[morphsci]

Depending on how you set up your outputs the bass management can be for DD and DTS or SACD. The 500 has digital outputs, stereo and 5.1 outputs. I have it output dd and DTS at the coax and optical outs so all my DD and DTS processing is done by my receiver not the player. Its bass management is only for the 5.1 outs and in this case only the SACD is output to these. I feed the 5.1 out from the player to the 5.1 direct in on my outlaw 1050 receiver. The speaker settings affect whatever is sent out of the 5.1 jacks, which in this case is the DSD output. I was confused by this for a while because the manual is not as clear as it could be.

As far as I know this bass management is the same on the NS500V, NS650V and NS900V.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

We've already got the massive storage space of a DVD-V which features 24 bit audio output. Audiophile versions of popular albums could be marketed at a special price for DVD, with only audio and perhaps some minor navigation tools.

Another concept would be marketing a special DVD edition of a popular record, complete with a 24 bit remastered audio version of the album and all the videos that were made for the album. DVD-v has more than enough storage space for all these requirements. Why not use it?

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

I feed the 5.1 out from the player to the 5.1 direct in on my outlaw 1050 receiver. The speaker settings affect whatever is sent out of the 5.1 jacks, which in this case is the DSD output. I was confused by this for a while because the manual is not as clear as it could be.

Morphsci: I've been involved in a discussion about the lack of bass management with multi-channel SACD playback, with other owners of Sony's 777es Receivers. One person has been doing various hook-ups, trying to isolate where the problem lies. He's mentioned that he was unable to get proper bass out of 2 different Sony receivers, but was able to with an Outlaw receiver.

He tried it only briefly a while ago, and now doubts his own results, because everyone only owns Sony 777es receivers.

Could you kindly elaborate on your setup? i.e. speakers ( sizes ) and how well it works?

When you say "The speaker settings affect.....", do you mean speaker settings on the Outlaw receiver or your player?

Thanks

 

[Beagle]

SACD does sound better than it's Sony remastered redbook counterparts.

Now...who needs it or wants it?

I just look at it as Sony operating an audiophile "label" within it's own ranks. Mo-Fi, Nautilus and DCC didn't sell to the masses, but there is a market. Only difference is that Mo-Fi and the like actually did release a bunch of good titles. Sony still offers only a handful.

If this is meant to "succeed" on a wider basis, Sony needs to release more titles at lower prices, and eventually release all it's new releases as hybrid SACD/CD, at regular CD prices.

Oh, and they would also have to include bonus tracks on the SACD layer....

 

[morphsci]

I cannot compare the bass management on the ES players and the DVP players since my C333ES is strictly two-channel.

My setup relevant to this discussion:

DVD/SACD - DVP-NS500V
Receiver - Outlaw1050 (Processing and amp for C and R & L surrounds
Amps - Adcom 565 (Front R & L)
Front Speakers - Polk SDA-1C
Center Speaker - Polk CS-200
Rear Surround - Larger Advent

DVP-NS500V is connected via optical toslink for DVD-V playback of DD and DTS audio. DVD input on receiver is matched to optical in 1. In this case all decoding, speaker settings and bass management is handled by the Outlaw 1050.

DVP-NS-500V is also connected via 6 analog RCA inputs to the 5.1 direct inputs on the Outlaw 1050. In this case the Outlaw does no DAC or DSP decoding of the signal so all decoding and bass management of these inputs are performed on all signals coming from these jacks. Since I only send the SACD signals there they are the only ones affected. The following speaker parameters can be set:

SIZE:
FRONT - Large; Small
CENTER - None; Large; Small
REAR - None; Large; Small (You can also set them as rear/side but that setting only affects DD, DTS or PCM sent to the 5.1 outs)
SUBWOOFER - None; Yes (xover set at 120 hz)

[My Settings - Large; Small; Small; None]

DISTANCE
FRONT - 2' to 50' by 1'
CENTER - +2' to -5' (relative to front) by 1'
REAR - -16' (relative to front) by 1'

[My Settings - 12'; 10'; 8']


BALANCE
FRONT - -6 to +6 dB by 0.5 dB
REAR - -6 to +6 dB by 0.5 dB

[My Settings - 0 dB; 0dB]

LEVEL
FRONT - -6 to 0 dB by 0.5 dB
CENTER - -12 to 0 db by 0.5 dB
REAR - -12 to 0 db by 0.5 dB
SUBWOOFER - -10 to +10 dB by 0.5 dB

[My settings - -3; -1; 0; NA]

There is also a test tone for setting levels

Remember I do not have a subwoofer at this time so the fixed 120 hz xover is not a problem for me. So there is bass management but it is probably better to describe it as bass redirection. For true bass management I will likely purchase an Outlaw ICBM and insert it between the 5.1 outs of my DVD/SACD and the 5.1 ins of my receiver/pre/pro once I purchase a sub.

 

[markl]

Based on what I've read, DVD-A, which has received a much smaller push than SACD, is doing better at this time in its introduction than the CD did during an equivalent time-frame. By that standard, the intro of DVD-A has been more successful than the intro of the CD, so its not totally grim.

Sony apparently refuses to publically state the SACD numbers, so no one knows how its doing, but I'd bet it's doing much better than DVD-A due to its head-start in the marketplace, more and better players, and more and better titles to choose from.

There are two other factors that change the landscape for the new formats that Mike did not consider:

1. The record companies are in a panic about copy protection of CDs and digital distribution over the web. They've just determined that they can't protect CDs without making them unplayable on lots of players. The new formats allow for greater secuirty, so the industry is now motivated to support them.

2. It's not all about "higher resolution". It's about multi-channel. There are many many HT systems that are poised and ready now for the addition of multi-channel music.

I still think they will succeed, but it's going to take a while and it will be a bumpy ride.

markl

 

[Mike Walker]

Morphsci, "Bass Management" is a fancy (politically correct) way of saying "Bass re-direction". Because "to manage" bass in surround setups is to re-direct it according to the bass capabilities of whatever speaker setup one chooses to use.

Why not choose a term such as yours (bass re-direction) to describe this process? Probably because that would make sense! I have long DESPISED the term "data compression" when applied to lossy algorithms. "Compression" implies that reciprocal "expansion" would result in exact recovery of the original data. Which of course it doesn't! When I run the world the term "data compression" will be applied only to lossless schemes such as zip. Lossy algorithms such as mp3, ATRAC, Dolby Digital, DTS, Windows Media, Real Media, etc will be described as using "data REDUCTION", a term which actually describes what's happening! (Or perhaps there's a better term for lossy compression. Any suggestions?)

 

[morphsci]

I have to agree about both of those. As far as bass management goes I feel better about using that term with something like the ICBM that allows seperate crossovers points for Front, Center and surround so that you really have a chance of integrating all your speakers into a cohesive soundfield. As far as the lossy algorithms how about data extrapolation and then recovery is data interpolation? Just a thought

 

[coolvij]

Quote:

Lossy algorithms such as mp3, ATRAC, Dolby Digital, DTS, Windows Media, Real Media, etc will be described as using "data REDUCTION", a term which actually describes what's happening! (Or perhaps there's a better term for lossy compression. Any suggestions?)

Data destruction?

I'm an MD fan - only kidding

 

[acidtripwow]

I've actually been listening to a lot of regular DVDs like concert DVDs. They sound fantastic and look great. And there are more and more DVD concert titles coming out every week. I just purchased the Diana Krall "Live in Paris" DVD and think it has great sound and picture(who doesn't like the way she looks). For around $20 a title I think that this is a better deal than SACDs or DVD-A.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Guidry We've already got the massive storage space of a DVD-V which features 24 bit audio output. Audiophile versions of popular albums could be marketed at a special price for DVD, with only audio and perhaps some minor navigation tools. Another concept would be marketing a special DVD edition of a popular record, complete with a 24 bit remastered audio version of the album and all the videos that were made for the album. DVD-v has more than enough storage space for all these requirements. Why not use it?

Actually, these already exist. They're often called "DAD's" (albeit, incorrectly -- technically, they are still DVD-V's, they've just been produced in such a way as to optimize them for music). I have more of these than I have SACD's. But production of them has slowed down to a trickle (hard to tell whether or not the faucet is actually off or not). Which is too bad, because I can use my superior DAC with them -- something I can't do with SACD's or DVD-A's.

What I don't understand is why more music-related DVD's (concert DVD's, etc.) don't use the 24/96 PCM tracks...the only ones I know of are those Windham Hill ones...