2. digital
  3. 1131210526

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
hdm
1,057 posts
 
I agree Eldartford; insert, press play, listen. I don't see how it can get any less complicated or easy to use.
rex
245 posts
 
I submitted a clarification of my earlier remarks, but it doesn't appear to have made it past the moderation gauntlet. I am at a loss to understand why. Perhaps this one will make it through.

Anyway - I certainly agree that if you put a DVD-Audio disc in the player and push "play," you'll get sound. The problem is, it may not be the content you want. Depending on the disc and your setup, the tracks that play by default aren't necessarily the ones you'll want to listen to. The issue is not so important for multichannel listeners, but most people (especially in the audiophile community) are not multichannel listeners, they are 2ch listeners. DVD-Audio is, for the most part, optimized for multichannel, and can require 2ch users to jump through an amazing amount of hoops to get something other than a digital downmix.

It's a bit easier if you have a TV hooked up to your audio system, but again, many 2ch users in the audiophile community do not have and do not want TVs in their 2ch systems. DVD-Audio is currently the only "music" format that almost mandates the use of a television.

Then we have the discs themselves, which are authored in a seemingly random fashion. Some discs have multichannel only, some have stereo only, some have stereo and multichannel, some have multichannel only but advertise stereo, some have MLP multichannel but LPCM stereo. Sampling rates and bit depth are all over the map, from 24/192k all the way down to 16/44.1k, and everything in between. Some discs with 2ch content are authored such that 2ch content is in Group 1, some are authored such that 2ch is in Group 2, some are authored such that 2ch is in Group 1 but must be selected with the Audio button, some are authored such that 2ch content is in the DVD-V section, and the player must be reconfigured to access it, and on and on and on....

I have gotten around the problem with my 50+ DVD-Audio discs by developing a "cheat sheet" to indicate which buttons to press to get the program I want on each disc, but it's a real pain to have to develop this (and requires a player and TV setup to do it). Plus, one of the many problems with DVD-Audio is poor labelling. I have purchased a number of DVD-Audios that claimed to have 2ch tracks, and turned out not to have them at all. The only choice for a 2ch user is to listen to a suboptimal downmix.

If the bulk of serious music listener were truly ready for multichannel and video-oriented audio, and if DVD-Audio's creators had more tightly adhered to a set of user interface standards, then DVD-Audio might have been more of a success.

By comparison, SACD does not have any of these problems. If you are a 2ch-only user, put the disc in and press play, and you'll get dedicated 2ch tracks. If you are a multichannel user and have a multichannel disc, put the disc in and press play, and you'll get dedicated multichannel tracks. No TV needed, no "cheat sheets" required, a user interface as simple and intuitive as Redbook CD, and (for the most part) consistency of disc authoring across the entire range of offerings.

Just from that standpoint alone, it's easy to see why SACD was more of a success in the audiophile community than was DVD-Audio.
pardales
652 posts
 
Well said, Rex. When I had a Denon 2900 it was NOT as simple as putting a disc in and hitting "play" to get to the 2 channel audio selection. I have rid myself of all my DVD-A's and all my non-hybrid SACD's and have sought to maximize my redbook playback. I did think that both SACD and DVD-A offerred, with some inconsistency, better sound but in end tired of the lack of selection and the need for specialized equipment that compromised the majoirty of my collection, which is redbook. I now do not even have a CDP and have moved to a hard-drive based music server. I am now listening to more music than I ever have before.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
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
245 posts
 
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.

I am happy for you that you found a solution you can live with. I hope you can agree that the solution you found may not be appropriate for everyone. The fact that nearly all players on the market require a TV for one or more aspects of DVD-Audio playback is not an advantage or a plus for the format.

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.

They are not even remotely the same thing. Creating stereo and/or multichannel tracks is an endeavor intended to create an original work of art. A downmix is an electronic process performed on those tracks by the player. It is a modification of the original data stream.

Some people think downmixes sound just fine. I have done A-B comparisons and found that downmixes are inferior to dedicated 2ch tracks.
More to discover