|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Key Revocation
- 2 delay of release to finish drm missed opportunity for dvda
- 3 Mass storage
- 4 16 -> 24 bit
- 5 All this dispute
- 6 Article Rewrite
- 7 Requests for references
- 8 Great work!
- 9 Pet Sounds is popular
- 10 Sound Interace
- 11 New Releases
- 12 HDAD
- 13 Format war ended
- 14 Decryption section outdated
- 15 use of Reference #4
- 16 Fair use rationale for Image:Yoshimi 5.1.png
- 17 Link to soundblaster no longer contains list of available DVD-Audio titles
- 18 Possible Error
- 19 Misleading use of e.g. "fidelity"
- 20 Making use of categories
- 21 restore software links
- 22 Somebody is either biased or just plain wrong.
I wrote the CPPM section but I do have one question which I haven't been able to find the answer to: What happens if a hardware player has all its keys compromised? If the keys are revoked, new DVD-Audio discs would be rendered useless on that player, right? Do I have to get a firmware upgrade from the manufacturer? Has DRM turned my DVD-Audio player into a boat anchor? Rhobite 00:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- From the sound of it, if a key gets leaked, they simply stop supporting that key in new releases. So in theory all your existing music collection should continue to work. As far as firmware upgrades go, if the key was compromised by examining the old firmware it would probably be possible to extract the new key from the new firmware. It seems like releasing a new firmware would defeat the purpose of revoking keys …
- Of course if the music industry did decide as a group to cut off thousands of consumers like this through no fault of their own, I'm sure they'd have a lot of law suits on their hands. For comparison, do you know of any DVD-Video players which have had their keys revoked? --James 05:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if a DVD video player has ever had its key revoked. Tend to doubt it. I'm actually not too familiar with how CSS works, is that possible? I'm sure that someone has gotten their hands on a player key at some point, given the amount of DVD hacking that goes on. Since it's now trivial to decrypt CSS without a player key, it seems pointless for them to revoke keys at this point. All it would do is anger legitimate customers. Thanks for the answer, and you make a good point about firmware. Rhobite 07:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- With DVD Video, the content is encrypted with a disc key. This decryption key is then encrypted multiple times with different player keys and the cyphertext is stored on a special part of the disc. When you put a disc in your player, it decrypts the copy of the disc key that was encrypted with the player's key. It can then use the disc key to decrypt the content.
- So when they talk of "revoking" a player's key they just mean that all new releases won't include a copy of the disc key encrypted with the player's key, which would mean that the player couldn't access the content. This is fairly similar system described for DVD Audio (the differences would be in the details of the encryption algorithms).
- While CSS can be bypassed without a key, I think the analogy makes sense. Revoking a key in either case means that users of a particular device will be cut off from new content. If the general public realised that the music industry had this power, they might think twice about moving to the new format --James 03:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- "DVD-Audio discs employ a robust copy prevention mechanism, called Content Protection for Prerecorded Media (CPPM). CPPM, managed by the 4C Entity, prevents users from extracting audio to computers and portable media players.
Because DVD-Video's content-scrambling system (CSS) was quickly broken, DVD-Audio's developers sought a better method of blocking unauthorized duplications. They developed CPPM, which uses a media key block (MKB) to authenticate DVD-Audio players. In order to decrypt the audio, players must obtain a media key from the MKB, which also is encrypted. The player must use its own unique key to decrypt the MKB. If a DVD-Audio player's decryption key is compromised, that key can be rendered useless for decrypting future DVD-Audio discs. DVD-Audio discs also can utilize digital watermarking technology developed by the Verance Corporation."
- Why? ROTFL! Why would you need regional lockouts? On DVD it was created to prevent people from outside USA to watch DVD movies before they hit local cinemas (as movies used to come from USA to Europe/Asia/Africa/Australia with a delay). Now - would you like to keep people in Europe waiting for new wonderful Britney Spears album, until it gets aired enough in USA?
- That was the official reason. It was given away by the fact that regional coding was used on very old movies where sucha problem didn't exist. The real reason was to enforce price differentials between (mainly) the US and Europe.
delay of release to finish drm missed opportunity for dvda
from what i remember the dvda standard missed being put into all dvd video players because they were not finished with their copy protection. if they had just gone without their installed base of players would be incredible by now, a missed opportunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
- "Never mind the quality, feel the width"
I'm not particularly bothered about extra quality or different surround-sound formats, I would prefer to have more music on one disc. How many CDs could be fitted onto one DVD-Audio disc using the original quality? --Phil | Talk 08:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Depends, but 20 would be a reasonable estimate. Mirror Vax 11:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
16 -> 24 bit
However, 24 bit recordings at 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz are widely accepted to be of substantial improvement to the 16 bit recordings currently available on Compact Discs.
Why ? There's no explanation written for that arguable affirmation. Please add explanation and cite sources. Thanks. --Hdante 21:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't cite sources but it's easy to understand if you think of video instead. Let's say you have a 1-bit video. Each pixel on your screen is either black or white. With 2 bits, each pixel is either white, light grey, drak grey, or black. It'll look better. 3 bits give you eight shades of grey (including black and white), 8 bits give you 256 shades of grey, 16 bits gives you 65,536 shades of grey, and 24 bits gives you 16,777,216 shades of grey. How many shades of grey your eye can distinguish then becomes the question. With sound, 24 bits should give you far more detail than 16 bits. Whether your ear can hear the difference I can't say. Personally I spend my money on soft foam earplugs (to protect my hearing when I'm out and about) and acoustic foam panels (to dampen echos) in my living room rather than buying expensive stereo equipment. --Tdkehoe 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. I wasn't requesting an explanation for myself. I already have an "almost sure" opinion on the point. What I was asking was that the article should have such explanation. In particular, if you search for this at Hydrogen Audio, you'll find the opposite opinion than is stated in the text. So as to support the flagrant bias in the text, one really should add enough explanation and sources. --Hdante 17:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well - there's some truth in this sentence. I really doubt that 16 vs 24 bitdepth has any influence on sound quality (contrary to samplerate). It does however have influence on dynamics, i.e. on 24 bit resolution you can code music that has greater difference between quietest and loudest sound. Many of 16-bit recordings need to be processed (compressed acoustically) to preserve optimum sound quality in whole volume range. The best example of this is "Dark Side of the Moon" compressed on CD and full range on SACD///
- That's not really accurate. The dynamic range will be essentially the same: the amplitude will still go from 0%-100% of whatever your amplifier is pumping out. The difference is the precision with which the waveform is reproduced: a higher bit rate will reduce quantization error. It's similar to viewing a picture in 8-bit color vs. 24- or 32-bit color. On a good system, this is very definitely audible. In fact, there are distortion effects that do the opposite of this--reduce the bit depth in order to make the sound more grungy.
- Something missing from this article is a discussion of the additional equipment needed for the higher quality audio to be of any use. Most home receivers and speakers weren't built to handle the increased bandwidth, and true, a lot of people don't care and won't need to spend all that money on an audiophile system. (Although the most recent edits are a bit ridiculous and not NPOV.)Torc 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I searched Hydrogen Audio and found 25 pages of discussions about 24-bit audio. Could you give the specific topic title? Was this someone's opinion, or a published study? I've never heard 24-bit audio but I work developing voice audio equipment using 14-bit, 16KHz chips in portable battery-powered devices, and my voice sounds great. Then I use a 16-bit, 44KHz rack-mounted processor and my voice sounds far better. That's just my voice in headphones. I have no doubt that for orchestral sound on decent speakers most people could hear a difference between 16 and 24 bits.--Tdkehoe 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, your mistake is comparing 16KHz vs 44KHz (which is a huge diference). For recording and all intermediate steps is necesary to use 24 bits or more. After finishing, you can go to 16bits/44KHz; that is 96db SNR or 96db of dynamic range, more than most equipments. Each bit is 6db more. BUT once you reach your noise floor, each more bit is useless. In very high quality equipment you can expect between 96 and 108db (16-18 bits), anything above 18bits is under background noise and there is no point having more digits than you can accurately mesure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. You may look at the Scientific/R&D forum, "Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/, If 16bit/44.1kHz is good enough?". The forum is about the members opinions, so it's not suitable for Wikipedia. --Hdante 16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
126.96.36.199, your calculation is wrong. Higher frequencies have a much smaller amplitude than low frequencies. With every octave, you will loose 6 dB or one bit. So, if you record a signal with the frequency range of the human ear (from 20 Hz to 20 kHz), these are 10 octaves, so in a 96 dB (16 bit) recording, there are only 36 dB (6 bit) left at 20 kHz. There are also recommendations to leave some headroom of up to 23 dB, which means you will end up with only 13 dB (2 bit) at 20 kHz, which is completely insufficient. -- Sloyment (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
All this dispute
... is belong to us. (sorry, couldn't resist) --Hdante 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyone - I'm going to try and re-write this article to conform to better standards and will try to address all the various issues here. Once I'm done, I'll put the article at User:Analogdemon/Drafts/DVD-Audio for everyone to see. I'll post here when it's ready and then, assuming it floats people's boat, I'll change the article itself. I hate seeing all those boxes at the top of this article. Cheers! --Analogdemon (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great ! --Hdante 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I rewrote major portions of the article (basically everything except the CPPM section because that was already very well done).
Some notes on the rewrite:
- I excluded the bit about DVD-Audio not being delivered digitally due to concerns about digital copying. I've never seen any hard evidence that the music business insisted on this, so I consider that speculation. If someone wants to add that bit of text somewhere and cite a definitive source, feel free. I have always read that the reason DVD-A can't be delivered digitally is that the digital output of a DVD player simply can't handle the bandwidth required to send six channels of high-resolution audio down a digital line.
- I excluded the bit about Blu-ray and HD-DVD possibly making DVD-Audio obselete. These two new formats have only been discussed in terms of video, not in terms of music. If someone has a definitive source that offers evidence to the contrary, feel free to add it.
- I think I settled the problems with the 24-bit->16-bit wording.
- I think it's a very good rewrite.. thanks for doing it. Rhobite 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good, man, we're getting close. Concerning digital bitrate, I'm really dubious about this, since digital audio transmission can be generic digital transmission. Change the underlying hardware and you'll get 10 Gbps (DVD-Audio has 0.014 Gbps maximum). Actually the whole "Receiver interface" section should be rewritten (it's interesting to state that the 6 chanel analog is the proposed standard and that contrasts with Meridian implementation and also to remove the "proposed standard single output" remark). The "cite sources" tag is still relevant (in the whole text); don't remove it. The CPPM section should be rephrased too, because it seems that exists both the "digital method" and the "fully digital method". Thanks for the help. --Hdante 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the article should be more fully sourced, but it does cite some references, particularly in the CPPM section. If you insist on placing tags on the article, could you please limit yourself to one tag, and make sure to point out specific facts which you believe need to be cited? Thanks.
- Re: specific criticisms. I'm no expert on high-end audio, but it appears that manufacturers have made proprietary digital links between their DVD-A players and receivers.. for instance Pioneer Elite players can talk to certain Pioneer receivers via FireWire aka iLink. See . The Pioneer player also has 6 channel analog outputs. Rhobite 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would argue that the existence of these proprietary links tends to validate what I've read about DVD-Audio having too much bandwidth for a normal single digital output on a DVD player. If bandwidth wasn't an issue, it would seem to me that companies such as Pioneer would have reason to invest money in research and development of proprietary firewire links. Just my $0.02. --Analogdemon (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. USB 2.0 is able to support the required bitrate. It's called proprietary just because it's not part of the DVD-Audio standard (and probably because the company has introduced "intelectual property securing" mechanisms). I would be nice if you cited sources about bandwidth. --Hdante 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- My only quam with this article would be with the exclusion of Analog being the best for source material considering that is what digital is trying get back to without the "generational loss". --Guppusmaximus 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Requests for references
The list of requested references follow. The list is supposed to be extensive.
- Audio Specifications. Either the name of the "book" or a reference to the specification.
- most DVD-Audio discs contain, at a minimum, a Dolby Digital 5.1-channel. If not part of the specification, cite sources. If it is, write this in the text.
- Some discs also include a native Dolby Digital 2.0 stereo, and even a DTS 5.1-channel. If not part of the specification, cite sources. If it is, write this in the text.
- A popular example of an album released on an HDAD is. Cite who thinks the example is popular (or remove the popular characterization).
- a receiver with six analog inputs is required. If this is part of specification, state this.
- Their solution requires a special DVD-Audio player with six digital outputs. Make it clear why this was done.
- I removed this whole section. If someone wants to write a section on which companies have systems for digital delivery of DVD-Audio, and info on those systems, that's fine. But that section was monotonous and should be rewritten at some point down the road. --Analogdemon (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- as opposed to the standard single output. I understood that the single output is not standard.
- there is debate over whether or not the human ear can hear. Cite a link to this debate, or papers, or news.
- however standalone DVD-Audio discs are no longer common. Cite sources.
- I reworded this section a bit. I am not convinced that this needs sources as it's clearly evidenced by the fact that just about every DVD-Audio release in 2005 and 2006 is either in the form of a CD/DVD package or as a DualDisc. Any trip to a music store or any browsing of Amazon.com will tell you that. --Analogdemon (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- As the DVD-A format has not gained wide commercial interest or acceptance. Not necessary, but could cite figures.
- they are still distributed from person to person and on the peer to peer networks. Cite sources.
- w00t ! --Hdante 14:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Great work everyone. This article is light years ahead of where it was 12 hours ago, nevermind before I rewrote it. Thanks to everyone who offered feedback to the new article, and thanks to everyone who has made edits to improve it. This is the true spirit of Wikipedia and we all should pat ourselves on the back. Let's keep it up! --Analogdemon (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Pet Sounds is popular
I put the word "popular" back into use in the article to reference "Pet Sounds". It is widely seen by music lovers and critics alike as one of the greatest albums of all time. Q Magazine votes it the greatest of all time. Rolling Stone put it as the second best album of all time, and countless others. --Analogdemon (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
A reference for the amplifier interfaces was requested. Unfortunately, these things seem be to somewhat fluid at present, and much keeps changing. The citations that I had for the edit have themselves been heavily edited, and continue to be so.
Most of the problems seem to be connected to the current paranoia over unauthorised copying of disks or extracting the data for distribution by other means. Commercial interests also seem to play a part.
The 6 channel analogue interface is obvious enough, but players have been heavily critisised because, in most players, it is not possible to adjust the individual channel amplitudes or even the delay times. the only control available is a master level control.
The Firewire interface, misleadingly (for this application) referred to as DVI, has appeared on precious few players, mainly because the HDCP encryption that was supposed to protect it was broken before it was even deployed. It has appeared on even fewer amplifiers.
The SP/DIF (or TOSLINK) interface suffers from an even greater lack of information. The specifications for almost all players neglect to mention the limitations in any detail. Most will make some vague reference to the fact that individual disks may give rise to limitations on the way the disk is played. That's it - nothing more. I personally have one player that completely disables the SP/DIF output for all disks, and one player that downconverts to 48kHz/16 bit (except for disks flagged to allow the 96kHz/24 bit that they are recorded at - and I have one such disk).
The Nightfly Trilogy is scheduled for release later this year. This is not the same release as "The Nightfly," which was released in 2003. Torc2 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The reference you keep deleting is for the MOST RECENT RELEASE from a major record label. The most recent DVD-Audio release from a major label is the Beatles "Love" release. "Later this year" isn't recent, it's in the future.
- The Nightfly Trilogy will be a re-release of three previously released discs (including "The Nightfly") in a box set. 188.8.131.52 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
HDAD may be just a marketing term, but it's used consistently and referenced by third parties to mean a specific type of disc in a specific format, which is not covered in that section.. HDAD already redirects to this article, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article itself. It should stay. Torc2 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then write a section describing what it is - including the fact that it is a marketing term from Classic Records. Don't label it as a "format." 184.108.40.206 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Format war ended
Has anybody in any official capacity announced they are abandoning their respective high-def formats? That's really the only definitive answer to this. Torc2 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- If that is your criterion, then the VHS/Betamax war did not end until 2002, when the last Betamax player was withdrawn from market. If you use the media as the benchmark, then the VHS/Betamax war is still on, because Betamax tapes are still available. Is this the kind of absurdity we need? If you are waiting for someone "official" to declare the end of the war, you'll likely wait forever.
- A format war is over when the market moves past the product(s), and it becomes marginalized. Can you seriously argue that either of these formats (SACD or DVD-Audio) is mainstream? Neither was ever widely adopted. They are both marginalized. The format war wasn't much of a war, and there isn't anything left of it other than a few websites where format supporters still carry on. These products have now entered a stage of co-existence. 220.127.116.11 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Neither format has had support withdrawn. And Panasonic still refuse to support SACD in their players and Sony still refuse to support DVD-A. And Sony Music issue DVD-V DualDiscs instead of DVD-A. No sign of any of the interested parties caving in yet. The format war continues. At least you can get players which support both, unlike the HD DVD/Blu-ray situation where format licenses prevent a playwe supporting the other format. --KJBracey 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually there ARE dual format players for HD DVD and Blu Ray (LG and Samsung make them). There are even dual format discs, Warner Bros patented a technology for putting both formats on a single disc.
- Technically correct, but in practice incorrect. Microsoft refused to licence the HDi language (as used on HD-DVD) on any player that also included the Java language* (as used on Blu-ray). Thus although the hybrid players will play both Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs, they will not play any HD-DVD disc that depends on HDi scripting to play its content. Similarly, dual format discs are not permitted to contain HDi either, but in this case it doesn't prevent the production of a playable disc.
Decryption section outdated
DVD-Audio's copy protection was overcome in 2005 by tools which allow data to be decrypted or converted to 6 channel .WAV files without going through lossy digital-to-analogue conversion. Previously that conversion had required expensive equipment to retain all 6 channels of audio rather than having it downmixed to stereo. In the digital method, the decryption is done by a commercial software player which has been patched to allow access to the unprotected audio. As the DVD-A format has not gained wide commercial interest or acceptance, decryption tools are still very primitive.
- Above is outdated. Since about a month, an open source decrypter "libdvdcpxm" was released on one of the popular video forums. It can remove CPRM/CPPM from AOBs and VOBs (without the need of windvd). EVODemux can demux the mlp/lpcm stream from AOBs. There are still no free tools to convert raw mlp streams though. It's also not possible yet to remove those watermarks. 18.104.22.168 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- In <!-- Details are bit scetchy here, NO verified information could be found who is the original developer of the soft and where or even WHEN it was first released to public. -->2007 the encryption scheme was overcome with a tool called ''dvdcpxm''.
- dvdcpxm was released to the public on doom9's forum: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1013597#post1013597 (in June 2007). It was posted by a member called mommyman. I'm not sure whether he's the author of the decrypter though. But, it is the same guy who updated DVD-A Explorer. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
use of Reference #4
I don't see how reference #4 actually supports this sentence, particularly the part about 48kHz delivery via unencrypted digital:
"Whereas DVD-Video audio formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS can be sent via the player's digital output to a receiver for conversion to analogue form and distribution to speakers, DVD-Audio cannot be delivered via unencrypted digital audio link at sample rates higher than 48 kHz (i.e., ordinary DVD-Video quality) due to concerns about digital copying."
Fair use rationale for Image:Yoshimi 5.1.png
Image:Yoshimi 5.1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Link to soundblaster no longer contains list of available DVD-Audio titles
2qX63Pgx (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)As of 29 May 2008, http://soundblaster.com/resources/read.asp?articleid=53904&cat=1 no longer diplays a list of available DVD titles.
"Some labels are releasing DVD titles that are formatted as DVD-Audio on one side and DVD-Video on the other, the DualDisc being one such example." -- either this statement is inaccurate, or the entire linked article is innaccurate. -- Cyberpear (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Misleading use of e.g. "fidelity"
The article does not always clearly specify what statements are about technical specs and what statements are about percievable differences. An audiophile reader could easily read this article and be mislead into thinking that superior 2-channel sound from DVD-A compared to CD is a well-established fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knutinh (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Making use of categories
There seem to be two very useful wikipedia categories, namely: Category:Albums_released_on_DVD-Audio and Category:Albums_released_in_Super_Audio, which can be added to the bottom of individual albums. I haven't seen one for Blu-Ray music (or indeed surround albums), but still, I figure the people reading this might be in the know as to which albums are currently missiing from the categories... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems like both of the categories above contain around 150 albums, which is not enough to fill the Billboard 200. DVDA is currently behind by about a dozen. If the format war is still going on, and if the number of available titles is a factor in deciding who wins, how about we see if DVDA can beat SACD to this number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Too late. DVD-A lags way behind. It's looking like even Category:Music released on Blu-ray might catch up, as studios are really starting to embrace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I restored software webpage links erased by Blinksternet:
a)"These may be much welcomed links to references." is the phrase used by the Wikipedia engine when it comes to adding links. I assume that, notwithstanding the eraser's extended editing rights, this overall policy of Wikipedia's should prevail
b) There are external links in the SACD article, which, incidentally, were not erased by the same editor's review.
c) There are very few coherent and organised links on the net to the software in question.
d) The edit suppressed a link to the only available open-source software for authoring DVD-Audio discs (dvda-author, DVD audio tools project), a poor decision which seems to run against the grain of Wikipedia's philosophy.
e) I am the main admin of the above-mentioned open-source project. Should Wikipedia editors erase software links again, I will have no other option than opening an autonomous article on DVD-Audio software authoring--I'd prefer not to for obvious reasons.
f) To be fair to competitors I restored all links to commercial stuff, however I would understand if some of these commercial links were retrieved. --Fabnicol (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabnicol (talk • contribs) 11:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC) --Fabnicol (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Can you keep the list of software from becoming too promotional? Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Somebody is either biased or just plain wrong.
Concerning these tests which were "allegedly" performed where no real difference was discerned when listening to DVD-A and comparing it to a HQ mix of the same recording on a red book CD...GET REAL!
It is true that the original sound or subsequent mix engineering can make or break a completed work in either case. And to look at a poster-child example of "minimal difference" - I might submit the 1970's "Doobie Bothers" release "The Captain and Me". The original of this work is fantastic and among the finest in both its vinyl and stereo CD formats. The more-recent DVD-A multi-channel re-mix differences are "there" for sure, (especially since the 6 discrete channels (PCM) provide the spatial presence that just cannot be obtained with just 2). BUT that is the rare case for me....and actually where the buck stops.
Notice I am not trying to impress with talking about sampling rates, bits, or compression schemes - just a baptism of full and pure sound quality, dynamic range, SNR, and excellent staging.
Now for MY "Pepsi challenge": You round up that same group of "Helen Keller wanna-be audiophiles" and bring them to MY living room. I would put on just a single "old reliable": "The Eagles Hotel California". The 2 channel mix is very nice, but the multi-channel DVD-A will blow ANYONE and EVERYONE with ears away. It is the standard by which mixing should be measured to. (Please, DO TRY THIS AT HOME)!
There are others as well, but I only wanted to make a single point to combat what I perceived to be a very serious misnomer. Sadly, the vast majority of the public could care less about fidelity of sound, (as is evident in MP3, I-pod, and cell phone music popularity).
SO...(since it's ALWAYS all about the money) DVD-A and SACD are now both dried on the vine. It's sad that "the powers that be" claim to provide the HQ audio as a side order to Blu-Ray movies as the pacifier, yet this leaves a gaping hole in music formats, (one that is unlikely to be noticed at all by the masses).
That is how it is. I may not like it - but I accept it. However, PLEASE DO NOT insinuate that "there was little difference anyway". That's just ludicrous. (My 2 Cents). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)