DADs an "interim" format??

I keep seeing statements in here to the effect that the current 24/96, DVD based music format(DAD)is an "interim" format. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, DAD formated disks can still be played on DVD-Audio machines. DADs may not be the most efficient way of stuffing a 24/96 signal onto a DVD, but it works and there is nothing in the DVD-A spec that would preclude its use. Am I all wet here or what?
You are basically correct. The term DAD is specific to Classic Records but none-the-less describes a class of DVDs; specifically, DVDs that contain LPCM (Linear Pulse Code Modulation) audio and that may or may not contain video (either stills or motion). All of these discs fit into the DVD-V category and are playable on every player made either in the past or in the future. All DVD-A players announced or even planned are actually DVD-A/V or DVD-U devices, having capabilities of playing all DVD-V and DVD-A compliant discs. As for the efficiency of "stuffing" the data onto the disc, LPCM is, at present, the only universal way of accomplishing the task. The only other high performance audio format MLP, has not been released in any of the products on the market, so MLP encoded material is, as of now, unusable. If one looks deeper, it can be seen that the DVD-V market is the largest and fastest growing aspect of modern optical disc storage devices. Keep in mind, all the new products which are now coming to market for automobiles are DVD-V devices. With the automotive dash opening representing one of the largest segments of music playback, it can easily be seen where a content provider must look to assure that he has a salable product and not a niche market one. Kevin Halverson
Kevin, yeah, thanks. A very clear explanation. So, DVD-V based audio disks are NOT an "interim" format. Just one option of what may be many. I'm not all wet after all...just totally befuddled. If the technology and process exists,... WHY NOT USE IT!! I'm AMAZED that Chesky stopped releasing 24/96 disks. If the format is, and always will be, playable on all DVD based machines, what's the problem? Why the hesitation? Especially if the auto industry is adopting the DVD-V devices. One thing I've learned in the business world is that you must differentiate yourself (products, services, price...what ever you offer)from the competition in order to be successful. Here is a perfect opportunity to do just that. Most people now realize that they can use their DVD player as a CD player as well (although I still get the "I did'nt know that" look occasionally). If I were a major label (or even a minor label)and had the technology on hand, I'd jump on it! Can anybody explain this reluctance?
One possible explaniation is that Sony has been very sucessful in "confusing" customers, HiFi ones, with their SACD efforts. Everyone should be aware of the finincial incentetives behind this sort of effort. Sony / Philips would go from owning 100% of the intelectual property (hence royality) pool for Red Book CDs to around 10% (estimates differ depending upon who you speak with) for DVDs. If, somehow, they are able to convinece the entire industry to adopt SACD then they would again regain their income stream. Remember that Red Book CD technology has for the most part gone into public domain so they were going to loose the income either way, SACD is an effort to recapture this income source. ---- As for Chesky "stopping" 24/96 DVDs, this isn't quite true, they are simply waiting to see what impact DVD-A multi-channel has on the industry as a whole. It should be pointed out that DVD projects are more expensive to produce that CDs (mostly in post production costs and replication fees) so they are sticking with the safest format. Chesky is continuing to build a library of 24/96 recordings and will decide later how they will be released. I have to give Sony credit for their ability to "buy" support from some of the high end labels buy paying them to release SACD projects. This is despite the fact that few players exsist on the market, certainly not enough to sell a reasonable quantity of discs. Hybrid SACDs (CD/SACD dual format) are a little easier to understand being sold, but why would someone purchase a product that contains something they can't use (the SACD content) and pay more for the privilage? My biggest complaint is that this battel is being waged almost exclusively with in the HiFi community, I can understand this as it is a much smaller market place and therefore a less expensive "feild of battel". What is significant is the impact it has on us poor victims of war. An analogy would be a Super Power waging war on another Super Power but neither wanting to harm their own territory, so they choose some tiny island nation for the location of this battle. Great for both, but not too pleasant for the local inhabitants. This is very unfortunate as the uncertanity expressed by the consumer translates into a lack of confidence in direction for content providers. Time will tell, but I don't think anyone will find the SACD effort to be anything but a power struggle. Kevin Halverson
While all dvd players will play these discs,the true sonic benifits are not realized,unless your transport outputs the true 24/96 to your coax;otherwise the payer"waters-down" the signal to 48 sampling rate.
Nearly all DVD players offered for sale now, utilize internal DACs which are capable of decoding 96 kHz sample rates without resorting to "watering-down" the data rate (Burr-Brown and AD both have devices which are capable and are priced in the $2 range in manufacturing quantities). The real problem is not the inability of these inexpensive products to accept the data, but rather their actual intrinsic performance. Inexpensive products employee inexpensive topologies and components within and therefore cannot be expected to offer high performance results. This fact limits their performance regardless of the source material's data rate or sample size. Another point worth bring up is that transporting data over any simple bi-phase marked interface (S/PDIF, AES-EBU, Toslink, ST, etc.) is a low performance technique, as it is highly susceptible to data born jitter. Heroic attempts to "reclock" the data can help, but in the end it is the interface that is flawed. If you are striving for a high performance solution, consider either a single box player built with audio performance as a consideration. If you want to use a two-box approach, then look for an improved interface. Kevin Halverson