Is DVD-Audio, SACD really that great?

[Beckman]

I understand that with patents expiring on RBCD technology Sony and Phillips wanted to make some more money, and with the popularity of 5 channel home theater 5 channel music made sense. But is it really that great. Isn't the point of a stereo system to make you feel like You are in a small bar/concert venue and Pink Floyd is there playing live? I only have two ears, why have five speakers. What ever happened to quadraphonic audio? What is the opportunity cost of switching to a 5 channel system and buying a DVD-Audio/SACD player as compared to buying a some better speakers or a better DAC?

[mtrycraft]

I understand that with patents expiring on RBCD technology Sony and Phillips wanted to make some more money, and with the popularity of 5 channel home theater 5 channel music made sense. But is it really that great. Isn't the point of a stereo system to make you feel like You are in a small bar/concert venue and Pink Floyd is there playing live? I only have two ears, why have five speakers. What ever happened to quadraphonic audio? What is the opportunity cost of switching to a 5 channel system and buying a DVD-Audio/SACD player as compared to buying a some better speakers or a better DAC?

A small bar/concert? How is that? An arbitrary set?

While you have two ears, you are receiving information from all directions around you. Two speakers just cannot reproduce life like acoustics. This was well know waaaayyy back in the 1930s, that you need at least 3 speakers up fron. Yes, you read it correctly.
Technology was not available to do multi channel until the digital age and multi channel descreet sources. Even 5.1 is short.
Quad was a first attemp[t with available technology of the times.
Multi channel is a must. 2 ch is yesterday.

[RobotCzar]

While you are correct in your speculation that the new formats are about selling more product (and copy protection for what you do sell), you are incorrect in your assumptions about multichannel.

While I have no particular love for formats used to deliver "movie" multichannel, the concept of using multiple speakers to enchance the stereo effect is a good one. Probably the greatest drawback of 2-channel stereo is its inaccuracies regarding spacial information including instument placement, ambient sound of the recording venue, and the interaction of recording spacial cues with those of your actual listening room. By using multiple channels AND a correct recording and decoding process, we can achieve a "virtual" acoustic space within a typical listening room. This would be a major advance for classical and jazz listeners (and maybe live-rock/pop fans) but of little use to most pop/rock listeners.

Having said that, let me say I have a ton of reservations that recording studios and typical "home theater" systems will actually deliver what is needed to achieve a virtual acoustic listening experience. They have and will continue to muck it up as they go for more gross and impressive effects. I don't think even the typical audiophile will really achieve a good mutlichannel set up in most listening rooms with most equipment. (They are often using the wrong kind of speakers.) So, the promise is not being met by the new multichannel formats--but the potential is there. Check out the term "ambisonics" to find out how multichannel could be done correctly.

By the way, having two ears has nothing to do with it. Sound hits our ears from all directions, not just two as with the standard 2-ch stereo illusion.

[zappafreak]

To Me It's All About Being In The Right Spot(and The Right Sized Room) To Get Your Money's Worth.
With Home Theater You Are Probably Not Moving Around, So The Time Consuming Set-up With The X-tra Speakers Is Probably Going To Pay Off.
When You Listen To Music It Wants To Make You Move.
Will You (and All Your Guests) Stay In The "perfect Spot"?
How Many Can Fit Into That "perfect Spot"?
Who Is Going To Hog That Spot?
This Is A Big Enough Problem With Just Stereo!!
With A Large Room And Proper Set-up, Will A 5.1 System Have A
Big Enough Sweet Spot For You?
What About A Small Room (will The Small Imaging Footprint Be Worth It)?
I'm Wondering.
Zf

[jamison]

What i would do is try and find someone that has a decent setup with sacd and dvda and listen for yourself. there is some good recordings and there is some godawful ones. dvda and sacd are in their infancy and it will take a long time before the studios who are mixing and mastering the discs know how to use the new technology to their benefit.

You mention Pink Floyd, well try listening to the Dark Side of the Moon in 5.1 sacd. It is really amazing all though it is a little bit lacking in the bass. especially when you can tell exactly where the clocks are coming from. either that or try Elton Johns Goodbye Yellow Brick Road sacd or Steve Millers fly like an eagle on dvda wow. it will take a while before your ears get used to the sound. when i first got a combo sacd dvda player it didnt sound all that great. now i listen to it and it blows me away. stay away from the stereo sacd rock or pop recordings they arent that good. journeys greatest hits sounds worse than the cd version does. same with boston.


the biggest disadvantage is there is not a lot of releases out
and at this point it doesnt look like either format is going to die soon
just my thoughts hope it helps

[recoveryone]

What i would do is try and find someone that has a decent setup with sacd and dvda and listen for yourself. there is some good recordings and there is some godawful ones. dvda and sacd are in their infancy and it will take a long time before the studios who are mixing and mastering the discs know how to use the new technology to their benefit.

You mention Pink Floyd, well try listening to the Dark Side of the Moon in 5.1 sacd. It is really amazing all though it is a little bit lacking in the bass. especially when you can tell exactly where the clocks are coming from. either that or try Elton Johns Goodbye Yellow Brick Road sacd or Steve Millers fly like an eagle on dvda wow. it will take a while before your ears get used to the sound. when i first got a combo sacd dvda player it didnt sound all that great. now i listen to it and it blows me away. stay away from the stereo sacd rock or pop recordings they arent that good. journeys greatest hits sounds worse than the cd version does. same with boston.


the biggest disadvantage is there is not a lot of releases out
and at this point it doesnt look like either format is going to die soon
just my thoughts hope it helps

I just pick up a few DVD-A and SCAD disk (Alicia Keys, Donald ***en and Peter Gabriel) I'll get back and let you guys know how they sound. And BB had a good selection of Rock, Jazz, Classic and Gospel, old school and newer artist also.

[recoveryone]

As posted earlier I picked up a couple of DVD-A disk and a SACD to give them a try on my Pioneer 45-a. Well first I had to wait cuz the wife was watching Lifetime Channel, So I put in the Donald ***en (Pervious member of Steely Dan) The Nightfly album on my upstairs system Pioneer DV-525 and VSX D411. The DTS verison had very tight bass and the surround was nice. The slower the song the better it sounded. The Alicia Keys was the same. Finally I made it downstairs and hooked up the 5.1 analog from the 45-a to my 26TX and put in the Peter Gabriel Shake the Tree SACD disk . I had to turn up the volume to match the sound quality of the other disks and the BM was non-exsisted. With the volume up a bit it sounds very good, but not as good as I would like. I put back in the Donald ***en disk DVD-A and played it digitally feed 48kHz/24-bit and it was like bang! the tight bass I heard upstairs was back.

I was trying to find a Disk with higher resolution, but no luck. The packaging on these disk is no better than regular CD's. I do have a sample disk (Ultimate DVD) that has a 96kHz song on it and that is WOW. Now my question to you hotshots out there is this:

When I play the sample disk my Receiver displayeds 96kHz and 48kHz (depends on which verison I pick) and when I play these new DVD-A's it did not. If I hit the audio button on the DVD remote it will say 48kHz/24-bit 2.0 or 3/2 but no change on the receiver.

[maxg]

I dont think you can output more than 48/16 digitally and doubt your receiver has that capability anyway. Try hooking up the DVDa player with analogue (RCA) connections - that should output 96/24 decoded already for your receiver.

[recoveryone]

I dont think you can output more than 48/16 digitally and doubt your receiver has that capability anyway. Try hooking up the DVDa player with analogue (RCA) connections - that should output 96/24 decoded already for your receiver.

Sorry Maxg, I found that sample DVD disk and play the high res music and it displayed 96kHz on my receiver going through my digital input see my post in the HT room under Denon 2200 24/96.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While you are correct in your speculation that the new formats are about selling more product (and copy protection for what you do sell), you are incorrect in your assumptions about multichannel.

While I have no particular love for formats used to deliver "movie" multichannel, the concept of using multiple speakers to enchance the stereo effect is a good one. Probably the greatest drawback of 2-channel stereo is its inaccuracies regarding spacial information including instument placement, ambient sound of the recording venue, and the interaction of recording spacial cues with those of your actual listening room. By using multiple channels AND a correct recording and decoding process, we can achieve a "virtual" acoustic space within a typical listening room. This would be a major advance for classical and jazz listeners (and maybe live-rock/pop fans) but of little use to most pop/rock listeners.

Having said that, let me say I have a ton of reservations that recording studios and typical "home theater" systems will actually deliver what is needed to achieve a virtual acoustic listening experience. They have and will continue to muck it up as they go for more gross and impressive effects. I don't think even the typical audiophile will really achieve a good mutlichannel set up in most listening rooms with most equipment. (They are often using the wrong kind of speakers.) So, the promise is not being met by the new multichannel formats--but the potential is there. Check out the term "ambisonics" to find out how multichannel could be done correctly.

By the way, having two ears has nothing to do with it. Sound hits our ears from all directions, not just two as with the standard 2-ch stereo illusion.

I am going to have to take issue with the ambisonics being defined as multichannel done correctly. That is nothing more than hype from ambisonic supporters. Ambisonics is a matrixed approach that requires the use of a decoders(neither SACD or DVD-A require an outboard decoder) Its channel seperation is not perfect as the mulitchannel digital formats are. What is acheived by ambisonics can also be acheived with SACD and DVD-A, and speakers with first order crossovers that are frequency and phase correct.

There are at least three different flavors of ambisonics(UHJ B-format, and G format) all yielding different results.

Ambisonic decoders are an extremely rare find with Meridan offering it on the 565 and 861 processors, and on the Onkyo SV909-pro, and Troy has a simple UHJ decoder that cannot decode the other flavors of ambisonics.

Just like any other analog matrix decoder noise is an issue as is dynamic range.

Just like the quad wars, there are too many formats, and not enough support for all of them. Only one company makes microphones for recording. Plug ins for mixing desks are few and far in between(and expensive too).

These are just a few reasons why ambisonics has not taken off in a big way.

[Corvus]

SACD is nothing special . .. and sounds artifical IMO. Did recording engineers of the past use multi-channel systems to master tapes . . . NO !! . . . they listened through headphones or 2-channel monitors . . . So all those classic albums that come out on SACD are re-mastered to the multi-channel format and become hybrids of the originals. Stick to 2 channel until the next big format comes along . . . which will most likly be all internet based and stored on hard drives . . . a good DA converter will be the biggest investment . . . IMO

[Chris Garrett]

DVDA and SACD are both higher resolution formats than 16/44.1 redbook CDs and that's just a scientific fact. Whether everybody can 'hear' a difference, or not, seems to me to be a personal problem.

Now whether a cheap-O $179 DVDA, or SACD player, playing the HiRez discs sounds better than a SOTA redbook player/DAC doing CDs, my guess would be NO. If you're set up for MC music already, then give it a shot. All MC SACDs have a dedicated STEREO DSD mix, so if you're running separate HT and STEREO systems, like I'm doing, your bases are covered to a degree. Most DVDA discs have either fold down Hi Rez STEREO mixes or dedicated Hi Rez STEREO programs, so you're pretty much set there. There are some DVDA discs (AIX) that don't come with STEREO programs, but they are kind of rare.

Whether MC beats out STEREO, I'll not debate the question here, however I will say that I was at a very small/quaint jazz bar two nights ago, sitting spitting distance from the pianist, trumpeter, bassist and drummer and I didn't hear jack **** coming from behind me, so the whole 'hall ambiance' thing can be somewhat overplayed. This being said, there are some pretty interesting sound mixes coming down the pike on both formats and they have their merits. An example would be The Flaming Lips YOSHIMI 5.1 mix that was released a couple of months back.

As with CDs, there are some stinkers out of the 170+ SACDs/15 DVDAs that I own, so nothing's perfect. For me to recreate the quality of my STEREO, in MC format, would take more money and space than I have, so I'm not interested in going that route, but I do have a smaller mass market HT system that does fine on movies.

Take care, Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whether MC beats out STEREO, I'll not debate the question here, however I will say that I was at a very small/quaint jazz bar two nights ago, sitting spitting distance from the pianist, trumpeter, bassist and drummer and I didn't hear jack **** coming from behind me, so the whole 'hall ambiance' thing can be somewhat overplayed.

Chris,

I think you are being WAAAAY oversimplistic concerning ambience. First, you mentioned that this was a "very small/quaint jazz bar, and your heard no ambience. Since reflections do stop behind your head(if they did, your head would be blocking it) then you are likely hearing some ambience. How much you hear highly depends on the size of the venue, its RT time, and reflective surfaces. The very small jazz club you visited probably was too small to to create a noticeable ambience. Its reverb time(or probably dead acoustics) was so short that whatever reverb was there was so short(and not very loud) that it actually blended in with what was happening in front of you. You need sufficient time(and space) for the sound of reverberation to be audible.

Concert halls, Staduims, Arenas, and racing tracks are all large enough to support ambience. A very small jazz club isn't. Also, you were probably to close to the ensemble(which was louder) to clearly hear any reflections(the precedent effect)which are lower in volume. Reflections are in any room with four walls. Whether you hear them is a matter of conditions.

[Chris Garrett]

Thanks Terrence,

I'm not at the point now, where I'd go through the trouble just for 'hall effects' being dropped in behind me, as I said. I also stated that there are some interesting 'mixes' coming out that use the extra channels in interesting and refreshing ways and I do regret not being able to hear Yoshimi in 5.1 on an HT system comensurate with my two STEREOs, but such is life?

As I said, it was a small club and I was close, but this club probably mimics many of the venues (at least in a lack of sheer size) that the great jazz classics were recorded in, so there's probably no point in going the 5.1 route for this material, wouldn't you agree? If you want to add reverb or 'coctail table chatter' to the rear, or sides, of your listening position, that's fine by me. I also agree that for large scale classical pieces, in lively halls, 5.1 might be pretty good, so to each their own.

I think the focus of my post was that the fellow was kind of thinking that with the Hi Rez formats, it had to be MC vs. STEREO, as opposed to both formats offering STEREO mixes in higher resolutions than regular redbook CDPs. As somebody who has been following both Hi Rez formats from pretty much their commercial debuts, many wonder if buying cheap players will give them more than their nicely implemented CDPs playing CDs and I don't know if they do--and I have a mass market Denon 1600 DVDA player.

We're seeing more and more high quality Universal players coming out and by definition, these will be multichannel capable and all DVDA players are MC too. SACD players run both STEREO only and MC, so the consumer's options are increasing as well. At the end of the day, it comes down to software driving the hardware and after 4 years of SACD and 3 of DVDA, we're at about 1900 and 900 respectively, but the pace has quickened for both over the past six months to a year.

Anyhow, thanks for the comments and take care, Chris

[stratman672001]

stay away from the stereo sacd rock or pop recordings they arent that good. journeys greatest hits sounds worse than the cd version does. same with boston.

I have to disagree with you there. There are some great 2.0 SACD's out there. Granted the stock Sony's leave a bit to be desired (although Santana "Abraxas" is better than the latest redbook remaster). Do yourself a favor and check out stuff on the Audio Fidelity label (and some of that is even in glorious mono). Also the CCR SACD's on Analogue Productions (Acoustic Sounds) are astonishingly good. Just my 2 cents.

[E-Stat]

I'm not at the point now, where I'd go through the trouble just for 'hall effects' being dropped in behind me...

I agree. Quad died because it was way too hokey much like early ping-pong stereo. Regardless of the format, the biggest limitation will always be the mix given that the number of minimally miked recordings is very low. I would, however, like to hear a Telarc multi-channel recordings as Woods and Renner know their stuff (and live music).

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree. Quad died because it was way too hokey much like early ping-pong stereo. Regardless of the format, the biggest limitation will always be the mix given that the number of minimally miked recordings is very low. I would, however, like to hear a Telarc multi-channel recordings as Woods and Renner know their stuff (and live music).

rw

Quad didn't die because it was way too hokey. Quad died because there were too many formats, all with VERY varied degrees of performance. Since there was no industry standards, every record company had their own format, and no compatibility between the formats. This required the end user to have 3-4 decoders if they wanted to buy recordings from different record companies. Expensive, cumbersome, difficult to setup and calibrate, and no garanteed performance, that's what killed Quad.

You do not need a miminally miked recording to get good quality. There are PLENTY of well done recording that have used 20+ microphones.

Telarc has a growing catalog of SACD's that Renner has engineered

'm not at the point now, where I'd go through the trouble just for 'hall effects' being dropped in behind me,

Then I am afraid realism is NOT what you are looking for. If you currently subscribe to stereo only mixes, then the "hall" effect is being dropped in front of you, which is not only unnatural, but inaccurate.

As I said, it was a small club and I was close, but this club probably mimics many of the venues (at least in a lack of sheer size) that the great jazz classics were recorded in, so there's probably no point in going the 5.1 route for this material, wouldn't you agree?

No, I do not agree. Whether you heard ambience or not, it was there and can be picked up with good microphone placement. There is nothing worse to me than a dry live recording, devoid of the essence of live recording. Ambience.

[E-Stat]

Quad didn't die because it was way too hokey.

I sit corrected. All of the quad records I heard back then were hokey. In particular I remember a Santana album with the effect of artists playing all around you. The time I saw them in concert, they decided to play together on the stage in front of me.

Then I am afraid realism is NOT what you are looking for. If you currently subscribe to stereo only mixes, then the "hall" effect is being dropped in front of you, which is not only unnatural, but inaccurate.

Indeed. I would rather not reproduce the horrible acoustics of the sports arena where most pop artists like Madonna play in Atlanta.

rw

[Mike That Likes Music]

I have a "universal" disc player, but I'm only running it in 2 channel right now. I only have a few SACDs (all 2 channel) and currenntly no DVD-As. I quite like those SACDs I have.
The main reason for the hype, I think, is simply higher resolution. You can cram WAY more information on an SACD or DVD-A than on a "red book" CD. But a crap recording is still a crap recording, regardless of format. If you make the album in your garage on an old flea market 4-track, that's how it's gonna sound no matter what.
But there is also the side argument for the technology used. CDs are based on a technology called Pulse Code Modulation (PCM). SACDs are based on Direct Stream Digital (DSD). Believe it or not, DSD is actually simpler than PCM. I won't bore you with the SERIOUS technical details, mostly 'cause I don't understand them. But simpler is what I've gathered from the reading I've done, and from what the magazine reviewers say.
There are only two factors in determining how much information you can cram on a disc. Those are the Word Length and the Sampling Rate. Word length is how much data a laser sucks off a disc each time it "samples". CDs have a word length of 16 bits, DVDs have a word length of 24 bits. So right there you can start to see why DVDs are capable of higher resolution. SACD has a word length of only 1 bit, so it's a little different.
Then you get to the Sampling Rate. That's how many times per second the laser takes those bits and sends 'em to the DAC. CDs sample at 44,100 times per second. DVDs sample at 96,000 times per second. And SACDs sample at over 2,800,000 times per second (i don't remember the exact number right now). So if you want to bother with all that multiplying to find out which can support more data, godspeed.
Mike