Post by M_Dixon October 28, 2011 (1 of 58)
|
|
Hello again,
Thanks to everyone who's offered advice on the SACD front. While I haven't made any decisions thus far, I'd like to take a moment and ask for reactions to DVD-A and Blu-ray audio as possible choices for my small record label that'll produce solo and chamber music of the last 125 years or so.
Thus far Blu seems much more attractive to me as a small label owner because there are no mandatory compression technologies required and plenty of manufacturers close by. I can put a 5.1 uncompressed stream on a disc at 24/192, giving me a frequency response close to that of SACD.
Now I know there are a lot of supporters of DSD out there, and I like it as well, but I won't be able to afford the production equipment for quite some time. I do think that 24/192 is a solid alternative, and I already own the equipment.
Because my recordings will be 24/192 PCM anyway, would anyone here have a reason to avoid making a purchase that was DVD-A or Blu?
And one last question: for releases that are unlikely to sell 1,000 copies, how do folks feel about purchasing well packaged releases on recordable media? Of course I'd be careful to use archival quality discs, and would offer downloads as well.
|
|
|
Post by DSD October 28, 2011 (2 of 58)
|
|
Matt if this helps any, many of us own Universal players that play both SACD and DVD-Audio and many BluRay players also play DVD-Audio. The biggest complaint against DVD-Audio is having to access the menu to select high resolution 2 channel stereo from the menu, multichannel high-res is usually the default. Whereas with SACD one only has to choose once in the original setup if one wants the default to be Stereo or Multichannel, in that sense SACD is a much more intelligently designed format.
|
|
|
Post by kaalkop October 28, 2011 (3 of 58)
|
|
M_Dixon said:
...I can put a 5.1 uncompressed stream on a disc at 24/192...
AFAIK this is not possible...at least not with DVD audio.
Don't know with Blu ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
M_Dixon said:
Hello again,
Thanks to everyone who's offered advice on the SACD front. While I haven't made any decisions thus far, I'd like to take a moment and ask for reactions to DVD-A and Blu-ray audio as possible choices for my small record label that'll produce solo and chamber music of the last 125 years or so.
Thus far Blu seems much more attractive to me as a small label owner because there are no mandatory compression technologies required and plenty of manufacturers close by. I can put a 5.1 uncompressed stream on a disc at 24/192, giving me a frequency response close to that of SACD.
Now I know there are a lot of supporters of DSD out there, and I like it as well, but I won't be able to afford the production equipment for quite some time. I do think that 24/192 is a solid alternative, and I already own the equipment.
Because my recordings will be 24/192 PCM anyway, would anyone here have a reason to avoid making a purchase that was DVD-A or Blu?
I am a firm believer in ALL hi~rez formats and it would be probably be cheaper to mass produce DVD~A and or blu~ray (using domestic pressing facilities) rather than burden yourself with overseas pressing facilities.
You should probably talk to NAXOS, USA who have first released hi~rez product in DVD~A, then SACD and now blu~ray Audio. They are releasing Schubert's complete symphonies in 5.1 96/24 DTS Master Audio on a single BD disc and the price, usually under $20 list.
Yes, this is SA~CD.net and our first priority is SACD which is capable of holding RBCD/Stereo and Mch on a single disc.
But for an upstart company where money may be a concern, depending on overseas pressing facilities can be rather nightmarish.
Or you can also enlist the services of the Super Audio Center in Colorado who can take your master tapes and do all the authoring etc. by very skilled personnel and turn them into sonic masterpieces provided your original recording (DSD preferred, of course/ but 24/192 is superb, as well)) is up to par.
|
|
|
Post by Johnno October 28, 2011 (5 of 58)
|
|
DSD said:
Matt if this helps any, many of us own Universal players that play both SACD and DVD-Audio and many BluRay players also play DVD-Audio. The biggest complaint against DVD-Audio is having to access the menu to select high resolution 2 channel stereo from the menu, multichannel high-res is usually the default. Whereas with SACD one only has to choose once in the original setup if one wants the default to be Stereo or Multichannel, in that sense SACD is a much more intelligently designed format.
And many of us don't own universal players as I, for one, made a decision early on to support SACD and SACD only.
|
|
|
Post by M_Dixon October 28, 2011 (6 of 58)
|
|
kaalkop said:
AFAIK this is not possible...at least not with DVD audio.
Don't know with Blu ray.
Correct, DVD-A only supports 5.1 at 96 khz, though stereo can be 192. I was referring to blu ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol
DVD-A is dead. Blu-ray as an audio format is all but non-existent. The latter works for opera and live concerts (where there is a video stream) ... but as an audio-only format, you are looking at a niche within a niche within a niche.
By the way, most people here don't use universal players to play their CDs / SACDs ... they have dedicated players (universal players are probably a bit more prevalent for the multi-channel crowd).
|
|
|
|
|
|
M_Dixon said:
there are a lot of supporters of DSD out there, and I like it as well, but I won't be able to afford the production equipment for quite some time. I do think that 24/192 is a solid alternative
Sure - 24/192 works really nicely on SACD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
possible ways
1. Hybrid SACD - plays on all cd players.
2. dual inventory- Blu-ray and RBCD - Naxos' way. Ever resulted good? No.
3. Blu-ray - real niche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
M_Dixon said:
Hello again,
Thanks to everyone who's offered advice on the SACD front. While I haven't made any decisions thus far, I'd like to take a moment and ask for reactions to DVD-A and Blu-ray audio as possible choices for my small record label that'll produce solo and chamber music of the last 125 years or so.
Thus far Blu seems much more attractive to me as a small label owner because there are no mandatory compression technologies required and plenty of manufacturers close by. I can put a 5.1 uncompressed stream on a disc at 24/192, giving me a frequency response close to that of SACD.
First, forget DVD-A. That's dead and will get you nowhere.
SACD may be a bigger market now in classical, but I think the future is Blu-ray, particularly with video for live concert performances. Both media are niche markets, of course, as is all of classical. Personally, I find Blu-ray audio stunning, even at 48K/24 bit. But, in 192K, you might have a real audiophile hot special, that would be widely sought after, though I think increased resolution has sharply diminishing returns. I think it's the added bit depth of hi rez that offers the biggest sonic payoff. But, many people would be swayed by the 192K, because there is not much out there at that resolution. Right now, Blu-ray is the main focus of collecting recordings by me and a number of other hi rez Mch friends.
Either way, you must record in Mch for widest appeal, with an alternate stereo "layer", of course. And, by all means, avoid the "in the round" presentation of 2L, AIX and Reference Recordings with ensembles. Stick with an audience perspective for widest appeal.
I honestly do not think Blu-ray gives up anything sonically to SACD, but there are some other valid points here in this thread. Mainly, the CD-layer compatibility of SACD even beyond the SACD market, which Blu-ray lacks. Blu-ray's PCM is much more amenable to downloads, on the other hand.
By all means, contact Naxos. They have world-wide disk distribution for niche labels that is second to none. They appear to distribute the lion's share of classical SACD and Blu-ray here in the US.
|
|
