Not really a problem per se, just something I would like to hear thoughts on. My eqpt is on my profile, so I will not get into too great detail, but I am interested in peoples opinions on DVD-A and HDCD music vs. upsampled, processed CDs.
I have bought a few of each that I already owned in cd format to make an attempt at comparisons, and I have come across a interesting point of note. To my ears, which are trained and have 19 years of jazz instrumental and classical piano, Dolby PL2-Music sounds just as good as 6ch audio. In fact, the only difference seems to be volume, and, its the Dolby PL2 which as a higher SPL at the same volume than 6 ch DVD audio or SACD. So, having read a number of posts which seem counter to my observations, I am interested to see if anyone has come across similar accounts, or thinks that there is an alternative that "explains" this phenomena. The genre and quality does not seem to be the issue. I have Norah Jones, Diana Krall, Dvorak, Eric Clapton, and Metallica in either SACD/DVDA, and CD, and the results seem to be the same across the board. Through my AVR 635 the upsampled Dolby-processed CDs sound as good as the SACD/DVDA formats. This does not seem restricted to these brands either. While those are the only titles I have in different formats, my other CDs sounds of similar quality despite producers, genres, artists, mixers, etc.
Ultimately of course, this is not really a problem, I prefer paying the 15 - 20$ that standard CDs cost vs. the 30$+ that the higher formats cost, but still, one would have expected a "dramatic" difference given all the hype in these "phile" forums. Thoughts?
This may sound a bit harsh, but with the system you have I'm not surprised you don't get much distinction between PLII and full 6ch audio in a musical sense. FWIW, I have yet to hear a truly 'musical' rendition in DVD-A or SACD.
However there should be a distinction in one area and that's resolution. The level of resolution in 6ch audio is far greater (by orders) than that of PLII which is a lossy compressed standard. It's a bit like comparing 128-bit MP3 to full res CD. If you don't get differences then either your impeccably trained ears have had it, or more likely, the system is not letting the resolution through. Given that I have customers who are deaf in one ear who can tell the difference, I'm inclined to think it's your system.
Of course, in my view I prefer the sound of ordinary CDs to come out of just 2 channels rather than putting them through the PLIIx/NEO6 process (which is not upsampling incidentally). To me, there is a more musical result in pure direct 2-channel. Adding the other channels just messes up the timing I feel - and this may be another reason why you're experiencing the effects you're experiencing.
Frank, thakns for your response, it gave me a few factors I had not considered (namely the device playing the enhanced def music). Here are a few things that I considered in addition to this.
The PL2 does not do the upsampling, it is the receiver itself which does that, the processing is on top of the upsampling. My ears have definitely not "had it" - yet, perhaps a few more years in the artillery and maybe, but I just had a promotion medical a six months ago, and my hearing is still well above average (sight too, but this is of course irrelevant here). While I do not claim to have a "high end" or a "audiophile" system, I have auditioned a Klipsch RF-83 system which did not reproduce the sound any more accurately, just at a higher SPL with similar volumes, but for all I know this was the 7ch Nad Amp that the store used, and not the receiver (Nad as well). So, possibly, the lack of improved resolution is in the player, my cd player and my DVD-A player are not the same machine so it is not a true "double blind" test (hard to do solo). But I really have nothing invested in the experiment, I wasn't looking for an excuse to buy standard CDs, and quite possibly, I was looking for an excuse to buy the enhanced media formats (yes, I like toys). So it seems counter-intuitive that I concluded the difference was minimal (other than the fact that it was). Further, I am comparing this with live performance standards, and while there is a difference, it's not one that is less than the 90% solution.
I'll admit I only really ever try the hi-def/lo-def comparison on a single dual capacity (hi and lo-def) player. I figure that I'm trying to compare technologies and to bring in a difference in design philosophy (by having a different style of player such as a CD player) would introduce yet other variables which I can't factor into the equation.
Then again, the universal player (for argument's sake) could be optimised for one or other format. My reasoning so far has been that universal players are probably optimised for the hi-def format since this is going to be their raison d'etre from a design point of view, but it's not necessarily a given and I could be making the wrong assumption. For all I know their view was that the hi-def options were really just a stocking filler and the machine is optimised for standard DVD!
Finally, there's the disc itself. We don't know a) if the disc is mastered for best results with Hi-Def or b) if having both hi and lo-def on the disc affects both formats either beneficially or not. So even if you did have a true double blind listening scenario, would it really be a fair representation of the two technologies? No idea!
What I can say is that I have tried several recordings in 'universal' players and the only consistent results for me have been these:
1. Improved resolution from the hi-def layer 2. Lack of musical cohesion in the hi-def layer
The latter is more likely due simply to the fact that these relatively new technologies need some time behind them to make them musical solutions, much the same as early CD, which sounded pretty dire until the mid-nineties.
I will check a couple of things with you though since there are a few variables that I haven't got you to check yet. Let me apologise in advance if this sounds like I'm teaching you to suck eggs, it's not my intention (especially now I know you're a military man!).
First of all, are you using a single connection between your DVD-A player or are you using the analogue 6 channel audio outs? You should be using the latter. This of course introduces yet another variable - the interconnects, but I'll assume you're using similar quality with all.
2nd, are you using the digital out of the cd player or the analogue outs?
If you're using the digital out of the cd player and the digital out (S/PDIF or Toslink) of the DVD-A player, then in all likelihood you're listening to the same datastream which would account for the lack of difference. Please note that the hi-def formats cannot be transmitted digitally at full resolution via the usual coax or fibre optic connections (S/PDIF or Toslink). The maximum is 48x which is not much more than normal CD and barely perceptible in many situations.
If you have a special (digital) link connection between the DVD-A player and the receiver such as Denon's Link or Pioneer's i.Link, then the receiver is doing the conversion at full rate for you. If you are using different brand electronics or electronics which doesn't have that link technology then you need to use the multi-channel analogue outputs from the hi-def player into the multi-channel input on your receiver for the full spectrum available from the hi-def format.
Since you state that the upsampling is being done by the receiver, I am assuming you are using the CD player's digital out and letting the receiver do the upsampling and PL2 matrixing (since upsampling is by definition done in the digital domain). In my experience I usually get better results musically, by using analogue connections and leaving it in 2-channel mode. I don't much like surround sound from a purely music source since I prefer to be in the audience rather than in the middle of a band. I also find that the matrixing kills the timing of the music so I end up listening to the pieces instead of the piece.
From my DVD player, for the DVD-A and 6 ch direct I use the analog interconnects, for movies I use the coax (digital) set to bitstream.
From my CD player I only use the toslink. You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to stereo vs. surround in musical reproduction! Nothing to garner from that though, that is purely subjective preference. To give it a fair shake though, I will use analog interconnects for the CD stereo to a separate input on my player. This way I can compare 2 ch digital to 2 ch analog from the same source.
As an experiment (can you tell I am alone this week) I hooked up my old yammie (listed in my profile) and listened to CDs via PL2, and it was far less appealing than the processing of the HK. So there could very well be quality issues here, and it is possible that the HK is just a really good processor.
As to the sampling rates, the OSD shows what your receiving and with the matrix processing (Dolby, DTS, Logic7 etc) and even with coax it is 24 bit at 96 KHz. With the analog connections obviously this does not display anything but "6ch direct -or- DVD-A".
Normally I am not a fan of "universal players" of any sort. This is a by-product of my military career. Every now and then you get "utility vehicles" of some sort, be they air, land or sea going. Often they are touted as the all-singing, all-dancing solutions to all our problems. 9/10 you end up with houseboats. In my "houseboat" theory, you wind up with a vehicle that does a number of different things, but no one thing well (i.e. houseboats aren't really good houses or good boats). Having said that though, my LG LDA 531 has blown me away. I think it cost me about 150$ish and it does an outstanding job at upscaling (I compared it side by side with the BD and I chose the LDA as the superior picture - blu-ray "Ultraviolet" played on a 42in plasma beside another 42in plasma playing an upscaled version of a standard DVD fyi). It also has a pretty decent audio DAC (which is the above mentioned 24 bit/96KHz), so this is the exception to my rule in that sense.
You inspired me. I went to my collection to see what I could hear, and my results were not much different from your own as I did not hear any real improvement with the SACD, which should have much better resolution. However, I have reconized another variable, a "joker in the deck," if you will, in my system, and Frank's post confirmed my thinking.
I have a very nice NAD T753, which provides awesome sound, and I am very pleased with it. I also have a Sony DV-NS755 DVD/CD/SACD player that I have had for about 4 years. It was a real bargain as it was one of Sony's original SACD capable players and Sony apparently made the SACD capability very inexpensive (I paid $249 for it) in their own line of players in order to get some consumer acceptance of SACD.
Well, when I play a DVD (I am listening to "Roger Waters:In The Flesh" right now--an excellent concert DVD, BTW), I use an optical output to my NAD for the sound, so my NAD is doing the D/A conversion (which it does quite nicely, too). When I play a CD, I use a digital coax connection, so again the NAD does the D/A conversion. But when I play an SACD, I am using the analog 5.1 outs from the Sony into the NAD. Thus, the Sony is doing the D/A conversion, and it has far less resolution, IMO, than does my NAD receiver. So, whatever benefits there are to the higher level format is being lost inside my player. What a disappointment.
Michael, I share your antithapy for the do-all, be-all player. "Jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind. I freely admit that a good dedicated CD player does a much better job than my sony does (I actually have two, a Rotel in my study and my 18 year old Kyocera that still shames most players made today). Still, it seems to me that a player needs only to produce SACD or DVD-A well, as otherwise we are only using the player as a transport when connected to an outboard pre/pro through a digital connection. After all, if we are using a digital connection, whether Toslink or dogital coax, the processing is offloaded to the receiver (or pre-pro). I had never fully appreciated this point before now, so of course I am going to search for a really good SACD player.
You are on the right track Hawk - there is quite a deal better SQ playing SACD's on our Denon 2900 than our cheap Pioneer universal. Having said that, I believe to really appreciate SACD one would need to look into higher end players such as the Marantz SA-11s1 or better. Of course that's a stereo unit. For MC SACD (or DVD-A) my opinion is that one needs 5 speakers of full or near full (with sub) frequency range with the speakers set correctly (equidistant and equal spl) according to the listening position to appreciate the real benefits. My set up comes close but still not for optimum appreciation (modest but good speakers and room constraints deny ideal placement). Though the MC sound is still spectacular with the hi-res formats. The starting point for worthwhile MC players imo would be the Denon 3910 or Marantz 9500 (9600) and upwards.
There is no way, given a reasonable set up, could Dolby PL 1 or11, provide anywhere near the same SQ. For a start, as it is a matrixed MC, it does not distribute the sound to all the channels anywhere near as accurately as the hi-res formats let alone with equal resolution. While I don't think stereo SACD has an earth shattering difference to good quality CD's played on decent player, it does have a smoother liquid quality I find quite appealing, but for me the real appreciation comes in the multi channel mixes.
Guys, thanks for your input! I think I have hit the brick wall though, and just have to accept the fact that I don;t have to buy the 35$ formats to be happy! ;-)
Hawk: I am in the same boat you are as to ID'ing a "quality" SACD player. DVD-A, and SACD did not impact the audio industry in a meaningful way, and are pretty much relegated to niche market status now. Whether or not there are really good legacy players out there remains to be seen.
MR: I am not sure where you are going with the "given a reasonable set up". My set up is reasonable, so is my pitch. The speakers are matched for SPL with a digital meter, along with the sub (+3Dbish for personal taste). Further the 635 provides for bass management in both the digital and analog domain, so I am not relying on the PCM to do the trick.
The players you mention are also universal players, just cost 2 - 3k more... a little more than I am prepared to invest in a curiosity! So this issue may never be solved as it is highly unlikely I will audition something just to hear it. If I don't intend on buying something along the lines, I will not audition it; it's not fair.
Its interesting that you guys have mentioned the "lossy" compression of DD. Considering that the 6ch audio is MLP, and the DD matrixing is suppose to be compressed, there should be an audible difference, yet, I still hear what I hear. Further, this is not a "crap system". While I went to great lengths to note that I do not have a "high end" audiophile system, I may have understated it too much, it ain't cheap either...
Bottom line from my end, I suppose, is I will stick with standard def formats for now!
Michael, I didn't mean to infer you had an inferior system, far from it it appears, but I wrote from my experience about DD matrixing compared to DVD-A and SACD. It just doesn't perform as accurately or with as good SQ as the hi-res formats imho, with my system and in my listening room. I have not heard nor compared these formats on the high end systems except for a AUD$35+ grand Krell/Sonus Faber Cremona outfit in a store (and I wasn't overly impressed for the value), but from what I read and hear, is that the more high end the better when it comes to hi-res. But anyone expecting a jaw dropping, unbelievable, I'm in audio heaven, difference might be sadly let down, though there is usually sonic benefits. I really enjoy hi-res especially in surround - to me this where the dynamics really show up - and I also really enjoy stereo, both hi-res and standard cd (HDCD is again an imorovement) but many things can come into play besides our own ears.
Anyway, there's lots of things around the corner and who knows what will survive let alone make it to the starting block. Having to new video formats is a backward step right off, but should we be surprised?
Okay sorry, I too missed that you were comparing with live performances - all bets are off!
I would agree that I wouldn't hear much better SQ with say the Cream Albert Hall concert in DTS than on DVD-A or SACD, though play a studio recorded DD stereo track in DDPL and then play the MPL 5.1 and the difference is obvious.
No Kano, I have only had the chance to listen twice, once in surround and the other in pcm stereo. I shall do that comparison over the weekend if I get the chance.
I strongly agree that 6 ch is more engaging than stereo, but other than spl at similar volumes, I have not found an obvious difference between MPL and DD PL2, which is my "interesting problem".
I have also been experimenting with comparing DD and DTS. Although a lot of the discs are Dolby encoded, and for some reason my receiver refuses to just take the raw signal and convert it to DTS even on MPL. However, I did get to compare two versions of "The Chronicles of Riddick" in both DTS and Dolby, and I found the DTS version to be more dynamic, but doing some research led me to the conclusion that the difference is may again be SPL at the same volumes, as Dolby specifically reduces their channels in comparison to the centre for voice enhancement purposes (so the dialogue is not drowned out by the effects). When comparing Dolby and DTS matrixing from 2 ch analog sources, I do not find significant differences.
See, I disagree that 6-ch audio is more engaging. I find it more distracting!
FWIW, the resolution thing is only a valid point when comparing like with like - i.e. a CD player at $300 versus a DVD-A/SACD player at $300. If you start contemplating hi-def players at, say, $1500 then the comparison should be made against $1500 CD players. My experience is that $1500 CD players seem to pull a heck of a lot more out of a CD than $300 CD players, and yet we know both players would be extracting similar amounts of information from the discs...
On the subject of really inexpensive players, my experience is that they keep their end up on the video side and really fall flat on the audio side. I always remain aghast at just how good Pioneer entry level players are in terms of video (really astonishingly good) and how utterly bad they are from an audio point of view, even when used just as transports! The mind boggles at how this is even possible, but that's my experience and that of my colleagues in the shop as it happens.
DTS has 3 times the resolution of Dolby Digital typically, MLP is lossless of course and I believe specifies a minimum of 24/96. The other thing to bear in mind is that when using digital interconnects (coax or toslink), the S/PDIF and toslink interfaces introduce jitter in the system. I seem to be quite prone to picking up on the timing errors this introduces and can find the most expensive solutions to be quite boring.
That helps me knowing about DTS resolution. I anticipate and look forward to DTS videos from the local rental store as I know that I am in for a treat with the audio. While I have not deployed my "want to feel like you are in the theater" HT set (see my "spare" parts to get an idea of what I mean), it still will never compare to my 2 channel system yet it will provide enjoyment.
I am a true audiophile and even though with my Monster power units I believe I have one of the best pictures on a television of any kind in my town it is only a by-product of what I am doing for my 2 channel system.
While I am not out to bash 5.1 / 6.1 / 7.1 / 8.1, HT sound just isn't important to me and I just as soon watch DVDs or cable with the source routed into my 2 channel system for most broadcasts. Yet there are specific video presentations, such as sporting events or particular DVDs (Twister, Matrix, some concerts) that are better represented on surround sound.
I guess is what I am saying is that if I want great audio it will not be on a media that could be mixed with video. Probably not factual but true to my beliefs.
If I wanted to argue formats, I would argue for vinyl.
Your not alone Mike3, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you would want to run your audio through your crappy 2-ch system... :-P J/K! I really cannot figure out why you're letting that 4.0t just sit around and do nothing, but c'est la vie.
Also, I think you really hit the nail on the head with your second last para: "but true to my beliefs". I have come to think the same, that our preconceptions will colour our perception and true objectivity is nigh impossible.
I am not deliberately letting my 2nd (unrefurbished) Carver M-4.0t sit around. I cannot find a reasonably priced (<$500 USD) Active 2-way crossover to enable me to horizontally (or vertically once refurbished) bi-amp my Gallos. The second bindings on the Gallos are only for the 2nd coil of the woofer where the 1st bindings are full range. Once I get that the Carver will be back in play. Unrefurbished for a while at least as I am not too worried about imaging from 20 to 34 Hz.
In answer to your question: Have you compared the DVD using the digital vs. analog connections in DTS?
I did this with both Cream/Albert Hall and Taj Mahal in St Lucia. Both were DTD 5.1. The analogue connections were the superior method over the digital - clearly there was better depth and resolution. The bass was heavier with the digital connection, but I have the LFE on the receiver set more for movie effects as I seldom listen to music (SACD, DVD-A and CD) other than with analogue connections. It seemed as if there was more compression with the receiver's DTS decoder than that of the Denon 2900, but I don't know what the reason is as I have set both to the same SPL's with a meter.
Apart from the obvious suround effects, there is little SQ difference between PCM stereo and DTS via analogue - both very good sound on both titles.
Odd actually. I have experienced a bit of the reverse than your final point. I am not referring to those particular recordings of course, so completely different media will result in different observations. But with the few DVD-As and SACDs I have listened to, the direct bass management was wretched.
? I don't think we are on the same page. If your using the discs bass mgt there is nothing to "sort out". If your using your decoder/receivers bass mgt, then by definition you are bypassing the discs format. The problem is that not all discs code the sixth ch to be bass, but as a rear centre.
If your using the discs bass mgt there is nothing to "sort out".
Totally disagree there Michael.
There has been plenty said about setting the bass management on many universal players and the Denon 2900 was also little complicated in this regard (much said on many forums) with it's 10db bump for SACD. The SR7300 also has level settings for the external analogue inputs so it's a juggle to get it all right - especially without a set-up disc.
There is a difference between the Players or even the receivers bass mgt vice the bass mgt programmed on the disc. It is why sometimes you hear cymbals from your sub!
