DSOTM - SACD vs DVD-A Debate

I don't buy this. Like I said, there is no distinction if you do it RIGHT. The only way to do surround-sound right (for movies, for music, for birthday parties or barvitzmas) as you allude, is to use identical full-range speakers. Of course, this is just my opinion.

As for THX standards, maybe that's needed for lesser (satellite) systems, but if you've got a musical surround-sound system, it is going to be more than adequate for home theater. That's all I'm saying. If someone prioritizes their surround-sound system for music, and happens to use it for home theater (I'm describing myself here) then there is no distinction between optimizing for music vs. movies.

Unless of course we're talking about cranking that subwoofer for those big movie ka-booms. Is that what's in the THX spec? Anyway, I can live without that. I use a spectrum analyzer to blend my sub for as flat a response as I can achieve. All speakers are full-range and equidistant from the sweet-spot. I use an SPL meter to ensure that all speakers are in synch. I could describe this process for movies or music, there is no difference, to me, and I feel I am doing it right.

 

I am no fan of Dolby Digital for music, but I suspect that "swirly" sound you hear is not the result of compression. I suspect that you are listening to the downmix of the DD 5.1 mix. I would think some of the crazy things done for the 5.1 mix would definately make the downmix sound like it was "underwater".

- Gabe

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: DVD

I've added the british spelling to the dictionary.

Luke/mike - I think the truth is somewhere in between. The hi-tech types do tend to be into home theater/full surround setups. Heck, if it weren't popular there wouldn't be 400 gazillion surround receivers on the market. Those things are expensive to design and make - you betcha that they sell them in quantity, otherwise all the home electronics companies who make them would be out of business.

The flip side is - yes, your average Grandmother isn't likely to have a 5.1 setup. It's all in who you ask.

HZ

 

That is not exactly true. THX recomends identical, full range speakers for all sides. They require the front three channels to be identical and don't reccomend satellite set-ups.

The requirements in speaker placement is different for music and movies. If done properly, the surround channels for 5.1 should be to the sides, not the back as is suggested for music.

The other fly in the ointment is that, from what I can tell, there are many different ways new multi-channel music tracks are being mixed and there doesn't seem to be any standard that is adhered to. We have no way of knowing how the producer intends for their multi-channel tracks to be reproduced with regard to speaker placement (Chesky and Telarc are exceptions).

While your setup can work very well for movies, it is not setup in the way that the movie was intended to be reproduced.

Indeed, the difference in set-up for music compared to movies is one of the issues that most audio and music writers don't seem to address.


- Gabe

 

Gabe, you've hit upon a very good point: the intended speaker placement of the mix. I will admit that this is probably much more consistent for movies than it is for music. I guess if one were to "properly" (in the very literal sense) set up their system for surround sound, they would reposition their speakers to accommodate each mix! Okay, we've got to draw the line somewhere!

I've experimented with many different speaker layouts to find the one that works best for surround music in a majority of cases, and I found that I prefer a setup where the fronts are 30 degrees from center and the rears 90 degrees from center, placed slightly behind the head position. This may not be ideal for ALL surround music mixes, but it accommodates a majority of them, and I really like how it sounds.

Now, it just so happens that this same layout provides for an exceptional surround movie experience as well. So, I come back to my assertion that there is no difference between optimizing for music vs. music (as long as your priority is music). As usual, I must add the disclaimer that this is true for my situation and preferences only. Your mileage may vary.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DVD

As you wrote, there are obviously a lot of people with some type of surround-sound system connected to their dvd players given the number of receivers and home-theater-in-a-box type setups sold. Many of them might not even be set up properly for watching dvd's, but that's another matter.

Perhaps it's the kind of people I'm attracted to, but I know a few people with good quality surround systems. Almost everyone else I know well enough to talk about this stuff with has his/her dvd player (or vcr, if there is no dvd player) hooked up through at least a stereo. Maybe it's because I help them connect it if they haven't already done so themselves. I've never heard a tv that had decent sound coming out of its speakers.

 

Regarding THX speaker systems:

The front three have strict dispersion chracterisitcs. The vertical dispersion is quite narrow to avoid relfections from the floor and ceiling. This results in a cleaner sound, more focused sound, especially during panning effects. Unfortunately--for some people--it causes music to sound rather sterile (i.e. too precise sounding).

The rears have to be dipolar (or BIpolar? I forgot!) to ensure a nice, airy "cloud" of sound. Great for movie sound effects, NOT good for discrete multichannel music (for those ambient-type DSP modes they are O.K.)

And the sub has specific bass extension and output capabilities--since Mr. Lucas' movies usually feature Bass From Hell I'm sure a THX sub could handle music bass with no problems.

Surround speakers for movies are supposed to be placed above your listening position. I don't know what the surround music standard says about this, but personally speaking for music I much prefer them at ear level. Having sax's and voices floating above my head is very weird sounding. And anyway, this way you just have to buy some stands to set them on, instead of trying to find a stud to screw a wall bracket into.

One thing to keep in mind as one reads the rest of this post: I regard accurate music reproduction more highly than movie effects reproduction. I like watching movies a lot, but the sound effects are just there to augment the story, which is why I'm watching the movie in the first place!

On the subject of the supposedly "huge" expense of a full-range 5.1 speaker system: I realize standards of quality are a very subjective thing, but the people that whine the most about this are people that seem to believe in the more....ahem......mystical aspects of audio. "Mystical" usually meaning very expensive (with no practical reason given for WHY it's so expensive) very touchy to set-up and needing constant tweaking. That is all I will say about that.

Anyway, for us people living on Planet Earth, a full-range system needn't blow you out the water financially. It woudn't be INexpensive but the result would justify the money spent--that is, if you really like surround music. All the following I think should be bought with a matching sub with at least a 10" driver:

For a good basic system five of Boston Acoustics would great IMO. Or, if you have enough room, use these as the front three: new Boston CR95 floorstanders A step up would be these Vandersteen's. Now, these guys would need the wifey involved in the buying decision--they are not exactly small & easy to place in the typical living room. And my last recommendation: Infinity Kappa 200's Small but high-quality (to me anyway!); look nice; & not outrageously expensive. So I think the WAF would be high. And of course this 5.1 system would sound very good wiht only a small lack of low bass because of the small front mains.

One teensy problem though--where do you get that fifth speaker? I haven't solved this yet. Send a dozen roses to Infinity's marketing person, or tickets to the next Stone's concert in Massachusetts for that company's director???

I'm not a believer in "audio voodoo" speaker cable, interconnects or speaker stands so the above choices were made with that in mind (12 gauge Megacable from RatShak all around would do fine for me).

Good sound is just not that hard to do if you're listening to the MUSIC.

[T]

 

DVD-A Has A Marketing Issue!

Had this been released on DVD-A, the title itself would have sold probably 10-100 times less than as it would as a hybrid SACD!

I'm sure above everything else the producers wanted to ensure that this is a reissue for the masses, with the 5.1 mix being a nice add-on.


A DVD-A would have been a release for a small niche market only, what makes you think every Pink Floyd fan has a surround setup?

What about the millions of fans who are happy with their stereo systems and just want to enjoy the music in their car/office/portable stereo?


I simply believe Warner's approach of marketing an inherently audiophile format to a home theatre crowd is too challenging for this industry!

At the end of this year we'll likely be looking at on the order of 5-10 million sold SACD titles (compared to less than a million for DVD-A titles).
-wolf

 

Both are good formats. I, for one, and happy that it is coming ot on hi-rez period. I own both and both are set up for 5.1.

Thank you sony for persuing this title.

 

Is it true that they're still using audible watermarking on all DVD-A's?

 

Ah, but hybrid DVD-As are almost out as we speak. Plus, they could always do a dual release. The dual release of titles like 'Elvis #1' and 'Two Against Nature' has done nothing to hurt sales. Actually, dual releases probably generate more sales. But DVD-A hybrids will make that moot.

I don't think all Pink Floyd fans have surround setups. Just that tons more people have DVD-V surround setups that DVD-A is backwards compatible with. Most people (including those with surround setups) don't even know what SACD is.

Look, I have both formats (and have spent a ton of money to be set up for both), and I like them both. But if you make a cool surround mix and you want a lot of people to hear it today, not five years from now, you release it on DVD-A. Period.

 

Well - I have my DVD-V player hooked up to a 5.1 surround system. I am neither SACD or DVD-A capable. I WOULD have bought a DVD-A of this title just to check out the surround mix - but I will NOT buy a redbook remaster. IMHO - while I may not own THE BEST sounding version of DSOTM - I have yet to hear ANY mastering that sounds **** heel BAD. It was just a well recorded album. I don't know that I NEED to hear this any better than I've already heard.

Would have liked to hear the surround version, though.

 

Actually this is not the case when it comes to 5.1 discrete mixes. Dipolar speakers are part of the requirement when reproducing Dolby Pro Logic soundtracks, which have a mono surround track (and is bandwidth limited).

- Gabe

 

Actually this is not the case when it comes to 5.1 discrete mixes. Dipolar speakers are part of the requirement when reproducing Dolby Pro Logic soundtracks, which have a mono surround track (and is bandwidth limited).

- Gabe

 

Just a reminder about the "masses" and a another DSOTM stereo remaster:

They don't care.

And I really don't either. I've heard this album a bazillion times with two channels, but I sure as heck would be interested in hearing the surround version, since it gives music such a different "feel". I reluctantly bought The Moody Blues "Seventh Sojourn" on DTS' "5.1 music disc" just as I was getting into surround music in 2000--I had heard this music for years. But after giving it just two listens, it was like it almost a new album.

I'm sure most Pink Floyd fans are scratching their heads over all the excitement of this new disc.

[T]

 

Is there a way for Sony/Philips to renew or extend their patent on CD technology? You would think they would be looking for a way to do this since Sony owns the patents on SACD as well, and doesn't want a dual layer DVD competing with it.

 

Where did this idea come from that all dvd-audios are watermarked? Watermarking is optional.

And since watermarking for 99.999% percent of the population is inaudible, how do we know other.....ahem.....formats are NOT using it?

[T]

 

SACDs have watermarking but it is not embedded in the musical data as it is with DVD..

 

One of the main reasons SACD was created was because Sony/Philips patent on CD was not renewable.

Sony/Philips owns the SACD patent, but not the hybrid concept. That is owned by the DVD-V forum.


- Gabe

 

So far, no one has been reliably able to identify the watermark (as far as I know) that can be used in DVD-A. I haven't, although I'm not obsessed with finding it. The way I understand it, the watermark is random data bits in the data stream.


- Gabe