Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Lava Lamp Freak · Sep 10, 2003, 05:11 PM

I was reading an article a few days ago on CNN, can't find it now, that was talking about SACD and DVD-Audio being the future of music and a possible solution to stealing music. I know you can playback DVD-A on a PC with an Audigy 2 but is there any way to play DVD-A on a Mac? I don't know of any way to play SACD on a Mac or PC. How can this be the future of music if you can't play it on a computer? I don't want to sit in front of my TV to listen to music, I want to sit at my desk and listen while working.

astronomix · Sep 10, 2003, 05:42 PM

Forget SACD and DVD-Audios. On a standard HiFi system, you will not hear any difference compared to a normal CD.

Kenneth · Sep 10, 2003, 06:53 PM

Don't rule out SACD or DVD-Audio. Of course, you need a SACD and DVD-A capable system to playback those CD....

a regular system should play fine for hybrid SACD... some said the sound quality is a little bit better.

wataru · Sep 10, 2003, 06:57 PM

I don't think enough people are dissatisfied with CDs for a new audio format to take its place. I know I don't care. And if it means more DRM then I'm out-and-out against it.

BasketofPuppies · Sep 10, 2003, 06:57 PM

If either format catches on; and by either I mean DVD Audio, as SACD is the new Betamax; future DVD-ROM/R/RW/+R/+RW drives will support them.

And you don't need a TV to play these discs. They're audio discs and can be played on audio players.

Eug · Sep 10, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by astronomix:
Forget SACD and DVD-Audios. On a standard HiFi system, you will not hear any difference compared to a normal CD.

Huh? Most DVD-Audio discs are multi-channel (ie. more than 2), and the sound quality is better than Dolby Digital 5.1, since DVD-A is not compressed.

Unfortunately, it seems the music available is mostly for middle-aged or older men.

is there any way to play DVD-A on a Mac

Most (but not all) include a standard 2-channel Dolby Digital track for this purpose. The Apple DVD Player will play it. The sound quality is usually pretty good (but obviously not as good as the native DVD-A track).

Sep 10, 2003, 08:39 PM

There's also HDCD, which plays on standard CD players. Most of us probably have an HDCD and not even know it.

My CD Player (Rotel) plays HDCDs. They do sound a bit better.

Unfortunately, the technology was purchased by Microsoft.

nonhuman · Sep 10, 2003, 09:01 PM

Once I'm out of college and finished with my (up to) 3 year stint in Japan and actually have a place of my own, I intend to set up a kick ass audio system that will actually do justice to DVD-A and/or SACD. Hopefully one of those standards will be decided upon by that time.

Eug · Sep 10, 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by hayesk:
There's also HDCD, which plays on standard CD players. Most of us probably have an HDCD and not even know it.

My CD Player (Rotel) plays HDCDs. They do sound a bit better.

Unfortunately, the technology was purchased by Microsoft.

My friend has an HDCD system and quite frankly I notice little difference.

Note that a lot of the HDCDs are extremely well-mastered. So even if they weren't HDCD they'd sound good too.

Anyways, I have a DVD-A system and I don't bother looking for DVD-A discs, mainly because there are so few.

Sep 10, 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
My friend has an HDCD system and quite frankly I notice little difference.

That's what I said - a bit better - i.e. little difference, not big difference.

Kenneth · Sep 10, 2003, 10:35 PM

Yes.. I have many HDCDs.. all of them are Hong Kong Cantonpop music... but I don't see any CDs sold here got the HDCD labels.

G4ME · Sep 10, 2003, 10:41 PM

ahhh gimmie a nice CD player with an 20 bit DAC with my crown amp, and my soon to be mine Crown IC 150 Preamp and i will be happy

127db happy

I don't really need the 5.1 in audio, i love stereo just like the artist intended it.

starman · Sep 10, 2003, 10:47 PM

Forget SACD and DVD-Audios. On a standard HiFi system, you will not hear any difference compared to a normal CD.

What are you, f*cking CRAZY? I've had DVD-A and SACD for years now and although SOME remasters aren't very good (Meat Loaf, Journey), some are TREMENDOULSY better, even in 2-channel.

Mike

starman · Sep 10, 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Kenneth:
Yes.. I have many HDCDs.. all of them are Hong Kong Cantonpop music... but I don't see any CDs sold here got the HDCD labels.

I have lots. Keep looking.

Mike

starman · Sep 10, 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
Anyways, I have a DVD-A system and I don't bother looking for DVD-A discs, mainly because there are so few.

My Best Buy has an entire SACD/DVD-A section. Quite a big one, too.

Mike

G4ME · Sep 10, 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by starman:
SOME remasters aren't very good (Meat Loaf, Journey), Mike

oh man i had my hopes set for that one

starman · Sep 10, 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by G4ME:
oh man i had my hopes set for that one

The problem is that the recording wasn't very good to start with, so you're making crap sound better.

Michael Jackson's "Thriller" sounds AMAZING. There are a lot of really good remasters out there.

Mike

SomeToast · Sep 10, 2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by wataru:
I don't think enough people are dissatisfied with CDs for a new audio format to take its place.

Exactly. When CDs first came out, they offered significant improvements in quality, size and durability over tape and vinyl. SACD is an improvement over plain CD, but it's not an order of magnitude like before. And your Average Consumer just sees another shiny disc that they'd need to buy a new player for.

Hell, look at the popularity of mp3. If anything, we're moving backwards.

davechen · Sep 11, 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Lava Lamp Freak:
How can this be the future of music if you can't play it on a computer? I don't want to sit in front of my TV to listen to music, I want to sit at my desk and listen while working.

But you probably aren't going to be able to tell the difference between a DVD-A or SACD from a CD on a computer's sound system. You really need a high quality stereo system to hear the improvement. The multichannel aspect of these formats is more of a gimmick for music.

I've got a SACD player and it sounds terrific, but then I have a pretty nice stereo system.

If it's a matter of being able to listen to music on a CD player/computer, some SACD's are multi-layered, with one layer being a traditional redbook CD. I think DVD-A is going to have a multi-layer format soon too.

Eriamjh · Sep 11, 2003, 01:06 PM

DVD Audio and SACD will never be more than niche formats. CDs will not be replaced by them.

Eventually, someone will crack the DVD-A and SACD codes much like DVD was cracked. But most of us will never use or need either of them.

Welcome to the world of laserdisk, DVD-A & SACD. You will never be more than a pimple of sales on the big ass of the music industry.

Eug · Sep 11, 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by starman:
My Best Buy has an entire SACD/DVD-A section. Quite a big one, too.

Like I said before, the selection is limited.

Strangely enough I'd rather listen to Disturbed in DVD-A than a remastered DVD-A from 20 years ago.

ie. I'd rather buy a CD of music I want today than a DVD-A of songs I like only marginally. And I am less inclined to buy a DVD-A if I already have a good quality CD version of it.

mania · Sep 11, 2003, 01:49 PM

looking around it seems one format over the other hasn't won out - i.e. seems to be an equal number of DVD-A vs SACD discs availabe. also I have yet to find a player that can play both formats. from reading up on some audiophile forums it seems the DVD-A format is actually more accurate in the reproduction - kinda like a glorified CD wheras SACD is completely different in its compression. in either case you will probably need a sound card to digitize the anaolg direct from your player if you ever want to listen to these songs in iTunes - but that pretty much lowers the quality back to CD level so you might as well stick with CDs as long as they make em.

memento · Sep 11, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Kenneth:
Yes.. I have many HDCDs.. all of them are Hong Kong Cantonpop music... but I don't see any CDs sold here got the HDCD labels.

For starters, Tool - Lateralus

memento · Sep 11, 2003, 02:02 PM

The problem here is that there is no benefit to John Q. Public. What's in it for him? Audiophiles will love them, but they also still love their vinyl. niche.

Until the masses have it forced on them by the record labels because of DRM and copyright issues, they won't go for it. It's no major improvement like it was from cassette/vinyl to CD.

I'm still waiting for DVD-/+RW to take the place of crappy VHS for recording. Where's the $100 DVD recorder to replace the VCR?

Eug · Sep 11, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by memento:
I'm still waiting for DVD-/+RW to take the place of crappy VHS for recording. Where's the $100 DVD recorder to replace the VCR?

I have a Panasonic DMR-E30, but it ain't $100. You can get a Panasonic DMR-E50 for $350 though.

I don't even have cable plugged into my VCR anymore. The quality of real-time recordable DVD is so much better. The best part is being able to start watching a recording even before the recording is finished.

Shaddim · Sep 11, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by mania:
also I have yet to find a player that can play both formats.

DV-SP800 from Onkyo is a fine piece of equipment that does it all; SACD, DVD-A, DVD, CD, and HDCD.

Sony has also released a low cost multiformat player, the DVP-NC685V for only $250 retail. It's not audiophile grade, but it seems like it has good build quality.

Anyway, there's quite a few of these types of units out there.

kikkoman · 03:55 PM

Most of current titles for SACD and DVD-A are simply remasters from the original analog or digital masters. They do not show the full potential of either format. A similar thing happened when the CD came out. The studio just took old analog recordings and put them on CDs.

To realize their fullest potential new material must be recorded in the higher resolution formats. My hunch is DVD-A will probably be more accepted by music production professionals because it is simply higher resolution Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). There is plenty of hardware and software available at various price levels that can deal with PCM. SACD equipment is scarce/expensive in comparison and I don't know of any software that can work with Pulse Width Modulation (PWM).

Shaddim · Sep 11, 2003, 03:56 PM

$250 is scarce/expensive?

kikkoman · Sep 11, 2003, 04:03 PM

Denon currently has one universal player, the DVD-2900. Two new models, the DVD-2900 and the DVD-5900, will be available shortly. I believe Pioneer Elite also makes a universal player.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
DV-SP800 from Onkyo is a fine piece of equipment that does it all; SACD, DVD-A, DVD, CD, and HDCD.

Sony has also released a low cost multiformat player, the DVP-NC685V for only $250 retail. It's not audiophile grade, but it seems like it has good build quality.

Anyway, there's quite a few of these types of units out there.

kikkoman · Sep 11, 2003, 04:04 PM

I'm talking about production equipment used by recording engineers in studios not consumer players.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
$250 is scarce/expensive?

Spheric Harlot · Sep 11, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by astronomix:
Forget SACD and DVD-Audios. On a standard HiFi system, you will not hear any difference compared to a normal CD.

HAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahaaahahaaaa...

Define "standard HiFi system".

One suggestion: On a system where you don't hear the difference between a 160 kbps mp3 and a CD, you probably won't hear the difference between a 16-bit/44kHz CD and a 24-bit/96kHz DVD-A.

If that is a "standard HiFi system", then okay.

Given that the market has supported quality degradation through medium change before and apparently will with mp3/AAC as well, there remains the question of market viability.

Wait and see, I guess.

-s*

Spheric Harlot · Sep 11, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by SomeToast:
Exactly. When CDs first came out, they offered significant improvements in quality, size and durability over tape and vinyl.

Obligatory correction:

When CDs first came out (1983, IIRC), they sounded like absolute sh!t. The digital production and manufacturing problems were further compounded by bad DACs in the CD players of the time (in turn worsened, er "compensated", by high-frequency boosters for "brilliance"), and by extremely rushed transfers in the need to flood the market with back catalogue. Pressed for time, the corps used any old master tape they could grab and transfer to digital, resulting in extremely noisy and/or just crummy-sounding CDs.

Add to that the fact that CDs are not particularly scratch-resistant, and that CD media are already oxydizing into digital oblivion while a lot of vinyl from the 50s and 60s still plays fine, and the only remaining advance *at the time* was size.

CDs didn't actually start to sound good until the 90s.

</rant>

-s*

Spheric Harlot · Sep 11, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by kikkoman:
Most of current titles for SACD and DVD-A are simply remasters from the original analog or digital masters. They do not show the full potential of either format. A similar thing happened when the CD came out. The studio just took old analog recordings and put them on CDs.

To realize their fullest potential new material must be recorded in the higher resolution formats.

This is misleading, since it is only true for digital recordings.

Analog material is BY DEFINITION much higher-"resolution" than digital recordings.

-s*

Lava Lamp Freak · Sep 11, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Add to that the fact that CDs are not particularly scratch-resistant, and that CD media are already oxydizing into digital oblivion while a lot of vinyl from the 50s and 60s still plays fine, and the only remaining advance *at the time* was size.

You could always preserve your CD by beer-coating it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s943430.htm

Shaddim · Sep 11, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is misleading, since it is only true for digital recordings.

Analog material is BY DEFINITION much higher-"resolution" than digital recordings.

-s*

Agreed, I have quite a bit of vinyl that sounds better than the CD (Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick" is a great example). I love my Nottingham Horizon, great table.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 11, 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Agreed, I have quite a bit of vinyl that sounds better than the CD (Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick" is a great example). I love my Nottingham Horizon, great table.

Heh. Linn Sondek here.

And that album is an - albeit rarely-heard - gem, here. First-issue UK Chrysalis with the fold-out newspaper gatefold. I got lucky.

I love how some stuff got remastered onto vinyl in *worse* quality than the CD in the 90s, while the original vinyl version so obviously kicks the CD to bits.

-s*

Shaddim · Sep 11, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Heh. Linn Sondek here.

And that album is an - albeit rarely-heard - gem, here. First-issue UK Chrysalis with the fold-out newspaper gatefold. I got lucky.

I love how some stuff got remastered onto vinyl in *worse* quality than the CD in the 90s, while the original vinyl version so obviously kicks the CD to bits.

-s*

I have the same pressing, bought it in London back in `92 along with some Clash, Sex Pistols, and Police at a little record store near Piccadilly. Real bargains too, the same pressings would have cost twice as much here in the States. I'm going back next Summer, and I'll be taking much more spending $ this time.

Linn Sondek, that would be the LP12 wouldn't it? Nice gear.

What cartridges do you use and do you use the original arm? I use the Interspace arm that came with this Horizon and I'm thinking about going a bit heavier and more rigid, not that it's "wrong"... I'm just curious. Also, I'm presently using a Grado Platinum and am loving it, awesome low and mid range for the price.

Johnnyboysmac · Sep 12, 2003, 03:58 AM

Heheh, Naim-Audio HiFi system here, including 'high resolution' classic Thorens TD125 Mk11 turntable + SME arm etc amongst other things.

Nice to see that there are few of us left who know that HiFi, as in High Fidelity music, doesn't come out of an Mp3 file on a computer.

Love the LP12 and the Nottingham.

Cheers

Johnboi...:-)

Spheric Harlot · Sep 12, 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Linn Sondek, that would be the LP12 wouldn't it? Nice gear. What cartridges do you use and do you use the original arm?

I have the Ittok II arm there and used to run it with the Linn K9 until they discontinued that. Due to funancial constraints, I ended up not using the turntable for over a year (didn't buy any more vinyl, either).

And then Linn came out with the Adikt MM-system, which I'm loving.

Only further upgrade I'll be making to the turntable at some point (unless they discontinue the Adikt) will be the Lingo power supply. That should suffice for the next thirty or so years.

I'm fairly limited in my experience with high-end equipment. I've heard some stuff that I didn't like (the Zarathustra turntable and various naim equipment), and since Linn has consistently made me ever happier with every component upgrade, I stuck with that.

Though I hear their newer stuff is more along boom-box lines...

-s*

astronomix · Sep 12, 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by starman:
What are you, f*cking CRAZY? I've had DVD-A and SACD for years now and although SOME remasters aren't very good (Meat Loaf, Journey), some are TREMENDOULSY better, even in 2-channel.

Mike

Like you said, it's the remastering that adds value, not the SACD. Anyway, which compelling reason would push me to listen to Britney Spears in 5.1 ?

More seriously, the vast majority of music will still be produced in stereo, not 5.1. And the surround effects you may enjoy on older recordings must be added artifically I guess, as they are probably not present on the original master tapes in most of the cases.

I would be interested if blind tests are available between SACD and CDs played on the same systems ? (I mean, real blind tests).

starman · Sep 12, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by astronomix:
And the surround effects you may enjoy on older recordings must be added artifically I guess, as they are probably not present on the original master tapes in most of the cases.

Not true. The effects on Dark Side of the Moon were all from the original tapes.

Mike

zigzag · Sep 12, 2003, 04:46 PM

I have a Linn Axis turntable with a K-9 cartridge. I'd love to have a Sondek but I decided it was too fussy for me - having to re-tune the suspension when you move, etc. I'm too lazy to deal with all that. But a wonderful machine.

scottiB and I were just digitizing an LP off of the Axis and I was remarking how the competition used to accuse Linn of using slightly fast turntable motors in order to geek the sound. I don't know if this was ever proven.

I had an AR-XA many years ago - the original 3-point suspension turntable, I believe, although some say Thorens was first. Wish I had kept it - probably a real collector's item now.

Shaddim · Sep 12, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by astronomix:
Like you said, it's the remastering that adds value, not the SACD. Anyway, which compelling reason would push me to listen to Britney Spears in 5.1 ? More seriously, the vast majority of music will still be produced in stereo, not 5.1. And the surround effects you may enjoy on older recordings must be added artifically I guess, as they are probably not present on the original master tapes in most of the cases.

I would be interested if blind tests are available between SACD and CDs played on the same systems ? (I mean, real blind tests).

With the right gear and speaker placement you don't need 5.1, "simple" 2ch can be an enveloping experience.

Case in point, a bud of mine came to the house one evening and I was listening to some "Stones" on vinyl and he started looking around the room...

"What are you doing?"

"I'm looking for your surrounds."

"No surrounds here man, no gimmiks neccessary."

Nonsuch · Sep 12, 2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
With the right gear and speaker placement you don't need 5.1, "simple" 2ch can be an enveloping experience.

That's his point really: 2-channel audio is more than good enough for most people, including me.

Maybe I'd feel differently if I had a surround system. But I can't help thinking, re: 5.1: didn't we go down this road already? Doesn't anyone else remember quadrophonics? It never became more than a curiosity because people continued being born with only two ears.

Seeing the SACD reissue of Dark Side of the Moon reminded me that there was a quad mix of DSOTM too ... how history repeats itself.

gralem · Sep 12, 2003, 10:24 PM

anything to keep 12-year-old girls from stealing money from Metallica!

---gralem

starman · Sep 12, 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
With the right gear and speaker placement you don't need 5.1, "simple" 2ch can be an enveloping experience.

Case in point, a bud of mine came to the house one evening and I was listening to some "Stones" on vinyl and he started looking around the room...

"What are you doing?"

"I'm looking for your surrounds."

"No surrounds here man, no gimmiks neccessary."

False.

Although 2-channel stereo does give SOME spaciousness, there's no way on God's Green Earth you're going to get the same effect as direct surrounds.

Case in point - Dark Side of the Moon, Rumors, and ESPECIALLY Tubular Bells use the surrounds brilliantly. I dare anyone to tell me that you can get the same effect from simple stereo.

Mike

zigzag · Sep 13, 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
That's his point really: 2-channel audio is more than good enough for most people, including me.

Maybe I'd feel differently if I had a surround system. But I can't help thinking, re: 5.1: didn't we go down this road already? Doesn't anyone else remember quadrophonics? It never became more than a curiosity because people continued being born with only two ears.

Seeing the SACD reissue of Dark Side of the Moon reminded me that there was a quad mix of DSOTM too ... how history repeats itself.

I remember Quadrophonics well - I can guarantee you that 5.1, which is discrete, is infinitely better. I recommend trying it.

Surround is artificial but so is stereo, and surround (if done right) can be artificial in a more satisfying way.

Shaddim · Sep 13, 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by starman:
False.

Although 2-channel stereo does give SOME spaciousness, there's no way on God's Green Earth you're going to get the same effect as direct surrounds.

Case in point - Dark Side of the Moon, Rumors, and ESPECIALLY Tubular Bells use the surrounds brilliantly. I dare anyone to tell me that you can get the same effect from simple stereo.

Mike

No, not false. It sounds as realistic and enveloping as discreet 5.1 or 7.1. You've probably never heard a properly setup, high-end 2ch system. Again, I'd put my 2ch up against any DD/DTS discreet rig, and win. It's much more accurate in music reproduction.

The idea with multi-channel audio was the give the efffect of a high quality 2ch setup at a much lower cost. They do a pretty good job, it's a satisfactory implementation, but still doesn't completely match up.

starman · Sep 13, 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, not false. It sounds as realistic and enveloping as discreet 5.1 or 7.1. You've probably never heard a properly setup, high-end 2ch system. Again, I'd put my 2ch up against any DD/DTS discreet rig, and win. It's much more accurate in music reproduction.

The idea with multi-channel audio was the give the efffect of a high quality 2ch setup at a much lower cost. They do a pretty good job, it's a satisfactory implementation, but still doesn't completely match up.

Dude, I've dedicated the last 25 years to home stereo. Don't talk to me like I don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about. I have $15k invested in a room just for listening to music.

FACT: You can't squeeze the amount of audio harmonics into a 2-channel system and have it sound like a discrete 5.1 system. You just can't do it.

Mike

InterfaceGuy · Sep 13, 2003, 12:13 PM

From audiorevolution.com:
According to sources, Dorn is purported to have told the group of retailers that WEA plans to ship a significant number of DVD-Audio only titles this fall with working �Dual Disc� CD-DVD-Audio discs being widely available as soon as December 2003.

Consumers have voted with their wallets saying that they will more often than not spend a few more dollars than the price of a CD in order to get a full feature, surround sound movie or feature concert on DVD-Video. WEA is betting big that if they up the ante for what a consumer gets for his or her $15 at Tower, Amazon.com or indy music retailer, that consumers will consider buying physically prerecorded (AKA: non-downloaded) music again. Another advantage is that consumers will develop, by default, their own collection of music on DVD-Audio with every �Dual Disc� sold. When more and more car makers add surround sound DVD-Audio systems (like Acura) to their models and more people get 5.1 home theaters installed into their homes, these consumer collections of high resolution surround sound music will be of even more value.

With downloaded music picking up steam with the Gen Y and more price conscious customers, the music industry needs a high resolution physical disc to sell badly. If a feature laden DVD-Audio flip is the answer, people will consider buying music on a format that is based more on 21 century technology. One thing that record execs and consumers agree on is the fact that the CD, at $16 per disc, is at the end of a very successful run and that something needs to replace it.

http://dvdaudiodaily.com/cgi-bin/Fra...le=FrameIt.cfg