It’s been a while since I last posted and I thought I'd post something currently on my mind. Multi-Channel music.

As I choose note to spend money on a new DVD-A or SACD player right now, due to what could become VHS vs. Beta part deux, I decided to evaluate the current offerings in a different way, a.k.a. the hybrid disk. I bought a disk I already have on CD, the new one including DVD-A multi enhanced, stereo and DD 5.1 for DVD-V. As I mentioned I cannot play the DVD-A variants, but the DVD-D in DD 5.1 proved interesting.

I played track one and, while impressed, I noticed the engineer or producer decided to make it obvious that this disk was in discrete 5.1, making the guitar solo pan all over the front three channels, with the .1 occasionally booming a bit out of proportion.

Luckily, point proven, the mixer settled down and rarely went out of his/her way to single out a channel for the majority of the disc. After full listen through, I noted a tune that I thought fit fairly well and then put my CD in to evaluate. For reference, I was in Outlaw 1050 model 'natural' to try and keep the playing field as level as possible. Note: at the same volume setting, the 5.1 DVD was 4-5 db louder, so a volume setting change was in order to keep the test as flat as possible.

My ears told me that on my system the 5.1 mix had a much more open soundstage and clarity was there in distinct instruments, vocals and the nuances that make music very individual. On the other hand, the CD, while in a surrounding type environment not completely dissimilar to the 5.1 mix, was very blended in the front. I noticed on the 5.1 mix that there was an accompanying line throughout the song I had never noticed. It didn't 'stand out' but was compelling to listen to. On the CD, it was indeed there, but was muted into the background by the rest of the mix. True, it could have been in the studio master that way, but clarity was the most common difference I saw between the formats throughout.

To sum up, my CD vs. DD 5.1 - DVD-V test was interesting. I will not say for sure that the one mix I listened to was any better as a whole, but there is a definite clarity difference. At times, I was drawn from the music to an effect, which is never good, but at others, I felt centered in the sound.

After the 5.1 tests, I went to stereo, noting that the DD 5.1 mix had no DD 2.0 mix companion, so it was down to processing. To minimize the differences (with my theory, at least) I switched to 2 ch analog out of my DVD player, leaving it to do the down conversion. DVD-V seemed much more clear in the highs than the CD, but the low end clarity that had been there in 5.1 was completely gone. In short, the CD vs. DVD-V face off in this area was much less divided. Both versions sounded much less involving than either 5.1 or 'natural' which I find odd, as I typically prefer 2 ch in 2 ch. Maybe my mind was playing tricks on me, as can be common in audio evaluations.

If others would like to continue/repeat the experiment, I would love to read other opinions of those who play around with their existing technologies. If somebody out there has a DVD-A/DVD-V player and can comment on the differences between those formats, or even SACD directly compared, I would be intrigued. The experiment I did was simple enough to try. I would recommend buying a disk you know, just to make the comparison valid. I chose Metallica's Black album (sorry for the letdown, true audiophiles) but it is something I know quite well and made a comparison quite easy. There are sure to be a few titles more suited to many people's tastes, available in both DVD-A/DVD-V 5.1 and on standard CD.

So, if anyone else cares to take up the mantle of research guinea pig, there is at least one guy watching for the results. Comments from any and all interested in the multi-channel audio future are welcome. From my vantage point, it is coming and in less than a handful of years, most music will be multi-channel in some format or another. I just hope each producer doesn't feel the need to show off, just for technology's sake!

S.

One of my first DVD-A purchases was Women on Top.
It’s been slim pickings on titles so far when I’ve had time to look at stops I’m already at.
Tina Turners rendition of “Nutbush City” I know gave me a feeling of clarity and nuance that I had never heard out of this old recording before. I believe there was some new presence during that track (not sure if it was in the vocals or instrumentation) that I knew I had never noticed on CD before yet it was not overemphasized. Just added what I felt would have been closer to the ‘Live’ experience. I can’t check it out right now, (my husbands on the system) but will do some comparisons this next week. There was one other track in particular I think Kim Carnes “Bette Davis Eyes” that was more enveloping than I ever remember hearing it on CD. I believe there was also one track where I felt the mix got a little multi-choice multi-channel Happy.

It would be an interesting test to see what I might have duplicated on CD Vs the few DVD-A’s I have. Will work on it.

I am a proponent of music in multi-channel.

i'm an avid (rabid) sacd multichannel fan. i purchased spyro gyra's 'in modern times' and i have to tell you, it was pretty shocking. the mix is superb. the band obviously did arrangements with multichannel in mind and the clarity and stage are amazing. i also have james taylor's 'hourglass' and love every song on the disc.

i chose sony's sacd because this is one war i think they will win. here is why:

the one-bit dsd format can be converted to any other format, existing or yet to come. take the aging analog tapes that are falling apart in studios around the world. they have to be archived or lost. if you choose 24/96 or 24/192 as the format to archive them onto, it will always be in that format and not changeable...forever. if you choose dsd instead, it can be converted in the future to any format that comes along.

this is very important to new recordings that are done in the digital realm. again, once formatted in pcm, it can never be re-formatted. this will be the edge to forward thinking artists and producers. my opinion.

in any case, no test of hybrid discs was necessary to me. i popped in the sacd and closed my eyes and sank into another world. that simply isn't gonna happen with a cd.

I've been an avid DVD-A supporter ever since getting Beethoven's 5th on multichannel DVDA and being completly blown away by the presence, soundstage, and realism to what I was listening to. Since then I have found a number of great DVD-A mixes (not to be confused with DTS-CD or DTS-DVD...which for some reason don't quite appeal to me as much).

My reccomendations are:

Beethoven Symphonies, conducted by Daniel Baremboim under the Teldec label. Wonderfull classical music.

Blue Man Group: Audio. I cant realy classify this music...it's an infectious groove that will max out the sub in points.

Pat Metheny Group: Imaginary Day...huge stylistic differance between pieces (some flamenco, some techno, some light "acid jazz". But overall a very satisfying multichannel experiance.

Phillip Glass: Koyanasquissi..Very unique music...The organ is what sold me on it. There is a very solid sound stage and a great depth to the choral voices. The music is an aquired taste, but the sound is amazing.

SACD, on the other hand has been a mixed bag. I only have five SACD recordings, and I've only been floored by one of them. The three that I have which I"m rather unimpressed with are Harry Connic Jr: We are in Love, Miles Davis: Sketches of Spain, Miles Davis: Kind of blue, Bernard Herman: The Film Scores. I've done head to head listening tests to the Miles Davis recordings, and the HCJ recording and cant hear a whole lot of differance between SACD and the CD's. The SACD's have a little better dynamics, but that's it.

Now the one SACD that I do have that (to me) lives up to what I'm hearing in those DVD-A recordings, is Mahler 1, performed by the SF Symphony Orchestra. It's blown me away with the detail, clarity, and "you are there" feeling.

The funny thing to this DVD-A/SACD format war is that DVD-A's are compatable with current hardware. Most of the DVD-A's that I have also have the Dolby Digital track, and can be used with any DVD player that has the DD decoder. SACD players must have an SACD player to operate on...meaning consumers need to make the equipment upgrade.

Jason

The new Hybrid SACD releases now coming out allow them to be played on any CD or DVD player- they are "backwards compatible". This could go a long way to making this a winning format. Play them in your car, DVD player or CD player without the need for a dedicated SACD decoder/player. Ya can't do that with your DVD-A disc. As far as SACD sound quality goes, you will find good ones and bad ones, just as in any other recorded format out there. Both of these formats are capable of giving us much better sound (and on fairly inexpensive equipment) when compared to the lowly CD.

But you still only get sound quality of a cd. The reason that they are "backwards" compatable is that they also include a CD layer...which will do nothing to demonstrate any advanced resolution. Granted the same can be said for the DVD-A format. But the DD track on the DVD-A can be quite a selling point to upgrade to the DVD-A players. With SACD, for the "best buy" consumer, it is more of a plunge.

Just think of the average consumer. "I'm getting a new DVD player. So I can either get the DVD player...that has this new DVD thingey on it...cool. Or I can get another CD player...that has this new CD thingey on it...huh?"

I'm backing DVD-A, simply because joe six-pack already has a foothold in the door. IF SACD was making a player to capatolize on the expanding DVD market (which granted there are a few entry level Sony DVD-V/SACD players out there). To me the stronger point is that anyone who has a DVD player can test the waters. People who want to try REAL SACD's will need to plop down cash for a new player, one that is a dedicated SACD player.

Jason

Interesting . See this for UMG's recent announcement on upcoming SACD releases.


Yup, that's what backwards compatible refers to, Jason. (I didn't think I needed to add the part about no SACD "resolution" on an ordinary non-compatible CD or DVD player 'cause I figured everyone would pick up on that. ) Point was, you can play them in your car as an "ordinary" CD- can you do that with your DVD-A's?
What do you mean? Are you saying any DVD player will decode DVD-A?
So DVD-A is a JSP medium? Well, maybe.
All kidding aside, IMO, you make some very valid points Jason, regards the availability and acceptibility of equipment to play each format on. Maybe the universal players now coming out will change this. It seems that DVD-A is good with the number of players in the market, but poor on the number of available music selections, with the opposite being true with SACD. This is a format war. You pays your money and takes your chances.

the funny thing about sacd vs dvd-a is that (and, i think, not many people realize this) they are both exactly the same format as it stands right now. 24/96 multichannel and 24/192 stereo pcm format.

sony's format is dsd. the cool thing about dsd is that it can be converted into any digital format. that's why it's backward compatable. converting dsd to 16/44.1 is no problem. the current sacd players convert dsd to the above mentioned formats.

we won't hear dsd until players and receivers/prepro or outboard converters show up. the point, to me, is that sacd is future proof and backward compatable...dvd-a is not.

But wait...what's this?



BWAHAHAHAHAHA....

I"m already begining to drool.

Jason

"A big surprise at the AES was the confirmation by Sony that DSD technique, used in SACD, uses multi-bit PCM during recording and mastering processes and that only uses one-bit technique as it applies to consumer playback systems. Jim Johnston of AT&T Research speculated that DSD and DVD-A data streams might be able to co-exist if output from different points within the same microprocessor."

Apparently they use PCM for recording and mastering, even for SACD. Now the advantage of no conversion between formats suddenly disappears.”
(From a ESP page)

What do you think of this?