Jump to content

A.I. DVD-Audio


Recommended Posts

The neat thing about DVD-A is that it's more compatable with existing standards. For SACD I'd probably need to buy a SACD compatable DVD-Rom
But the SACD format is new and superior. DVD-A is the same old technology as CD but slightly improved.

It's people like Morn who massively vote for DVD-A and make it a winner. But they will never invest a dime in the technology nor in its products.

It's one of the reasons why I don't care much for DVD-A...it's almost like cheating to the public about it. Because it sounds like it's compatable' date=' whereas most of the time it's just not, or almost just as compatible as SA-CD (or SACD) is, just in a different way. You do need to buy a soundcard capable of playing DVD-A for instance. And even if it's more compatable, that's not always a good thing. It's perhaps more compatable because it lingers on older outdated technology, whereas SA-CD has been made from scratch with the newest technology.

All in all, I don't care much for compatability in music (computers would have been a different story for me), because the sound in music is simply too important not to hear. Therefore I rather pay for a new setup, however painfull that maybe, than 'cheat' a little and go for just a slight adaptation. I'm not sure if I'm right about this however.[/quote']

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DVD-A is not the same technology as CD, it's a modified DVD technology, anyone who thinks DVD is the same technology as CD is an utter moron, infact SACD is technology that is closer to a CD, a hybrid. And I did buy the AI DVD-A.

Could you explain this hybrid thing? Was it because what I said, because I was talking about hybrid discs, not the SACD format in that case. A hybrid disc is a disc which basically consists of two discs pressed together (that's not the case but it makes oit easier to explain), one audio disc and one SACD disc. That's the hybrid part....but when looking solely at the SACD disc/layer/track, or whatever you want, it's not a hybrid at all, it's as far as I know completely new technology using digital bits or something like that....completely and utterly different from a regular CD....if I have understood correctly.

As far as I know, it's the DVD which is much more a hybrid, using older technology to create newer technology...that's more like an evolution whereas SACD is more like a creation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Feel the sound? How can you FEEL sound?  

Feeling involves touching, not listening.  8O

To be quite honest I've always wondered about that...is there actually no perception one way or the other above 20khz? Perhaps something is overlooked? Could it be possible that other sounds travel upon higher frequencies, for example? I dunno, just yapping and wondering.

^^^^

That man has one of if not THE best user names I have ever seen!

You talking bout me? You'd better be. :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I always say as well. If you have let's say 10000 euro/dollars to spend on a system. In all of the cases a 2 box setup will be prefereed above 5 boxes. Better to have a very expensive but quality 2 speakers setup (cause than you no longer care about surround after hearing that), than to have 5 lesser speakers for the same quality....you always lose. If it would have been possible I would even go for a mono speaker, but than the quality obviously can't compete anymore since we do have two ears.

Yes, but also the more speakers you have.... the more clearity you get. I mean having the sound more around you does have an affect on how you perceive it and also just by numbers, more speakers means more air molecules being affected. We may have 2 ears, but the brain is clever is that it can work out what direction sound is coming from. It's thought to have something to do with the shape of the outter ear. Or the brain measuring the time difference between each ear receiving the sound and working out the sounds location from that. So our brain is smart enough to get surround from 2 'microphones'. 8O

It's one of the reasons why I don't care much for DVD-A...it's almost like cheating to the public about it. Because it sounds like it's compatable, whereas most of the time it's just not, or almost just as compatible as SA-CD (or SACD) is, just in a different way. You do need to buy a soundcard capable of playing DVD-A for instance.

Eh, most people will be wanting to buy such a soundcard anyway even if DVD-A didn't exist. There's a sound quality improvement with each generation of soundcard.

All in all, I don't care much for compatability in music (computers would have been a different story for me), because the sound in music is simply too important not to hear. Therefore I rather pay for a new setup, however painfull that maybe, than 'cheat' a little and go for just a slight adaptation.

Ahh yes, but I seriously doubt you are sacfricing anything in sound quality with DVD-A, I mean 24bit 192khz is damn impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1

Yes, but also the more speakers you have.... the more clearity you get. I mean having the sound more around you does have an affect on how you perceive it and also just by numbers, more speakers means more air molecules being affected.

No, less clarity and more phase problems and more analogue distortion.

2

Ahh yes, but I seriously doubt you are sacfricing anything in sound quality with DVD-A, I mean 24bit 192khz is damn impressive.  

Impressive? It's a continuation on a technology from a time when digital technology was still wearing diapers.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Feel the sound? How can you FEEL sound?  

Feeling involves touching, not listening.  8O

Get a subwoofer.

It's one of the reasons why I don't care much for DVD-A...it's almost like cheating to the public about it. Because it sounds like it's compatable, whereas most of the time it's just not, or almost just as compatible as SA-CD (or SACD) is, just in a different way.

DVD-A doesn't sound any more like DVD-V than SACD sounds like CD. However, DVD-A and DVD-V are nearly the same technology, they use the same kind of laser, it's just a different data format that's used, and the DVD-V player can still read the files on the DVD-A, it just can't play them. That's why putting some DVD-V files on it will make it playable on a DVD-V player as well, as mentioned above.

SACD on the other hand doesn't have much in common with either CD or DVD. It's a different kind of laser, a different kind of data format, even a totally different kind of encoding and A/D conversion.

Marian - who thinks surround sound, when done properly (!), should be preferrable to stereo.

NP: Previn conducts Korngold

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the use? DVD-rom players have no hi-end quality. You're whole system (player/amp/speakers/cables) needs to be up to par with the new format. A room with good absorbing acoustics is also indispensable. Playing CDs/DVD-A's from a computer is as far from an ideal situation you can get. One of my CD players is an Arcam Alpha 8. Just recently I had to replace it for a week with a cheap Philips player. For a week I had to endure no sound depth, non what so ever. With the Philips everything sounds dull and lifeless, as if the musicians were trapped between a double glazed window.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK,if you buy the DVD-A compatible sound card,like the Audigy 2,do you need a "special " DVD-Rom drive top or my regular DVD-ROM drive will do?

The disc format is the same. The audio files are just in a different directory (AUDIO_TS instead of VIDEO_TS). So you should be able to read them without troubles.

But Alexcremers' point remains. I also have an Arcam system, and I suppose it'll be a while before I get a DVD-A/SACD player. They're getting fairly cheap, but I fear the cheap ones probably sound worse than my current CD player.

(Actually, I could upgrade my Arcam CD/DVD to play DVD-A, but that costs more than the cheap DVD-A/SACD players, and still can't read the SACD format...)

Marian - who thinks everyone who calls listening to music one of his primary hobbies should have at least some qualities of an audiophile. ROTFLMAO

:angry: Spirited Away (Joe Hisaishi)

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the use? DVD-rom players have no hi-end quality. You're whole system (player/amp/speakers/cables) needs to be up to par with the new format.

Nonsense, just get a high end sound card, not a cheap creative one. Use a digital out and plug it into a AMP. :angry: I'm afraid you have no idea about PC sound, you can even get motherboards with a tube digital to analogue converter. You can spend $500 or more on a quality professional soundcard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, Morn, mine costs over a $1000. Morn, you like McDonalds better than any other food, no matter what restaurant. You think your computer speakers sound better than any other system. What's more, you think their drivers are able to reproduce DVD-A better because the word Digital is printed on them. You think your superspeed CD-ROM spins more accurate than a devoted CD drive that plays CDs instead of 'ripping' the audio data using the computer's IDE. You think 16bit / 44.1 kHz is capable of reproducing a perfect sine wave. Like Stefancos you think that "the more sharper it sounds the better it is mastered". You are not interested in HiFi. Your home computer IS your Hifi and it beats everything else you've ever heard, especially with the Mega Bass button punched in. You think, "How does Alex know all these things about me?" Well, right now I'm looking through my binocles and see your face become as pale as the underwear you're wearing right know as you sit behind your computer reading my post.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites

:roll: Jeeze someone really has a problem with computers. No I see no reason to think that a pro-sound card using a digital out hooked to an amp shouldn't sound good just because it's a computer. :?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey hey people, let's not take this overboard.

About the audiophiles remark....I'm not really an audiophile, I don't have an impressive system for starts...but if I can get more of less, than I will persue....who wouldn't?

Secondly, what would the real and important difference between an audiophile and a Williamsphile be? Both greedily want the best and most, of what money can buy and they'll spend much of their savings on it as well. They also go far and wide to get things, and don't stop the assault until they're perfectly happy about it, and won't stop until their collection, and desire, is complete.

An audiophile simply is somewhat obsessed with sound, whereas we are simply somewhat obsessed with Williams...there's no essential difference. Most people are somewhat obsessed with things that are deemed acceptable, or hardly noticable, like finding a mate.

Oh dear, I need to stop, I'm slowly turning to philosophy and psychology once more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me how to play DVD-A via a digital connection. DVD-A requires 6 analogue connections, you won't find an amp (or soundcard for that matter, I suppose) that will be able to play DVD-A data through a digital stream. And I still doubt that analogue soundcard outputs have adequate quality, unless perhaps when the soundcard alone costs as much as a good amp, player and speakers.

Marian - who listens to CDs with the analogue input instead of the digital one.

:mrgreen: Brassed Off (Trevor Jones et al.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean revolution, no?

Well, I guess that depends on your point of view, and how far you're willing to take it...but I guess you can use both.....(this is going to be tricky and difficult, but) evolution and revolution are both based on something that existed or exists. Basically, revolution is a sped up version of evolution, and maybe skipped a few steps here and there. However, to me, SACD is neither evolution nor revolution, but something completely new, since nothing of it is comparable to a CD....apart from using a disc with tracks and layers of course.

However, this also could become a 'go anywhere' discussion, since there can always be arguments found in one direction or the other.

So yes, I guess revolution would be fine too. :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the use? DVD-rom players have no hi-end quality. You're whole system (player/amp/speakers/cables) needs to be up to par with the new format.

Nonsense, just get a high end sound card, not a cheap creative one. Use a digital out and plug it into a AMP. :mrgreen: I'm afraid you have no idea about PC sound, you can even get motherboards with a tube digital to analogue converter. You can spend $500 or more on a quality professional soundcard.

But with that money you can buy a SACD set as well. Does your argument hold on this part? And that's what I meant, DVD-A just seems more compatable but is it really? You must buy either an expensive soundcard (to get the quality), with or without the transfer (cables), and the drive. And for a regular player you must still buy a DVD-A capable player. The only real difference is that all DVD-A's, correct me if I'm wrong, has an extra Dolby track, which can be played in all existing hardware. This only applies to Hybrid SACD's but not the solely SACD's. But if that's the only essential difference than I'd rather go for 'slightly' more quality.

Oh well, I guess we just don't agree then? ;)

BTW, I just want to say that's I'm not saying DVD-A completely sucks, just that out of the two, I think SACD is (slightly if you want) better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but also the more speakers you have.... the more clearity you get. I mean having the sound more around you does have an affect on how you perceive it and also just by numbers, more speakers means more air molecules being affected. We may have 2 ears, but the brain is clever is that it can work out what direction sound is coming from. It's thought to have something to do with the shape of the outter ear. Or the brain measuring the time difference between each ear receiving the sound and working out the sounds location from that. So our brain is smart enough to get surround from 2 'microphones'. :mrgreen:

Hah, I guess we really disagree then. ;)

Like I said, if you get two speakers for the same price you end up with better speakers and therefore the sound that it produces, will be more lifelike and reflect more sound. With two better speakers you don't need surround anymore because the two better speakers will now do that for you.

And another thing....I prefer to get the orchestra experience in music all the time, mainly for my classical and Williams CD's. But that could be different for you. So I want to emulate a concert experience....meaning sitting in a chair with the direct sound coming from in front of me....just like two speakers. Of course in a concert hall you'll get more surround around you, and so we come back again to buying two quality speakers that will basically do the same for you, and even so much more realisticly (right?) than when this is being done virtually, and therefore consequently less acurate and real (right?) through surround speakers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction since you're wrong: Many DVD-As have Dolby Digital (or DTS or PCM) tracks, but not all. Those that don't are only playable in real DVD-A players.

Personally, I'd only spend money on a player that can handle both formats anyway. Software is still quite rare, and typically what you can get on SACD you can't get on DVD-A, and vice versa.

Marian - who has no money anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marian -  who thinks surround sound, when done properly (!), should be preferrable to stereo.

I forgot this post, so I can only add to my previous reaction. Some of this I might already have said.

This is a bit of philosophy, because I'm not a technical person, so if anyone has other/more accurate information, or discovers mistakes in my thinking please speak up, so I can 'revise' my own views on this, and because of that will end up with a better system. :mrgreen:

If you don't like to philosophize, don't read. ;)

Let's face it here...we all want an orchestra in our homes right? Well, we can't have that, so we try to reproduce that as much as possible for as little as possible. We can also agree, I hope, that anything that isn't real is not to be preferred and we wish to get rid of as much as unreallness as possible.

Then the next step should ultimately be this, when buying unequivocally 'unreal' equipment, we want this to be limited as well. We can't get past the unreal equipment so you will buy all essential and unescapable equipment that will reproduce as much of the 'true' sound as possibly. You're forced to buy an unreal sounding player, unreal sounding transfers (cable or whatever), with unreal sounding speakers. It's very likely that the more unreal sounding equipment we get the more 'unreal' sound it will produce. Every part of the equipment will undeniably be making things worse, more and more 'true' sound will be lost bit by bit through every part of the equipment for one.

So, in the end, you want to reduce equipment but not the money you spend on it so the more quality equipment you end up with will be less 'unreal' sounding, than twice the amount of equipment which could 'double' the damage on the sound, and are naturally of less quality as well for the same price.

With two speakers the true sound is 'lost' through two speakers but with surround speakers it is potentially 'lost' through five speakers. More transfers is less quality and is more lost sound. Hmm, perhaps not entirely true though, I'm not quite sure.

But think about this, the only time where we hear sound the way is was heard is when there were only basically two equipments, the instrument and the ear (perhaps the sound through the air as well?) . The more you add and stick, and filter, between these two natural equipments, the less real it will sound.

So preferably you want to use no equipment, that's not possible so you want to use one equipment or speaker. That's not possible, in existance or affordable, so you want to put in the equipment with two speakers. Now, suddenly we realise it's almost there. So why, put in more unreal equipment? In stead you now tend to the quality of the equipment.

Conclusion: The person that spends 10.000 on two quality speakers with other quality necessary components will get more true sound than the person that spends 10.000 on even more equipment of consequently lesser quality.

You see, with two quality speakers you get reverb for free...however, movies could perhaps be different, but then again, we were talking about music. :)

Phew. I hope you enjoyed this programme about ill conceived philosophy, see you next time. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correction since you're wrong: Many DVD-As have Dolby Digital (or DTS or PCM) tracks, but not all. Those that don't are only playable in real DVD-A players.

Thanks for mentioning. Every bit of information helps. :mrgreen:

Marian - who has no money anyway.

That makes two of us then. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite follow your logic. In a concert hall, you do have reverb from the walls, that includes the walls on the sides and the rear of the hall, as well as the air within those walls, to a certain extent. You rarely have a concert hall-type room at home, so you have to reproduce the acoustic/reverb properties of the hall in a different way. This is where surround speakers help, particularly if the recording was made in a place with much reverb, like a church.

Movies of course hugely benefit from surround sound (well, certain genres at least), though they don't require that much quality from the rears. With music, you'd typically want the same speakers for center and rears that you have for stereo signals. And here not only money is a problem - if you have a TV between the stereo speakers, where would you put a center that big? ;)

Marian - who likes the Marco Polo Robin Hood in surround, but isn't too happy with the surround on the Morricone concert DVD.

:mrgreen: How The West Was Won (Alfred Newman)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me how to play DVD-A via a digital connection.

Some manufacturers (I'm thinking Pioneer and Denon) make components that have their own proprietary digital connection, thus allowing you to hook up a Pioneer universal player to a top of the line Pioneer receiver digitally, allowing the receiver to decode everything sent to it digitally. So it is possible.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite follow your logic. In a concert hall, you do have reverb from the walls, that includes the walls on the sides and the rear of the hall, as well as the air within those walls, to a certain extent. You rarely have a concert hall-type room at home, so you have to reproduce the acoustic/reverb properties of the hall in a different way. This is where surround speakers help, particularly if the recording was made in a place with much reverb, like a church.

I understand, it's a bit tricky. What I'm saying is, buy more expensive two speakers, and those speakers will now reverb the sound in replacement of surround speakers, and much more realistically through the room as natural sound would, and will bounce all over the room, then when surround speakers do this artificially from specific points with much less reverb because they produce much 'less and powerfull' natural sound.

Not a good example, put an enormous cinema loudspeaker in a tiny room, and you will hear sound blasting all over the room.

Heh, perhaps in that case you don't even need reverb anymore, because it doesn't stand a chance with such sound-assaults. Like I said, not a good example. :mrgreen:

Movies of course hugely benefit from surround sound (well, certain genres at least), though they don't require that much quality from the rears. With music, you'd typically want the same speakers for center and rears that you have for stereo signals. And here not only money is a problem - if you have a TV between the stereo speakers, where would you put a center that big? ;)

I fully agree there. The sound from an airplane from the back to the front will be more natural in surround speakers in movies. In music, an instrument won't fly accross the room, unless a musician is really pissed of about the decision of the conducter. :)

But, I'm more of a music buff then a movie buff. Even so, I always listen to movies with a Sennheiser HD600 headset, and prefer this over speakers. To be quite honest, because I don't have a terrific set, I do this for music as well. I always say, if you can't afford quality speakers, buy a quality headset instead. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but you'd still have walls that reproduce the reverb in the concert hall. Otherwise, the best speakers won't produce a fitting reverb, I'd assume. Of course, quality stereo speakers are better than a poor surround system. But I guess quality surround speakers are still preferrable, as long as they're affordable (which is of course always the main problem ;)).

Some manufacturers (I'm thinking Pioneer and Denon) make components that have their own proprietary digital connection, thus allowing you to hook up  a Pioneer universal player to a top of the line Pioneer receiver digitally, allowing the receiver to decode everything sent to it digitally.  So it is possible.

Interesting. I didn't know that. However, I still doubt Creative sound cards have fitting digital connections.

Marian - waiting for the day when digital audio is advanced and standardised enough to use PCs as top quality multimedia systems.

:mrgreen: How The West Was Won (Alfred Newman)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marian - waiting for the day when digital audio is advanced and standardised enough to use PCs as top quality multimedia systems.

Yes,the least components lying around the better.

Plus,nowadays I don't mind sacrifising a bit of quality for ease of use.I hardly take the time to take out c.d.'s to play in my c.d. player,i just play the ones stored in my HD.With good headphone the quality is acceptable.

K.M.Who hardly uses dedicated PC speakers

Link to post
Share on other sites
But with that money you can buy a SACD set as well.

Which will only help in playing SACD. A good soundcard will have many other uses.

Ohh and I'd rather hear the orchestra as the conductor would. :sleepy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if the distant reverbish sound is too distant and too reverbish. Listen to the Morricone concert DVD and be annoyed by too much surround in orchestral music.

Marian - who doesn't like sitting too close to the orchestra in concerts, orchestrational details get lost there.

:) After Extra Time (Michael Nyman)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I'll go for the DVD Audio version unless it contains music that's not on the CD version

No, for that you'll have to acquire the 2 disc Oscar promo.

Neil

Sorry for my late response, but where can I find this 2 Disc Oscar Promo? Was it officially released?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I love the "sound" of A.I.'s recording. It's very big and wet but I still hear a lot of detail and richness in the recording. I prefer the sound of an orchestra further away so it picks up the characteristics of the hall some. As for the bass on "Abandoned in the Woods" I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE it. It sounds absolutely amazing in my Sennheiser headphones. I don't feel there is too much bass at all. Not on a natural sounding system. Personally I think that Shawn Murphy has nothing to do with that. It's there and sounds as it does because that's the way Williams wanted it to sound. I am sure he has absolute final say.

As for SACD or DVD-A formats, this thread has been cool. I am a audio geek and love reading about this stuff. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I'll go for the DVD Audio version unless it contains music that's not on the CD version

No, for that you'll have to acquire the 2 disc Oscar promo.

Neil

Sorry for my late response, but where can I find this 2 Disc Oscar Promo? Was it officially released?

Not in stores.You should check the trading board,that's mostly your only chance of getting a copy of it.

K.M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...