CD Redbook versus DVD Audio


Being an 'insider' in the industry keeps one busy enough not to read some of the(even though basic) information, which one should read.
Recently a friend brought over the Chris Botti album, recorded on both sides--one CD the other DVD Audio.
Well, after extolling the virtues of CD Redbook, in recent years, with the newer players, I would have to admit freely that (even though I own the Exemplar DVD which plays, I think, all platforms available including DVD Audio) I had never 'gone over to the dark side.'
Good Lord, this is better in virtually every way possible.
What struck me (about this limited experience)was the way that the staging improved,with blackness within the soundstage, taking it to an almost holgraphic experience--- with BASS just rolling, very naturally, out of the speakers like never before!!
This bordered, to me, on the same level of experience that I had when I first discovered Tubes,(not the Bass, but Staging part) at the dawn of civilization. Really, it was that kind of 'new found experince' and yes,was that good.
The bass took on an almost surreal quality, with tonality I had not experienced, except with the great tonearms, and Koetsu cartridgess, from waaaay back in the days of those round black things....the one's that have ticks and pops but sound great if done correctly.
This is as close as I have been to that kind of, and level of, both musical experience and what I perceive to be, accuracy of sound.
Anybody else out there with similar kind of experience with DVD Audio? I know, given the breadth of 'terrible recordings' that some must sound horrible, as usual, but when done close to right, wow.
If more are good than bad, and assuming that when done correctly that it excels, which it may not, given this caveat--why is this platform not more popular?. I know the arguments about too many choices, and too few audiophiles, but this is 'remarkably better' in my limited, and more important, IMHO.
Larry
lrsky

Showing 6 responses by eldartford

Tvad...If it's too much trouble for you, then it's too much trouble for you. For me...no problem. Compared with the ritual that playing vinyl requires, it's nothing.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that DVDA, with 24 bit 96KHz sampling, outperforms the marginal 16 bit 41KHz CD, although DVDA, like any media, is at the mercy of the recording engineers. I have found DVDA and SACD to be equally capable of sonic excellence, but the DVDA protocol is far more flexible than SACD and offers many "extra" features that SACD can't match. As I have mentioned before, try a DVDA from the AIX label to see what can be done.

It's a shame that audiophiles were taken in by Sony hype about DSD, and felt obligated to criticise DVDA without really listening. SACD is OK, but DVDA offers so much more.
Rex...I really don't see what your problem is with DVDA. I just put them in and push the PLAY button...no different from a SACD or a CD.

However, IF you are interested you CAN select the MENU and then other features. For example, the DVDA of Emmylou Harris, "Producer's Cut" has a very interesting interview (audio and video) with Brian Ahern explaining, in good technical detail, how and why the multichannel mix was accomplished. For people whose DVD players don't do DVDA, there is Dolby Digital and DTS multichannel programs, and a stereo option for those who are only two channel. There is a photo gallery, and the text of the Lyrics. Oh, and lest I forget, the audio quality is first rate. A disc like this, and there are many, makes SACD look primitive.
Rex...I understand your point of view, but..

1. Although not necessary to just play a DVDA, a video screen is necessary to access other features, and at least temporarily for setup. No big deal though. I went out and bought a 13" TV for less than $80, and it is part of my equipment rack, just used for setup. I have no big screen in my audio system. I listen to music.

2. What's wrong with a downmix from multichannel? How do you think that all stereo (and 5.1) programs are produced from multitrack (24 channel) masters.
Rex...You exaggerate to say that real time downmix is "not even remotely" similar to a priori mixdown. It might be identical, depending on how the engineer felt that day. But this is a subjective thing, and I respect your opinion.

But the need for a video screen really isn't a strong argument. It's an investment of less than $100, which ought not to be an issue for folk who spend thousands on wires.
I also have been surprised by how good some 24/96 recordings sound. I have several AIX discs that include, in addition to the DVDA program, Dolby and DTS programs that give you a choice of "Audience" or "Stage" multichannel sonic perspectives. Sometimes I want the "Stage" mix, and I don't seem to lose much in audio quality over the DVDA program (which is "Audience" only).

I think that the reason is that the skill and care of the recording and mixing people is the most important factor. 24/96 data makes it a bit easier. But even a CD, where the 16/44 data is really marginal, can sound very good when the production is done well.