DVD audio cds = better quality cds?
- Thread starter erikiksaz
- Start date
That's the intention, and they are from a technical standpoint, but everyone's ears are different.
What is DVD Audio?
DVD Audio (or DVD-A) is a new music format that offers very high quality audio, longer playing times and the possibility of additional features not available on normal CDs.
DVD Audio uses a new form of lossless audio compression known as Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP). This means that none of the audio information is discarded and allows for more data to be fitted onto the DVD-A disc without loss of quality. DVD Audio discs can therefore provide Advanced Resolution Surround (multi-channel surround sound up to 6 channels) and Advanced Resolution Stereo (2 channels) as well as the same track in Dolby 5.1. Some discs may include DTS 5.1 and LPCM Stereo sound.
DVD-A discs can also carry video and limited interactivity; this may include things like song lyrics, video clips, artist commentaries and photo galleries.
What do I need?
A DVD PLAYER ? DVD-Audio discs will offer you outstanding Dolby Digital multi-channel surround sound on any DVD-Video player connected to a multi-channel surround sound playback system. However, in order to enjoy the full Advanced Resolution audio quality offered by DVD-Audio, a DVD-Audio player is required. In order to view the disc menu options and interactive features offered on the DVD-Audio disc, you will need to use your TV.
You can enjoy recorded music without the use of your TV, as the disc is designed to play just like a CD.
What different types of DVD Audio disc are available?
There are four different kinds of DVD-A discs.
CAPACITY (GB) LAYERS SIDES
DVD-5
4.7 1 1
DVD-9
8.54 2 1
DVD-10
9.4 1 2
DVD-18
17.08 2 2
What is the difference between DVD Audio and CD?
DVD-A discs can hold up to seven times the data capacity of CDs. This extra space is used to fit higher quality audio. The sampling rate of a DVD-A can be up to 192kHz, compared to 44.1kHz for CD, and the digital sound can contain up to 24 bits of data (16 bits on CD). DVD Audio discs can also offer multi-channel surround sound, which CDs cannot.
What is the difference between DVD Audio and DVD Video?
DVD Video is primarily a visual medium. The available space on the discs is reserved mostly for video data, leaving less room for sound. Because of this, DVD Video offers compressed stereo and multi-channel surround sound.
DVD Audio is primarily an audio medium, where the majority of the disc space is used to fit far superior sound. Therefore DVD-A discs can offer Advanced Resolution Stereo and Multi-channel Surround, without requiring the compression methods used on DVD Video to save space.
Can I play DVD Audio discs on a DVD Video player?
The vast majority of modern DVD Video players are Universal players, which means that they support the DVD Audio format. Also, most DVD-A discs contain a Dolby 5.1 surround sound track, allowing them to be played on an ordinary DVD Video player.
Can I play CDs on a DVD Audio player?
Yes, CDs will play on a DVD Audio player as they do on most DVD Video players.
What special features are available on DVD Audio?
DVD Audio discs can contain a lot more than just the audio track. They may include video clip, photos, text (such as song lyrics or artists bibliographies), DVD-Rom data and interactive menus.
DVD Audio (or DVD-A) is a new music format that offers very high quality audio, longer playing times and the possibility of additional features not available on normal CDs.
DVD Audio uses a new form of lossless audio compression known as Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP). This means that none of the audio information is discarded and allows for more data to be fitted onto the DVD-A disc without loss of quality. DVD Audio discs can therefore provide Advanced Resolution Surround (multi-channel surround sound up to 6 channels) and Advanced Resolution Stereo (2 channels) as well as the same track in Dolby 5.1. Some discs may include DTS 5.1 and LPCM Stereo sound.
DVD-A discs can also carry video and limited interactivity; this may include things like song lyrics, video clips, artist commentaries and photo galleries.
What do I need?
A DVD PLAYER ? DVD-Audio discs will offer you outstanding Dolby Digital multi-channel surround sound on any DVD-Video player connected to a multi-channel surround sound playback system. However, in order to enjoy the full Advanced Resolution audio quality offered by DVD-Audio, a DVD-Audio player is required. In order to view the disc menu options and interactive features offered on the DVD-Audio disc, you will need to use your TV.
You can enjoy recorded music without the use of your TV, as the disc is designed to play just like a CD.
What different types of DVD Audio disc are available?
There are four different kinds of DVD-A discs.
CAPACITY (GB) LAYERS SIDES
DVD-5
4.7 1 1
DVD-9
8.54 2 1
DVD-10
9.4 1 2
DVD-18
17.08 2 2
What is the difference between DVD Audio and CD?
DVD-A discs can hold up to seven times the data capacity of CDs. This extra space is used to fit higher quality audio. The sampling rate of a DVD-A can be up to 192kHz, compared to 44.1kHz for CD, and the digital sound can contain up to 24 bits of data (16 bits on CD). DVD Audio discs can also offer multi-channel surround sound, which CDs cannot.
What is the difference between DVD Audio and DVD Video?
DVD Video is primarily a visual medium. The available space on the discs is reserved mostly for video data, leaving less room for sound. Because of this, DVD Video offers compressed stereo and multi-channel surround sound.
DVD Audio is primarily an audio medium, where the majority of the disc space is used to fit far superior sound. Therefore DVD-A discs can offer Advanced Resolution Stereo and Multi-channel Surround, without requiring the compression methods used on DVD Video to save space.
Can I play DVD Audio discs on a DVD Video player?
The vast majority of modern DVD Video players are Universal players, which means that they support the DVD Audio format. Also, most DVD-A discs contain a Dolby 5.1 surround sound track, allowing them to be played on an ordinary DVD Video player.
Can I play CDs on a DVD Audio player?
Yes, CDs will play on a DVD Audio player as they do on most DVD Video players.
What special features are available on DVD Audio?
DVD Audio discs can contain a lot more than just the audio track. They may include video clip, photos, text (such as song lyrics or artists bibliographies), DVD-Rom data and interactive menus.
What is SACD?
Super Audio CD (SACD) is a new development from Sony and Philips, the original creators of the CD. They look the same as ordinary CDs but, thanks to innovative recording and playback techniques, can deliver an amazing richness of sound and unprecedented levels of quality.
How are SACDs recorded?
SACDs are recorded using a process known as Direct Stream Digital (DSD). This samples sound at 2.88224 Mhz and stores it as 1 bit data, making it 64 times faster than CDs. This means it can capture a full range of sounds with incredible audio resolution, making it the closest approximation to the original analog waveform available. The upper frequency cut-off extends beyond 100kHz which, when combined with massive noise reduction, allows for an impressive dynamic range of over 120dB across the entire audible range.
DSD can even re-master old analogue master tapes revealing a new level of quality. SACDs are also capable of Multi-Channel audio containing up to 5.1 channels of surround sound.
What does Multi-channel audio mean?
Multi-channel audio allows a more precise reproduction of the acoustic signature of the performance space by recording the sound from different positions within the space onto separate channels, which can then be recreated through an equal number of loudspeakers.
How do SACDs compare to ordinary CDs?
SACDs have the same shape and dimensions as CDs. They differ in recording and playback methods, audio quality, and storage capacity.
CDs are recorded using Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), which allows for a sampling frequency of 44.1kHz encoded at 16-bit resolution. SACDs are recorded via Direct Stream Digital (DSD), which samples at 2.8224MHz encoded as single-bit data, making it 64 times faster.
Playback on CDs has an upper frequency cut-off at just over 22kHz and a dynamic range limit of about 96dB. SACD's cut-off is beyond 100kHz and can deliver a dynamic range of over 120dB across the audible range.
The conventional PCM recording and playback process requires a variety of filters (decimation, interpolation, oversampling and low pass), whereas DSD is far simpler needing only a low pass filter for playback, giving a far more faithful reproduction of the original signal. Ordinary CDs can hold around 650-740MB of data. By contrast, a single layer SACD can hold 7.7GB (over 6 times as much data), and a dual layer disc can store 8.54GB. A single layer SACD can hold over 100 minutes of 2-channel stereo audio (compared to 74 minutes on a CD) as well as multi-channel content.
Will ordinary CDs play on my SACD player?
Yes, a dedicated SACD player can handle all existing CDs.
Will SACDs play on my CD player?
SACDs come in three different types: Single Layer discs (one High Density layer, 4.7GB), Dual Layer discs (two High Density layers, 8.54GB), and Hybrid discs. Hybrid discs are the only ones that will play on an ordinary CD player as they are made up of one High Density layer and one CD layer for complete compatibility.
What "extras" can SACDs contain?
An extra data area has been reserved on SACD disc which will make it possible to include information in text, graphics and video.
Super Audio CD (SACD) is a new development from Sony and Philips, the original creators of the CD. They look the same as ordinary CDs but, thanks to innovative recording and playback techniques, can deliver an amazing richness of sound and unprecedented levels of quality.
How are SACDs recorded?
SACDs are recorded using a process known as Direct Stream Digital (DSD). This samples sound at 2.88224 Mhz and stores it as 1 bit data, making it 64 times faster than CDs. This means it can capture a full range of sounds with incredible audio resolution, making it the closest approximation to the original analog waveform available. The upper frequency cut-off extends beyond 100kHz which, when combined with massive noise reduction, allows for an impressive dynamic range of over 120dB across the entire audible range.
DSD can even re-master old analogue master tapes revealing a new level of quality. SACDs are also capable of Multi-Channel audio containing up to 5.1 channels of surround sound.
What does Multi-channel audio mean?
Multi-channel audio allows a more precise reproduction of the acoustic signature of the performance space by recording the sound from different positions within the space onto separate channels, which can then be recreated through an equal number of loudspeakers.
How do SACDs compare to ordinary CDs?
SACDs have the same shape and dimensions as CDs. They differ in recording and playback methods, audio quality, and storage capacity.
CDs are recorded using Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), which allows for a sampling frequency of 44.1kHz encoded at 16-bit resolution. SACDs are recorded via Direct Stream Digital (DSD), which samples at 2.8224MHz encoded as single-bit data, making it 64 times faster.
Playback on CDs has an upper frequency cut-off at just over 22kHz and a dynamic range limit of about 96dB. SACD's cut-off is beyond 100kHz and can deliver a dynamic range of over 120dB across the audible range.
The conventional PCM recording and playback process requires a variety of filters (decimation, interpolation, oversampling and low pass), whereas DSD is far simpler needing only a low pass filter for playback, giving a far more faithful reproduction of the original signal. Ordinary CDs can hold around 650-740MB of data. By contrast, a single layer SACD can hold 7.7GB (over 6 times as much data), and a dual layer disc can store 8.54GB. A single layer SACD can hold over 100 minutes of 2-channel stereo audio (compared to 74 minutes on a CD) as well as multi-channel content.
Will ordinary CDs play on my SACD player?
Yes, a dedicated SACD player can handle all existing CDs.
Will SACDs play on my CD player?
SACDs come in three different types: Single Layer discs (one High Density layer, 4.7GB), Dual Layer discs (two High Density layers, 8.54GB), and Hybrid discs. Hybrid discs are the only ones that will play on an ordinary CD player as they are made up of one High Density layer and one CD layer for complete compatibility.
What "extras" can SACDs contain?
An extra data area has been reserved on SACD disc which will make it possible to include information in text, graphics and video.
To get the best from SACD you need a SACD player, playing these disks on an cd player will not sound any better than a standard CD. But DVD-A disks will play on most DVD players and with the right decoder get 5 or even 6 channel sound. I have a DVD-A album by the Corrs and on my Pro-Logic system it sounds great. I expect as time goes on music will be recorded in 5 channels instead of stereo at the moment. most of the albums about at the moment are just re-hashed stereo. Still sound good though. Also there is not that large a range of artists at the moment but the list is growing all the time. I get all my DVDs and albums here:play247.com.I do live in the UK so the postage is free to me. the prices are very good compared to must shops, this is the site where I got all the info from. hope all this helps.
OK, now I feel thoroughly corrected.
Although it's still true that your dog will enjoy the 192 Khz a lot more than you will.
Although it's still true that your dog will enjoy the 192 Khz a lot more than you will.
"To get the best from SACD you need a SACD player, playing these disks on an cd player will not sound any better than a standard CD."
Odds are it will sound like dead silence. Unless the disc is a hybrid (contains a standard CD layer), which most aren't, it won't play at all.
"But DVD-A disks will play on most DVD players and with the right decoder get 5 or even 6 channel sound."
This is a bit deceiving, yes most DVD-A discs will play on all DVD players, but unless the DVD player supports the high fidelity tracks of DVD-A all you're going to get is the Dolby Digital track which is basically a glorified MP3.
Keep in mind that for both these formats you can only output through analog due to copyright issues. This means, that if you want to get the high fidelity multichannel tracks you have to have a receiver with 5.1 analog-in.
"Although it's still true that your dog will enjoy the 192 Khz a lot more than you will."
Probably, but with the proper equipment (read: not Logitech Z560 or other "multimedia" speakers), you'd have to be deaf to not be able to hear the difference between SACD and a standard CD.
Odds are it will sound like dead silence. Unless the disc is a hybrid (contains a standard CD layer), which most aren't, it won't play at all.
"But DVD-A disks will play on most DVD players and with the right decoder get 5 or even 6 channel sound."
This is a bit deceiving, yes most DVD-A discs will play on all DVD players, but unless the DVD player supports the high fidelity tracks of DVD-A all you're going to get is the Dolby Digital track which is basically a glorified MP3.
Keep in mind that for both these formats you can only output through analog due to copyright issues. This means, that if you want to get the high fidelity multichannel tracks you have to have a receiver with 5.1 analog-in.
"Although it's still true that your dog will enjoy the 192 Khz a lot more than you will."
Probably, but with the proper equipment (read: not Logitech Z560 or other "multimedia" speakers), you'd have to be deaf to not be able to hear the difference between SACD and a standard CD.
Adul
Elite Member
Ehh sure we can't hear over 20 khz but DVD A is also sampled in a higher bit quality, 24 bit instead of the regular 16 bit for CDs. The DVD Audio sampler that comes with my Audigy 2 sounds great. Of course with cheaper systems you won't be able to hear the difference between SACD/CD/DVD A. That's probably the biggest problem they are facing with introducing the new formats. Sure, audiophiles love it but the regular people can't justify the extra cost if they can't hear the difference.
How can one disc record a series of ones and zeros better than another? Wouldn't what you hear be more a function of the DA converter or the AD converter in the first place?
Putting a real audio file on a CD doesn't suddenly make it "CD quality". Every digital audio format is ones and zeroes. What determines the quality is how the audio is converted to a digital format. In its simplest form DVD-A and SACD use more ones and zeroes than a traditional CD to store the audio so it contains more of the analog source than a standard CD.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Its not that the ones and zeroes are better, in a generic sense. They are different ones and zeroes.
For CD audio, you get 44, 100 samples per second. Each sample along the waveform contains 16 bits of info.
With DVD Audio, you can go up to 192,000 samples per second. There will be many more ones and zeroes to store the same second of audio, over 4 times as many just with the increased resolution. Honestly, I dont think the resolution is that big of a deal, especially when ramping up to 192k. However, with DVD Audio, you also get 24 bit samples each time. That is a 50% boost in quality, and to my ears seems to have more impact on clarity. With more precise audio (the result of more samples taken each second, and more precise samples each time), you get better seperation of instruments, and are able to hear more minute portions of the sound field. The scraping of the fingers against an acoustic guitar string for example. Normally, CD audio doesnt quite carry the resolution to bring in the tiny details like that.
Of course, everything I have mentioned would be of little care to the majority of listeners. In fact, most music today is mixed so poorly and overly compressed that you cant even begin to consider it "CD quality".
The thing that may make DVD Audio popular is the possibility of surround sound music.
For CD audio, you get 44, 100 samples per second. Each sample along the waveform contains 16 bits of info.
With DVD Audio, you can go up to 192,000 samples per second. There will be many more ones and zeroes to store the same second of audio, over 4 times as many just with the increased resolution. Honestly, I dont think the resolution is that big of a deal, especially when ramping up to 192k. However, with DVD Audio, you also get 24 bit samples each time. That is a 50% boost in quality, and to my ears seems to have more impact on clarity. With more precise audio (the result of more samples taken each second, and more precise samples each time), you get better seperation of instruments, and are able to hear more minute portions of the sound field. The scraping of the fingers against an acoustic guitar string for example. Normally, CD audio doesnt quite carry the resolution to bring in the tiny details like that.
Of course, everything I have mentioned would be of little care to the majority of listeners. In fact, most music today is mixed so poorly and overly compressed that you cant even begin to consider it "CD quality".
The thing that may make DVD Audio popular is the possibility of surround sound music.
It's true about the 24 bit thing. In the PC recording world, 24 bit/96Khz audio interfaces have been around for a while. Lots of people record at 24/48Khz or 24/44.1 For many though, the increased demands of running 96 or even 192 Khz is just not worth the marginal improvement in sound quality.
I'm not actually sure if I could hear a difference between DVD audio and CD even on good speakers. Or if I could hear a difference, if I would be able to tell which one is "better." I do have good ears, but I know there is a limit. At some point, the amount of information encoded is going to become redundant. Do you really think anyone could hear a difference between 48 bit/512 Khz and 96 bit/1024Mhz? The CD Audio standard was chosen for reasonable average human hearing abilities. There will always be people who can (or have money and pretend they can) hear somewhat or much better than average. But MP3 is so popular because so many people can't tell or don't care. I can certainly hear the difference, even on computer speakers, but my wife doesn't care at all, as long as it has a beat.
Surround sound music may make the difference, but it requires a complete change in the recording industry, and it has been tried before (remember Quadrophonic systems from the 70's?). It will take some time before studio engineers learn to use the tools as more than a gimmick (soundtrack music already does, but that's a whole other thing).
I'm not actually sure if I could hear a difference between DVD audio and CD even on good speakers. Or if I could hear a difference, if I would be able to tell which one is "better." I do have good ears, but I know there is a limit. At some point, the amount of information encoded is going to become redundant. Do you really think anyone could hear a difference between 48 bit/512 Khz and 96 bit/1024Mhz? The CD Audio standard was chosen for reasonable average human hearing abilities. There will always be people who can (or have money and pretend they can) hear somewhat or much better than average. But MP3 is so popular because so many people can't tell or don't care. I can certainly hear the difference, even on computer speakers, but my wife doesn't care at all, as long as it has a beat.
Surround sound music may make the difference, but it requires a complete change in the recording industry, and it has been tried before (remember Quadrophonic systems from the 70's?). It will take some time before studio engineers learn to use the tools as more than a gimmick (soundtrack music already does, but that's a whole other thing).
Erm, SACD is a completely different animal from DVD-A. Unless you get a universal player, an SACD player isn't gonna be able to play DVD-A discs.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Thats true. Supposedly, the Beatles catalogue is being remixed in 5.1 for DVD Audio with the new Anthology due out. They are going to be the group targeted to usher in surround sound music, and try and convince people to buy DVD Audio players over normal CDs. Im not sure that DVD Audio will catch on until it is forced onto buyers (as CDs were), but I dont think it will be the sound quality improvement that will drive people to upgrade.
Its all a damned joke. Yes, the media itself is getting to be capable of higher quality. But theres three HUGE things overlooked.
1) Can you hear it. I dont mean think you can. i mean CAN you. Can you do a double blind A/B comparison test and tell the difference. 5 bucks says no. I'm sure a select few with Golden Ears could, but your average Joe? No way in hell.
2) Continueing with above. Even if you are capable of hearing the difference, is your equipment high end enough to allow you to hear it? MOST people dont have "high-end" home audio. They may have nice set-ups sure, but is it good enough to let you hear that extra information there? Again, I doubt it.
3) The studio engineers. You could have the greatest media in the world playing on the highest end equipment ever made. If the studio engineers compressed the hell out of it then all that greatest went to waste. It seems theres been a growing trend lately to use higher and higher compression in the studios. My theory is, they compress it more to get it to sound better on low to average equipment, but then the true music listeners with good ears and very nice equipment suffer because the music isnt geared towards their setup anymore, but some guy down the street with average Sony equipment.
So, add all those up and I look at it as just marketing to get everyone to buy new equipment and new audio formats. aka....Its marketing hype. It COULD be better, but so many factors affect it that its not worth it. Hell, "CD Quality" is a myth anymore simply because of the compressions and sound processing the engineers do, so if they do it NOW, how can they tell me DVD is SO much better, when in fact CD has the potential to be VERY, VERY good?
Thats just my opinion, most probably wont share it though. Take it for what its worth, stick with CD.
1) Can you hear it. I dont mean think you can. i mean CAN you. Can you do a double blind A/B comparison test and tell the difference. 5 bucks says no. I'm sure a select few with Golden Ears could, but your average Joe? No way in hell.
2) Continueing with above. Even if you are capable of hearing the difference, is your equipment high end enough to allow you to hear it? MOST people dont have "high-end" home audio. They may have nice set-ups sure, but is it good enough to let you hear that extra information there? Again, I doubt it.
3) The studio engineers. You could have the greatest media in the world playing on the highest end equipment ever made. If the studio engineers compressed the hell out of it then all that greatest went to waste. It seems theres been a growing trend lately to use higher and higher compression in the studios. My theory is, they compress it more to get it to sound better on low to average equipment, but then the true music listeners with good ears and very nice equipment suffer because the music isnt geared towards their setup anymore, but some guy down the street with average Sony equipment.
So, add all those up and I look at it as just marketing to get everyone to buy new equipment and new audio formats. aka....Its marketing hype. It COULD be better, but so many factors affect it that its not worth it. Hell, "CD Quality" is a myth anymore simply because of the compressions and sound processing the engineers do, so if they do it NOW, how can they tell me DVD is SO much better, when in fact CD has the potential to be VERY, VERY good?
Thats just my opinion, most probably wont share it though. Take it for what its worth, stick with CD.
"Can you hear it. I dont mean think you can. i mean CAN you. Can you do a double blind A/B comparison test and tell the difference. 5 bucks says no. I'm sure a select few with Golden Ears could, but your average Joe? No way in hell."
I don't think I would have any problems at all blindly telling the difference between SACD and a standard CD, and I don't have golden ears. My only experience with DVD-A is the sampler disc that comes with the Audigy 2 that contains no music I have ever heard (or heard of), so I wouldn't be as confident with it.
"Continueing with above. Even if you are capable of hearing the difference, is your equipment high end enough to allow you to hear it? MOST people dont have "high-end" home audio. They may have nice set-ups sure, but is it good enough to let you hear that extra information there? Again, I doubt it."
You're making the assumption that the 2 new formats are being targetted at Average Joe right out of the gates. SACD, at least, is not currently targetted at the mainstream but at the audiophiles who most likely have the equipment necessary to take advantage of it. I have yet to see a SACD player in any retail outfit besides highend audio stores, and only one player under $500. DVD-A is a bit more mainstream now simply because there are number of standard DVD-video players in the sub $300 range that have the capabilities. Even so, it's not the high fidelity that is being pushed but the multi-channel capabilities of DVD-A.
"So, add all those up and I look at it as just marketing to get everyone to buy new equipment and new audio formats. aka....Its marketing hype."
You seem to be talking more in theory than in experience. Do you actually own any of this equipment to be able to give a valid from experience opinion?
I don't think I would have any problems at all blindly telling the difference between SACD and a standard CD, and I don't have golden ears. My only experience with DVD-A is the sampler disc that comes with the Audigy 2 that contains no music I have ever heard (or heard of), so I wouldn't be as confident with it.
"Continueing with above. Even if you are capable of hearing the difference, is your equipment high end enough to allow you to hear it? MOST people dont have "high-end" home audio. They may have nice set-ups sure, but is it good enough to let you hear that extra information there? Again, I doubt it."
You're making the assumption that the 2 new formats are being targetted at Average Joe right out of the gates. SACD, at least, is not currently targetted at the mainstream but at the audiophiles who most likely have the equipment necessary to take advantage of it. I have yet to see a SACD player in any retail outfit besides highend audio stores, and only one player under $500. DVD-A is a bit more mainstream now simply because there are number of standard DVD-video players in the sub $300 range that have the capabilities. Even so, it's not the high fidelity that is being pushed but the multi-channel capabilities of DVD-A.
"So, add all those up and I look at it as just marketing to get everyone to buy new equipment and new audio formats. aka....Its marketing hype."
You seem to be talking more in theory than in experience. Do you actually own any of this equipment to be able to give a valid from experience opinion?
OWn? Nope. And I wont either. Used? Yep. The thing is, I'm not saying SACD isnt better. It is. Thats why its being made / marketed. My point is, CD, regular ole been aorund for how long now CD could "sound" just as good if they wanted it to. Think back to cassette.....Remember how CD was supposed to be SOOOOO much better? Guess what, It wasnt / isnt. The ONLY advantage CD has over tape is longevity (Assuming you take care of it...the tape would wear out). In fact, one of the lead engineers during the tape era did a A/B test between a high end tape and a CD player. 99% of the people couldnt tell the difference.
As for the price...You kidding right?
Right here. 400 for entire setup
Granted, its not high end, but the point is the technology isnt very much more expensive.
So, to me its EXACTLY like what happened with the cassette vs CD. The Corporations make this "new and better!" audio format so they can get people to drop bucket loads of money for new gear and replacing their existing CD collection.
Hey, you dont have to agree wiht me, thats MY take on it. Thats why I added the "Thats just my opinion, most probably wont share it though. Take it for what its worth, stick with CD.
" at the end of my post.
i DO wish I could do a A/B test with you. My statement there was a theory. I truly havent had a great deal of experience with SACD, so I dont know the extent of it, but in my mind it just cant be THAT much better. It comes down to the individual though. Hell, some people say they hear a difference in cables. PLEASE dont tell me your one of these assinine people though!!
Anyways, thats the beauty of music. Its ALL in the ear of the listener. What I like, I assure you, is NOT what you think of as ideal. Probably the hardest part is finding a shared ground to stand on.
"My point is, CD, regular ole been aorund for how long now CD could "sound" just as good if they wanted it to."
It could sound better, but it won't, and it could not sound just as good.
"The ONLY advantage CD has over tape is longevity (Assuming you take care of it...the tape would wear out)."
I guess you were the person that enjoyed forwarding and rewinding cassettes to your favorite track. Let's have a race, I'll give you a stack of cassettes, I'll take an equal # of CD's, we'll see who can copy them to a digital format the fastest and which ones sound better. Try squeezing 100 cassettes into a 100 CD wallet. There were more advantages to the CD than just longevity.
"In fact, one of the lead engineers during the tape era did a A/B test between a high end tape and a CD player. 99% of the people couldnt tell the difference."
I find that very difficult to believe unless the test was somehow rigged. What is a highend tape? A DAT? When I go to Sam Goody and pick up my favorite New Kids on the Block cassette is that a high end tape? I can almost guarantee you that if I buy a tape from the store and the corresponding CD that even the average Joe could tell the difference. MP3's are better than tape and I have friends who are in no way audiophiles but have no problem telling the difference.
"Granted, its not high end, but the point is the technology isnt very much more expensive."
The prices have dropped, I found a few Sony players, a Phillips, and a Harmon Kardon for around $200. I was wrong there, but I still do not see SACD being targetted at the mainstream, with the majority of the focus on the much higher end players from companies like Marantz, Musical Fidelity, and Onkyo that you don't hear much about in DVD-A.
"The Corporations make this "new and better!" audio format so they can get people to drop bucket loads of money for new gear and replacing their existing CD collection."
I don't think so. I think it is more sinister than that. I think these formats are being pushed because they can't be digitally copied. Even so, these formats do sound better and can add other featurs on the discs like discrete channel surround sound, otherwise no one would buy them no matter how much they pushed them (Divx anyone? not the codec). These are probably the last mainstream formats we will see for a while unless technology creates a way to improve human hearing as both of these exceed limit of it.
"but in my mind it just cant be THAT much better."
No where have I claimed that SACD was life changing experience for me, or that it transported me to another world or other ridiculous superlatives I've seen some audiophiles use, just that it is big enough improvement to actually be able to notice without having freakish hearing. Standard CD's are plenty good for the masses, heck, even MP3's are, but that doesn't mean there aren't a number of people out there that won't appreciate the opportunity to enjoy listening to something better.
I don't buy into the cable theories, though I do believe in buying quality cables for other reasons than purely audio fidelity.
It could sound better, but it won't, and it could not sound just as good.
"The ONLY advantage CD has over tape is longevity (Assuming you take care of it...the tape would wear out)."
I guess you were the person that enjoyed forwarding and rewinding cassettes to your favorite track. Let's have a race, I'll give you a stack of cassettes, I'll take an equal # of CD's, we'll see who can copy them to a digital format the fastest and which ones sound better. Try squeezing 100 cassettes into a 100 CD wallet. There were more advantages to the CD than just longevity.
"In fact, one of the lead engineers during the tape era did a A/B test between a high end tape and a CD player. 99% of the people couldnt tell the difference."
I find that very difficult to believe unless the test was somehow rigged. What is a highend tape? A DAT? When I go to Sam Goody and pick up my favorite New Kids on the Block cassette is that a high end tape? I can almost guarantee you that if I buy a tape from the store and the corresponding CD that even the average Joe could tell the difference. MP3's are better than tape and I have friends who are in no way audiophiles but have no problem telling the difference.
"Granted, its not high end, but the point is the technology isnt very much more expensive."
The prices have dropped, I found a few Sony players, a Phillips, and a Harmon Kardon for around $200. I was wrong there, but I still do not see SACD being targetted at the mainstream, with the majority of the focus on the much higher end players from companies like Marantz, Musical Fidelity, and Onkyo that you don't hear much about in DVD-A.
"The Corporations make this "new and better!" audio format so they can get people to drop bucket loads of money for new gear and replacing their existing CD collection."
I don't think so. I think it is more sinister than that. I think these formats are being pushed because they can't be digitally copied. Even so, these formats do sound better and can add other featurs on the discs like discrete channel surround sound, otherwise no one would buy them no matter how much they pushed them (Divx anyone? not the codec). These are probably the last mainstream formats we will see for a while unless technology creates a way to improve human hearing as both of these exceed limit of it.
"but in my mind it just cant be THAT much better."
No where have I claimed that SACD was life changing experience for me, or that it transported me to another world or other ridiculous superlatives I've seen some audiophiles use, just that it is big enough improvement to actually be able to notice without having freakish hearing. Standard CD's are plenty good for the masses, heck, even MP3's are, but that doesn't mean there aren't a number of people out there that won't appreciate the opportunity to enjoy listening to something better.
I don't buy into the cable theories, though I do believe in buying quality cables for other reasons than purely audio fidelity.
From my own experiance with playing a DVD-A disk on my DVD player I can say that although the music quality may sound about the same, the Pro-logic amp that I am using does allow me to listen to this Disk in Pro-logic mode( which in my case is two front speakers, two rear and a centre speaker). Now with a normal CD if I listen to it in Pro-logic mode all I get is sound out of the centre speaker, I have to switch to stereo to get sound out of front and rear speakers (this also cuts out the centre speaker)
But playing a Audio DVD in pro-logic mode gives me sound from all 5 speakers, also the rears get a different signal to the front so I get a larger sound stage. There is an advantage to playing DVD-A on an ordinary DVD player providing you have a good decoder.
But playing a Audio DVD in pro-logic mode gives me sound from all 5 speakers, also the rears get a different signal to the front so I get a larger sound stage. There is an advantage to playing DVD-A on an ordinary DVD player providing you have a good decoder.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter