DVD-A ПРОТИВ SACD

На п.99. Анатолий, надеюсь, Вам будет интересно ознакомиться с мнением Дэвида Чески о многоканальных форматах (см. ниже). Полезно также иметь представление об амбиофонии (см. книгу Фурдуева).
Кстати, в дельта-сигма модуляторе (любого порядка) НЕТ цифрового фильтра. Не надо путать модуляторы с АЦП/ЦАП.

"The Truth About SACD and DVD-Audio      4/30/2001    

While in the process of writing this article, I am afforded the luxury of simply walking into my studio and listening to high-resolution audio whenever I am struck by the whim. Whether I have chosen to use SACD or DVD-A software, I can listen to the digital output from my recording machines in my professional studio and have a sonic experience unavailable with any other playback device. What does this mean to me as a listener with an audiophile mentality? Basically, I am able to hear increased detail, air, depth and spatial cues that give a more accurate representation of the musical event that has been recorded. Why is it that in the current state of the audio world, you, the home music lover, are not even given the choice to hear what I hear?

You are limited purely because SACD and DVD-A players, the very output devices that could equip you with this luxury, do not provide a high resolution, digital output signal. What is the purpose of introducing these new formats if the players we use for playback have no digital outputs for use with high-quality, audiophile D/A converters? This is analogous to giving someone a Ferrari as a gift and then telling them they are prohibited from driving faster than twenty miles per hour. Have the hardware manufacturers put a governor on our audio engines? It may seem this way initially, but in actuality it is not the hardware companies, but rather the large record companies who have prohibited advances. The “majors” are afraid of piracy and have the irrational fear that people will use quality digital output technology to steal perfect copies of copyrighted material. Is this really a legitimate concern? I think that NAPSTER has already proven to the world that piracy is not predicated on sound quality. The world moves forward, and in a few years there will be a new standard in audio quality, and yes someone will find a way to steal that. I guess it is all part of the game, but why should we, the consumer, have to suffer and settle for an inferior system because of the fears of big-business record executives?

It is this mentality that has caused a lack of software in the SACD and DVD-A formats and has prevented us from hearing these formats at their best. This mentality is crippling the entire industry. Believe me, most people have never really heard what their hi-fi systems are capable of and we should all revolt against the factors that are keeping us from the ideal as in the movie Network, by simply saying we are not going to take this anymore. The fight between DVD-A and SACD is a minor squabble. The fact is both of these systems are far superior to the 44.1/16 CD's we have available now and while surround is nice, before we worry about surround, we need to get a good two-channel system working that will optimize our hi-fi systems.

Which brings me to the subject of surround, to which many people would say, "What's the point?" I can assure you that surround, setup correctly, is a tremendous listening experience. Think of two-channel as looking into the hall, while surround puts you in the hall. Basically, we only need mono to enjoy music in the abstract sense, but the art of recording is to recreate the event and surround brings us closer to that. But how did we get stuck with 5.1?

5.1 was created for movies. That's great, but what a movie needs and what you need to recreate a concert hall acoustic are two different things. Why does the industry think that music lovers should take a back seat on the bus to home theater and give way to the corporate giants that dictate to the rest of the world how they should listen to music? Is not this a sort of corporate fascism? It is like your older brother going off to college and handing you his old coat and saying, "Make it fit.” Well, I for one do not want to treat my customers like that. I want to deliver to them the best music system that is currently available, and finally, we now have the ability to deliver six full bandwidth channels with either DVD-A or SACD. What is 6.0 and how do we do it?

To create a 6.0 listening environment, all we do is reassign the channels from a 5.1 system. The center channel becomes a 55-degree left side height speaker and the subwoofer channel becomes a 55-degree right side height speaker. Audiophiles have full range systems, and if you still want/need to use a subwoofer, you can simply run it off the stereo front as we have been doing for years. By doing this alteration, we free up two audio channels which are better used as the two 55-degree elevated side channels. Concert hall designers have long known that early and later lateral reflections from angles like 55-degrees and wider are very important in enhancing a listener's sense of envelopment, and with these additional height speakers, you can experience imitated reflections in your listening room. Why in 5.1 surround is the element of height totally ignored? After all, we live in a three dimensional world where music exists in a three-dimensional space and if we are going to try to recreate it, we had better pay attention to height.

6.0 offers you, the listener, a better roller coaster ride by having the side speakers enhance your sense of being there. 5.1 cannot give you this.

Now, on the subject of the ITU Surround standards. For some reason, the world has adopted this standard as the Holy Grail and although in 6.0 we continue to use the ITU 60-degree fronts as we have always done for stereo, I have a big problem with having the speakers at 110 degrees in the rear. The problem is that in most of the world it's simply impossible to place speakers for DVD-A or SACD this way. Why? Because most people like to listen to their speakers from a distance of about 9 or 10 feet so as not to have the speakers on top of them or in the near field. This means you better have an 18-foot wide living room to set up 5.1 according to the ITU standards, and if you happen to live in New York or Tokyo it also means you better be really rich. I don’t know anyone with rooms that large, not to mention that most rooms are rectangles. Now do not get me wrong, ITU can work with DVD Video because they the preamps are equipped with digital delays so you can adjust the time delays. However, to my knowledge, this capability is not included in most DVD-A or SACD players, so for surround, all of the speakers must be equidistant, and as a result, there goes the ITU standard except for those of you who are rich and living in Castles.

So, before we jump into all the format wars and controversy, perhaps we should think about what the final goal is. For me, the goal is to have a concert hall experience in my listening room.

Give me my digital outputs for these new formats and 6.0 capability. Then I will stop complaining and we all will have the opportunity to hear our hi-fi systems at their optimal performance.

David Chesky