DVD Audio downsampling? or not?

[audiomadness]

I've been recently buying some DVD-audio titles, but unlike SACD some DVD-A disk have only a 5.1 mix and no hi-rez 2-channel mix. I prefer to listen to 2 channel and is the reason I have more SACD titles. For DVD-Audio, my universal player appears to automatically downmix the 5.1 mix to the 2-channel stereo rca outputs. If the DVD-A title does not have a Hi-Rez 2ch mix......I am just wondering if I am still getting true DVD-A playback from my stereo RCA outputs. The manual is not clear on this.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've been recently buying some DVD-audio titles, but unlike SACD some DVD-A disk have only a 5.1 mix and no hi-rez 2-channel mix. I prefer to listen to 2 channel and is the reason I have more SACD titles. For DVD-Audio, my universal player appears to automatically downmix the 5.1 mix to the 2-channel stereo rca outputs. If the DVD-A title does not have a Hi-Rez 2ch mix......I am just wondering if I am still getting true DVD-A playback from my stereo RCA outputs. The manual is not clear on this.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

Downmixing within the player is a dicey thing. If you are using the analog outputs to get your signal, then most likely the bit rate and the sample rate will be intact. However the folding of one channel onto another creates some distortion and signal degredation, not to mention the spatial losses which misplace information where it should not be. You would do better to just listen to the 5.1 mix and avoid the signal degredation and losses from the downrezing algorythm within your player.

I guess old habits are slow to die. New technology brings us closer to the original master 5.1 tape or digital storage device, and we fold it to the old stereo technology. As an engineer this is pretty damn frustrating (no offense to you of course).

[audiomadness]

Point taken....but you are right Sir Terrence, old habits are definitely hard to break. I have been slowly trying to train my ears to the new 5.1 mixes and some mixes do sound pretty damn good. I guess as an audiophile, I would prefer to have the 2 channel mix thrown in there just to compare the two mixes.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Point taken....but you are right Sir Terrence, old habits are definitely hard to break. I have been slowly trying to train my ears to the new 5.1 mixes and some mixes do sound pretty damn good. I guess as an audiophile, I would prefer to have the 2 channel mix thrown in there just to compare the two mixes.

I am going to offer a suggestion and you can take it or leave it. Train you mind that the 5.1 mix constitutes the closest incarnation we have ever had to some sort of audio reality ( I am speaking of live recordings, not studio which have no point of reference at all). If you do this, your ears will follow. One of the main sticking points with audiophiles is that they beleive the two channel mix is always the truest mix. Now days that is just not true. The 5.1 mix get's the most attention at what the mix is optimized for, and the two channel mix is created using a mixdown algorythm in the studio. Unless the project is two channel from the onset ( becomding more rare these days), then the two channel mix is derived from the 5.1 channel mix.

Stereo is not an audiophile format. Listening test and studies have confirmed that it takes at least THREE channels up front to minimally map a front soundstage. Two channel was chosen because of the limitations (not strengths) of the medium of the time. This has occured on both vinyl and CD. Now that these limitation have been lifted, we should try and enjoy the format that brings us closer sonically and spatially to the live recording itself. That would not be coming from the two channel mix these days.