sanatoliy
Advanced Member | Редактировать | Профиль | Сообщение | Цитировать | Сообщить модератору
q]хех, к сожалению это всё mp3, хочется диск [/q]
wolfsp
вместо благодарности я подпорчу тебе настроение CD - это уже отстой вчерашнего дня, вот тут весьма интересные дебаты, уверен вцех меломанов заинтересует
Is DVD-Audio or Super Audio CD (SACD) In Your Future?
/http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/130868.html
Consumer electronics is nothing if not a history of overcoming technical challenges, so the digital engineers got busy and emerged from their respective camps with two new multichannel formats: DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD (SACD), each of which boasts technical standards beyond reproach. DVD-Audio lets recording producers choose any of several sampling rates and word sizes: 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192 kHz, coupled with 16-, 20- or 24-bit words. By using Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP), a "lossless" compression algorithm that does not discard data (it's like zipping a PC file or stuffing a Mac file), all DVD-A's can deliver six full-bandwidth audio channels sampled at 96 kHz with 24-bit words. Do the math and you'll find that yields an upper frequency limit of 48 kHz (high enough for your family dog, cat or bat), and a dynamic range of 144 dB (24 x 6 dB = 144 dB).
But (and this is a big "but"), can you play it on your CD player? Nope, you cannot. It will only play on a new DVD player that has a DVD-Audio decoder. And because there are currently 500 million CD players worldwide, that may be a huge impediment to the success of DVD-Audio. However, the good news is that virtually all DVD-Audio discs carry a duplicate Dolby Digital 5.1-channel mix, which means that DVD-A's will play on any DVD player. This will let you sample multichannel music through your existing DVD player and Dolby Digital/DTS A/V receiver, albeit without the 96-kHz sampling rates and 24-bit word lengths that DVD-Audio delivers.
What about Sony's Super Audio CD (SACD)? Launched by Sony and Philips in 1999, SACD uses Direct Stream Digital (DSD), a 1-bit system with a sampling rate of 2.8 million times a second, about 64 times the sampling rate of conventional CDs. This 2.8-MHz rate yields a frequency response of 1 Hz to 100 kHz, far beyond the response limits of human hearing, and a 120-dB dynamic range that is roughly equivalent to our ears' dynamic range. SACD is now capable of delivering six full-bandwidth DSD channels that encompass those extraordinary standards.
But can you play SACD on a CD player? Yes--and no. An SACD isn't playable on a standard CD player unless it's a hybrid two-layer disc with a CD-compatible second layer. And then you'll only hear it in stereo with CD standards. Oddly, most of Sony Music's own SACD releases are not hybrid discs, and will play only in an SACD machine. But some other labels are now releasing hybrid SACDs, and many of those do take advantage of SACD's multichannel capabilities.
As to how the two formats sound, both are superb; neither has "better" sound than the other, based on my listening tests. Is either better than CD sound or Dolby Digital 5.1? So far, in my judgment the differences are a matter of nuances. It's not dramatic. Of course, when the musical multichannel mix of an album is done with restraint and invention, the multiple channels can be a huge enhancement, as anyone experienced with Dolby Digital 5.1 can attest. But whether consumers will go for a new format that is essentially high-resolution audio (with a few video extras tossed in) remains to be seen. I've left the philosophical/musical controversy of whether listeners want to feel in the middle of a band, with instruments mixed to the sides and rear, or prefer the perspective of the band and performers in front, for another time. ....
Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:13 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted too late. About 2 years too late. Well maybe "it is never too late". However at this point in time Sony seems to be abandoning SACD and DVD-A releases have also dwindled. Most DVD-A releases these days are released as DualDiscs and often you don't even know if there is an DVD-A track on there. I have over 300 SACD and DVD-A titles and have owned a Pioneer 45a since it came out over a year ago. There have been tons of universal players since that. You are correct about there not being much difference in the formats on well mixed titles. Both when well done are miles above CD's. However, there just seems to be something about the DSD (SACD) noiseshaping that lends itself to jazz and classical while PPCM/LPCM (DVD-A) seems to do better with rock. Anyway, more articles should have been written about these formats a few years back when they were starting out because at this point it is too little too late I fear. The focus is now on blu-ray and the question there is whether there will be DVD-A track to go with the hi-def video or whether DTS/DOLBY 5.1 will continue as the preferred audio format. SACD will not factor into blu-ray and SACD is virtually dead at this point other than for the odd release from Universal and other fringe audiophile labels like Telarc and Concord. People just didn't care. They wanted crappy MP3's instead.
Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 03:18 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir,
I have to totally disagree with your statement that SACD and DVD-A sound about the same. I have a very, very high end stereo and also wondered which format is indeed better. Well there are many titles, Like Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, in DVD-A and SACD, and in all of them, the DVD-A smoked the SACD version. The sound was warmer, clearer in all frequencies, and had a more analog sound to it. I even compared many SACDs to thier remastered CD counterparts, and the CD counterparts even sounded better than the SACD. I just hope that the industry follows recording perfectionist, Alan Parsons, who is remastering his older LPs on DVD-A with Classic Records, in TWO CHANNEL ONLY, and goes with the DVD-A format. The proof is in the pudding and SACD is a sad representation of where high resolution audio can go.
Flyboy!
Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 01:33 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far I have to agree with the general comments that DVD-Audio disks sound a lot warmer and more full of life compared to other releases on SACD.
We only just got our multiformat DVD player so I was anxious to get a few of these new disks. Hotel California on DVD-Audio is absolutely breathtaking, and Queen's Night at the Opera is also incredibly clear.
In comparision I have a TexasFlood by Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Dark SIde of the Moon on SACD. The SRV disk is not much different from the same CD that I alos own, which was a disappointment. It does have a couple of extra live tracks which sound ok, but the tracks from th original album sound much the same. I guess it depends on who did the remix/remastering? The Pink Floyd disk on SACD is ok, but still does not seem to have the depth of sound range that I'm hearing on the DVD-Audio disks.
All in all tough, the move from cd to either of these formats is much like the difference from mono to stereo. I'm pretty impressed!
|
