Is it just me, or does it seem like hardly anything new os coming out on DVD-A these days?

I look through the various websites that have been recommended here, and it seems like there is one or two rock or alternative DVD-As released at most in a month.

Magazines like Sound and Vision still appear to be somewhat optimistic for the format, but it's not showing up on the shelves...

And that's after I picked up Tommy, Goodby Yellow Brick Road, and Yoshimi!

Just wondering if anyone had some industry insights.

 

No it is not you - DVD-A is not doing as well as SACD. Sony Columbia is re-releasing tons of stuff on SACD.

 

Cadillac is offering DVD-A in it's new STS, and the next generation M35/45 Infiniti due next year will offer it as well. I think the trend is coming our way.

 

Well I specialize in creating DVD-Audio titles, both in the audio mastering and authoring of the discs (Queen/Megadeth/Cassandra Wilson/and many more), and I'm seeing a lot of interest in DVD-A continuing. True, we've seen a bit of a slowdown lately, but it is more about the companies taking a breath than a break.

Keep the faith, there are good titles ahead. ric

 

Can't quote any specific articles (since I'm too lazy to Google 'em up), but what I've been reading suggests that companies have been waiting for the DualDisc format to be finalized before continuing forth.

I read something this week that suggested a wave of DualDisc titles should start appearing around the end of the year.

 

I was on dvdaudio.com and I figured this might be of interest to all DualDisc

Guess we'll have to wait and see how receptive the consumer is.....

 

oblio98 (Jon) agrees with you, haighworld, and provides a link to more info about DualDisc. Waiting happily for this!

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...303#post885303

 

Well, some of those links show some promise! I was intrigued by the announcement that Lamb Lies Down on Broadway by Genesis is due out later this year. There is a lot going on in that record that could sound great in surround.

Thanks for the info!

 

I'm confused. Do SACD's already have DVD-A on one side?

Maybe this has been discussed, but I'm no audiophile; What's the quality difference between SACD and DVD-A? Any big differences?

 

Johnson, go to the following link http://www.wired4music.com/
It has the info you want about DVD-A and SACD. Run a search for DVD-A and you will find a number of threads on this subject.

 

I write for several audio mags, and am an electrical engineer. There has been a lot of hype about the "hi-rez" formats, and a lot of it is just plain hype. "Normal" CD's are often indistinguishable from hi-rez ones, and I have done bit stream analysis of discs with a 2 channelr and the hi-rez layer, and found that the mixes are different, levels are different, EQ is different, so the comparisons are not apples to apples. The mixes of the Doobie Brothers songs on the demo disc are so obviously different in tonal balance that I heard it instantly switching from track to track. It proves nothing. IMO, the best 16/44.1 kHz discs (properly recorded, and without loss of digital from poor mastering) are essentially perfect to begin with, and when we made high quality live recordings, mixed them with equal skill in boith formats, then ran double-blind tests (the only valid ones) at matched levels, no one could identify one from the other to a statistically signifcant degree (that is, better than 50:50, or guessing). Now, the high end gurus love to attack the double-blind test, but few scientists do.

Short version:
Due to the limited frequency response of the speakers in the TL, and the high ambient noise, neither the extended bandwidth nor the extended potential dynamic range of DVD-A (or SACD) can ever be realized. That is an incontrovertible fact. So in many ways, the argunment is completely moot.

Now, let's talk hi-end equipment and get theoretical, which leads to.....
Long version:

At times, I think I can hear a bit more clarity in the SACD, but it is impossible to tell if it is real, placebo effect, or the effects of the high ultrasonic noise characteristic of SACD's (they use a 1-bit system sampling at 2.8 million Hz; DVD-A is 24/192kHz). Andf I have runs tests with studio engineers (who often do not have very good hearing or acuity) where I switch the discs around and they often cannot pick one from the other. I say the jury is still out. It certainly is making the companies rich, as I now have 4 copies of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue!!!!

Here is digital 101, simplistically stated, so you digital theorists do not come down on me hard 'cause this is intended for the average Joe:
Let's talk 24/192, which is DVD-Audio. The first number is the bit length, and it essentially only gives you an idea of the signal/noise ratio, or dynamic range. Multiply 24 x 6.02 (the conversion factor) and you get, what, 145 or so, right? Well, there are no 24-bit amplifiers out there - their residual noise which is THD+N is usually no better than -96 dB, so they are 16 bit, just like regular CD's. The extra 8 can allow for more slop in the recording, but essentially the bits are wasted. Tube amps are often 8-bit.

The 192 is the sampling rate - the number of slices of those 24-bit digital words per second - and this will give you, allthings being equal, the bandwidth. The theoretical bandwidth of 192 is sampling rate/2 = 96 kHz. I cannot hear 96 kHz, nor can anyone who ever lived. Nor is their much musical content out their with 96k - the spectral harmonics of a cymbal crash go out to, perhaps, 40kHz. Then, you would need speakers capable of playing back 96kHz. Not many of those around.

Now, the hi-rez proponents claim, and there is some basis in this, that because of the wide sampling rate, the digital filters which must be at 1/2 the sampling rate in order to maintain the Shannon-Nyquist theorem parameters and prevent "aliasing", can be made more shallow rather than brick-wall, and therefore cause less phase shift in the range of human hearing. A standard CD has a bandwith of 0-22.05, which is half of the 44.1 kHz sampling rate. Get it?

I am still undecided about the whole thing. The Sony SCD-1 comes with ultrasonic filters at 50KHz to prevent damage to amplifiers and tweeters downstream, which can be bypassed, but right therehe bandwidth is 1/2 theoretical. My ESL's can reproduce up to about 28kHz, but there are few recordings with anything their, and I can't hear much past 15 kHz, which is what most of the male adults population can hear.

There are many "hi-rez" disc made from 16/44.1 or DAT masters, so that is a complete screw job.

BTW, in case someone says my equipment is not high end enough, I own a $5000 SACD player, the amazing Sony SCD-1.

 

Roadrage
I must respect your opinion and education. My interest in music is an avocation and not professional. However, and whatever the limitations of the ELS system may be, you can not deny the fact that it is the most incredible OEM system ever installed in a car. I have never seen a professional review of the ELS system that is anything less than stellar. As well, you no doubt saw the results of the survey taken recently comparing ELS to the other high end systems with devastaing results. If I need to post the absolute sound review or the results of the poll (again), I will. I love this system, and I can absolutely tell whether DVD-audio is playing. On a couple of occasions, when I first started purchasing DVD-As, I inadvertantly bought DTS discs. While the surround sound element was obvious, I immediately felt ripped off, as the sound was much less full and rich. When I checked the cover of the disc, I realized it was not a dvd-a. Not a surprise.
As to your discussion of SACD, there are some wonderful discussion boards that debate nothing other than the merits of SACD vs DVD-A. There is no denying amoung most professionals (that I have read), that both hi res formats are vastly superior to the humble CD.

 

Thanks for the response and comments.

"Open listening" sessions are greatly affected by one's expectations. When I used some college students as a test group, I told them CD discs were hi-rez, and they heard all sorts of richness and fullness. These are not characteristics of the recording medium anyway, but of the recording, mixing, speakers, and room.

I have also heard audiophiles go on about how digital cables sound "full and rich" - we tested their gullability index by taking the same SOTA 75-ohm coax and painting it three different colors. Each one sounded different to the members of the group - they furiously scribbled notes on "open and transparent" and all the usual audiophile hyperbole.

It is far more important to have the best transducers (speakers) you can afford, then treat the room, then find the best recordings. The rest is only 4.5% of it, and the digital part at best .5%.

I never said ELS did not sound OK - but compared to the equipment I have at home, it is a boom box. So there is a question of one's perspective. I have no doubt that for most people in America, the best sound they have is in their cars, as few have done the sort of room analysis and sound treatment needed to come close to the balance achieved by the car engineers, although a cheap spectrum analyzer can easily demonstrate how much the car's noise obscures fine details - the resonant freq of the car, and the amount of low freq energy generated by the tires etc absolutely swamps the bass.

Professionals have a vested interest - I do not. I do have an address book of some of the most noted scientists and engineers on the planet, and there is much less agreement. John Vanderkoy at the University of Waterloo has published on SACD - I suggest it as a good starting point.

And you seemed to miss the point of apples to oranges - since I have yet to find a commercial disc where the tonal balance of the 2-ch remotely matched the surround, it is an invalid basis on which to say which sounds more realistic - a variance of as little as .1 dB in level will cause a listener to prever the louder over the less loud, even if the surce material is identical.

 

Thanks for the link!

 

Just read an article on CNet this morning about DualDisc, suggests that we should be seeing titles beginning in October.

 

Road Rage,

You and I have been here for quite some time, and I respect your opinion as always, but do not agree that there is little audible difference between a CD and a Hi-Rez disc.

I have created many DTS discs from my Quadraphonic Reels that I have had since the 1970's. I was thrilled to be able to do this, as it allowed me to play the surround recording that I had stored away on my modern audio system. To do this, I used a program from Minnetonka called SurCode DTS. It works great.

A few months ago, products were released that allowed the home user with the right equipment to create their own DVD-A's. First came discWelder, then WaveLab 5. I have both programs.

Being the curious person that I am, I re-recorded some of these 4 channel reels, this time at 24/96 instead of 16/44.1 using a MOTU 828MkII firewire 10 channel input device, the same unit I used to record the 16/44 for the DTS CDs. The results to me and others are astounding.

The home made DVD-A sounds fuller, richer, more "alive" than the DTS CD that I used to think sounded great. Using the same source material, the same unaltered audio streams (I use no NR or any EQ), by recording at the higher bit rate and frequency, get a SUPERIOR disc.

There is merit to your assertion that record companies may tweak a surround mix differently than a stereo mix, or an SACD/DVD-A differently than a CD.

But in my case, I am controlling everything!

PS - You have a great SACD player!!!

Jon Urban (aka oblio98)
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/