# The Future of DVD-Audio and SACD



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Steven Wilson, one of the leaders in surround mixing in the world of Progressive Rock (Porcupine Tree, King Crimson, Opeth, solo works), has released his latest surround productions on BluRay instead of DVD-Audio. Is the end of life for the DVD-Audio format in sight? Any thoughts?


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> Is the end of life for the DVD-Audio format in sight? Any thoughts?


Even BluRay has a liimited future but the end of life for DVD-A is in our rear-view mirrors already.


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't care either way as long as there is non-concert surround music being produced - but seems to be in very limited supply due to the limited appeal / preference for mobile audio by the masses


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

It's been some years since I've seen a new DVD-A released. I keep reading coments about the death of SACD and the lack of titles,but for classical music and, to a lesser degree, Jazz There is plenty of material still available. It would appear that sound quality is more important than portability for some. It will be intresting to see how the availability of hi-res online files impacts on this area.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

It seems pretty clear that the need for the special player made it pretty rough for DVD-A and SACD. And if I understand correctly, the surround mixes all involved lossy compression. BluRay allows for 7.1 mixes at up to 24/96 uncompressed/unencoded, and everybody has a player.

Kal:
What are the main factors giving BluRay a limited future path?


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

It's the limited resolution, max's out @ 1080p which gives us about 75% of the colors that our eye's can perceive. It was a nice upgrade, but a temporary path at best. I'm very excited about 4K as this will cover the full range that our eyes can handle.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> What are the main factors giving BluRay a limited future path?





Tonto said:


> It's the limited resolution, max's out @ 1080p which gives us about 75% of the colors that our eye's can perceive. It was a nice upgrade, but a temporary path at best. I'm very excited about 4K as this will cover the full range that our eyes can handle.


Nah. I think that all physical media will pass. Besides, I am myopic and color-blind.:blink:


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

AudiocRaver said:


> It seems pretty clear that the need for the special player made it pretty rough for DVD-A and SACD. And if I understand correctly, the surround mixes all involved lossy compression. BluRay allows for 7.1 mixes at up to 24/96 uncompressed/unencoded, and everybody has a player.
> 
> Kal:
> What are the main factors giving BluRay a limited future path?


Yeh, Blu-ray has all sorts of capability, but how many 7.1 24/96 recordings have you seen?
There are abundant 5.1 SACDs of very fine quality out there for the Classical music fan. The Blu-rays that are available are great ,( Fred Johnny Berg's flute piece was great) but no one's using the full capability of the medium. I really prefer physical media, but I've got to say that downloads appear to be the way things are going.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Thinking in the direction of downloads, what media players have 5.1 or 7.1 hi-res/hi-speed capability, or are at least headed in that direction?

The there's the HDMI issue. As a quasi-video entity (as with BluRay), hi-def music gets a ride into the AVR on HDMI. Is there a way to make HDMI happen for hi-def music? As I understand it, BluRay playability is pretty much locked out of PCs so far.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> Thinking in the direction of downloads, what media players have 5.1 or 7.1 hi-res/hi-speed capability, or are at least headed in that direction?


Dunno about "media players" but I can handle HD 5.1 with jRiver to some MCH DACs or with my Oppo 103/5 right now.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Kal Rubinson said:


> Dunno about "media players" but I can handle HD 5.1 with jRiver to some MCH DACs or with my Oppo 103/5 right now.


Just curious... to your knowledge can jRiver play and route a multi-track (5.1 or 7.1) flac or wav (no video) through a video board's HDMI output?


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> Just curious... to your knowledge can jRiver play and route a multi-track (5.1 or 7.1) flac or wav (no video) through a video board's HDMI output?


Dunno. Seems likely.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> Is the end of life for the DVD-Audio format in sight? Any thoughts?


I predicted from the get-go that DVD-A and SACD would never be more than a nitch medium that only audiophiles would embrace. It was DOA, there were just too many things going against it from the start.

* Competing formats never does anything good for a new medium.

* The requirement for a new DVD player was a real irritation.

* The 5.1 format required the listener to sit in one place for the duration, just like a movie. No one listens to music like that anymore, except in their cars.

* The whole 5.1 thing for music was unnatural and gimmicky to begin with. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing realistic about hearing the guitar player coming over your right shoulder. Show me the venue that features a “band in the round?”

* All the “attention” paid to re-mastering previous releases to these formats to give amazing improvements in sound quality - it was nothing that couldn’t have been done to a regular CD. With some of these things, the CD releases actually sounded noticeably better.

* But the real nail in the coffin was that the “record buying public” – young people, which is where the big money is – had already gravitated the _opposite direction_ from a high-rez audio format: MP3s.




AudiocRaver said:


> Kal:
> What are the main factors giving BluRay a limited future path?


Downloads. We’ve seen in the past that given a choice between picture quality and convenience, the public chooses convenience.




Tonto said:


> I'm very excited about 4K as this will cover the full range that our eyes can handle.


 I predict that 4K will be the next boondoggle.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> I predicted from the get-go that DVD-A and SACD would never be more than a nitch medium that only audiophiles would embrace. It was DOA, there were just too many things going against it from the start.
> 
> * Competing formats never does anything good for a new medium.
> 
> ...


The "Band in the round" thing , like the limited availability of SACDs seem applicable to pop music, but not classical. Several classical pieces ( Berlioz Requiem for example) employ music comming from different directions in the performance. .1 also gives the recording more a feeling of the reflected sound in the venue.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

koyaan said:


> The "Band in the round" thing , like the limited availability of SACDs seem applicable to pop music, but not classical. Several classical pieces ( Berlioz Requiem for example) employ music comming from different directions in the performance. .1 also gives the recording more a feeling of the reflected sound in the venue.


Agreed but there is a reason that the genre is called "popular." Most people, audiophiles or not, listen to that kind of music and, therefore, they represent the bulk of the mass market. Those of us who prefer classical are fortunate to have a significant range of choices in well-produced multichannel recordings but we have to accept that technology and the market are driven by the majority.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

If surround has become the standard for movies, what is to keep it from becoming the standard for music?


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> If surround has become the standard for movies, what is to keep it from becoming the standard for music?


When listening to music, (some/most) people move all over the place. For movies, the screen image nails their butts where the audio is effective.


----------



## rongon (Aug 23, 2012)

AudiocRaver said:


> If surround has become the standard for movies, what is to keep it from becoming the standard for music?


I think one reason surround hasn't become standard for listening to music is the quality of mixes available. Surround mixes are very hard to do for music without getting gimmicky. Many of the pop releases put you "inside the band," which is an uncomfortable place to be when you're listening to music. I hate it when the drums come from behind you, and things like that. 

I can imagine live concert recordings could be spectacular in surround, with the sound from the stage coming mostly from the L-C-R, with hall sound and the audience coming mostly from the rears. But some argue that that's just 'enhanced stereo.' 

--


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

rongon said:


> I think one reason surround hasn't become standard for listening to music is the quality of mixes available. Surround mixes are very hard to do for music without getting gimmicky. Many of the pop releases put you "inside the band," which is an uncomfortable place to be when you're listening to music. I hate it when the drums come from behind you, and things like that.
> 
> I can imagine live concert recordings could be spectacular in surround, with the sound from the stage coming mostly from the L-C-R, with hall sound and the audience coming mostly from the rears. But some argue that that's just 'enhanced stereo.'
> 
> --


My personal opinion: To a degree, one man's gimmick is another man's art. A lot of my favorite music is progressive rock and progressive metal (Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, King Crimson, early Yes, Todd Rundgren, Radiohead, Devin Townsend) with lots of effects, synthesizers, and unusual mixing techniques. With that style of music, there is plenty of opportunity for effects, echoes, doubling, alternate parts, and ambient sounds to come from non-ordinary directions and fit right in as part of the music in a surround mix.

It is understood that this is much less the case for a lot of rock and pop, and not the case at all for some music styles. Which means, sadly, that there is not zero use for surround mixes, just extremely little use for them. All my opinion, of course.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

rongon said:


> I can imagine live concert recordings could be spectacular in surround, with the sound from the stage coming mostly from the L-C-R, with hall sound and the audience coming mostly from the rears.
> --


No need to imagine. These already exist.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

AudiocRaver said:


> My personal opinion: To a degree, one man's gimmick is another man's art. A lot of my favorite music is progressive rock and progressive metal (Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, King Crimson, early Yes, Todd Rundgren, Radiohead, Devin Townsend) with lots of effects, synthesizers, and unusual mixing techniques. With that style of music, there is plenty of opportunity for effects, echoes, doubling, alternate parts, and ambient sounds to come from non-ordinary directions and fit right in as part of the music in a surround mix.
> 
> It is understood that this is much less the case for a lot of rock and pop, and not the case at all for some music styles. Which means, sadly, that there is not zero use for surround mixes, just extremely little use for them. All my opinion, of course.


Pink Floyd's multichannel SACD mix of _Wish You Were Here_ is a superb example of the surround gymnastics you mentioned in the first paragraph. That use of surround may not be applicable to classical or jazz, or..., but that doesn't mean such genres cannot benefit from a surround mix. I have a number of SACDs which employ the rears for a rather impressive conveyance of the acoustic space of the performance venue - turning my little ~600sq' listening room into a vast hall.

Regardless, Kal is correct in asserting that _all_ physical media is approaching its final day. Having transitioned from spinning silver discs to playing files via a Bryston BDP-1, I certainly appreciate the convenience inherent in the latter method. Storage is becoming ever more massive and inexpensive. I well remember the days when a 96MB disk drive ran on 208V/3-phase, was the size of a washing machine and cost $60k. A terabyte can now be powered by USB's meager current capability, fits in my pocket and costs less than $100. The march of technological progress gave way to a sprint which shows little sign of slowing. In another decade, WalMart may be selling a terabyte thumb drive for $8. 

Porcupine Tree's _Every Home is Wired_ is already true, but fiber will become ubiquitous before too long and transmission speeds will make streaming (which is already pretty impressive) every bit as good as playing physical media. At that point, what sense does it make to manufacture physical media? Decades ago, Frank Zappa proposed a satellite service for music delivery and part of his funding pitch focused on the ecological impact (not to mention the financial costs) of manufacturing and transporting those vinyl platters in cardboard sleeves. The day is coming and it probably isn't too far off. Aging codger that I may be, I welcome it.

-

Returning to the OP's question, I think Steven's choice to release _The Raven That Refused to Sing_ on Blu-Ray was quite judicious. Being an audio nut, I have a few SACD players, but nearly everyone has a Blu-Ray player. Ergo, Steven's release may be enjoyed by a greater audience - and it's another gem from a true prodigy.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Kal Rubinson said:


> No need to imagine. These already exist.


And as engaging as a good stereo soundstage can be, an ambient surround mix can go a step further in _really_ transporting you into a concert hall.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

kevin360 said:


> Returning to the OP's question, I think Steven's choice to release _The Raven That Refused to Sing_ on Blu-Ray was quite judicious. Being an audio nut, I have a few SACD players, but *nearly everyone has a Blu-Ray player.* Ergo, Steven's release may be enjoyed by a greater audience - and it's another gem from a true prodigy.


Precisely. And _nearly everyone_ has high-speed internet, which will only get faster quickly, so as the delivery of streamable HQ (non-lossy) surround mixes and 24/96 or 24/192 mixes becomes a trivial matter, we can hope that more artists will be motivated to undertake the extra work of putting them together for those who want them.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

I'd have to bet that SACDs will still be around for some time. By far and large they serve a niche market for classical music and I would bet that that market will be one of the last to give up physical media.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Very true, niche markets can have powerful voices. I thought newly-released vinyl would be long gone by now, but it is still thriving.

The format is also unique - DSDIFF, or Direct Stream Digital Interchange File Format - is not readily handled by media players or AVRs.

OTOH, legitimate 24/96 and 24/192 file sources are sprouting all over the place, with sound quality every bit:bigsmile: as great as SACD.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> Very true, niche markets can have powerful voices. I thought newly-released vinyl would be long gone by now, but it is still thriving.


 No classical, afaik.



> The format is also unique - DSDIFF, or Direct Stream Digital Interchange File Format - is not readily handled by media players or AVRs.


Rapidly changing. Most high-end AVRs or prepros will and so will some medial players. Multichannel DSD capability is rarer but exists.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Anyone know if DSDIFF is any _better sounding_ than a nice, straightforward 24/96 or 24/192 format? Is it worth continuing to bother with?


----------



## Mike0206 (Jul 14, 2013)

Isn't DSDIFF and SACD almost one in the same? Don't the producers use DSDIFF to store content or for reproduction into SACD? If that's the case would it really be any better for playback? I doubt it but I'm not sure. I always fall back to the argument that our ears only hear to 20khz and with cd quality playback at 44.1khz can we honestly hear a difference? Well I'd like to think we can cause SACD to me sounds better than 16/44.1 but I don't know if that's cause I want to hear a difference or what? I have a few recordings on my computer that I listen to at 24/192 but I really can't say I hear difference between those and 16/44.1. So I guess the question is would DSDIFF offer any more improvement than SACD does over 16/44.1. I have no idea! Lol.........it seems to me they both are recording at 1 bit but with high sampling rates so they would probably be pretty identical. However if they are recording natively using DSDIFF then I could see where DSDIFF could be slightly superior to SACD cause there would be no converting to a disc taking place. 


Did any of that make sense or did I just sound like a moron there? Lol sorry for the lengthy post.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Mike0206 said:


> Isn't DSDIFF and SACD almost one in the same? Don't the producers use DSDIFF to store content or for reproduction into SACD? If that's the case would it really be any better for playback? I doubt it but I'm not sure. I always fall back to the argument that our ears only hear to 20khz and with cd quality playback at 44.1khz can we honestly hear a difference? Well I'd like to think we can cause SACD to me sounds better than 16/44.1 but I don't know if that's cause I want to hear a difference or what? I have a few recordings on my computer that I listen to at 24/192 but I really can't say I hear difference between those and 16/44.1. So I guess the question is would DSDIFF offer any more improvement than SACD does over 16/44.1. I have no idea! Lol.........it seems to me they both are recording at 1 bit but with high sampling rates so they would probably be pretty identical. However if they are recording natively using DSDIFF then I could see where DSDIFF could be slightly superior to SACD cause there would be no converting to a disc taking place.
> 
> 
> Did any of that make sense or did I just sound like a moron there? Lol sorry for the lengthy post.


I should have been clearer in my post. Yes, SACD and DSDIFF are the same format. My question is this: With the technological availability of 24/96 or 24/192 recordings, which can be multichannel, which can already be downloaded, purchased on BluRay, are playable on any modern BluRay player & AVR, and playable on most PC media players and many portable media players... with that kind of capability in hand, is there any reason to bother updating SACD/DSDIFF technology to make it more transportable? Does SACD sound any better than the above? If not, what could be the reason for continuing its development?


----------



## Mike0206 (Jul 14, 2013)

AudiocRaver said:


> I should have been clearer in my post. Yes, SACD and DSDIFF are the same format. My question is this: With the technological availability of 24/96 or 24/192 recordings, which can be multichannel, which can already be downloaded, purchased on BluRay, are playable on any modern BluRay player & AVR, and playable on most PC media players and many portable media players... with that kind of capability in hand, is there any reason to bother updating SACD/DSDIFF technology to make it more transportable? Does SACD sound any better than the above? If not, what could be the reason for continuing its development?


 Ahh I see now, sorry I can take a while to catch on to the lingo sometimes. I think the benefit is in the sampling rate honestly. At 2.82Mhz In SACD and DSDIFF it has more extended frequency response and more dynamic range than that of any 192khz playback. I still think IMO that SACD is far superior to 24/192 cause as I stated earlier I am hard pressed to hear a major difference between 24/96, 24/192 and even 16/44.1. But I have heard a clear difference in SACD. That might have to do with the fact that the SACD's sampling is at 64 times that of cd quality where as 24/192 is only 4.5 times standard quality.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Interesting.

Did some research online, there are varying opinions. Some claim DSD is a more ear-friendly format with its high sample rate. But you have to capture the initial recording in the DSD format and maintain integrity through the editing and mastering process. This means special equipment, expensive dedicated equipment, like the expensive multi-track machines of old. Mixing and effects are difficult to achieve, require either ultra-high-frequency oversampling and processing or conversion to PCM, processing, then conversion back to DSD. Then there is the noise level of DSD, very high compared to 24/192 PCM, but largely "shaped" into the ultrasonic range.

In the PCM world, 24/192 comes close in resolution to DSD, although still requires the ear-unfriendly steep anti-aliasing filters, although at much higher frequencies than we are used to with a CD. And PCM recording is easily done on PC hardware.

So it is not totally clear cut which is better. It will depend on the application. DSD, even with its complexities and noise level, has its adherents, so will probably be around for a long time.


----------

