Regarding DOWNMIXING with a SACD

[Onix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamCalifornia Hi Onix! Here is some more info regarding HD (High Density) layer on a SACD disc and a comparison with a DVD-Video disc. As we all know music CDs (so called Red Book), which you buy in stores, hold only 650MB of audio data. This allows for about 74 mins and 33 secs of music. (They can also achieve over 80 mins of music by slightly varying the CD standards.) Now, as concerns SACD, due to technological improvements since 1982 (when the first CDs were launched), a standard one-layer SACD disc holds the same amount of data as a typical DVD-Video disc. They BOTH can hold 4.7 GB of data. (By the way, mechanical and optical properties of SACD disc are similar to DVD-5 disc properties.) Since the capacity of one-layer SACD is about 7 times the storage capacity of a regular CD they call it High Density (HD) layer. In case of the "2-channel stereo" this corresponds to about 110 minutes of music. When a SACD contains 2 (yes, two) HD layers then the capacity is doubled to 8.5 GB. Finally, the hybrid disc contains 2 layers: one is the HD layer and the other one is the regular CD (Red Book) layer. In this case the total is: 4.7 GB + 650 MB. That the one-layer SACD disc can contain BOTH the "2-channel stereo" and the "5.1-channel" areas on the same layer is due to the following facts: 1. The layer itself is the HD (High Density) layer 2. Proper compression of both the "2-ch" and the "5.1" audio data is applied Adam

Thank you Adam. I all makes sense to me now.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

Thanks, very interesting!

From Guthrie's story:

"... The band asked for some changes, but thankfully, none of them were major, and there was very little in terms of the placement of instruments. It's crutial for fans to understand that this MIX has the band's INPUT and endorsement. "

Yes, I like it! The participation of artists in the "extended creative process", which is mixing in this case.

Adam

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamCalifornia Yes, I like it! The participation of artists in the "extended creative process", which is mixing in this case. Adam

You should then check out the SACD from the Carpenters....remixed and produced by Richard Carpenter specifically for SACD.

 

[Beauregard]

Hi Adam and everyone,

In case you don't read Audio Asylum, I suggest you have a look at this.

I don't think there's any info that hasn't been covered in this thread but you should note the post by Michael Bishop. In case you're not aware, he's been Telarc's number one recording engineer since forever and is arguably the finest in his profession of the digital era. I've been a huge fan of his recordings for 20 years and count many among my very favorites.

You're simply not going to find a more authoritative opinion about the value of player-downmixing from SACD multi-channel to stereo.

Best,
Beau

 

[soundboy]

You may not like them, but Toto's IV has been an audiophile favorite for years, appearing on everything from Mobile Fidelity gold CD to Sony MasterSound gold CD, and from stereo-only SACD to multi-channel SACD. Here's a very interesting article on how the song "Africa" was mixed....

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_totos_africa/

Three 24-track tape machines were used for this song alone!! You will never listen to the song the same way again.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

Hi Beau, soundBoy and Everynone!

I've just looked at the Alex's article. It's surprising that the RedBook Stereo track sounded better than the 2-ch SACD track!? He says something about the compression... but I think that his explanation is faulty. The compression employed in the DSD system (SACD) relies on the DST (Direct Stream Transfer) coding which is LOSSLESS!!! So, either his SACD player is faulty or his particular SACDs were "produced improperly"?. We are coming again to "The Dark Side of the Moon" case where the 2-ch SACD" track sounds excellent. I'll check the post by Michael Bishop later.

Adam

 

[AdamCalifornia]

DOWNMIXING FROM X.Y to 2.1?!

On my Pioneer DV-578A-S:
Initial Audio Settings==>Speakers 2-channel

On the DVD-VIDEO:
Audio Options==>Dolby Digital Stereo

In this set-up the Pioneer DV-578A DEFAULTS to:
"Audio Dolby Digital 2/0CH"
(which is displayed on my TV's screen)

(The sound is not too nice, very little bass.)

Now, on the REMOTE CONTROL of the DV-578A I can TOGGLE to switch to Dolby Digital 2.1, namely:
"Audio Dolby Digital 3/2.1CH"
(which is displayed on my TV's screen)

AND in this case the Pioneer DV-578A's display shows: "D.MIX"

(The sound is fuller and has more bass, but it might be distorted-
see the excellent posts #12 and #18 in this thread by Prof. Wodgy!)

Clearly in the last case the Pioneer DV-578A is DOWNMIXING on the fly from the "X.Y" to the "2.1".
Technically speaking, is it DOWNMIXING from the "5.1" soundtrack from the DVD-Video, despite that I did set "Dolby Digital Stereo" on the DVD-Video?
Perhaps the Pioneer somehow fiddles with the "2.0" and ADDS some bass (including distortion)?
Technically speaking what is the DEFINITION of "Dolby Digital 2.0" or "5.0"? No low frequency sound under, say 100Hz?

The DVD-Video is:
Electric Light Orchetra - ELO
"Out of the Blue Tour", Live at Wembley (1978)
(Includes Bonus "Dscovery" Feature.)
A Jet Production 1979 (1989).

Here is the hook-up:
I use the universal Pioneer DV-578A-S dvd/cd player. I connect the Cambridge SoundWorks stereo receiver (no Dolby Pro-Logic or any Dolby whatsoever) to the Pioneer's analog L/R stereo output. (The DV-578A has also 5.1 output.) Finally I connect my headphones to the L/R output of the stereo receiver.

Adam

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamCalifornia Thanks, very interesting! From Guthrie's story: "... The band asked for some changes, but thankfully, none of them were major, and there was very little in terms of the placement of instruments. It's crutial for fans to understand that this MIX has the band's INPUT and endorsement. "

Oh MAN! Is this a spin job or what?!

Here is what I read in that statement:

The band wasn't present for the mix.
They were given a revision pass when the mix was complete.
They didn't ask for any real changes.

How does that translate to the band having input? What it tells me is that the band has moved on to other projects and interests and are resigned to letting someone else remix their album for them. You can bet that they had more input than that in the original 2 channel mix!

See ya
Steve