DVD-Audio question

[N. Abstentia]

Quite simply..how much improvent is the DVD-Audio encoded track (that requires a DVD-Audio player) as opposed to the DD or DTS track (that can be played on any DVD player)?

What I'm getting at is this..I'm looking at getting a new DVD player that does SACD. Is it worth the wait for one that also supports DVD-Audio as well, or is there not much improvement over the DD/DTS track?

[mtrycraft]

Quite simply..how much improvent is the DVD-Audio encoded track (that requires a DVD-Audio player) as opposed to the DD or DTS track (that can be played on any DVD player)?

What I'm getting at is this..I'm looking at getting a new DVD player that does SACD. Is it worth the wait for one that also supports DVD-Audio as well, or is there not much improvement over the DD/DTS track?

Maybe a marginal difference, maybe not. A universal player should play it all for not much $$.

[N. Abstentia]

Well that's just it. I'm tired of waiting on a universal changer (single disc is useless to me) that handles DVD, SACD, DVD-A, MP3, and WMA. It basically boils down to either SACD or DVD-Audio right now, and I can play DVD-Audio on any DVD player. Question is, how much better is the actual DVD-Audio track? Would it be worth the wait for those players to come out, or is the DD/DTS track fine?

[markw]

tioshiba is coming out with one shortly, one would hope.

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.proc...layback+SD6915

[Geoffcin]

Well that's just it. I'm tired of waiting on a universal changer (single disc is useless to me) that handles DVD, SACD, DVD-A, MP3, and WMA. It basically boils down to either SACD or DVD-Audio right now, and I can play DVD-Audio on any DVD player. Question is, how much better is the actual DVD-Audio track? Would it be worth the wait for those players to come out, or is the DD/DTS track fine?

Listening to advise from someone who doesn't have one. A reply like "maybe, maybe not"
is bullcrap.

I have a DVD-Audio player, and it's absolutly GREAT.

DVD-Audio is not a gimmic. It is as close to the orginal recorded sound you can get this side of master tape. SACD is also good, a clear step up from redbook CD quality.

The problem lies in that with multi-players there's a tendancy to skip on quality to give you the most abilities. I've heard dedicated CD players that were incredible, and some multiplayers that SACD didn't sound any better than CD quality or worse.

When you compare DD/DTS to DVD-Audio it's kind of like apple/oranges. DD/DTS is made for movie soundtracks. DVD-Audio uses the entire bandwith of a DVD for music reproduction. That's 6 fold or better resolution.

The real problem lies in the software. The titles on DVD-Audio and SACD are very limited. I was not be able to justify a stand alone SACD player now for me, but it was easy when upgrading my DVD player to justify one with DVD-Audio.

Bottom line;

I'm happy with my DVD-Audio player, but I've only got about a dosen titles for it so far. If you think that your NOT going to invest in SACD/DVD-Audio software, then my suggestion is that you go for a higher quality CD player and not sweat having DVD-A or SACD capabilities.

[kexodusc]

Personally, I've found the DVD-A and SACD multi-channel formats a bit better than DTS DVD's. There's no night and day difference by any means, though. For whatever reason, DTS CD's sound rather crappy to me by comparison. I think this has to do with studio mixing or recording more than the formats.
As these formats continue to grow, I think you might be better off to wait for a universal player.
Or try out the Pioneer 563a model...it's surprisingly good at a low price.

[lumiere]

Quite simply..how much improvent is the DVD-Audio encoded track (that requires a DVD-Audio player) as opposed to the DD or DTS track (that can be played on any DVD player)?

What I'm getting at is this..I'm looking at getting a new DVD player that does SACD. Is it worth the wait for one that also supports DVD-Audio as well, or is there not much improvement over the DD/DTS track?

Totally agree with Geoffcin, it's a big difference. If it is within your planned budget, take a look at the Marantz DV6400, less than 500.00. I have it and it sounds great. Cheers.

http://www.marantz.com/hifi/america/main.html

[mtrycraft]

Listening to advise from someone who doesn't have one. A reply like "maybe, maybe not"
is bullcrap.

I have a DVD-Audio player, and it's absolutly GREAT.

DVD-Audio is not a gimmic. It is as close to the orginal recorded sound you can get this side of master tape. SACD is also good, a clear step up from redbook CD quality.

The problem lies in that with multi-players there's a tendancy to skip on quality to give you the most abilities. I've heard dedicated CD players that were incredible, and some multiplayers that SACD didn't sound any better than CD quality or worse.

When you compare DD/DTS to DVD-Audio it's kind of like apple/oranges. DD/DTS is made for movie soundtracks. DVD-Audio uses the entire bandwith of a DVD for music reproduction. That's 6 fold or better resolution.

The real problem lies in the software. The titles on DVD-Audio and SACD are very limited. I was not be able to justify a stand alone SACD player now for me, but it was easy when upgrading my DVD player to justify one with DVD-Audio.

Bottom line;

I'm happy with my DVD-Audio player, but I've only got about a dosen titles for it so far. If you think that your NOT going to invest in SACD/DVD-Audio software, then my suggestion is that you go for a higher quality CD player and not sweat having DVD-A or SACD capabilities.

Skip on quality? That is a laugh, LOL, Chips are dirt cheap. But you would not know that.

DD/DTS is not limited to movies. But then you would not know that either. Or that movies have music in it as well, right? Or that it is desc rete as is DVD-A/SACD, right? Or, that your hearing has limits. Too hard to comprehend.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

DD/DTS is made for movie soundtracks. DVD-Audio uses the entire bandwith of a DVD for music reproduction. That's 6 fold or better resolution.

If you think this is true, there is an island in San Francisco bay I'd like to sell ya!
If you do a level matched comparison between DVD-A(24/96khz), and Dts at 1509kbps(24/48khz), you are going to hear a little loss of air, and some soundstage shrinkage. That is probably all you will hear. It certainly does not add up to a 6 fold increase in resolution. If you compare a DVD-A disc(at 24/96khz) to Dts 24/96khz, you will hear absolutely no difference as the Dts layer becomes a lossless recording of the DVD-A track.

As far as DD and Dts only being for movies, well that may be true for Dolby Digital because of its lack of transparency when compared to the master tapes(this is already published in AES), but not for Dts which with the use of metadata can scale itself to a sampling rate as high as 192khz with up to 24bit resolution. It works in a lossy and lossless mode. It can behave as an encoder, or recorder. So confining it to movie status would be a terrible use of this format.

[Geoffcin]

Skip on quality? That is a laugh, LOL, Chips are dirt cheap. But you would not know that.

DD/DTS is not limited to movies. But then you would not know that either. Or that movies have music in it as well, right? Or that it is desc rete as is DVD-A/SACD, right? Or, that your hearing has limits. Too hard to comprehend.

Actually chips can be quite expensive, it's your opinion that is dirt cheap.

Again your commenting on a format you've never heard, and have no experiance with. Your ignorance is laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. I suggest you go for a hearing test, at least then you'll have something to comment on.

[Geoffcin]

If you think this is true, there is an island in San Francisco bay I'd like to sell ya!
If you do a level matched comparison between DVD-A(24/96khz), and Dts at 1509kbps(24/48khz), you are going to hear a little loss of air, and some soundstage shrinkage. That is probably all you will hear. It certainly does not add up to a 6 fold increase in resolution. If you compare a DVD-A disc(at 24/96khz) to Dts 24/96khz, you will hear absolutely no difference as the Dts layer becomes a lossless recording of the DVD-A track. As far as DD and Dts only being for movies, well that may be true for Dolby Digital because of its lack of transparency when compared to the master tapes(this is already published in AES), but not for Dts which with the use of metadata can scale itself to a sampling rate as high as 192khz with up to 24bit resolution. It works in a lossy and lossless mode. It can behave as an encoder, or recorder. So confining it to movie status would be a terrible use of this format.

My experiance with DVD-Audio is mostly with the 2-channel output @ 24/192khz. I'm one of the luddites that thinks stereo is still the proper way to listen to music. I have heard a Steely Dan DTS recorded disk and the sound quality was very good. It was engineered to have all the instruments in different speakers. Very unnerving to listen to.

A 6 fold resolution increase is most certainly NOT a 6 fold increase in quality. That being said, it is certainly an increase.

DTS, and DD were created for theater use. Just look at the name; Digital Theater System. DTS's application as a viable music format, however good it may be, did not catch on. I think there are just a handful of titles, even less that DVD-Audio.

Now I like DTS, I feel it is superior to DD, I can clearly hear a difference. But as far as DTS being lossless; I suggest you go back and read the DVD Authoring guide for DTS. It is freely available from DTS.

The MLP code used for mastering DVD-Audio is the ONLY lossless format available for consumer use. MLP is different than perceptual or lossy data coding schemes such as Dolby Digital or DTS. While compressing audio data, both Dolby Digital and DTS remove some audio content that is viewed as "perceptionally" not significant. MLP does not alter the final decoded signal in any way, but merely ‘packs’ the audio data in such a way that a simple decoder can recover the original signal exactly bit-for-bit.



I

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My experiance with DVD-Audio is mostly with the 2-channel output @ 24/192khz. I'm one of the luddites that thinks stereo is still the proper way to listen to music. I have heard a Steely Dan DTS recorded disk and the sound quality was very good. It was engineered to have all the instruments in different speakers. Very unnerving to listen to.

A 6 fold resolution increase is most certainly NOT a 6 fold increase in quality. That being said, it is certainly an increase.

DTS, and DD were created for theater use. Just look at the name; Digital Theater System. DTS's application as a viable music format, however good it may be, did not catch on. I think there are just a handful of titles, even less that DVD-Audio.

Now I like DTS, I feel it is superior to DD, I can clearly hear a difference. But as far as DTS being lossless; I suggest you go back and read the DVD Authoring guide for DTS. It is freely available from DTS.

The MLP code used for mastering DVD-Audio is the ONLY lossless format available for consumer use. MLP is different than perceptual or lossy data coding schemes such as Dolby Digital or DTS. While compressing audio data, both Dolby Digital and DTS remove some audio content that is viewed as "perceptionally" not significant. MLP does not alter the final decoded signal in any way, but merely ‘packs’ the audio data in such a way that a simple decoder can recover the original signal exactly bit-for-bit.



I

Sir,
I suggest you catch yourself up on Dts many, many upgrades and decoder releases. MLP is not a format, but a way of packing uncompressed audio that is otherwise impossible to fit within DVD-A's bitstream limitations. You cannot listen directly to MLP, it simply packs the data.

Secondly, Dts has had a lossless decoding format in the consumers hands since the release of Dts 24/96. It is a bit by bit encoding format( I know because I use it) through the use of metadata. While the original Dts 5.1 format is a lossey, perceptually based format, 24/96 uses extension data to eliminate the need for a perceptual routine within the coder. Here is a overview PDF of Dts 24/96

http://www.dtsonline.com/media/uploads/pdfs/9624.

While this doesn't breakdown the way 24/96 operates to the letter, it give an basic premise to its operation. The format is lossless with the inclusion of the extension data, but is lossy without it. The Dts format is capable of variable bitstreams from 384kbps to 3072kbps(the DVD format cannot handle bitrates that high)

Dts utilizes a completely different codec for theatrical use. The Coherent acoustics codec was designed for music, and movies on DVD.

The authoring guide you refer to pertains to "basic" Dts, not Dts 24/96. I suggest you catch yourself up on Dts technology, because based on what you have posted here, you are a bit behind the times.

While your experience is limited to 24/192khz stereo, that will not be where the thrust of DVD-A will be. Stereo is not, and never has been the "proper" way to listen to recorded music unless you like spatial distortions of the worst kind. That thought process is also behind the times.

Digital Theater Systems is the company's name. It would be a mis-step in logic to think that they only do theater systems. The thrust of this companies R & D has been in both hometheater, and audio. Keep in mind, high bit 5.1(1509kbps) was designed for hometheater. Dts 6.1 discrete was designed for hometheater. Dts 24/96 was designed for audio and video.

I am by the way acutely aware of how MLP works. I use it quite a bit in post production so I am very familar with it not only in knowledge, but with on hand experience.

It can be argued that DVD-A has not caught on in a big way at this point.

[Geoffcin]

Sir,
I suggest you catch yourself up on Dts many, many upgrades and decoder releases. MLP is not a format, but a way of packing uncompressed audio that is otherwise impossible to fit within DVD-A's bitstream limitations. You cannot listen directly to MLP, it simply packs the data.

Secondly, Dts has had a lossless decoding format in the consumers hands since the release of Dts 24/96. It is a bit by bit encoding format( I know because I use it) through the use of metadata. While the original Dts 5.1 format is a lossey, perceptually based format, 24/96 uses extension data to eliminate the need for a perceptual routine within the coder. Here is a overview PDF of Dts 24/96

http://www.dtsonline.com/media/uploads/pdfs/9624.

While this doesn't breakdown the way 24/96 operates to the letter, it give an basic premise to its operation. The format is lossless with the inclusion of the extension data, but is lossy without it. The Dts format is capable of variable bitstreams from 384kbps to 3072kbps(the DVD format cannot handle bitrates that high)

Dts utilizes a completely different codec for theatrical use. The Coherent acoustics codec was designed for music, and movies on DVD.

The authoring guide you refer to pertains to "basic" Dts, not Dts 24/96. I suggest you catch yourself up on Dts technology, because based on what you have posted here, you are a bit behind the times.

While your experience is limited to 24/192khz stereo, that will not be where the thrust of DVD-A will be. Stereo is not, and never has been the "proper" way to listen to recorded music unless you like spatial distortions of the worst kind. That thought process is also behind the times.

Digital Theater Systems is the company's name. It would be a mis-step in logic to think that they only do theater systems. The thrust of this companies R & D has been in both hometheater, and audio. Keep in mind, high bit 5.1(1509kbps) was designed for hometheater. Dts 6.1 discrete was designed for hometheater. Dts 24/96 was designed for audio and video.

I am by the way acutely aware of how MLP works. I use it quite a bit in post production so I am very familar with it not only in knowledge, but with on hand experience.

It can be argued that DVD-A has not caught on in a big way at this point.

That DTS continues to move the standards further. I've been a fan of DTS ever since the theatrical release of Jurassic Park.

I've also been a fan of HT. I had my first real setup back in the 80's. Still I prefer stereo for music reproduction. I've yet to hear a multi-speaker system that is better.

I will not argue the point that DVD-Audio, SACD, or DTS audio disks havn't cought on. Like many fine quality things in life, the masses will not want or care about it. It doesn't bother me a bit. As long as I have access to high quality recordings I'm happy.