The lie of the hi-rez formats

[markl]

Quote:

Now that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD have defined standards for high-resolution audio only discs, discontinuing SACD and DVD-A is close to inevitable.

I haven't read that either of these "new new formats" have defined an actual separate unique audio standard; what I've heard is that they left it open and undefined so that various labels could plug in DVD-A or SACD as their choice. Do you have a source for this?

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Do you have a source for this?

http://stereophile.com/news/110804dts/

 

[markl]

Quote:

DTS is taking another step in tightening up its high-rez audio formats with a recent announcement that "DTS-HD" will be the new trademarked brand name for its lossless technology. Previously known under working name "DTS++", the company says that the DTS-HD mark will denote "media, source players, and decoders that are compliant with the next-generation high-definition disc formats, Blu-ray Disc and High Definition DVD (HD-DVD)."

Quote:

The audiophile score update: Blu-ray, backed by Sony and Philips, will run standard Dolby Digital and DTS-HD, while HD DVD, backed by the DVD Forum, will offer audio specifications similar to DVD-Audio by using MLP and Dolby Digital Plus, and will also run DTS-HD.

he he he. See, all very simple, no way the market will get confused. Record labels should have an easy time figuring out which format/encoding to support and license, no sweat.

Not to mention the new 32-bit format/system from Intel, and whatever Microsoft is creating...

 

[HiWire]

I thought SACD was well-established in Asia, for example. Reversing the flow would cost a lot of $$$ and cause widespread consumer backlash. As for myself, I'm sticking with Red Book until they get it right

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl and whatever Microsoft is creating

That would be Azalea.

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl he he he. See, all very simple, no way the market will get confused. Record labels should have an easy time figuring out which format/encoding to support and license, no sweat. Not to mention the new 32-bit format/system from Intel, and whatever Microsoft is creating...

Just leave us redbook. I'll likely be in the grave before they sort this mess out.

 

[bifcake]

We sort of skimmed on the original topic and went off on a tangent. I see the issue of upmixing from a 16/44 stream to a high rez format as the bigger issue. Regardless of how the content will be packaged, whether in a blue ray, DTS-HD or whatever other encoding, if the mix is essentially a redbook mix converted to a high res media, what exactly are we supporting as consumers? It seems that what is essentially happening is that a new package is being created to contain the same CD, a new label is affixed to it indicating HD or blue ray or SACD or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be and then we're asked to pay more for the "superior sound".

Furthermore, even if we're not lied to and even the mix and the new format is indeed superior, will the average joe schmoe be able to hear it on their $50 universal player? It seems to me that consumers will and should be weary of the new "high res" formats. These formats' primary function is copy protection. Nothing else. Everything else is incidental and is mostly marketing hype.

 

[markl]

Quote:

will the average joe schmoe be able to hear it on their $50 universal player? It seems to me that consumers will and should be weary of the new "high res" formats. These formats' primary function is copy protection. Nothing else. Everything else is incidental and is mostly marketing hype.

Now who's off-topic?

The thing is, even on a hypothetical $50 player, they can still switch between the layers to hear the difference. It may be a crummy hi-rez player, but it will still be a crummy CD player, too, each format will be compromised equally. The hi-rez layer will just sound slightly less crappy!!

 

[uzziah]

here's my question: why can't some super smart computer dude make hi-rez formats compatble with pc? is there something intrinsic in pc that won't allow these formats? all i know is that cd-rom's won't read it. is that it? because it doesn't seem to me like making a cdrw drive sacd compatable would be such a big deal. yes? better than that, i think the change will come when we have hi-rez downloadable music. lots of folks have broadband connections now, so music downloads couldn't be very difficult. the point with all that is your pc would be compatable, as say new patches to foobar or whatever music program you have comes out, you'd be able to play downloaded sacd, dvd-a; whatever new comes out. thus your old sacd player wouldn't be obselete anymore. you could play redbook, sacd, and whatever new format comes out on pc. not to mention (though this might be a tad of a strectch), new ultra hi-rez formats could come out because they wouldn't be limited to the size of a cd, sacd or whatever

someone please tell me i'm not the only one thinking this way

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah here's my question: why can't some super smart computer dude make hi-rez formats compatble with pc? is there something intrinsic in pc that won't allow these formats?

As for SACD, I don't think any consumer equipment is able to handle DSD encoded stuff although many of the DACs on sound card's are DSD compatible. DVD Audio can be played with a PC, but it's very limited, only Audigy2 cards with WinDVD (some proprietary deal) or creative's player and of course digital outputs disabled. Other card's can play DVD-A too, but only downsampled if the disc has copyprotection enabled (probably ~all mainstream releases).

 

[Glassman]

definitely not alone uzziah, however reading SACD needs watermarking detection and that's not possible unless it's implemented in hardware, also you're not gonna see DSD playback on computer.. DVD-A is whole another story, disc can be read without any problems, but there's just no player other than for Creative cards.. nevermind I'm working on digital output module for universal standalone players offering digital output in full resolution so I can store any DVD-A or SACD losslessly encoded on the disk..

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glassman definitely not alone uzziah, however reading SACD needs watermarking detection and that's not possible unless it's implemented in hardware, also you're not gonna see DSD playback on computer.. DVD-A is whole another story, disc can be read without any problems, but there's just no player other than for Creative cards.. nevermind I'm working on digital output module for universal standalone players offering digital output in full resolution so I can store any DVD-A or SACD losslessly encoded on the disk..

thanks, it seems there are a ton of changes that would need to take place in multiple components. is it mostly in the input stage (cd drive etc.) or the output stage (or both) that the changes need to come?

if it was simply the input stage, downloadable music would solve that

i don't know what watermarking is

yes, and lossless compression would really be valuable as well, though perhaps not the most necessary component

how many different parts of the computer need to be changed to make this possible? sound card? cdrw drive? what else?

 

[bifcake]

As I'm reading these posts, it's amazing to me that none of you guys are outraged by the fact that the record companies are essentially lying to consumers by converting 16bit encodings into DSD adn calling it SACD, and charging more for it. That really burns me, but it seems as though I'm the only one.

 

[19lexicon78]

6 months ago,there was a radio-program talking about a new format developed by philips. it was a philips engineer talking about a cd which only can be played perhaps 10x. this format is equal/perhaps better than vinyl. the player to use for this format has 6 different configurations. the player will be put on the market in the next couple of years.
IMO, SACD has not a long life ahead, i would wait. actually, i prefer to buy a philips 1985 player instead of a SACD.

 

[markl]

Quote:

As I'm reading these posts, it's amazing to me that none of you guys are outraged by the fact that the record companies are essentially lying to consumers by converting 16bit encodings into DSD adn calling it SACD, and charging more for it. That really burns me, but it seems as though I'm the only one.

It's definitely upsetting that in this case, when analog masters were available,they didn't use them, that's just wrong and makes no sense. OTOH, the Jones SACD does contain a multi-channel program derrived from analog masters. So, for people who see the raison d'etre of the new formats as multi-channel, they got their money's worth. I think it would be even more of an outrage if it was a non-hybrid, 2-channel only release.

But there's still the issue of what to do with digital recordings that never had any analog tapes to begin with. There's also the issue of digital processing used on some aspects of the sound recording/reproduction even on recordings that have an analog master tape. We'll always be limited in resolution to the max res. of the gear they used to record it, or those aspects of the sound that used digital gear. But we're always captive to the limitations of whatever gear is used (microphones, mixing consoles, etc. etc.), so we'll never have Platonic ideal recordings.

Does this mean we should forget hi-rez altogether just because in some cases, the recording gear used to make some albums is below the maximum standard allowed by the new digital media? I don't think so.

(No, not excusing this blunder, at all, but IMO, this is hardly reason to ash-can the whole idea of hi-rez audio.)