Post by eesau September 24, 2006 (21 of 30)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Use of DSD is not the cause SACD cannot be played on PCs. In fact, some of the more recent Sony VAIO PCs can handle DSD but not SACD.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/sony_blu-ray_dsd_viao/
The fact that SACD cannot be read by PC DVD-ROM drives was achieved through other measures, on purpose.
Concerning copy protection measures, SACD employs *five* 'layers'. It's remarkable how little appreciation record companies have shown for the fact that after six years it still hasn't been hacked.
As for streaming, I don't have any problem owning discs. The more, the merrier. I love being surround (pun intended) by my collection of SACDs, CDs and LPs, which I literally am while writing this in my living room.
Hi,
yes there is other security and it has not been cracked ... but is it because of
the "five layers" or because most advanced crackers don't have interest in doing it?
The news you referred, states:
"Despite the support for DSD, SACDs can't be played on future Vaios. Sony will not build SACD disc drives into its notebooks or PCs, as Super Audio CD requires the use of high-end receivers and loudspeakers."
Sounds weird, doesn't it but then they tell that
"However, home studio and home audio enthusiasts and creators can achieve the same high definition and surround sound on their PC without affecting background CPU performance, Sony claims."
To me this comment shows that they are adding a DSD chip (no CPU needed) to the Vaio computer so that you can make DSD files from your PCM files and also play them for checking the outcome. And then you could send that data to the SACD manufacturer. This is good, but a little late, I think.
Esa
|
|
|
Post by shokhead September 25, 2006 (22 of 30)
|
|
SACD and DVD-A is not geared towards joe blow at BB and CC. The HiRes disc are of interest only to us few. Most are only throwing in a reg cd for music,nice and simple. It takes 6 analogs to work these and but for us few{% wise}anyone that expected SACD and DVD-A to big big sellers like cds were looking for the pot of gold. If they both doubled the titles available that would be great for us and of little interest to joe blow,imo of course.
|
|
|
Post by Eureka October 4, 2006 (23 of 30)
|
|
Daland said:
I think that both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are irrelevant for the audio market. Most people are not even prepared to buy CDs. So why should they pay a much higher price for the new formats?
The music industry simply can't get its act together. They don't realize that there are two completely different market segments: people who care about quality and people who don't, people who really listen to music and people who don't. In any other industry the people in charge would pursue a two-track strategy, targeting cheap products at one segment and more expensive products at the other. But the music industry is obsessed with quantity rather than quality, with video rather than audio. In this way they are undermining their own customer base.
Maybe Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will not even catch on in the video market. Most people are content with the current state of DVD technology. And they know from past experience that there will be an acute lack of software for many years to come. Technology without content is a big problem nowadays.
All we can do is to await the outcome of the latest format war. In the meantime it would give me great comfort if the labels producing SACDs were to shift their focus from third-rate works and composers to more important ones.
I agree 100%. If either format catches on, it will be at least 6 years before there is any significant titles at a reasonable price.
The recording studios simply aren't that interested when the vast majority of their customers are more interested in what MP3s they can load into their ipods. We need to support the smaller record labels like Chesky, Pentatone and Telarc to keep the SACD format alive as long as possible.
I'm going with SACD because I'm getting too old to wait for future formats (that might make it). There is a lot of classical music on SACD but I sure wish they would record more jazz.
|
|
|
Post by Goodwood October 4, 2006 (24 of 30)
|
|
The future of high res is safe. MP3'ers will get increasing bit rates without having to buy "discs" and even high res storage requirements are beginning to look trivial. If we are willing to pay, they are willing to make. Multi-standard players will continue to be the answer. I won't buy an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player alone. I will wait, like I did last time, for a multi-standard player.
I just wish they would seriously get these technologies to market (rather than the brushed aluminium, hyper lit up - unobtanium chassis players currently on offer), then we can have some fun end enjoy music again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if drift a little off-topic here but I came across this interesting quote in Consumer Electronics Daily this week. It's from an article by Paul Gluckman about the CEA Industry Forum in San Francisco this Monday. The panelists got grilled by the audience members over the present format war, HD-DVD vs Blu-ray Disc.
>>Pioneer Senior Vp Andy Parsons said his company was uniquely suited to know that a dual-format player wouldn’t resolve the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD war. When Pioneer marketed a dual-format DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD player, many came forward and said “thank goodness” for a product that would end that format squabble, Parsons said: “But it didn’t happen that way.” He said “most people in the channel” rejected the product.
|
|
|
Post by Johnbs October 20, 2006 (26 of 30)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor quoted:
>>Pioneer Senior Vp Andy Parsons said his company was uniquely suited to know that a dual-format player wouldn’t resolve the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD war. When Pioneer marketed a dual-format DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD player, many came forward and said “thank goodness” for a product that would end that format squabble, Parsons said: “But it didn’t happen that way.” He said “most people in the channel” rejected the product.
Amazing! If you read the web forums that focus on high-res and/or surround sound, there are many people buying universal format DVD players precisely because they can handle SACD and DVD-A. I am certain that has helped Pioneer and is now copied by other manufacturers such as Denon, Sony etc.
I think the same consumers (including me) are now watching to see whether Blu-ray or HD DVD players will support SACD and DVD-A.
John
|
|
|
Post by ramesh March 23, 2007 (27 of 30)
|
|
BBC Opus Arte are releasing on April 2 a HD DVD of Swan Lake.
No region code; picture 1080i; sound '2.0 & 5.0 48kHz/24 bit DTS surround'
|
|
|
|
|
|
ramesh said:
BBC Opus Arte are releasing on April 2 a HD DVD of Swan Lake.
No region code; picture 1080i; sound '2.0 & 5.0 48kHz/24 bit DTS surround'
What exactly does the "DTS" mean? Do we have 5 channels of discrete 48kHz 24 bit sound or not? Also (IMO) 48kHz doesn't really cut it. I would want at least 192 or preferably 384kHz myself.
On the other hand, just today, I really enjoyed watching my favorite violinist play Vivaldi's Four Seasons with the Academy of St Martin in the Fields in stereo on a BBC Opus Arte standard DVD. I wonder if that was in 96kHz 24 bit sound?
(April will be a big month for Windsurfer, Ms Fischer will be giving a recital only 10 miles from my house and another a few days later only 2-1/2 hours away and then I get to hear her play the Beethoven Violin Concerto in Philadelphia, (that is a six hour trip) PLUS her Brahms recording is due for release here!) :> )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
What exactly does the "DTS" mean? Do we have 5 channels of discrete 48kHz 24 bit sound or not? Also (IMO) 48kHz doesn't really cut it. I would want at least 192 or preferably 384kHz myself.
DTS is short for Digital Theater Systems and this company's multichannel audio codec. Like Dolby Digital, it uses compression techniques including matrixing (in other words, the channels are not stored discretely). DTS is generally regarded as higher fidelity than Dolby Digital due to lower compression i.e. higher bitrate: 768 kbps vs 448 kbps.
|
|
|
Post by Sam March 24, 2007 (30 of 30)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
DTS is short for Digital Theater Systems and this company's multichannel audio codec. Like Dolby Digital, it uses compression techniques including matrixing (in other words, the channels are not stored discretely).
No, DD and DTS are both discrete. They are lossy compression methods (like MP3).
But "DTS" in this context could be referring to the lossless compression method from DTS, which is optional on HD-DVD and Blu-ray (along with Meridian/Dolby's lossless compression, and plain old uncompressed audio).
Lossless surround sound is an advantage that HD-DVD/Blu-ray has over DVD-Video.
Getting back to the main topic of the thread, I don't see any point in audio-only releases on HD-DVD/Blu-ray. Audio with video, yes, by all means.
|
|
