $5 bills when, for a tiny bit of extra care and effort, you can stamp out $10 bills for exactly the same cost? With video, the studios learned a lesson a long time ago. By including 'extras' (commentary tracks, "the making of" video-ettes, behind-the-scenes stuff; bonus tracks), they could easily charge more for each disc, which is why, nowadays you see more and more 2-disc sets for simple, single movies. (If you just want to buy "Shrek", an 80-minute movie, on a single disk, you can't. You must buy the [bold]2[/bold] disc set.) So in the audio world, why wouldn't the studios want to expend a little extra effort up front to master a truly superb disc, and *then* mass-produce the copies? They would make a hell of a lot more money, and gain a grateful audience in the bargain. I find there is _just no excuse_ for making a lousy audio disc. And you said it yourself - You can get the quality audio-part right the first time, so what the hell is wrong with them? Couldn't agree with you more wilkes, on this point as well --> strip an honest, real, genuine DVDA disc of all the un-necessary DTS and DD 5.1 tracks, and All Consumer Confusion Will Cease! (But I can see your point, as well, in wanting to make discs that are as "Universal" as possible, and compatable as possible on as many players as possible). Trouble is, this causes confusion as you know. Let's start a petition! Right now, let's bombard Warner Brothers Records with requests to have [bold]your[/bold] studio to remaster/re-author their key back-catalogue albums! (That way, at least we'd know we were going to get a _quality_ product.) Hasn't MFSL (Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs) been doing exactly the same thing for years? They have made albums which put the original ones to absolute shame. (Yep, <about> $60 for Floyd's DSOTHM is what the local HMV is charging). $49.95 + 15% sales tax (7.49) = $57.44, <about> $60. They are taking full advantage of sacd's "newness", and gouging the consumer. Keep up the good fight! -- A Future DVDA buyer --
Let's do it! What would be the best way to get up a petition? I'm currently doing a set of Surround mixes for Pure DVD-A at the moment. Copies of this could be made available, or maybe a "sampler" disc would be a better way to go. I agree with keeping the types apart. Don't want to go to the hassle - and believe me, it is hassle - of including DD/DTS versions. It's not good value, it's like including a set of MP3 mixes on a CD! We should leave those formats to the video boys. I'll encode the files, no problem, but the best way will be pure DVDA. No pictures, videos, interviews, let the music speak for itself. The Industry at the moment seems to want an album to consist of 5 singles and filler. To my mind, that's why sales are in the toilet. Another good example of what proper career development can do is the Rolling Stones. Out on tour again. How many of todays boy bands will be there in 40 years? Another good point made lately is that downloading from P2P is not causing the dip in sales either. The large najority of downloads are not by current chart acts, but the oldies - again! The Industry seems to put all it's energy into manufactured rubbish, targeting adolescent kids as the main market. I believe they should be doing more for my generation. We have the disposable income, but all we get from the industry are eternally repackaged compilation albums. I swear that there must be a 500 song database, and every 6 months or so they get rejigged, given a new name and bingo - instant "best of ever" volume *****. Madness. I'm quite prepared to do an initial freebie, just so the labels can hear the possibilities. Then we have to educate the public, and the sales staff. Oh well, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
I was hoping that DVD V and DVD A would be combined in the future to allow perfect audio clarity when watching a multi channel sound movie. Im not so sure as to why u both think this to be a bad thing, as im not as technically aware on the subject. Could you explain the reasons in simple lay-man terms for me lol
Oh well, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it. Exactly. (Well, everyone with an audio studio anyway.) My friend, it is my sad guess that it would take a massive ground-roots swell of support greater than anyone has ever seen for labels like Warner Bros., Sony Music, A&M, Deutch Grammaphon, EMI, or any one else to sit up and pay the slightest heed to such an offer, no matter how capable the studio. The Labels do whatever the Labels want. They already own the hearts, souls, and futures of their signed musicians (without whom they <the labels> wouldn't even exist), and they would soon own You as well. You would do things *their* way Or Else! You would be forced to make quality compromises the likes of which you can't even imagine right now. You would be paid whatever they felt like paying you. (Boy! I'm a "gloomy gus" today, eh?). Hell, I wouldn't have a clue how to attract their attention. (Gruntwork, that's all). Determined emails, web-visits, personal snail-mails, overseas phone-calls, blood sweat & tears, audio samplers, prayers, and a healthy resistance to rejection, I guess). I imagine they get offers all the time. I don't even think MFSL is owned by MFSL anymore. MFSL is owned by whoever bought them out (most likely a Record Label Consortium), and MFSL is remastering SACDs right now. Yes, 5 singles + filler does seem like toilet material to me too. ...but all we get from the industry are eternally-repackaged compilation albums... I did a quickie on-line local-(public)library search the other day on "The Who". Guess what they've got on CD ? : * My Generation * (Best Of) * 20th Century Masters * (Best Of) * Who's Better, Who's Best * (Gr. Hits) * The Who's Greatest Hits * (Best Of) * The Ultimate Collection * (Gr. Hits) I bet if you had the original, unmixed, multi-track masters of any of these, you could blow the doors off anything the label has ever dreamt of, wilkes, but I doubt they'd listen. (sigh.....)
