DVD-Audio Hybrid format?

Unlike DVD-V, there are no regions on DVD-A. They'll play everywhere, and their content is the same around the world (ie the disc is identical the world over).

Not that 99% of people outside of North America have to worry about region coding anyway...

 

Interesting dream - I'd be willing to wager 50 cents (American) that when The Fabs go hi-rez, the redbook layer will be No-Noised ala that #1 Hits disc. Next scary scenario - those digital clean-up tools for SACD and/or DVD-A will have been marketed - I'm thinking Mr. Mew goes to town. Then, we'll get the screw-ups that plagued the standard EMI cd's. Even when EMI dragged their feet in the 80's with the initial Beatles cd's, the end results were less than stellar - they could have found alla the proper 1st generation tapes, located the right playback machines, not gone for dadgummed mono for the first 4 albums... I REALLY hope I'm wrong, but EMI doesn't give me much hope.

EMI has been very guilty of botching Beatles reissues; they won't turn the project over to Steve, who has an almost manical knowledge of Beatle's pressings/best sounding sources AND refuses to No-Noise/Sonic Solutions things - I think that once they do appear, they're gonna displease a lot of folks. Corse, they'll sell a mountain of them and I'll look like a jackass for being such a Luddite. As for surround, maybe from Revolver on some interesting things could be done - I'd be willing to give them a listen (but I ain't gonna go surround - my wife can't stand the modest stereo set-up I have now, so I'll have to visit yer pad for an audition)...

 

Don't listen. You will never want to go back.

 

Nope - I'm a 2 channel man (although mono seems to be entering my thoughts a a lot more these days)....

 

That's what I thought as well. The older you get the more you realize that you must keep your mind open for new things and go out on a limb and try it. I did. Now I know that I will never go back to stereo. Things are much more interesting when they are enveloping you.

 

I know this isn't a very practical solution, but seeing as disc manufacturing (redbook, DVD, SACD) costs next to nothing anyway - how else to explain the billions of AOL discs that arrive in all post boxes every week? -, wouldn't it be cheaper and easier for them to include two discs in the same package - a standard redbook plus a DVD-A disc? No complicated physical layering/gluing, no special machines needed, less manufacturing costs, I'm sure.

I know. I suppose it would needlessly confuse a lot of people ("which disc is what?") and/or some corporate bean counter figures the extra disc which costs a whopping 1.3 cents to make adds 0.04 cents additional freight costs (these numbers are arbitrary, BTW), so no go.

I for one am somewhat suspicious about the longevity of a glued-together disc, be it dual-layered SACD or a "flipper". Perhaps my concerns are unwarranted, but common sense tells me all glued-together items will - not "if" but "when" - one day become unglued. Now whether this natural process happens in a few years or 400 years is the real question, of course.

And not to thread crap, but all this ongoing industry talk and confusion about DVD-A, SACD, multi-channel, dual layers, flippers, bad marketing, watermarking, copy protection, etc., etc. only alienates the tiny percentage of the public who even cares about this in the first place - including me.

And knowing full well that, say, a Steve Hoffman-mastered Beatles set on old-fashioned 16 bit redbook - mono/stereo - CD (with 100% hardware compatibility) would undoubtedly sound far, far superior to 99% of the gruesome mastering jobs that will be slapped onto whatever this week's hi-rez marekting scheme happens to be (requiring god knows what hardware which may or may not be compatible this week - computer ROM drives, anyone?) ... ah! No further comment necessary here, is there?

And, no I'm not against hi-rez at all. But I'm continually amazed at the blundering and sheer stupidity of those in control of it. I mean, really! This type of marketing incompetence and confusion makes quad, Elcasset and MiniDisc (which I do like and use, BTW) marketing campaigns seem like huge successes, comparatively speaking! What is wrong with these people?!

I'm reminded of a quote by Milan Kundera in 'Immortality' -

"The brilliant ally of their own gravediggers."

OK, enough of my ranting. Sorry for the outburst! Carry on!

 

I still get the impression that the current marketing of these discs favors the surround mixes over and above the high resolution stereo mixes. Even though I do not have a DVD-A setup, I have bought 4 or 5 of these discs just to check out the surround mixes on the DVD-V layer.

I think any dual layer scenario compatible with standard CD players would probably eliminate DVD-V compatible and "higher" bitrate PCM versions some of these discs now have. To the best of my knowledge, DVD-A material does not share the same layer as DVD-V material. We also know that the CD material will also require it's own layer. Unless they have managed to come up with a three layer sandwich, something that currently exists must go.....

So while flippers or hybrids MIGHT be a good marketing strategy in the long run, they will loose that portion of their current customer base (initially) that seeks compatibility with their DVD-V setups. This may encourage sales of proper DVD-A units, or just leave more people sitting on the fence. I know that the Dark Side of The Moon and Stones hybrids did not get me into the shop looking for an SACD player. The Stones CD layer was so much improved that I was content, and the generally poor reviews of the Dark Side CD layer had me avoiding the disc altogether.

I think the DVD-A camp spent too much time touting their surround capability. It also MAY have been a mistake to include DVD-V compatible material to sample this layer. I wonder how many sales of DVD-A discs went to people that DO NOT have DVD-A capability.

 

And that's the way it should be.

As far as I know; Dolby, DTS and DVD-A (MLP) are just files on the disc not different layers.

I agree. DVD-A's already have backwards compatibility with Dolby and DTS. There is no need for a CD layer on a DVD disc. It is a DVD after all and who would want 16 bit sound when they have 24 bit sound vailable to them?

And so they should have. Like it or not the main reason for DVD-A is surround sound. The DVD-V files are there for backwards compatibility. People not having DVD-A capability can purchase these discs and get Dolby and DTS surround. When and if they get DVD-A capabilty, they can hear the superior 24 bit sound from the MLP stream.

 

Well, in regards to the question of them having to do away with the DVD-V compatibility I would say - I don't think so. You are right, I believe, when you say that the DVD-A and DVD-V programs do not share the same layer, but AFAIK if a 'flipper' disc is done with a 'Redbook' side, there is no reason why they would have to drop the DVD-V portion. One side would be a dual layered DVD and the other a redbook CD. No problems there. The idea of having a CD 'layer', it seems, has already been put to rest as they would not be compatible with the vast mojaority of DVD players already on the market.

 

The reason they want and need a CD layer is to make them compatible with the hundreds of millions of CD players in the world, that way they can employ some 'stealth' marketing tactics by doing single inventory releases in a similar fashion to the SACD camp. It makes a lot of sense, because obviously just being backwards compatible with DVD players and having surround mixes isn't working, or they wouldn't be talking about CD 'layers' and flippers.

 

Well I guess for the vast majority this is true. But as far as I am concerned, if I had the redbook layer I would never play it. I might make a copy to play in my car though.

 

I'm like you. I never play the Redbook layer on hybrid SACD's at home, but occasionally I do burn copies for friends or to play in the car or DiscMan.

 

Only if you want to hear The Beatles.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Most DVD-A discs only use a single layer anyway. Yep, high-res stereo, high-res surround, DD and/or DTS all on a single 4.3GB layer. Works for most albums.

The DVD-V compatible section doesn't have to be a second layer, it's just a different subdirectory in the file structure.

 

This isn't accurate. First, as Michael said, the DVD-A and DVD-A portions are not on different "layers", but different subsets of data. When a DVD player sees a DVD-A or DVD-V, it sees one big file with other files within it, regardless of the disc physical properties (single or double layer).

Secondly, a flipper disc will be able to accomodate a 9.4Gb dual layer side and a cd side and still be within the appropriate thickness to still conform to the cd spec.

Isn't this a bit like saying that SACD should not have included a cd layer. You need backward compatibility if you want to sell anything. That's why the DVD-a group is now adding a cd layer.

 

Actually that's what Warner Music did in the Hong Kong market with its early Stereo SACDs. Buyers bought a package called a "1+1" which contained 2 discs: a Single Layer Stereo SACD and a separate conventional CD disc.

Now that there is a Hybrid SACD plant in Hong Kong, the newer Warner Music HK SACD titles are 1 disc Hybrid SACD packages.

 

(Put away your wallet before you read this, Guy)


DVD-A for car audio is already here, AFAIK.

 

I know! Maybe in a year or so....................