DVD-Audio from LP

[AllenLowe]

and on the monkey thing, well, I'll just have to smoke a banana and think about it -

[Guest]

why DVD-A? I'm very impressed by SACD

←

Because - simply - you can't make your own SACD's at home. Or anywhere else. You can make DVD-A at home.

Sidewinder: nice vinyl set-up, shame about the budget. You need software and a soundcard. It's unlikey that anyone will accept a lighter as full or part-payment for such items. Bad luck old chap!

Col

[Guest]

I'm really having a hard time finding answers to all the refined questions Allen asked. This site may help him answer the question about what is the capital of Montana.

Believe it or not I spent 4 months in the capital of Montana and it is: Helena.

Airport code HLN, pop: 22,000, Number of soccer pitches: 8 Major tourist attractions: none (unless you count the Unabombers old hotel room).

Nice scenery though...

This is all from my head mind you - because I can't even spel gugle...

[Guest]

Are there any stand alone(audio component) DVD-A recorders???  How much??

I'd rather go this way than the computer route, if possible.

←

Not to my knowledge. In any case the stand-alone option wouldn't allow for the declicking that makes the computer-based solution such an attractive option. Unless every single one of your records is in mint condition of course...

and oh yeah, you can also play your DVD-audio discs on your computer.

[mmilovan]

Are there any stand alone(audio component) DVD-A recorders???  How much??

I'd rather go this way than the computer route, if possible.

←

and oh yeah, you can also play your DVD-audio discs on your computer.

←

?

I don't think so. Only InterVideo WinDVD 6 have that opportunity (it is marked on ots splash screen as such, I did not try), and you must have sound card capable of decoding DVD-A. As far as I know only (crappy) Soundblaster Audigy 2 have that logo, don't know anything about the others sound cards.

And you can not extract back to the wav DVD-A disc, so it's good advice to keep wav tracks as wav (data) DVD in case you want later to do more processing with them.

[Guest]

and oh yeah, you can also play your DVD-audio discs on your computer.

←

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I've toyed with the idea of doing this but quite frankly, when transferring LPs to digital, they do not need the advanced resolution of 24/96 or 24/192... they really do sound perfectly fine in 16/44.1. In fact, I wonder if the clicks, pops & hum might not become more noticeable in 24/96? I'd like to try it but the costs can't be justified in my budget right now.

If I was going to do this, I'd buy Tascam's standalone SACD/DVD-A recorder. The obvious problem is the inability to de-click the results. Plus DVD blanks are more expensive.

Later,

Kevin

[Guest]

I've toyed with the idea of doing this but quite frankly, when transferring LPs to digital, they do not need the advanced resolution of 24/96 or 24/192... they really do sound perfectly fine in 16/44.1. In fact, I wonder if the clicks, pops & hum might not become more noticeable in 24/96? I'd like to try it but the costs can't be justified in my budget right now.

If I was going to do this, I'd buy Tascam's standalone SACD/DVD-A recorder. The obvious problem is the inability to de-click the results. Plus DVD blanks are more expensive.

Later,

Kevin

←

Kevin,

Your suggestion is very misleading! It sounds like you're letting your budget constraints affect your logic.

Granted, you need a pretty good vinyl set-up to make hi-res really worthwhile but I contend that even with a budget turntable you'll be doing a lot of harm by recording and editing at 44.1/16 bit.

As for your suggestion that the clicks, pops and hum might be more noticeable at hi-res, well, yes of course but you're only half-way there. What tends to happen is everything is more noticeable including the music.

And if you have hum, for goodness sake fix the hum before you worry about resolution. First things first!

What I think I'm also inferring from what you say is that LPs don't have the depth of information to make it neccesary to go to high resolution when making a transfer. Again I must refute this; I can hear enormous benefits from using high resolution.

Having good gear is important but it's not the end of the problems. I do these transfers professionally and I wouldn't last a day in this business if I did all my work at 44.1/16. This isn't because all my clients are snobs, it's because the transfers wouldn't be any good. It would be for reasons of sound quality alone, no more, no less. There are genuine reasons for this that, arguably, outweigh any kind of 'preferences'. It's not only the equipment that affects the sound quality:

Even if you're content with the 'general' sound of 44.1/16bit CD audio it's important to note that mastering engineers almost always operate at higher resolution. This is because computers and outboard audio devices do a very much better job of handling 'treatments' to a digital file, such as normalizing, loudness changes to sub-filtering, at a higher bit rate. Downsampling to 44.1/16 for a CD release is always the last step of the mastering process.

There are still some folks that assume digital = perfect but of course anyone with ears knows it's not - there are many pitfalls - however it's one of the easier pitfalls to avoid bad results by keeping a high bit depth/sample rate. In my experience, audio files benefit more from good bit depth than from high sample rates, especially if you need to do any real processing on them. Therefore, if you record at 44.1Khz/24 bit, do your editing, and then burn CD-audio, you will get WAY better results than if you do your recording and editing at 48Khz/16 bit. It's not really open to argument with me, I can HEAR the difference.

For somebody (like me) who isn't happy with CD-audio in the first place, considering it muddled and lifeless, the difference between high resolution and CD is obvious.

I recommend you reconsider your faith in 44.1/16. Your ears will thank you ;-)

If you don't have a sound card capable of 24 bit, there are many budget models out there that will satisfy the average home enthusiast - and they are becoming very cheap. Get a 24 bit sound card and it will change your life ;-)

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Colin,

Maybe you misunderstood my post. I have done many, many LP transfers in 16/44.1 and they all sound fine to my ears and the ears of the many people I have sent them to. I don't need to spend the money on a 24/96 set-up. The sound I'm getting now is very good.

I also wouldn't want you to think I'm against this. I do have several DVD-Audio discs and they are among my best-sounding discs in my collection. However, when it comes to burning from an LP source, and let's face it, you don't need 105 dB of dynamic range for vinyl, 16 bit 44.1 kHz is perfectly fine for most everyone. I just don't think the average Joe's money is well spent like this.

What you also may fail to realize is that most of the people on this board are not likely to have a DVD-Audio capable player. Then what? 16/44.1 audio is universal. If I stick to that, I never have to ask, "Do you have a DVD-Audio player"? I never have to worry about it playing in my car (which is the biggest reason to make these burns to begin with). It's more universal, period.

The Tascam burner intrigues me because it can digitize using DSD and playback like an SACD. I have more than 100 SACDs in my collection and they sound phenomenal. I prefer their sound to DVD-Audio, if only by a slight margain. I would be more interested in making my own SACDs than DVD-Audio discs. Unfortunately, this Tascam deck does not make DSD-encoded discs that will play back in an SACD player. They will only play back in the Tascam. When they get this worked out with Sony, I'll be looking at buying one.

Later,

kevin

[Guest]

Colin,

Maybe you misunderstood my post. ..

Perhaps I did Kev, a little, but I still think hi-res IS something we can all get into.

Like you, I did many many transfers at 44.1/16 and they sounded perfectly good at the time, it's just that compared to the hi-res versions they suck. You're absolutely right to say that your 16bit transfers are good enough for you - it's just that they are not good enough for me. There's no right or wrong about it.

I know it's not the first thing on 'Average Joe Publics' mind but it could be, this computer based hi-res stuff is coming out pretty darn cheap these days; A 24bit sound card with reasonable sound can be had for <30 USD and DVD blanks are coming down in price all the time. DVD burners? dirt cheap depending on where you look. Editing/recording software can be bought or scrounged for next to nothing. A stand alone DVD-A player can be had for less then 200. When you consider the amazing improvement in sound quality possible, that's cheap by any standards!

So if cost isn't the issue, it must be down to effort and enthusiasm? That's where I step in . I suppose I'm 'fighting the corner' of hi-res for want of a better way of putting it, all this stuff is perfectly easy to achieve on a tight budget, you just have want to want to do it.

Seriously though, I'm not doubting your appreciation of all this but I am questioning your original statement.

It's entirely your business to decide if you want to take the plunge into hi-res but until you do, your original statement will be misleading to those yet to decide.

Remember you said that 'LP transfers don't need 24bit.'

I disagree because in my case they absolutely need it. Period.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Colin,

Have you ever made a transfer at 24/96, created a DVD-Audio disc and then downconverted that transfer to 16/44.1, created a CD-R and compared the two in a blind listening test on your audio system? It may be that you are expecting 24/96 to sound better so it does. In practice, it may not be a "night & day" type scenario. Maybe it's only a smidge better? In all seriousness, I have done blind listening tests between DVD-Audio, SACD and redbook CD and in some cases, there isn't a whole lot of differences and when there are, it's usually in the mastering, not the source. This isn't always true but it has happened. In fact, a friend of mine seems to prefer the sound redbook CD over high rez. Go figure.

Regardless, I can't play DVD-Audio in my car. That's the biggest reason I convert LPs to digital to begin with. I have no professional work at it and redbook CD suits me. Heck, if I want vinyl sound in my house, that's what my turntable is for.

It might also interest you to know that there used to be a big advocate of SACD who regularly posted here in a manner that caused some backlash against all high rez audio. I never did agree with his confrontational style to get people to convert to SACD but I did agree with him that everyone who loves music should at least give it a try. I can only wonder if this backlash is still here on this board. There isn't a whole lot of discussion about high rez audio here. You would think there would be but there isn't.

If you really want to get into this with a lot of like-minded audiophiles, try Steve Hoffman's forums but MAKE SURE YOU READ THEIR POSTING RULES. They are strict about personal attacks and discussing double-blind listening tests are a no-no (since they usually break down into a subjective vs. objective argument).

Another place to go is the Audio Asylum DVD-Audiobahn. The only caveat I can give you about that place is that there are some truly insane people there and you should figure out who to respond to and who to ignore or else you'll get upset at a troll... and that's what they live for. There are a lot of trolls there.

Later,

Kevin

Edited June 22, 2005 by Kevin Bresnahan

[AllenLowe]

with most consumer equipment, it is true that there is a real loss in transfer through analog-digital stage. However, I have an older but very nice symetrix 20 bit converter that uses noise shaping to convert to 16 bit, I have a high quality sound card, and a good editing program - I also use an audiophile turntable and a CEDAR system - and can hear no loss - the key is really the converters, getting it to the digital stage - plus decent monitors so you know what you are hearing -

[Christiern]

Thank you, Colin, for hanging in there--I'm glad this thread finally got back on track. Also hope we don't lose you to Steve Hoffman, which is an interesting thread and--I find--not at all full of what some people call "trolls." Still, this is the place to be, IMO.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Thank you, Colin, for hanging in there--I'm glad this thread finally got back on track. Also hope we don't lose you to Steve Hoffman, which is an interesting thread and--I find--not at all full of what some people call "trolls." Still, this is the place to be, IMO.

←

Chris,

I did not say that there are trolls over at Steve Hoffman's forums!! There are some great posters over there and trolls would get the boot very quickly.

There are some major trolls over at the Audio Asylum boards however and it is rather insane, hence the "Audio Asylum". It's actually gotten so bad that I rarely go there. It has denigrated into a bunch of fanatics screaming at each over which high rez format is more dead than the other. Follow my link and read a few threads... nasty stuff going on there. However, Colin's experimentation with DVD-Audio may get a few good posts.

Later,

Kevin

[Guest]

Colin,

Have you ever made a transfer at 24/96, created a DVD-Audio disc and then downconverted that transfer to 16/44.1, created a CD-R and compared the two in a blind listening test on your audio system?

←

Blind tests? Naah.. though I must admit that when I'm really getting into a piece of music my eyes are usually clamped firmly shut

There's really no doubt in my mind - I CAN tell them apart. Easily. On a high end system I can tell the difference even easier and therein I think lies the root of the problem. The better your audio environment, the more errors you hear in the sources. It's not like I'm looking for errors, it's more like they are slowly but surely making themselves felt. I can't ignore what my ears are telling me when I like it.

It's a personal thing - I'm definitely not on some kind of crusade - worry not. Hell, I know all sorts of people who are perfectly happy with CD and bless 'em all.

...but I might pipe up if I see something that could be disinformation No offence meant and none implied!

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Christiern]

Sorry to have misinterpreted you post, Kevin.

Chris

[J.A.W.]

and couw is, pure and simple, a nasty guy who seems to revel in his nastiness - his history of activity on this board does not make him immune from criticisn, just as my 35 years of activity in the jazz world does not make me immune -

←

Couw is, pure and simple, one of the nicest and most helpful guys on these forums, but hey, that's just my opinion.

Edit: sorry to bring this off-topic stuff up again, but I just had to say something.

Edited June 22, 2005 by J.A.W.

[AllenLowe]

yes you are entitled to your opinion - now please, let us stay on topic -

[neveronfriday]

yes you are entitled to your opinion - now please, let us stay on topic -

←

[mmilovan]

Although the suggestion to make back-ups of your high definition audio as data (wav) is entirely correct, you shouldn't worry that your audio is lost forever, you can in emergencies use the optical or co-ax digital outputs from your stand-alone DVD-A player to record digitally back through your sound card, provided your sound card allows you to do this. Obviously this only happens in 1:1 time but it means you can 'rescue' stuff. I've done this a few times already with perfectly good results.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

←

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Colin,

As I mentioned in this thread, the Steve Hoffman forum is a good place to get a nice healthy conversation going about this topic. Just yesterday, this thread showed up and it's about making your own DVD-Audio discs. There is some confusion about how to do it and your insight might be helpful.

Kevin

[Guest Chaney]

yes you are entitled to your opinion - now please, let us stay on topic -

←

My apology to Colin for the thread-crap.

And now, back OT...

[Guest]

Colin,

As I mentioned in this thread, the Steve Hoffman forum is a good place to get a nice healthy conversation going about this topic. Just yesterday, this thread showed up and it's about making your own DVD-Audio discs. There is some confusion about how to do it and your insight might be helpful.

Kevin

←

I'll check it out - thanks for the tip Kev.

Milan? All I can tell you is that my Cambridge Audio DVD77 features both a co-axial and an optical digital out. Works absolutely fine for me! I can't speak for other manufacturers but I have not heard of any problems. Maybe commercially produced DVD-A has some kind of copy-disabling technology? I've never tried it.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Guest]

yes you are entitled to your opinion - now please, let us stay on topic -

←

...Careful Allen, you thought I was SPAM, remember?

I saw Allen that you have a Cedar system. I'm intrigued to know what you think of it and would value some insights. Cost has always put me off to begin with so my knowledge of Cedar is limited to a few horror-show Cedar treatments on CD re-issues. No life, no twang, no clicks admittedly but at such a cost.

Are these transfers just the work of bumbling technicians or does Cedar have a fundamentally rotten core? I only ask because I have never heard a Cedar transfer that is in any way 'musical'.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[J.A.W.]

... my knowledge of Cedar is limited to a few horror-show Cedar treatments on CD re-issues. No life, no twang, no clicks admittedly but at such a cost.

←

The Cedar'd CDs I had/have sound completely lifeless and dull, the music is flat as a pancake...