DVD-A and DTS/DD

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I've read through the &quot;Royal Scam&quot; and associated articles at audioholics, and I understand what that's saying, but I'm still confused on some basics:

1. If I have a standard DVD player, can I necessarily hear multichannel mixes through DDigital or DTS through my digital out, or does it also have to have a separate digital mix in addition to the standard analog DVDA mix?
2. If it has to have a separate mix, where is that info identified?  Simply on the packaging somehwere?
3. Is this separate mix something that's defined during production of the software, or is it spit out on the fly by the DVD player that has to make the most of what it's got?  
4. No matter who makes the digital mix (the hardware or the producers), is it designed to perform as the analog surround mix, or is that completely up to the producers?  (i.e., are the effects and &quot;placement&quot; of sounds going to be the same, or is that just up to someone's conscious choice?)

Thanks for any help or references you have.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>If you have a standard DVD player, you can play DVD-A disc using the optical output but it will be a DD or DTS 5.1 mix which still sounds good but DVD-A sounds best using the anolog 5.1 outputs. DVD-A disc comes with 3 playback formats stereo, DD5.1 and high resolution DVD-A which only plays through the 5.1 anolog outputs. Your best bet would be to buy a DVD-A player, I think DVD-A has SACD beat hands down, I have an onkyo player that does both and dvd-a sound better to me not to mention the multichannel mix that most SACD's do not have. Good luck</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Thanks.  In examining some of the software, I noticed that most were kind enough to put DD or DTS logos on the packaging.  But even that seems remarkably inconsistent.  I guess just another issue with the format.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Irrespective of which format sounds better DVDa or SACD, I'm putting my money on SACD.

I don't think this is a battle that SONY is prepared to lose. Interesting also that ABKCO decided to release Rolling Stones back catalogue on SACD not DVDa.

More hybrid SACDs will be available in the future which will mean backward compatability with existing CD players. Not so with DVDa.

Also check out Jan issue of www.audaud.com - not one new DVDa release to review as opposed to numerous SACDs.</font>

 

[Audioholics]

<font color='#008080'>Unfortunately, Sony is a powerhouse... however, I prefer the direction MLP has taken. It's in the hands of the powers that be at this point...</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Just my quick two cents regarding my experience with both formats so far.  I feel from a technical standpoint, DVD-A has a slight, but possibly inaudible edge over SACD which I will not delve into in this short forum response.  

From implementation standpoint, all of the SACD discs I have listened to sounded either excellent to superb, while all of the DVD-A discs I have listened to either sounded awful to very good.  I suspect this has to do with the way these discs are being recorded and/or mastered.  It seems to me that the recording engineers/studio go through great lengths in producing high fidelity SACD's while many of the DVD-A discs are remastered for multi channel analog mixes from 1980's one hit wonders.

One caveat is all of my SACD listening thus far has been two channel.  I also personally prefer the current music selection and prices of SACD over DVD-A.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#000000'>Abkco couldn't care any less about SACD- as a matter of fact, Sony strongarmed them into releasing the Stones on SACD, and even then ABKCO would only agree to do it if there was a guarentee that the fact that it was SACD did not appear anywhere on the jacket! &nbsp;It seems they didn't want anyone to know largely because they didn't want to confuse consumers.

In the years that SACD has existed, only about 1000 discs have ever been released. &nbsp;One stumbling block to SACD success is that is costs over one hundred times more to author a SACD than it does a DVD-A. &nbsp;There is very little DSD equipment in existance and it's very expensive. &nbsp;And many of the SACDs selling now were made from PCM masters.

Sony may not want to lose this &quot;battle&quot;, but that could have been said for Beta as well. &nbsp;And does anyone remember minidisc? &nbsp;Sony's track record with proprietary technology has been pretty bleak since the CD, excepting the phenomenally successful Playstation/P2. &nbsp;The main reason Sony and Phillips want SACD to take off is that their patent is expiring on the CD format, so now they need a new source of royalty revenue.

I personally love SACD &amp; DVD-A; I have a universal player, so the concept of a &quot;format war&quot; is irrelevant to me. &nbsp;And I think it will be to the mass market, too. &nbsp;Universal players will be the norm, I believe, and machines that play only one format or the other will be a niche market.

Will either succeed? &nbsp;Who knows. &nbsp;Both formats kill CD and LP soundwise, but does anyone care? &nbsp;Lets face it, dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles are a rare (dying?) breed, and for the unwashed masses MP3 seems to be more than good enough. &nbsp;To paraphrase Charlie Tuna, folks don't want music with great taste, they want music that tastes great, ie is cheap/free and portable. &nbsp;This leads to the other primary motivation for the new formats: &nbsp;Big Music doesn't want us to be able to record our music. &nbsp;In their paranoia to quash piracy, they're trying to trample Fair Use (a principle they never cared for in the first place, btw).

IMOHO, don't look for SACD to take the world by storm anytime soon.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#000000'>Another note: it seems that SACD has a software edge, but recent developments may change that. &nbsp;And anyone who can't find any new DVD-A releases can't be looking very hard! &nbsp;Even a quick stroll thru you're local Best Buy store will turn up some interesting new releases, including the new Steely Dan DVD-A disc.

I agree that overall there are more SACD titles that have musical merit than DVD-A, but again both formats are in their infancy. &nbsp;Warner is a big player in the DVD-A market, and they have some big artists, including Dire Straits and Van Halen. &nbsp;

I don't want to make any sweeping generalizations on the sound quality of one vs the other; partly this is because there isn't a lot of material available for both to do an &quot;Apples vs Apples&quot; comparison and partly due to the newness of the formats. &nbsp;Also, I don't want this thread to become a pointless diatribe between one camp and the other. &nbsp;But suffice it to say, I have some SACDs that don't sound very good, and many DVD-As that I'd describe as absolutely SOTA. &nbsp;I feel the format chosen is irrelevant as both formats sound better than LP or CD. &nbsp;I'm no expert, but I don't feel that either one has any technical edge over the other in sound quality, at least not enough to make the difference the primary reason one will succeed over the other.

Of course, I do have my opinions on which one has the potential to sound best, but I'll keep that to myself for now!

</font>

 

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi,
Don't know if the original poster who was asking about access to the dd5.1 and dts tracks on his machine is still following this topic, my perspective on this is a big MAYBEE.

Absolutely if you don't have a dvd player with dvd-a capabilities the User Interface (UI) will go directly to the formats available (dd and dts)

If you do have a dvd-a player access to these formats may or may not be accessable (depending on your machine).

My Panny rp82 (which I now use soley for film) will not always give me access to non dvd-a formats (even through the groups section)

DTS ENTERTAINMENT are the best in that way as they put all available options on the front page of the UI.
For other discs I've been putting them in my sacd player, which because it does not play dvd-a, takes me directly to the dts dd5.1 options. &nbsp;

I went on a big diatribe with regard to this a while back and the majority of responses were &quot;if you can get the best why would you care about the others&quot;. &nbsp;My response was &quot;because it says on the jewel case that they are available on standard dvd players&quot;. &nbsp;What they did not say was that it excluded dvd-a players.

If your interested you may want to give it a try. REMEMBER, IT CANT'T BE A DVD-A FROM dTS eNTERTAINMENT.

Peter m.</font>

 

[duff]

<font color='#000000'>That was my original post.  I can simplify the questions it now that I'm (slightly) more familiar with it.  

1) Do DVDA's always included a DTS track (or maybe a DD track?  or both?).  How is it spec'd out?  If not, how can you tell?  

2) How is the DTS track mixed?  The exact same way as the DVDA mix?  Or is that variable per DVD?  

PaulG partially addressed these, but didn't explain the DVDA spec fully. &nbsp;DD or DTS or both or neither all seem possible. &nbsp;
I only have a regular DVD player for now.  Someday I'll get a universal player.</font>

 

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Duff,
There will always be a dolbydigital track on the disc (ithink it's the law)
Two ways of finding out are, If your in the store READ THE BACK OF THE JEWEL CASE. If not, use the internet (google it)
and you should get all the info you need about a particular disc. &nbsp;Just make sure that dvd-a or sacd is part of the question.

Peter m.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#000000'>To reply to your questions, Duff;
1. &nbsp;No, a DVD-A needn't have a DTS track, but it always has a DD track. &nbsp;Yes, this is part of the spec, I think. &nbsp;Maybe down the road if DVD-A catches on a little more that could be changed. &nbsp;IMO it's a waste of space that I wish they'd omit, but YMMV. &nbsp;DTS is on the outside looking in at the DVD-A standard.

2. Maybe the same, maybe different. &nbsp;Totally depends on the producer. &nbsp;Ditto for the same album in different formats (be it music or movies).</font>