[Orpheus]

well, you know, if dvd-a or sacd ever becomes the norm, i wouldn't go out and buy replacements for all the music i have. i mean, they all will play in the same player... it's not like when we all moved from tapes to cds. so, i don't think that would be such a big deal. cds sound fine to me.

all i ask is that if you guys want hi res, PLEASE buy something PCM compatible!--and save me $1000's!

 

[markl]

Quote:

I am not ready to replace all my CD collections. Last time I counted, I have 500+ CDs. Just imagine how much it would cost replacing all those CDs with SACDs and DVD-A's

No one is going to force anyone who bought the latest and greatest Redbook CD version of any album to buy the SACD version. Your Redbook CD version will play on EVERY player that happens to also suport SACD. If you've been paying attention at all, you'd know that there is no such thing as an SACDP that can't play a CD. Also, every future SACD will be a hybrid, in that it automatically offers a Redbook CD version of every SACD. You will no longer be able to buy an SACD that does not contain a Redbook CD version that can play on any CDP...

 

[soundboy]

And that's why those single-layer Sony SACDs are such a collectible item....

 

[darkclouds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore I am not ready to replace all my CD collections. Last time I counted, I have 500+ CDs. Just imagine how much it would cost replacing all those CDs with SACDs and DVD-A's I would rather wait until either SACD or DVD-A has gained more acceptance. The hybrid SACD seems like a good alternative, since I can always listen to the CD layer. And that's what I'll try to buy from now on whenever possible. But still, to replace all my CD colletions, that wont be financially possible for at a couple more years.

I don't think you have to worry about loosing your cd collection. It'd be suicide for any manufacturer to build a player that isn't compatible with redbook. BTW, I do prefer hybrids since I still need to play them in my car and also my comp (to rip them to my muvo2).

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Do you want to go down as being on the side of totally low-rez sub-Redbook-CD music in mp3 or lower standard? Or, do you want to stand up as being in favor of a standard that exceeds Redbook CD that dates from over 25 years ago?

I stand up in favour of a format that exceeds SACD & DVD-A.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orpheus well, you know, if dvd-a or sacd ever becomes the norm, i wouldn't go out and buy replacements for all the music i have. i mean, they all will play in the same player... it's not like when we all moved from tapes to cds. so, i don't think that would be such a big deal. cds sound fine to me. all i ask is that if you guys want hi res, PLEASE buy something PCM compatible!--and save me $1000's!

First of all, you should have gone analog, then you would have been compatible with anything and everything.

Secondly, you can always convert PCM to DSD just for the master, it's not that big a deal.

Thirdly, unless you're high-rate PCM (96, 192, etc.), then even so, you're not fully taking advantage of DVD-A. As a way to do so: you can always upsample individual tracks and mix in high-res, and gain some of the advantage (without having to re-record everything -- prolly just remaster). But you'd still have to upgrade your desk.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

First of all, you should have gone analog, then you would have been compatible with anything and everything.

i'd love to, except there's not analog system that matches the flexibility of a DAW. not even close. they're good for recording performances that need no editing. but i am a producer and composer. impossible to use. and not to mention, a comparably performing analog rig will cost 10x more money.
Quote:

Secondly, you can always convert PCM to DSD just for the master, it's not that big a deal.

but that would be pretty lame--totally negates any reason for using DSD in the first place.
Quote:

Thirdly, unless you're high-rate PCM (96, 192, etc.), then even so, you're not fully taking advantage of DVD-A. As a way to do so: you can always upsample individual tracks and mix in high-res, and gain some of the advantage (without having to re-record everything -- prolly just remaster). But you'd still have to upgrade your desk.

i usually record at 96. i'm not sure what your point is about resampling though--the issue is whether my equipment would still viable in a would-be DSD age. but yes, lower res recordings can be converted. but that doesn't add any resolution as you know--the only advantage to doing that is slowing down generation loss, where processing would lose bits of resolution after many cycles.

by the way Dusty, glad to see you back!!! it's been a while.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orpheus i'd love to, except there's not analog system that matches the flexibility of a DAW. not even close. they're good for recording performances that need no editing. but i am a producer and composer. impossible to use.

Mike Oldfield did it. Quote:

but that would be pretty lame--totally negates any reason for using DSD in the first place.

Disagree. Yes, it's not as good as mastering in DSD from the beginning, but "totally negates"? I think that's overstating things. You would still reap some benefits of the high-res variety. Quote:

i usually record at 96. i'm not sure what your point is about resampling though...

Well, it would only have mattered if you recorded your individual tracks in 44.1 or 48 -- it was a suggestion of increasing overall resolution -- by doing it before the mastering stage. Does not apply to your scenario. Quote:

but that doesn't add any resolution as you know--

On the contrary, it doesn't add any resolution if you do it to comparable tracks, but let's say that you had 32 16/48 tracks. Couldn't you upsample the individual tracks to, say, 24/96, and then mix it in 24/96? Wouldn't that be higher res than upsampling the result of the 16/48 mix? I think it would. Quote:

by the way Dusty, glad to see you back!!! it's been a while.

Yeah, sorry about never getting back to you about your recording -- I did dig it. And you could definitely do soundtrack work, the variety we talked about (

), or otherwise. It's just a matter of breaking into the biz.

 

[robert]

the current issue of 'stereophile' notes that many, if not most, SACDs are cut from 16-bit 44.1 sources, or re-hashed living stereo/presence tapes from the 1950s.

until there are true SACD that aren't the usual compressed pop crap, there ain't much point, now is there??

 

[immtbiker]

As far as availability is concerned...AMusicDirect, TelArc, and Acoustic Sounds, send me e-mails twice a week, announcing new SACD/DVD-Audio and remastered Vinyl. I order a couple a month and really take the time to enjoy each one, and it gives me the joy of why I joined Head-Fi.
When a new format arrives, I'll take it as it comes.
Top 40 Redbook will always fill the shelves at the Brick and Mortars, but I don't think anyone in this forum is here for that. The online music stores are a great resource.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl If the new formats fail, you have no one to blame but yourself... if we are stuck with 16/44.1 sound for the rest of our lives, you have no one but yourself to blame... Mark

I think I'll be able to live with that, even happily (we need better loudpeakers and headphones instead of numbers for numbers' sake).

But you are right: the real threat are the lossy formats.


Regards,

L.

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierObject Yes there is such a format, being goosed along by Intel, to further their plans to make computers a significant part of a sound/media system. It's called 'Azalia', and will be integrated into their upcoming chip sets. Its specs include 32-bit resolution with a 192KHz sample rate. Not bad, if this comes to pass as a normal part of a home computer. Not good, if you fear the encroachment of the Evil Empire and the other Winteloids even further into our lives.... For more details Google 'Azalia Intel Audio'.

Better google for High Definition Audio - Azalia only was the codename for the development... Anyway, HDA is not an audio data format as such. It's a standard for the underlying hardware - a modern beefed-up successor of AC'97 2.3, if you will, allowing jack-sensing and -retasing for the audio jacks, for example (well, at least the front panel jacks, actually...). However, HDA doesn't tell you what audio data format to use - it just ensures better electrical implementations and brings the capabilities for high resolution data formats like DVD-A or 24bit/192kHz PCM WAVs.

Going together with HDA is Microsoft's introduction of a new uniform audio driver model called UAA (Universal Audio Architecture) and Dolby's Dolby in PC initiative, which will bring system-wide support for technologies like Dolby Digital, ProLogic IIx, Headphone & Virtual Speaker (whether that's decoding only or also includes encoding support depends on the type of license - Dolby provides three different types with different logos).

There's a lot of confusion potential with all this new stuff. For example, as tkam already mentioned, having HDA doesn't mean you'd get 32bit/192kHz dacs and adcs - it's only the internal resolution of the codec chips. More likely, you'll find 24bit/192kHz converters with the remaining 8 bits providing some digital headroom for mixing several streams together. That you'll be able to get a Dolby labeled pc with HDA also doesn't mean that competitors like Creative, Terratec, M-Audio et cetera wouldn't be able to provide UAA drivers and get a Dolby in PC label license as well.

You can find out a bit more about the codecs over on www.realtek.com.tw, btw. Interestingly enough, they not only have the 8-channel-version ALC-880, but also a stereo version (ALC-260). There will also be other competitors in the market - I haven't found any info about C-Medias upcoming CMI9880 on the web yet, though.

Personally, I'm still waiting for Intel to provide the specs (which they had already promised several months ago - and the Intel press guys are still working on it... *sigh*). So far, I could only dig up a preliminary hardware spec for a planned mobile HDA module - but if that's anything to go by, there'll only be a 24 MHz clock. That is a rather bad sign, because that probably means one won't be able to get non-resampled Redbook playbook out of HDA codec chips. Souldn't be as bad as with AC'97, though - because 24bit/192kHz could at least ensure the possibility of good quality Redbook upsampling...

Greetings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

P.S.: I hope that stuff didn't bore you...

 

[badmonkey]

^^ WHAT HE SAID ^^

Nice lini, good to see someone who knows what they're talking about...

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert the current issue of 'stereophile' notes that many, if not most, SACDs are cut from 16-bit 44.1 sources, or re-hashed living stereo/presence tapes from the 1950s.

That's in fact what I fear: Even if the SACD (or DVD-A) format is pushed to a market dominance, that doesn't automatically mean we get real high-rez productions. With the SACDs I've bought I've taken care for a high-rez mastering (good analog recordings are also good enough for me), except for two disks with no information on them. And with those the SACD layer sounds worse than the CD layer, so I guess the original recording was in low-res PCM. In this form SACD doesn't make sense at all, but commercially (copy protection!) it probably does anyway, so this may be what we have to expect from it in the future. I hope I'll be proved wrong though.

 

[halcyon]

I think hi-resolution recording/mastering will just take a little time.

It'll probably be PCM based anyway, so true DSD recording/processing will be relegated to niche status (my guess). Unless of course Sony magically opens up DSD licensing for all pro gear and there's plenty of competition and prices plummet.

So till then, DVD-A/SACD are mainly for us first mover buffoons who will be milked for all our moneys worth