My first dvd-A player

faster100

I just bought a Toshiba Sd-4900 dvd / dvd-A player.. to try out and see what i think of the dvd-A scene and get alittle better dvd player, best buy had these on close out and i got it real cheap, new.. I didn't know what to buy dvd-A wise so i got dizzy gillespie Matrix as i am really digging jazz letely.. must be age creaping up on me.. I just have the low quality interconnects except one pair or AR pro 2's... and it sounds pretty cool.. alot of bass, I will upgrade cables as i get to see if this is what i want to venture into.. maybe get a dvd-a and sacd player next.. for $74.99 + tax you really cant beat it to try dvd-Audio....

anyways, were only about 10 minutes into the demo so i can't comment on anything at this point, nor wood i know what to listen for or what i'm supposed to hear, LOL any pointers on this would be great!!

danger boy

congrats on the DVD-a player. I have the same but older version of that Toshiba. Prices sure have dropped since i paid $349 for mine when it came out new. lol

Listen for the surround mix.. different DVD-a discs are mixed differently.. some will utilize the surround more than others. A well mixed DVD-a disc will use good seperation between the front, center and rear surrounds. A poorly mixed disc will try to just expand the original 2 ch mix and bump it up to 5.1 without much mixing. so it just sounds like all speakers are pumping out the same sound without any seperation.

A really good DVD-a disc that i really enjoy is Say you Will by Fleetwood Mac. It's their latest release.. and it sounds really good in high resolution. Another good one is Crowded House. Also, Rumours by Fleetwood Mac again.

High resolution audio is really fun stuff. I wish more people would take a chance on it like you did.. and just explore the possibilities before bashing it.

post more of your likes/dislikes after you've have more time to listen to some more tunes.

faster100

Hey thanks for the tips, sounds great... i'm gonna start looking for dvd-A disk now/; kinda neat new adventure.. havent even tried a dvd movie on the player yet.. was to into the settings and my new cd, Thanks again for the info

therockman

I don't really want to question your judgement, but I would like to know why did you choose DVD-A over SACD? Both of these high resolution audio formats were developed in the mid 1990's, and they both hit the consumer market in 1997, so both SACD and DVD-A have the same track record for longevity, but the similaitry ends there. SACD has a much smoother sound than does DVD-A, and many industry insiders are saying that DVD-A will probobly not make it through 2004, where SACD is gaining momentum every day. Also, right now there are close to 2,000 titles available on SACD, but only about 800 titles available on DVD-A. Also, as far as DVD-A being an audio medium, you still need a video monitor hooked up to your DVD-A player in order to navigate the difficult menu system, so this precludes it from any serious audiophile system.

My biggest complaint about DVD-A is the lack of uniformity regarding audio resolution. Some discs are 18 bit/88khz, some are 20 bit/ 96 khz, some are 24 bit/96 khz, and some are 24 bit/ 156 khz, and the top of the line are 24 bit/ 192 khz. There are big differences in the sound between all of these various resolutions, but the machine reads them all as high-rez PCM based audio. The DSD encoded information is so much higher, 2.82 mhz, which is the SACD standard. This 2.82 mhz DSD audio signal this creates a much smoother top end than does PCM, with a much more realistic bottom end. Yes Santa, resolution really does matter.

faster100

yup i can answer in my swift swoop

This player cost me $74.99 + tax, I want a matching denon player to go with my receiver, I don't have the money now and wanted to try the format, and have a player i can move to my bedroom when i get the denon 1600, 2200?? later this year i hope..

I was going to get the entry level pioneer that did both formats but for a hold over player, im not willing to pay 150+, this will work out good until the denon gets purchased... I did some research on both formats and its simple that sacd is "better" but you have forums where people prefer dvd-A for various reasons.. I'm going into this with no preconceived notions, ie: fresh

Thanks for the info though

Loud & Clear

therockman - hmmm, I REALLY like the sound of the DVD-A titles I have. I can't imagine complaining about any aspect of the sound, bottom, top, or in between. Outstanding sound. I feel the same way about SACD.

faster100

how ya like that 2200 L&C ???? I want one i think.. to replace this one later on

F1nut

Originally posted by therockman

My biggest complaint about DVD-A is the lack of uniformity regarding audio resolution. Some discs are 18 bit/88khz, some are 20 bit/ 96 khz, some are 24 bit/96 khz, and some are 24 bit/ 156 khz, and the top of the line are 24 bit/ 192 khz. There are big differences in the sound between all of these various resolutions, but the machine reads them all as high-rez PCM based audio. The DSD encoded information is so much higher, 2.82 mhz, which is the SACD standard. This 2.82 mhz DSD audio signal this creates a much smoother top end than does PCM, with a much more realistic bottom end. Yes Santa, resolution really does matter.

therockman has bingo!

Loud & Clear

Originally posted by F1nut
therockman has bingo!

Has your experience with DVD-A titles lead you to concur with, rock? Do you think they sound crappy, to your ears?

F1nut

Crappy, no I never said that. DVD-A's are better than redbook CD's, but...........I have a SACD/CD player that upsamples redbook to 24/192 and while a vast improvement for the most part they pale in comparison to SACD. The point is that most DVD-A's aren't even at the 24/192 resolution level and therefore at best are inferior to SACD.

therockman

My experience with DVD-As have been limited, but I do have some negative feelings associated with the whole DVD-A technology. First, I am middle aged and I was raised in a world of black vinyl, a strictly analog world. Back in the good old 1960's, music had a certain "natural" feel to it, the analog format of vinyl seemed to allow the music to roll like a natural wave of sound. You know what I mean, the sine wave that rolls with no chops or flat tops. To me, DVD-A does not provide this "natural Roll", there are still choppy moments that the ear can detect. It is only PCM after all, and the method of PCM encoding is dependent on the "blocks" of data. To my ears, SACD seems to sound more analog, like a well recorded black vinyl record. The music seems to flow, and the there is no choppyness in the DSD data flow. Actually, it is very easy for me to pick out DSD over PCM in double blind test, and I just prefer DSD over PCM.

My other gripe with DVD-A relates to the menu system. When I want to listen to music, I want to grab a disc, insert it in the machine, AND JUST PRESS PLAY. I don't want to turn on my television, navigate through arcane menus, determine which "mix" or "playback resolution" that I want to access, I just want to listen to music. And sometimes I like to get drunk when I am at home listening to music. Try to put on a DVD-A when your drunk, and pick the right "mix", it is nearly impossible.

danger boy

therockman,

I agree with you on all points you stated above. Yeah, DVD-a should be easier to access from the disc. You won't get any argument from me there. or really on anything else.

I thought i'd dabble in DVD-a for a while.. but because of slow releases and some poor sounding discs out there.. i'm teetering on just giving up on it completely. I like the thought and sound of hi res multi channel music.. but sometimes it's just not worth the trouble, know what i mean?

I end up only buying maybe three or four DVD-a disc per year.. the titles just don't impress me much. At this point.. even moving over to SACD seems pointless.

It seems like SACD and DVD-a are now becoming at least to me.. a real novelity item anymore. I rarely hear anything in the news about it anymore. Seems like there is little support from the hardware and software manufacturers involved.

faster100

A special treat is how i think of it.. I certainly wont be changing over all my cd's to dvd-a or sacd.. But get a few good favs for when your really in the mood sounds good to me, or when friends come over.. nothing more..

Loud & Clear

F1, you can upsample redbooks all you want to, but it's not going to sound like analog recorded directly to 24/192 (Chicago's Chicago II DVD-A), or 24/96 (Yes' Fragile DVD-A). Is it? Borrow a DVD-A player and have a listen to those titles, you might find them impressive.

therockman

As a matter of fact, I just got the HDAD of Alan Parsons I ROBOT. This disc does not have any difficult menues to naviagate because it is HDAD, HYBRID DUAL-LAYER AUDIO DISC. This disc only has two versions of I ROBOT, both are stereo only, one is 24 bit/96 khz, the other version is 24 bit/ 192 khz. Since it is a "flipper" disc, there is only one thing on each side of the disc, hence no menu. It sounds great.

therockman

Maybe I should claify my position; a DVD-A sounds like a pristine CD, but an SACD sounds like a pristine black vinyl.

F1nut

L&C,

You gotta hear 24/192 CD upsampling on my MF, it really is close to SACD. I'm not knocking DVD-A, just agreeing that SACD is the better hi-rez format.

Libertyc

O.K. - I new at this. I have a Sony DVD player. I will not play DVDA of SACD. But what is DVD-A? Is DVD Audio the same thing? Also what is a DTS audio CD? Is it the same as a SACD?

I just bought an 8 X DVD + & - RW for $79.00 (after rebate) at Office Max. What is the difference between DVD+ and DVD-?

Loud & Clear

Originally posted by faster100
how ya like that 2200 L&C ???? I want one i think.. to replace this one later on

I love it, faster. I've got it doing multichannel hirez with the hometheater setup, and I've also got it hooked up to my two channel setup for hirez two channel, and of course it's going to the television for dvd video. So, it's rather versatile as well as a fine performer. Two big thumbs up so far. On the downside, it can't weigh much more than 7 or 8 lb's and vibrates when the music gets loud, and it gets loud down here in the basement after a beer or two. Maybe I should get some vibrapods or something similar to kill it.

Loud & Clear

Originally posted by F1nut
L&C,

You gotta hear 24/192 CD upsampling on my MF, it really is close to SACD. I'm not knocking DVD-A, just agreeing that SACD is the better hi-rez format.

I hear you, it's just that I'm sensing an element of parochialism within your assertion. You have an SACD player, and therefore you think/want it to be the best format. I've head both, and am convinced that it's a matter of who's doing the treatments and what kind of condition the masters are in (if it's old material).

danger boy

Originally posted by Libertyc
O.K. - I new at this. I have a Sony DVD player. I will not play DVDA of SACD. But what is DVD-A? Is DVD Audio the same thing? Also what is a DTS audio CD? Is it the same as a SACD?

I just bought an 8 X DVD + & - RW for $79.00 (after rebate) at Office Max. What is the difference between DVD+ and DVD-?

Libertyc,

very good question. and i'm not sure i can answer it fully or do it justice. but maybe this will make some sense anyways. Anyone please correct me if i'm wrong on any part of this.

First DVD-A is the same as DVD-audio.

DTS is Digital Theater System (DTS) 5.1 channels of sound. You see this in your movie theater.. and home theater set ups. a DTS-CD music disc is a 5.1 channels of audio. It is different than a DVD-audio disc. Differences in technology and the quality (resolution) of the music that is on each disc. Your DVD player needs to have a DTS decoder to be able to listen to a DTS CD.

DVD-a and SACD are both high resolution (24bits/96 or more Khz)
they are not compatible with each other. Even though both offer high res audio. and are both in 5.1 channels of sound. The players are different.

This is all so confusing really.. and makes it horrible for the consumer to know which format to choose. Once you pick a format you like.. then you have to purchase a player that will play that format. UGH!

regular CD's are made in 16bits of information. DVD-audio is 24bits of information.. and i'm not sure where SACD is.. but it's very high resolution. Higher the resolution, the better the music will sound coming off the disc.

So far at this point.. SACD has more titles available.. and folks are saying it sounds better than DVD-a. DVD-a by no means sound bad either.

my head hurts now. and I'm starving.

bye, Al

gatemplin

Just to add to what Danger said.

SACD is also 24 Bit. I like both formats. I cant tell the difference in quality and I only listen in 2 ch. I prefer SACD if only because I know they are always at least in stereo, and I can play them in my car cd player.

F1nut

Originally posted by Loud & Clear
it's just that I'm sensing an element of parochialism within your assertion.

No, it's as I stated above. DVD-A is at best on level with 24/192 upsampled CD's. SACD is the higher rez format of the two and that's why I went with it. I do agree about the quailty of the original recordings, there is only so much any format can do if they are poor to begin with.

therockman

Just one little correction, SACD is not 24 bit, SACD utilizes a whole new encodeing method called DSD which stands for direct stream digital. DSD is 1 bit, hence the nomenclature "direct stream." This 1 bit of data is encoded at 2,822,400 times per second, compared to the standard CD which is encoded at 44,100 times per second, (and multi-channel DVD-A is only endcoded at 96,000 times per second). Thus, SACD offers a resolution of some 64 times that of a redbook CD. The 1 bit technology is quite controversial due to the percieved limitations related to quantization error, but Sony has made up for this imbedded error by using filters in the encodeing chain.

gatemplin

Sorry about that mistake, thanks Rockman.

Loud & Clear

Originally posted by F1nut
No, it's as I stated above. DVD-A is at best on level with 24/192 upsampled CD's.

Interesting. I wonder if this will go unchallenged.

therockman

To Loud & Clear, It sures seems like you want to start an argument. If F1nut says that in his opinion an upsampled CD and A DVD-A are very close in sonics, then I will believe him. In fact, isn't that the consensus of Sterophile magazine.

To Liberty C, The part of your original question that asks about the difference between DVD + and DVD R (or whatever) should actually be in it's own thread that deals with different DVD recording formats. This thread deals with high rez audio, and we are in the middle of a good debate of:

DVD-A vs. SACD, (or PCM vs. DSD).

therockman

I spent a little bit of time searching for my reference, but all I came up with real fast was an article by Robert Harley in THE ABSOLUTE SOUND called "UPSAMPLING: IS YOUR CD COLLECTION A HIDDEN GOLD MINE?" I can't really quote the entire article, but the gist is that upsampling removes the harsh filters required to playback a 16 bit/44.1 khz redbook CD. The problem with the 44.1 khz sampling rate is that at exactly 22,000 hz there is a steep filter that causes smearing and ringing. By upsampling to 96 khz or 192 khz, the filter is moved to either 48,000 hz or to 96,000hz, well beyond human hearing range. To quote Robert Harley;

"Note that no new musical information is created by upsampling; the sonic benifit is conferred solely by using a more benign filter. Sound far fetched? I wouldn't hve believed it unless I'd heard it for myself.....Astonishingly, the upsampled CD sounded much closer in quality to the 192 khz master tape than I would have thought possible. The conventional CD was laughably bad by comparison."

Loud & Clear

Originally posted by therockman
To Loud & Clear, It sures seems like you want to start an argument. If F1nut says that in his opinion an upsampled CD and A DVD-A are very close in sonics, then I will believe him.

It wasn't an opinion, he made a statement. I think he's wrong. Upsampling may indeed soften the top end, but it's not going to provide the dynamics, detail or richness of DVD-A. Is that too argumentative for you?

F1nut

Alright, we've all been civil so far, let's keep it that way.

The way I see it (opinion or statement), there is no difference between a DVD-A at 24/192 and a upsampled CD at 24/192. They both are at the same resolution, how could they be different?

therockman

Hey Loud & Clear, I appologize if I sounded like I was being argumentive, but I was just having fun with this thread. From reading a lot of your previous posts, you seem like the type of dude that I can relate to. I think you mentioned once that you drive an old Ford, and I also drive an old Ford. So please pardon my phraseing, I am just having fun with this subject.