What is the main purpose of DVD-Audio format?

I only run 2 channel. Do these types of discs support that or they really for surround systems?

Thanks.

David

 

High Resolution first and foremost, in my understanding.

 

Some DVD-A discs have a hi-res 2-channel track but not all of them. If you have a DVD-A compatible player and the discs you are interested in have a 2-channel option, then you may want to explore DVD-A.

 

I believe the question should be phrased, "What was the main purpose of DVD-Audio format?"

 

DVD-A is a flop IMO. You can get DVD video which includes the DVD-A in both stereo and surround sound, so the audio only discs seem pointless to me. I am not sure if all DVD video players can play a DVD-A disc, but I believe that they can. If not, it is completely worthless IMO.

In the day that there was only 16/44, the idea of a 24/96 audio format promised higher resolution and greater dynamic range. It delivered, however the trouble was not the limits of 16/44 but the limited development and implementation of the 16/44 (redbook CD) players and the proper recording and mastering of the software. Now, many very high performance CD players are out that can deliver better sound, again IMO, than the 24/96 format. These CD players, although only spinning a 16/44 recording, manage to squeeze out of that a more realistic sounding signal (yet again IMO) by utilizing new 24/192 DACs and excellent analog output stages and power supplies.

Around the same time as DVD-A was being promoted, SACD was also coming along and although it was not compatible with every DVD player, it had a smoother, more analog-like sound, IMO. I didn't "invest" in that either.
-Bill

 

To put yet another confusing, incompatible format on the market.

 

PIA, but it sounds better.
Regards, Sam

 

Not in the Steven Wilson / Burning Shed world...

 

Good point...it must still be alive.

 

The main purpose of DVD-A was DRM. The DVD format (just don't record video) already had enough room and spec for great sounding high resolution audio, so DVD-A was an un-necessarily complex waste.

 

DVD-A was a way to change the media format in the audio world: while DVD-V can only support as a audio format 48KHz or 96KHz sample rate, and the support of the 96KHz is very player-depending, and for multichannel it offered only lossy (DD and DTS) format, due to total bitrate restrictions), DVD-A was designed to be very versatile on all digital audio formats: 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4 and 192. The first 4 sample rates are possible not only in stereo but in multichannel too, while the last two are available only for stereo (always for total bitrate issue), with bit dpth at 16, 20 or 24 bits.
Having the 44.1KHz and multiplies on a DVD format is important in order to NOT resample everything that has been already recorded at 44.1KHz to 48KHz, thus keeping quality at best, something that DVD-V can't do since it it locked by design at 48KHz or 96KHz.

 

No, they cannot. It is rather the case that all DVD-A capable players can also play DVD-video. Most of the DVD-A players now are universal and also do SACDs.

 

They may as well have not called it "DVD Audio." That would lead people to believe their DVD players could play it.

 

All DVD-Video players should be able to play video area (VIDEO_TS) content of the DVD-A disk (if any). Only DVD-Audio badged players will play audio area (AUDIO_TS) content of DVD-A disk though.

 

People will get confused no matter what you call it. If you look at the audio-visual equipment industry it's always been a near-incomprehensible buzzword and terminology parade for new products, designed to fool the consumer into desiring (or thinking they "need") the latest incremental technology upgrade. Confusion helps sales, apparently.

 

To kill the SACD format.

Mission accomplished.

 

Of course. The video content area on a DVD-A disk is DVD-Video, not DVD-Audio. Thanks for helping clarify that point.

 

Yeah, that's what I believed when I picked up my first DVD-A and it stopped me from buying more at the time. I felt that it was a waste if I wasn't going to get full use of the format. I've since relented - I have a DVD-A player now but it's part of my stereo-only setup, but I've picked up a couple of DVD-A's for the surround content even though it's lossy. There's quite a few DVD-A's that I chose not to buy a few years ago and I could kick myself because they're ridiculously expensive now.

This is correct - the important thing is to know what the disk offers and how it lines up with your equipment.

 

But didn't DVD-A precede SACD?

The problem with both of those formats was that very few people were going to upgrade their hardware again to play a new kind of music disc.

 

I believe the surround content on most, if not all DVD-As, is lossless and high resolution. It's the multi-channel audio (surround) content on DVD-video discs that is typically lossy and compressed, I think because the disc also has to have room for full video resolution of longer program material, such as a concert or movie.

 

But would that be true of the selections that are Dolby Digital or DTS? My understanding was that the MLP selections are lossless hi-res, but the Dolby and DTS selections are not.

 

I think you may be right about that. I've seen (and own one or two) DVD-A discs that have multiple audio playback formats included. For example, Neil Young's Harvest album can be played back as discrete multi-channel (DVD-A) or as DTS, according to the packaging. Likely the DTS option is included for people with DVD-video-only players. Paul Simon's You're the One album can be played lossless high res discrete multichannel on a DVD-A player, or with Dolby Digital on a DVD-Video player.

 

Yeah, all the DVD-A's I own have an MLP lossless selection and either Dolby or DTS options for regular DVD players, or both. And usually both stereo and multichannel options are in all available formats. I have always understood that only the MLP is lossless. I don't know if the Dolby or DTS selections are necessarily compressed but supposedly they are lossy. Some of them sound very good though - The Doors Perception albums sound great in DTS, and the Dolby surround on the Tommy DVD-A is perfectly satisfactory. The DTS surround on The Court Of The Crimson King is excellent.

 

The DVD format was capable of 2 channel 24/96 pcm out of the box. There were some audiophile labels releasing titles in this format. It was easy to master, produce and play. Threatened (IMO) it might take over CDs, Sony answered with the multichannel SACD. Then the DVD Forum answered with the multichannel DVD-A and all went down in a steaming pile.

 

Probably the greatest single tragedy in audio industry history. The DVD could have quietly succeeded and created a single-inventory, single-technology system for discs, whether audio only, or audio-visual. Then we could have had inproved sound quality accross the board without customers confused or burdened with too many decisions. Digital playback would have just gotten better by default. What the masses got instead was the "good enough" sound of CDs, MP3s, portable players, and earbuds.