[mc whak]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanG A dual-layered DVD can hold about 7 gigabytes of information.

Actually, it can hold 8.5gb dual-layer.

 

[Luna]

For example, the Metalica DVD-A has a surround option (24/96x6) and a 2channel (24/96) They are separate , ie not a mixdown.

Added:

Don't forget this is a lossless compression also.

 

[Gluegun]

Luna, is the two channel 24/192, or 24/96? Did you make a typo?

 

[Luna]

I've yet to get anything with 24/192 on it. Most 2 channel sources are like DAD 24/96 but a few are mixdowns.

On a side note, this new Panasonic RP91 DVD-A has built in cd upsampling and awesome video. I'f you can find one, it is a nice unit with feaures and prformace that blows my older Sony7700DVD player away. Even MP3 playback and DVDRam support for videos.

There is also a new Sony SACD 5 disc changer with multichannel audio for $329. The model#775. Time to stop talking and start listening.


-CAL

 

[lini]

For the capacity discussion you should take into consideration that dvd-a makes use of meridian lossless compression, thus you gain a byte here and there...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Paradigm]

Did any of you guys get the latest sound&vision mag, in there they have 8 pages dedicated to SACD and why it's better than DVD-audio. Also they have a whole section where the ask studio engineers what they think is better and all of them said SACD without a doubt.

 

[Luna]

Even though many times the DSD data is converted to PCM for editting then back to DSD?

If it doesn't loose the flair when converted to DSD they the only question to be answered is what it the DSD adding?

-CAL

 

[mc whak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luna Even though many times the DSD data is converted to PCM for editting then back to DSD?

I read an article a few weeks back about this. I believe that they don't convert it to PCM. They have a way to edit the DSD data without converting it. And I think Sony pretty much gives it away to studios willing to use it.

If I find the article I'll post it.

 

[aos]

That I'd have to see to believe. Sony invented a new basic science method for digital signal processing that goes around what the whole telecom industry since 1940's is based?? I didn't see any Sony engineers on Nobel's Prize rolls.

 

[BenG]

-

 

[thomas]

um, can someone please explain how DSD can possibly mixed in its raw form, without conversion to PCM???

Quote:

Even though DSD is not a perfect match at the moment for mass-market recording morons who like to add all of their "cool effects", the DSD process is much better for acoustic recording, and I think that was S&V's motivation for endorsing it.

um, how is DSD a better format. With its higher sampling rate and lower resolution, they are much more prone to jitter and high frequency noise. And the ADC/DAC technology is much less accurate than direct R2R PCM conversion. Look at the best CD players on the market- every single one uses R2R technology, because they sound much better. DSD/delta-sigma technology was designed to save money... Sony marketing can claim whatever they want, but i don;t see how you could possibly say that it superior to PCM

 

[MacDEF]

OMG, I just read this thread for the first time

>I"m confused, CD sounds better than tape, DAT. and those stupid
>sounding records.

1) DAT and CD are the SAME EXACT THING in terms of the data. However, DAT can actually sample at a higher rate, so while in reality they will usually sound EXACTLY the same, in theory DAT could sound better.

2) CD often sounds better at a given price point. However, if you're talking about the absolute best, after hearing an amazing LP-based system, I have NO problem believing that LP is able to sound better.

I don't think you have a clue here, Paradigm.

 

[aos]

I don't believe in doing DSP on recorded signal either. As long as "mixing" is just adding a signal from a few sources together with certain volumes, that's fine. But there's no way they'd be doing special effects (equlization, echo, reverb, low/high pass filtering and whatever) on DSD without conversion to PCM. Luckily that shouldn't be done. Take signal from microphone and record it onto (SA)CD and be done with it, I say. Don't they use a single microphone to record orchestras now? Or maybe just a couple?

But lots of music today however has strong processing component - be it that the instrument is synthesised or that heavy processing is done on voices/music. DSD won't have any edge on such material.

Regardless, until Berliner Philharmoniker starts releasing SACD or DVD-A, I'm not getting any. Unless I win the lottery.

 

[BenG]

-

 

[thomas]

Noise shaping is a great method of improving sound quality, and can only be used with DSD. So if the same amount of data was used, and the componants were of equal quality, DSD would probably win...

But SACD uses a sampling rate of 2.8 mhz, which is much closer to the low end of DVD-A (96khz x 24bits) than the high end (192 x 24) (2.8mhz@1bit / 24 bits = 116khz). Considering how much less data it uses, i seriously doubt it can compete with 192khz DVD-A

And i think the sound quality of DVD-A currently avalable isn't any indication of what the format is capable of. To my knowlege, all 192khz DACs currently available are the delta-sigma type, which means the dac is basically converting the PCM to DSD. Of course this process is not as good as SACD which is kept in DSD the whole time.

But once they start producing 24bit R2R-type DACs for DVD-A, i think they will beat SACD. Of course, those chips will be super expensive, but keep in mind that the best DAC chips currently on the market are still less than $50. Why audiophile equipment manufactures are able charge 50 grand for the DACs, and why people buy them is beyond me...