Super Audio CD Questions

[apakhira]

Hi
I have a few questions about the Super Audio CD standard-
1.)Can all standalone DVD players play Super Audio CD?[/list]2.)The sample rate of Super audio cd is 48 khz or 96 khz or 192 khz.?
3.)What's the difference between DVD-audio ad Super audio cd?
4.)How can i author a Super audio cd?

[hififan]

Hello

1. No. The dvd player must state that it supports/plays SACD. SACD is not a dvd video or audio standard. SACD was developed by Sony and Phillips as a successor to the compact disc.

2. The sample rate is usually 96 khz with many SACD players down sampling to 48 khz. I am not sure as to the sampling rate on SACD surround discs.

3. The two or competing incompatible systems. From my understanding, DVD-audio relies heavily on compression, while SACD is a purer non compressed representation of the audio signal.

4. I am not aware of consumer friendly SACD home based authoring software. Possibly SurCode may offer a package.

Regards

John

[apakhira]

Thanx.Another question-
Are Super Audio CDs written in normal DVD-ROM Media?

[thxkid]

disagree about the compression on DVD-audio, mine I have range from 3.5 gigs to 7 gigs on my DVD-Audio discs, plus mine will play on any DVD player also, unlike SACD.
and currently there has been nothing put out yet to rip and or backup a DVD-Audio or SACD and they are copy protected so no 1 to 1 copies with a burning program either. Just not popular enough yet, hell most storee salespeople don't even know what a DVD-Audio, SACD or DTS Discs are or either if they stock them either, abou the cheapiest place to buy so far Frys electronics, price are at $13.99 to $15.99.

[ebenton]

I own a Pioneer DV563A, which will play both SACD and DVD-Audio. It seems that there are more SACD titles available than DVD-Audio. In any case, I have purchased 3 SACD disks and 1 DVD-Audio. Some SACD disks are hybrid, which means that they have a layer that can be read by a regular CD/DVD player and sounds like a regular CD.
The 1 DVD-Audio disk that I have purchased has two sides. One side is DVD-Audio encoded, which will only play on my Pioneer DV563A. The other side has 5.1-channel Dolby Digital and can play in any DVD player.

On the Pioneer DV563A, in order to get the full benefit of the SACD or DVD-Audio, you must connect the 6 discrete channel connectors from the DV563A to an AV receiver that has 6 multi-channel input connectors. The SACD and DVD-Audio signals are not encoded like Dolby Digital or DTS, and are not transmitted through the optical or coaxial digital audio output.

The file structure of an SACD-only disk or the SACD-only portion of an SACD hybrid disk is one that Windows does not recognize. So you can't use the usual methods to copy it or author it or write it.

The DVD-Audio disk that I have contains a VIDEO_TS folder which has some still photos and lyrics displays in it (the lyrics displays are synchronized with the music). The VIDEO_TS folder contains more that 4.7 GB. There is obviously also an AUDIO_TS folder. However, as opposed to regular movie DVDs, there actually are useful files in the AUDIO_TS folder. This would make using something like DVD Shrink difficult, since it tends to ignore the AUDIO_TS folder. You would have to figure out how small you would need to shrink your VIDEO_TS contents in order to have enough room to copy both the AUDIO and VIDEO_TS folders onto one disk.

[FT Shark]

Are Super Audio CDs written in normal DVD-ROM Media?

No, I believe they are on dual-layer CD's. I also believe any standard CD player can read some of the information on them, but you will need a SACD player to play the additional.

[waheed]

From my understanding, DVD-audio relies heavily on compression, while SACD is a purer non compressed representation of the audio signal

Untrue. DVD-Audio contains uncompressed sound while SACD contains compressed sound. DVD-Audio can hold 8.5GB while SACD is limited to around 700MB. The mojority of DVD-Audio's are hybrid meaning they also contain DVD-Video content (Audio) for compatibility with DVD Players. This is usually Dolby Digital or DTS and compressed sound. The full resolution uncompressed sound is stored in the AUDIO_TS folder and can only be played back on DVD-Audio compatable players.

Generally, in my opinion, DVD Audio is superior to SACD as it offers a higher sampling rate up to 192Khz.

[cosmin]

DVD-Audio can hold 8.5GB while SACD is limited to around 700MB.

Untrue

SACD has a 700MB layer if the disc is made compatible to the CD players (but that's not necessary), BUT it has a DVD-like layer where the actual SACD data is stored. The format is compressed, but it's not derived from PCM: it's sigma-delta modulation (the difference between PCM and sigma-delta is pretty much like the difference between AM radio and FM radio: AM radio is Amplitude-Modulated; FM radio is Frequency-Modulated, which gives a far better sound). The *lossy* compression of SACD, named DSD (Direct Stream Digital), gives *better* results than the *lossless* compression of DVD-Audio, named MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing).

This may sound weird, but it's true because the DVD-Audio sampling rate cannot be higher than 192 KHz, while SACD goes as far as 2.8 MHz (!!!) Even if you lose something from 2.8 MHz, you're still far better than 192 KHz.

Generally, in my opinion, DVD Audio is superior to SACD as it offers a higher sampling rate up to 192Khz.

DVD-Audio's advantage is that it's backed by the DVD Forum, it uses the same UDF file system like DVD-Video and all the other DVD formats, and the sound is easier to edit (because AM audio is easy to edit).

SACD's advantage is a far more *superior* audio quality, and (sometimes) compatibility with the current CD players. It's disadvantages are the fact that it's not backed by the DVD Forum (but customers might not care that much), and the fact that frequency-modulated audio is difficult to edit: it has to be converted to PCM first, and that's hard. Sigma-Delta is a whole different business than MP3 or Dolby or whatever that comes directly or indirectly from PCM.

Fore more info, see:
SACD FAQ at http://www.sacd.philips.com/FAQ.html
DSD technology at http://www.sacd.philips.com/technology.html

[ebenton]

I can definitely tell the difference between the DVD-Audio output and the Dolby Digital/DTS output of my DVD-Audio disk. The DVD-Audio has a noticeably better sound.
However, I really can't tell much difference between SACD and DVD-Audio. This is probably because it's easier to compare with my DVD-Audio disk, because I can play the same songs in DVD-Audio and then play them again in Dolby Digital and compare the same music.
Since my SACD disks do not contain the same songs, it's more difficult to compare.
But then, I'm not really an audiophile, nor do I play one on TV.

[cosmin]

To ebenton:
As a matter of fact, the human ear goes only a little beyond 20kHz, which means that a sampling of 48 kHz can be pretty much the limit that a human can hear. More than that can be perceived only if surrounded by a "high-freqiuency-friendly" sound environment. You will hear a very high frequency pitch during a piano concerto, but it's unlikely that you will hear that when listening to rock music. And, definitely, you'll never need all those 2.8 MHz.

The big deal with SACD/DSD is that it's best for archiving purposes; so far, many record labels have their master copies in analog format, because high-quality analog storage is better than the best PCM. DSD with FM modulation is the first that can beat that.

Having a very, very high quality *master* copy is desirable, because you lose during editing, and you want to start from something so good that the systematic losses don't count in the final output.

But from a consumer's point of view, there is little to no difference, because the human ear cannot hear the extra quality that resides in DSD. I am not an audiophile myself, and I don't really know how an audiophile will argue on this issue.

[ebenton]

Cosmin,
In my case the upper end is probably 15KHz instead of 20, but in any case, the difference that I can detect between the Dolby Digital side of my DVD-Audio disk and the DVD-Audio side is mainly in the area of channel separation and dynamic range. The difference in amplitude between the loudest louds and the quietest quiets seems to be greater with DVD-Audio, as well as the sounds that are close to each other in amplitude seem to be better separated.
I know I sound kind of like an audiophile with those sentences, but I am not. However, I can tell a difference in overall, subjective quality. Maybe it's just the placebo effect, making me believe that DVD-Audio is better than Dolby Digital, just because I know which is which when I listen to them.

[cosmin]

I can detect between the Dolby Digital side of my DVD-Audio disk and the DVD-Audio side is mainly in the area of channel separation and dynamic range. The difference in amplitude between the loudest louds and the quietest quiets seems to be greater with DVD-Audio, as well as the sounds that are close to each other in amplitude seem to be better separated. [...] Maybe it's just the placebo effect, making me believe that DVD-Audio is better than Dolby Digital, just because I know which is which when I listen to them.

Maybe it's not just a placebo effect. I don't know intricate details about Dolby, but I heard that it matters how you adjust parameters, both in the encoder and in the decoder. For one thing, I can tell the difference between a PCM track and a Dolby track on a DVD-Video just by noticing that the PCM track sounds considerably louder (I never bothered to look at the dynamic range, though). I believe that, with the right adjustment, it's possible to make the Dolby track sound almost identical to a PCM or MLP (DVD-Audio) track, but I don't have a real, full-fledged Dolby decoder; I only have what my simple DVD-Video player gives me.

These adjustments are useful, because the efficiency of encoding varies from audio track to audio track. Now: I might understand why those adjustments are necessary at encoding time, but I am clueless as to why they are necessary at decoding time, too, and why aren't the "adjustment parameters" (whatever they are) embedded into the Dolby AC3 stream. I have the impression that the surrounding environment matters, but still I don't see myself analyzing the geometry of my room or the material of which the walls are made, and adjust the Dolby decoder based on that.

In fact, one of the highest selling points of DTS is that you don't need all the adjustments that you need with Dolby.

I think I have to read more about this stuff, because I don't really understand how it works.