Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DVD burner burn DVD-A?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:21:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

So, if I buy a DVD burner for my pc, will I be able to burn 5.1
surround sound DVD-A discs that will play in any DVD player? If not,
what is the cheapest route to burn a 5.1 DVD-A disc as of now?

More about : dvd burner burn dvd

Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:12:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

inkexit@yahoo.com wrote:
> So, if I buy a DVD burner for my pc, will I be able to burn 5.1
> surround sound DVD-A discs that will play in any DVD player? If not,
> what is the cheapest route to burn a 5.1 DVD-A disc as of now?

This topic has come up here quite a few times in the past, so you may
want to do a google search. It appears that Steinberg's Wavelab software
has DVD-Audio authoring tools. Another is Minnetonka's discWelder - they
have a "bronze" (limited) version that sells for $99.

The hardware shouldn't be a problem, but it's probably a good idea to
make sure that a given burner is supported by the software before you
spend any money.

http://www.discwelder.com/

http://www.steinberg.de/ProductPage_sb6636.html?Product...
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 1:02:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<inkexit@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So, if I buy a DVD burner for my pc, will I be able to burn 5.1
>surround sound DVD-A discs that will play in any DVD player?

No. First of all, about half the DVD players out there can't recognize
a DVD disc.

>If not,
>what is the cheapest route to burn a 5.1 DVD-A disc as of now?

You can make a DVD-R with DVD-A format, but the software I have seen so
far isn't cheap. Sonic will definitely do it. I think Sadie will do it.

I think the cheapest DVA-A authoring software for the PC is DiskWelder
from Minnetonka for around $500.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
April 27, 2005 6:15:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On unix a machine (Mac OSX, Linux, Solaris,...) DVD-Audio authoring is
a couple of commands:

http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/howto.shtml

The project is fairly new but I tested it last night with a 24/96 2
channel file and it worked fine.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 8:08:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1114568479.134040.256080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
inkexit@yahoo.com wrote:

> So, if I buy a DVD burner for my pc, will I be able to burn 5.1
> surround sound DVD-A discs that will play in any DVD player? If not,
> what is the cheapest route to burn a 5.1 DVD-A disc as of now?


I think what you really mean is that you want to burn a DVD with just
5.1 audio, not a DVD-Audio disc (which is a different format and not
compatible with most players).


The following is for a DVD-Video disc, which is compatible with all
players.

After you've prepped your 5.1 audio, you need to encode it into a Dolby
Digital stream. This usually requires an extra charge piece of software
or plug-in if you want to do it directly from your DAW.

Then you need an authoring application to create the disc. In the mid
to high end applications, the Dolby Digital encoder is included,
although sometimes it will only encode stereo and not 5.1 (read the
specs carefully).

Be aware, authoring is a little tricky and does have a learning curve.
I can't tell you about the cheaper applications, but they probably won't
do what you want because most are stereo only.

Once you've built the disc, just about any DVD burner will work just
fine, although the newer Pioneers are fairly inexpensive and about as
bullet-proof as you're going to find.

Since we're almost completely a Mac house, I can only tell you that
DVD-Studio Pro will do exactly what you want for about $500 or so.
Don't know what's comparable on the PC.

If you really want to do a DVD-Audio disc (that will only play on
dedicated DVD-Audio or DVD-A compatible players), then Discwelder Bronze
is a great solution for about $100. You can use your aiff or wave files
directly from your DAW and don't need to Dolby encode. The downside (or
maybe not in your case) is that you can't use anything above 48k, but
you can't in Dolby Digital either.

As you can see, it's getting easier all the time to do this, but it's
still not totally simple.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:39:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
?
>
> This topic has come up here quite a few times in the past, so you may want
> to do a google search. It appears that Steinberg's Wavelab software has
> DVD-Audio authoring tools. Another is Minnetonka's discWelder - they have
> a "bronze" (limited) version that sells for $99.


Or Audio DVD Creator http://www.audio-dvd-creator.com/?google $39.95 .

Can do AC3 or 2 chan PCM to 24/96 .

geoff
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 11:20:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DiscWelder Bronze will do stereo files up to 192kHz/24 bit

Rail
--
Recording Engineer/Software Developer
Rail Jon Rogut Software
http://www.railjonrogut.com
mailto:rail@railjonrogut.com

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-CEB1C2.09082927042005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <1114568479.134040.256080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> inkexit@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> So, if I buy a DVD burner for my pc, will I be able to burn 5.1
>> surround sound DVD-A discs that will play in any DVD player? If not,
>> what is the cheapest route to burn a 5.1 DVD-A disc as of now?
>
>
> I think what you really mean is that you want to burn a DVD with just
> 5.1 audio, not a DVD-Audio disc (which is a different format and not
> compatible with most players).
>
>
> The following is for a DVD-Video disc, which is compatible with all
> players.
>
> After you've prepped your 5.1 audio, you need to encode it into a Dolby
> Digital stream. This usually requires an extra charge piece of software
> or plug-in if you want to do it directly from your DAW.
>
> Then you need an authoring application to create the disc. In the mid
> to high end applications, the Dolby Digital encoder is included,
> although sometimes it will only encode stereo and not 5.1 (read the
> specs carefully).
>
> Be aware, authoring is a little tricky and does have a learning curve.
> I can't tell you about the cheaper applications, but they probably won't
> do what you want because most are stereo only.
>
> Once you've built the disc, just about any DVD burner will work just
> fine, although the newer Pioneers are fairly inexpensive and about as
> bullet-proof as you're going to find.
>
> Since we're almost completely a Mac house, I can only tell you that
> DVD-Studio Pro will do exactly what you want for about $500 or so.
> Don't know what's comparable on the PC.
>
> If you really want to do a DVD-Audio disc (that will only play on
> dedicated DVD-Audio or DVD-A compatible players), then Discwelder Bronze
> is a great solution for about $100. You can use your aiff or wave files
> directly from your DAW and don't need to Dolby encode. The downside (or
> maybe not in your case) is that you can't use anything above 48k, but
> you can't in Dolby Digital either.
>
> As you can see, it's getting easier all the time to do this, but it's
> still not totally simple.
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:02:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Is there any kind of programming you can do with the DVD format? Specs
are not importnat in this regard, 44.1 v. 96, etc. I'd like to have
layers of audio that the listener could turn on and off on the fly, or
have certain tracks, perhaps the last one, repeat forever, or
introducing any kind of random function would be great too.
Programming a Cage number piece onto a DVD with good instrument samples
of various lengths would be a perfect way to produce a Cage disc.
Using random functions to make a disc that was different every time you
listen to it (or even if there were just 20 different iterations) would
be awesome and is in line with a new take on music I'm trying to get
around to. I guess you can do all these things on a CD-ROM disc for
pc, but I'd rather have it on a DVD. Is any of this possible?
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

andy <andy19191@fsmail.net> wrote:
> On unix a machine (Mac OSX, Linux, Solaris,...) DVD-Audio authoring is
> a couple of commands:

> http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/howto.shtml

> The project is fairly new but I tested it last night with a 24/96 2
> channel file and it worked fine.

I also tried it (with 16/44.1 2-channel WAVs). It worked well, but I
was surprised that my DVD-Audio player (Pioneer DV-575A) didn't output
a digital signal (only analogic sound). I was convinced that a DVD-Audio
player could output a digital signal * and it was the disks that had a
code to disallow it ? Is my understanding correct and is dvda-author
putting such a code on the files that it creates ?

* although maybe not at the highest rates.

Some of the people posting on this thread seem to have experience with
commercial DVD-Audio authoring software. Does such software have an
option to allow or disallow digital sound output ?

I will take a look at the DVD-Audio specs at :

http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/spec/index.shtml

http://www.hodie-world.com/dvdtech1.html

but if somebody knows the answer it might be faster.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 7:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Helce.1146$BE3.267@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Rail Jon Rogut" <railro@earthlink.net> wrote:

> DiscWelder Bronze will do stereo files up to 192kHz/24 bit
>
> Rail
> --
> Recording Engineer/Software Developer
> Rail Jon Rogut Software
> http://www.railjonrogut.com
> mailto:rail@railjonrogut.com
>


Yes, but the poster wanted 5.1, which exceed the disc bandwidth at
anything greater than 48/24.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 7:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <Helce.1146$BE3.267@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Rail Jon Rogut" <railro@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> DiscWelder Bronze will do stereo files up to 192kHz/24 bit
>
>Yes, but the poster wanted 5.1, which exceed the disc bandwidth at
>anything greater than 48/24.

You mean it will exceed the maximum bandwidth of the signal coming off the
head for realtime playback, or it will limit the total storage volume
to some miniscule time?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 8:09:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d4t1pj$oku$1@koala.mat.uc.pt>,
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <rps@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

> andy <andy19191@fsmail.net> wrote:
> > On unix a machine (Mac OSX, Linux, Solaris,...) DVD-Audio authoring is
> > a couple of commands:
>
> > http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/howto.shtml
>
> > The project is fairly new but I tested it last night with a 24/96 2
> > channel file and it worked fine.
>
> I also tried it (with 16/44.1 2-channel WAVs). It worked well, but I
> was surprised that my DVD-Audio player (Pioneer DV-575A) didn't output
> a digital signal (only analogic sound). I was convinced that a DVD-Audio
> player could output a digital signal * and it was the disks that had a
> code to disallow it ? Is my understanding correct and is dvda-author
> putting such a code on the files that it creates ?
>
> * although maybe not at the highest rates.
>
> Some of the people posting on this thread seem to have experience with
> commercial DVD-Audio authoring software. Does such software have an
> option to allow or disallow digital sound output ?
>


There's no provision for digital output for multichannel (stereo is
possible on some decks) DVD-Audio yet, unfortunately. Maybe soon, but
it will also require a new player and receiver to accommodate.

Some companies are developing a Firewire interface, and some
proprietary, but there's also the issue of copyright violation if the
digital signal is used. Thus, there's a flag deep down in the spec to
stop digital transmission, but it's not an issue at the moment anyway
since no (or few, there may be something new that I'm not aware of)
players/receivers are capable.

I think that the signal on the disc that you're referring to is a
watermark used for copy protection and has nothing to do with preventing
digital output. That's not used that often (mostly on Warner Music
discs), but it is used.

You can do 96/24 stereo PCM on a DVD-video disc since it's part of the
spec, but you won't have much room left for picture if you're using any.
Plus, most DVD players don't actually have 96k converters on-board, and
down-sample to 48k anyway. You cannot use more than 2 channels of
48/96k PCM on a DVD-V since it will exceed the audio bandwidth of the
disc.

On a DVD-A, you can practically have 6 channels of 48/24 PCM,
theoretically 6 channels of 96/24 (won't work in the real world), and 2
channels of up to 192/24. But you have to MLP encode for 6 channels of
88.2-96k/24 to make it work on the vast majority of players.

For more info on multichannel delivery and production, you can check our
website either under the FAQ or the Articles section. The articles are
reprints of things I've written for Surround Professional magazine.
Some are a little dated, but you'll get the general picture.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 1:29:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I looked around for some DVD authoring info, but all I could find were
promotional sites for certain software suites, and not any public
disclosure of the spces and possibilites -- something like a dvd.org.
What kind of software would you need to do these things, especially the
random feature? Would you actually script it out with some DVD
language, or is it all GUI? The surround associates site says you can
do 8 channels of 48 k, 16 bit audio in either Lpcm or Mpeg-2. I think
an interactive 8 track could work nicely. I assume these are free and
would not have to be paid extra for, as opposed to dts. As far as
video, it would either be a black screen or perhaps a few icons for
navigation of the real time changes a listener could make, or perhaps
he would just press a certain button on his remote. I'd like to learn
more about all this. Are there any sites that go into these details?
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 7:15:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d4tkp2$3m8$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >In article <Helce.1146$BE3.267@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Rail Jon Rogut" <railro@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> DiscWelder Bronze will do stereo files up to 192kHz/24 bit
> >
> >Yes, but the poster wanted 5.1, which exceed the disc bandwidth at
> >anything greater than 48/24.
>
> You mean it will exceed the maximum bandwidth of the signal coming off the
> head for realtime playback, or it will limit the total storage volume
> to some miniscule time?
> --scott

DVD has a maximum data bandwidth of 9.8mbs, so only 6 channels of 48/24
will fit (or 4 channels of 96/24).

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 7:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1114796099.207500.81360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
inkexit@yahoo.com wrote:

> Is there any kind of programming you can do with the DVD format? Specs
> are not importnat in this regard, 44.1 v. 96, etc. I'd like to have
> layers of audio that the listener could turn on and off on the fly, or
> have certain tracks, perhaps the last one, repeat forever, or
> introducing any kind of random function would be great too.
> Programming a Cage number piece onto a DVD with good instrument samples
> of various lengths would be a perfect way to produce a Cage disc.
> Using random functions to make a disc that was different every time you
> listen to it (or even if there were just 20 different iterations) would
> be awesome and is in line with a new take on music I'm trying to get
> around to. I guess you can do all these things on a CD-ROM disc for
> pc, but I'd rather have it on a DVD. Is any of this possible?


Yes, you could do all those things with DVD-Video, which is a lot more
flexible programming-wise that DVD-Audio. You'd have to use Dolby
Digital (or DTS) in order to fit everything on the disc and not exceed
the bandwidth though.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 3:12:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1114835378.706187.304420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> inkexit@yahoo.com writes:

> I looked around for some DVD authoring info, but all I could find were
> promotional sites for certain software suites, and not any public
> disclosure of the spces and possibilites -- something like a dvd.org.

Since there are a number of licensed processes such as Dolby Digital,
DTS, and MLP involved, I suspect that at least this stage in the life
of DVD development, you need to be an official, signed-on developer in
order to get development documentation. Either that or
reverse-engineer a disk. The basic structure is almost certainly
documented and available for public consumption, but the real details
are probably still developer-only at this point.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 8:57:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1114835378.706187.304420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
inkexit@yahoo.com wrote:

> I looked around for some DVD authoring info, but all I could find were
> promotional sites for certain software suites, and not any public
> disclosure of the spces and possibilites -- something like a dvd.org.

Start off with the forums at www.creativecow.net and www.2-pop.com.

Subscribe to the best dvd list on the planet at
http://dvdlist.tully.com/mailman/listinfo/dvdlist

You can read a lot about scripting at Digital Producer Magazine at
http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/listarticle.jsp...

Be aware that scripting is pretty deep and there's a learning curve.
It's easy to create a plain DVD buts gets harder as you dig deeper into
the architecture.


> What kind of software would you need to do these things, especially the
> random feature?

The inexpensive authoring packages won't access a lot of scripting
features so make sure that the package you get will do what you want.
There's a lot of them at all levels of pricing.



>Would you actually script it out with some DVD
> language, or is it all GUI?

Both, depending upon the authoring package.




>The surround associates site says you can
> do 8 channels of 48 k, 16 bit audio in either Lpcm or Mpeg-2. I think
> an interactive 8 track could work nicely.


No, you misunderstand. The DVD spec allows for up to 8 different audio
STREAMS, not tracks. This are sometimes called different "languages" in
the authoring app because that's how each stream was envisioned.

An example of this that applies to a music stream would be a DVD that
contains a Dolby Digital, DTS and stereo track that you can switch
between. These are 3 streams. Almost always they're Dolby Digital
(except for the stereo stream) because you'd run out of disc space
and/or bandwidth with PCM.


>I assume these are free and
> would not have to be paid extra for, as opposed to dts.

Again, depends on the authoring package. Some have a Dolby Dig encoder
built-in or supplied but some only encode stereo and not 5.1. You have
to check before you buy. DTS is always extra and is not supported in
many inexpensive packages.



>As far as
> video, it would either be a black screen or perhaps a few icons for
> navigation of the real time changes a listener could make, or perhaps
> he would just press a certain button on his remote. I'd like to learn
> more about all this. Are there any sites that go into these details?


In DVD-Video, you always have to tie the audio to picture, even if it's
a black screen. What you want to do is basic within the authoring
package.

Check out the sites and lists above for more, you find a package that
you're interested in and download the manual.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 9:00:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1114870219k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article <1114835378.706187.304420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> inkexit@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > I looked around for some DVD authoring info, but all I could find were
> > promotional sites for certain software suites, and not any public
> > disclosure of the spces and possibilites -- something like a dvd.org.
>
> Since there are a number of licensed processes such as Dolby Digital,
> DTS, and MLP involved, I suspect that at least this stage in the life
> of DVD development, you need to be an official, signed-on developer in
> order to get development documentation. Either that or
> reverse-engineer a disk. The basic structure is almost certainly
> documented and available for public consumption, but the real details
> are probably still developer-only at this point.
>
>

It's not so much a developer thing any more as it is a "what's possible
with this package" kind of thing. As with just about anything software,
the more you spend the more it will do. You just have to read the
manual (absolutely, positively, for sure) to make it do what you want.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
May 1, 2005 1:34:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

One note, when you use the converter to change the 5 individual 48k
files into the one AC3 file (I think that's what it's called) for your
standard DVD, some data compression takes place. The resultant file is
considerably smaller than the sum of your original individual surround
files, or at least was for me the times I authored some multimedia
DVD's with 5 channel sound.

I was pretty disappointed the first time I did one of these as I really
cared about the audio and didn't want it freeze dried, but the DVD
itself did sound ok and the client has been back for more.

I used the A.Pack that's part of Apples's DVD Studio Pro.




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 10:11:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It's interesting to see how, even after all these years, particularly back
when we discussing the proposed and finalized specs for DVD, the average
engineer amongst us, myself included, hasn't given serious thought to DVD as
a medium for presentation. I've only recently given it thought enough to
incorporate the basics of DVD for a product medium by going into video
somewhat to support the audio. Lots of little steps because it's a new hole
in the pocket that has to get worried big enough to let major dollars drop
through. Plus the effort to figure out just how one is A) going to try to
turn a profit with a unrequested format with smaller budgeted clients, and
B) just how the heck one is supposed to incorporate all of this new stuff
into a functioning studio (I'm laughing at ME saying that last part! <g>).

Since you're always up on the new stuff Bobby, is there anything coming
about in terms of audio and video with the blue laser stuff? The last time
I paid any attention at all to blue laser was back in the early 90s when IBM
announced it as a probably technology for the future.
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-CE1DBF.20151029042005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <d4tkp2$3m8$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >In article <Helce.1146$BE3.267@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > "Rail Jon Rogut" <railro@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> DiscWelder Bronze will do stereo files up to 192kHz/24 bit
> > >
> > >Yes, but the poster wanted 5.1, which exceed the disc bandwidth at
> > >anything greater than 48/24.
> >
> > You mean it will exceed the maximum bandwidth of the signal coming off
the
> > head for realtime playback, or it will limit the total storage volume
> > to some miniscule time?
> > --scott
>
> DVD has a maximum data bandwidth of 9.8mbs, so only 6 channels of 48/24
> will fit (or 4 channels of 96/24).
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 10:14:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Sorry, I meant as far as IEEE, not any consortium of companies simply doing
larger format "DVD" Blue-ray designated disc players. It seems if we are to
have conformity in use we're going to need to see something more about
standards than a 9 company consortium is going to be able to offer.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:rdqdnQleC_FEN-nfRVn-uQ@rcn.net...
> It's interesting to see how, even after all these years, particularly back
> when we discussing the proposed and finalized specs for DVD, the average
> engineer amongst us, myself included, hasn't given serious thought to DVD
as
> a medium for presentation. I've only recently given it thought enough to
> incorporate the basics of DVD for a product medium by going into video
> somewhat to support the audio. Lots of little steps because it's a new
hole
> in the pocket that has to get worried big enough to let major dollars drop
> through. Plus the effort to figure out just how one is A) going to try to
> turn a profit with a unrequested format with smaller budgeted clients, and
> B) just how the heck one is supposed to incorporate all of this new stuff
> into a functioning studio (I'm laughing at ME saying that last part! <g>).
>
> Since you're always up on the new stuff Bobby, is there anything coming
> about in terms of audio and video with the blue laser stuff? The last
time
> I paid any attention at all to blue laser was back in the early 90s when
IBM
> announced it as a probably technology for the future.
> --
>
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
> "Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:p olymedia-CE1DBF.20151029042005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <d4tkp2$3m8$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> > kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> > > Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >In article <Helce.1146$BE3.267@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > > "Rail Jon Rogut" <railro@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> DiscWelder Bronze will do stereo files up to 192kHz/24 bit
> > > >
> > > >Yes, but the poster wanted 5.1, which exceed the disc bandwidth at
> > > >anything greater than 48/24.
> > >
> > > You mean it will exceed the maximum bandwidth of the signal coming off
> the
> > > head for realtime playback, or it will limit the total storage volume
> > > to some miniscule time?
> > > --scott
> >
> > DVD has a maximum data bandwidth of 9.8mbs, so only 6 channels of 48/24
> > will fit (or 4 channels of 96/24).
> >
> > --
> > Bobby Owsinski
> > Surround Associates
> > http://www.surroundassociates.com
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <300420052134265548%ihate@spamo.com>,
david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:

> One note, when you use the converter to change the 5 individual 48k
> files into the one AC3 file (I think that's what it's called) for your
> standard DVD, some data compression takes place. The resultant file is
> considerably smaller than the sum of your original individual surround
> files, or at least was for me the times I authored some multimedia
> DVD's with 5 channel sound.
>
> I was pretty disappointed the first time I did one of these as I really
> cared about the audio and didn't want it freeze dried, but the DVD
> itself did sound ok and the client has been back for more.
>
> I used the A.Pack that's part of Apples's DVD Studio Pro.
>


There's some tricks that you can use during encode to make it sound
better. You have to ignore the defaults and Dolby recommendations (most
facilities concerned with audio learned this some time ago).

Plus, it all depends upon the program material. Some stuff will sound
great and you'll hardly notice the difference while other material will
suffer no matter what you do.

I must say that Dolby Digital is pretty good at what it does, for the
most part, providing that you don't use the encoder defaults.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:41:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <rdqdnQleC_FEN-nfRVn-uQ@rcn.net>,
"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

> It's interesting to see how, even after all these years, particularly back
> when we discussing the proposed and finalized specs for DVD, the average
> engineer amongst us, myself included, hasn't given serious thought to DVD as
> a medium for presentation. I've only recently given it thought enough to
> incorporate the basics of DVD for a product medium by going into video
> somewhat to support the audio. Lots of little steps because it's a new hole
> in the pocket that has to get worried big enough to let major dollars drop
> through. Plus the effort to figure out just how one is A) going to try to
> turn a profit with a unrequested format with smaller budgeted clients, and
> B) just how the heck one is supposed to incorporate all of this new stuff
> into a functioning studio (I'm laughing at ME saying that last part! <g>).
>
> Since you're always up on the new stuff Bobby, is there anything coming
> about in terms of audio and video with the blue laser stuff? The last time
> I paid any attention at all to blue laser was back in the early 90s when IBM
> announced it as a probably technology for the future.
> --
>
>


Yes, Blu Ray (blue laser) is right around the corner, although things
are being held up until a standard can be established that will take the
best parts of DVD-HD. The good news is that we won't have a Beta/VHS
war with the next generation discs as everyone thought.

Sonic already has a Blu Ray authoring system available, although you
can't buy a player yet. Blu Ray is now being used in the medical field
for MRI storage and the like.

In brief, Blu Ray will give you 25/50 gigs of storage (at first), full
HD video, multi-channel audio (way beyond 5.1 if you want) at whatever
sample rate you want. Although MLP, Dolby Digital Plus and DTS + are
the main codecs, the bandwidth is high enough that you should be able to
do hi-sample rate multichannel PCM is you want as well.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks. Kinda what I've kept up with so far, but as I went back and did a
little research, we do already have competing formats. DVD-HD utilizes
manufacturing lines that are currently available whilse Blu-ray will cost a
considerable amount to be able to even press current catalogs into discs.
Even at the DVD Forum (www.dvdforum.org) there are straight forward
denouncements of DVD+RW as an accepted part of any standard, and that's old
DVD storage in a new light. My DVD burner supports all formats, but I'm
sticking with DVD- because that's the standard. Heck, we've now just come
onto DVD multi-layer, which, if it had been done quickly enough, would have
provided the user with 17 gigs.

In other words, we're not getting to a point where we're not able to get the
full advantages of the original specifications/standards before a newer, yet
incompatible system comes into play.

Yeah, I could use 50 GB backup, but it would still take me about 20 discs to
backup both my systems. But it would cost me another $250 just to buy a new
burner (that's the price point where I'd consider it) and another format
just doesn't make all that much sense in terms of usage.

I'm not arguing with you for you haven't brought up any argueable point. I'm
just pointing up some of my thoughts. I'd rather see full implementation of
the current IEEE standards on DVD data storage rather than see another
stupid incompatible piece of technology foisted on us. From what I've seen,
DVD isn't really all that it's cracked up to be in the first place, whether
it's medium that apparently loses it's bonding, to incompatible formats and
a lack of the full promise.

It appears to me that even the professional is being targeted these days, in
terms of those who make money in audio when still the least common
denominator is a 16 bit/44.1 kHz sampling rate.

Then again, with CD sales going down, perhaps it's a timely situation to
move into DVD with a content added motivation for sales. But at that point
it's once again mo' money, mo' money.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-77977F.09412202052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <rdqdnQleC_FEN-nfRVn-uQ@rcn.net>,
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > It's interesting to see how, even after all these years, particularly
back
> > when we discussing the proposed and finalized specs for DVD, the average
> > engineer amongst us, myself included, hasn't given serious thought to
DVD as
> > a medium for presentation. I've only recently given it thought enough
to
> > incorporate the basics of DVD for a product medium by going into video
> > somewhat to support the audio. Lots of little steps because it's a new
hole
> > in the pocket that has to get worried big enough to let major dollars
drop
> > through. Plus the effort to figure out just how one is A) going to try
to
> > turn a profit with a unrequested format with smaller budgeted clients,
and
> > B) just how the heck one is supposed to incorporate all of this new
stuff
> > into a functioning studio (I'm laughing at ME saying that last part!
<g>).
> >
> > Since you're always up on the new stuff Bobby, is there anything coming
> > about in terms of audio and video with the blue laser stuff? The last
time
> > I paid any attention at all to blue laser was back in the early 90s when
IBM
> > announced it as a probably technology for the future.
> > --
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, Blu Ray (blue laser) is right around the corner, although things
> are being held up until a standard can be established that will take the
> best parts of DVD-HD. The good news is that we won't have a Beta/VHS
> war with the next generation discs as everyone thought.
>
> Sonic already has a Blu Ray authoring system available, although you
> can't buy a player yet. Blu Ray is now being used in the medical field
> for MRI storage and the like.
>
> In brief, Blu Ray will give you 25/50 gigs of storage (at first), full
> HD video, multi-channel audio (way beyond 5.1 if you want) at whatever
> sample rate you want. Although MLP, Dolby Digital Plus and DTS + are
> the main codecs, the bandwidth is high enough that you should be able to
> do hi-sample rate multichannel PCM is you want as well.
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:32:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Vq-dnZDzDZCF-OvfRVn-jA@rcn.net...
> Thanks. Kinda what I've kept up with so far, but as I went back and did a
> little research, we do already have competing formats. DVD-HD utilizes
> manufacturing lines that are currently available whilse Blu-ray will cost
> a
> considerable amount to be able to even press current catalogs into discs.

Not that much more, and considering the technical advantages of Blu, I think
that's the way to go.

> Even at the DVD Forum (www.dvdforum.org) there are straight forward
> denouncements of DVD+RW as an accepted part of any standard, and that's
> old
> DVD storage in a new light. My DVD burner supports all formats, but I'm
> sticking with DVD- because that's the standard.

Hardly. It's been behind the speed curve since 4x. It was late on DL, it
isn't LightScribe capable and back when there were dvd drives shipping in
single formats, while DVD dual format held the majority of the market, DVD+R
was seriously kicking -Rs market share.

> Heck, we've now just come
> onto DVD multi-layer, which, if it had been done quickly enough, would
> have
> provided the user with 17 gigs.

Dual layer is barely out in the market, and the manufacturing process will
keep it from getting accepted.
>
> In other words, we're not getting to a point where we're not able to get
> the
> full advantages of the original specifications/standards before a newer,
> yet
> incompatible system comes into play.

Blu will be backwards compatible.
>
> Yeah, I could use 50 GB backup, but it would still take me about 20 discs
> to
> backup both my systems. But it would cost me another $250 just to buy a
> new
> burner (that's the price point where I'd consider it)

They'll be much cheaper than that.


> and another format
> just doesn't make all that much sense in terms of usage.

Not for audio, perhaps, but for video it'll be more desireable just for the
capacity.
>


>
> Then again, with CD sales going down, perhaps it's a timely situation to
> move into DVD with a content added motivation for sales. But at that
> point
> it's once again mo' money, mo' money.
>
Do you think companies invest millions in R&D for art's sake?

Glenn D.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:32:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Companies that deal with art do.

I disagree. Blu-ray has no compatibility with manufacturing at this date.
DVD-HD is backwards compatible in terms of manufacturing. Who is going to
support what? The companies that push one format (9 companies for Blu-ray,
two for DVD-HD) each have levels of "lobbying" for such formats, but when it
comes down to it and the manufacturer's will have the call to upgrade or
spend nothing and have compatibility, I think that's a major decision maker
at any level.

But there's a technological advantage somewhere, and I actually haven't seen
that in terms of elucidation. Maximum storage is just one concern. If what
we have is maximum storage and the same data rates we have with current DVDs
then we're in somewhat of the same dilemma. Granted, a tighter laser
pattern should involve improved throughput simply because the DVD sectors
are greater and closer together, but overall improvement in throughput don't
seem to be something, from what I've seen, that are being considered.

And my last point goes directly to the addition of video as a norm, because
CDs aren't selling and even if the disc is playable on a portable DVDMan or
whatever, it doesn't mean that when people get it on their system at home
they won't want additional content. Hell, people watch reality shows in
droves. What makes anyone suppose that whatever comes out these days
shouldn't have some interviews, live video shots, commentary, etc?

The biggest disagreement I have with the majors is the fact that a CD still
costs more than or about the cost of a DVD, and the DVD unargueably has the
greater content. Which is what caused me to pose my last statement. Maybe
the least common denominator for any studio shouldn't be the CD any longer.
That opens up a whole new can of worms as I've stated above, I think you'd
agree.
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:Rmude.4806$by6.878@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:Vq-dnZDzDZCF-OvfRVn-jA@rcn.net...
> > Thanks. Kinda what I've kept up with so far, but as I went back and did
a
> > little research, we do already have competing formats. DVD-HD utilizes
> > manufacturing lines that are currently available whilse Blu-ray will
cost
> > a
> > considerable amount to be able to even press current catalogs into
discs.
>
> Not that much more, and considering the technical advantages of Blu, I
think
> that's the way to go.
>
> > Even at the DVD Forum (www.dvdforum.org) there are straight forward
> > denouncements of DVD+RW as an accepted part of any standard, and that's
> > old
> > DVD storage in a new light. My DVD burner supports all formats, but I'm
> > sticking with DVD- because that's the standard.
>
> Hardly. It's been behind the speed curve since 4x. It was late on DL, it
> isn't LightScribe capable and back when there were dvd drives shipping in
> single formats, while DVD dual format held the majority of the market,
DVD+R
> was seriously kicking -Rs market share.
>
> > Heck, we've now just come
> > onto DVD multi-layer, which, if it had been done quickly enough, would
> > have
> > provided the user with 17 gigs.
>
> Dual layer is barely out in the market, and the manufacturing process will
> keep it from getting accepted.
> >
> > In other words, we're not getting to a point where we're not able to get
> > the
> > full advantages of the original specifications/standards before a newer,
> > yet
> > incompatible system comes into play.
>
> Blu will be backwards compatible.
> >
> > Yeah, I could use 50 GB backup, but it would still take me about 20
discs
> > to
> > backup both my systems. But it would cost me another $250 just to buy a
> > new
> > burner (that's the price point where I'd consider it)
>
> They'll be much cheaper than that.
>
>
> > and another format
> > just doesn't make all that much sense in terms of usage.
>
> Not for audio, perhaps, but for video it'll be more desireable just for
the
> capacity.
> >
>
>
> >
> > Then again, with CD sales going down, perhaps it's a timely situation to
> > move into DVD with a content added motivation for sales. But at that
> > point
> > it's once again mo' money, mo' money.
> >
> Do you think companies invest millions in R&D for art's sake?
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
May 2, 2005 11:52:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <polymedia-108471.09350602052005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In article <300420052134265548%ihate@spamo.com>,
> david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
>
> > One note, when you use the converter to change the 5 individual 48k
> > files into the one AC3 file (I think that's what it's called) for your
> > standard DVD, some data compression takes place. The resultant file is
> > considerably smaller than the sum of your original individual surround
> > files, or at least was for me the times I authored some multimedia
> > DVD's with 5 channel sound.
> >
> > I was pretty disappointed the first time I did one of these as I really
> > cared about the audio and didn't want it freeze dried, but the DVD
> > itself did sound ok and the client has been back for more.
> >
> > I used the A.Pack that's part of Apples's DVD Studio Pro.
> >
>
>
> There's some tricks that you can use during encode to make it sound
> better. You have to ignore the defaults and Dolby recommendations (most
> facilities concerned with audio learned this some time ago).
>
> Plus, it all depends upon the program material. Some stuff will sound
> great and you'll hardly notice the difference while other material will
> suffer no matter what you do.
>
> I must say that Dolby Digital is pretty good at what it does, for the
> most part, providing that you don't use the encoder defaults.
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com



Bobby,

Any tips on which defaults to change?

I looked at the A.Pack prefs for one of my projects, and I believe the
highest data rate I could choose was 448kps.

The Dialog Normalization was preset at -27 dbfs. Is it ok to change it
to a higher number?

Another preference, Bit Stream Mode was "Complete main.". Should
another one (e.g. "Dialog" or "Voiceover/karaoke") be used for just
someone speaking? (This project was for a museum display.) Would you
choose "Complete Main" or "Music and effects" for music?

Anything else appreciated. Thanks!



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:38:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:m--dncDxKNzaHevfRVn-uA@rcn.net...
> Companies that deal with art do.
>
> I disagree. Blu-ray has no compatibility with manufacturing at this date.

"Compatibility with manufacturing" can be defined many ways. I know that the
disc manufacturers are certainly moving to produce Blu-Ray. I'll be meeting
with the largest disc manufacturer tomorrow, and I know what their roadmap
looks like.

> DVD-HD is backwards compatible in terms of manufacturing. Who is going to
> support what?

They'll make what people will want to buy. DVD-HD is capacity constrained at
30GB dual layer. Blu-ray is at 50GB dual-layer and has the capability of
higher than that.


> The companies that push one format (9 companies for Blu-ray,
> two for DVD-HD) each have levels of "lobbying" for such formats, but when
> it
> comes down to it and the manufacturer's will have the call to upgrade or
> spend nothing and have compatibility, I think that's a major decision
> maker
> at any level.

You've got the companies from consumer electronics, computer companies,
movie studios and game companies all involved in developing the
markets/roadmap. The manufacturers will build what will give them the
greatest return.

>
> But there's a technological advantage somewhere, and I actually haven't
> seen
> that in terms of elucidation.

I'm looking at a restricted presentation right now that shows some of the
details, but the Blu-ray manager is in a meeting, so I don't know what I can
share. It exists and it's obvious, even to a non-techy like me.

> Maximum storage is just one concern. If what
> we have is maximum storage and the same data rates we have with current
> DVDs
> then we're in somewhat of the same dilemma. Granted, a tighter laser
> pattern should involve improved throughput simply because the DVD sectors
> are greater and closer together, but overall improvement in throughput
> don't
> seem to be something, from what I've seen, that are being considered.

From what I've seen, throughput is the same for HD formats, but better than
DVD.
>
> And my last point goes directly to the addition of video as a norm,
> because
> CDs aren't selling and even if the disc is playable on a portable DVDMan
> or
> whatever, it doesn't mean that when people get it on their system at home
> they won't want additional content. Hell, people watch reality shows in
> droves. What makes anyone suppose that whatever comes out these days
> shouldn't have some interviews, live video shots, commentary, etc?

Or movies/ interactive movies/games all bundled on the same disc.
>
> The biggest disagreement I have with the majors is the fact that a CD
> still
> costs more than or about the cost of a DVD, and the DVD unargueably has
> the
> greater content. Which is what caused me to pose my last statement.
> Maybe
> the least common denominator for any studio shouldn't be the CD any
> longer.
> That opens up a whole new can of worms as I've stated above, I think you'd
> agree.

I don't see too much interest from record companies in the issue, other than
the increased content protection offered by the new formats.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm not surprised as far as the majors are concerned, but I guess I'd need
to do some research to see just how far up DVDs with music/video content
have gone while CDs have been falling off. That's a reasonable correlation,
I believe.

At only "better than DVD" of a transfer rate for Blu-ray, I'm not certain
that it makes production sense in terms of pre-recorded movie distribution,
but lord knows that we in the audio/video field need a more robust and
stable media for data backups, if nothing else. I'm not a firm believer in
leaving hard drives lying around with data on them and then expecting them
to work a few years later.

It just seems to me that if Blu-ray (backed by the 9 companies) is to become
worth the manufacture then the market is simply going to have to be as a
data backup device. Who's going to want yet another format, particularly
when it means another piece of equipment. As far as data throughput, it
won't offer any advantage in HD presentation, and as Stephen St. Croix has
been talking about, unless HD systems are pixel mapped for presentation,
there are just too many scalings taking place between playback device and
the viewing screen. Plus he mentioned that in his system, when true pixel
mapped scaling HD takes place at the viewing screen the scene is more than
one could expect their own eyes to see in reality.

So if there's no advantage because of significantly higher data rates, there
will be less advancement in HD presentation and it almost seems a wash.

If you get any more information you can pass on, please do.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:bdwde.4818$OE6.774@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:m--dncDxKNzaHevfRVn-uA@rcn.net...
> > Companies that deal with art do.
> >
> > I disagree. Blu-ray has no compatibility with manufacturing at this
date.
>
> "Compatibility with manufacturing" can be defined many ways. I know that
the
> disc manufacturers are certainly moving to produce Blu-Ray. I'll be
meeting
> with the largest disc manufacturer tomorrow, and I know what their roadmap
> looks like.
>
> > DVD-HD is backwards compatible in terms of manufacturing. Who is going
to
> > support what?
>
> They'll make what people will want to buy. DVD-HD is capacity constrained
at
> 30GB dual layer. Blu-ray is at 50GB dual-layer and has the capability of
> higher than that.
>
>
> > The companies that push one format (9 companies for Blu-ray,
> > two for DVD-HD) each have levels of "lobbying" for such formats, but
when
> > it
> > comes down to it and the manufacturer's will have the call to upgrade or
> > spend nothing and have compatibility, I think that's a major decision
> > maker
> > at any level.
>
> You've got the companies from consumer electronics, computer companies,
> movie studios and game companies all involved in developing the
> markets/roadmap. The manufacturers will build what will give them the
> greatest return.
>
> >
> > But there's a technological advantage somewhere, and I actually haven't
> > seen
> > that in terms of elucidation.
>
> I'm looking at a restricted presentation right now that shows some of the
> details, but the Blu-ray manager is in a meeting, so I don't know what I
can
> share. It exists and it's obvious, even to a non-techy like me.
>
> > Maximum storage is just one concern. If what
> > we have is maximum storage and the same data rates we have with current
> > DVDs
> > then we're in somewhat of the same dilemma. Granted, a tighter laser
> > pattern should involve improved throughput simply because the DVD
sectors
> > are greater and closer together, but overall improvement in throughput
> > don't
> > seem to be something, from what I've seen, that are being considered.
>
> From what I've seen, throughput is the same for HD formats, but better
than
> DVD.
> >
> > And my last point goes directly to the addition of video as a norm,
> > because
> > CDs aren't selling and even if the disc is playable on a portable DVDMan
> > or
> > whatever, it doesn't mean that when people get it on their system at
home
> > they won't want additional content. Hell, people watch reality shows in
> > droves. What makes anyone suppose that whatever comes out these days
> > shouldn't have some interviews, live video shots, commentary, etc?
>
> Or movies/ interactive movies/games all bundled on the same disc.
> >
> > The biggest disagreement I have with the majors is the fact that a CD
> > still
> > costs more than or about the cost of a DVD, and the DVD unargueably has
> > the
> > greater content. Which is what caused me to pose my last statement.
> > Maybe
> > the least common denominator for any studio shouldn't be the CD any
> > longer.
> > That opens up a whole new can of worms as I've stated above, I think
you'd
> > agree.
>
> I don't see too much interest from record companies in the issue, other
than
> the increased content protection offered by the new formats.
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:16:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> Yes, Blu Ray (blue laser) is right around the corner, although things
> are being held up until a standard can be established that will take the
> best parts of DVD-HD. The good news is that we won't have a Beta/VHS
> war with the next generation discs as everyone thought.

Now all we need is those 64 bit 1MHZ ADCs and we'll be home and hosed. Or
the current ADCs and a couple of days to listen to a disc.

geoff
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:2_Gdnali4P8o_OrfRVn-og@rcn.net...
> I'm not surprised as far as the majors are concerned, but I guess I'd need
> to do some research to see just how far up DVDs with music/video content
> have gone while CDs have been falling off. That's a reasonable
> correlation,
> I believe.
>
> At only "better than DVD" of a transfer rate for Blu-ray,

After a bit more research, it's a non-trivial improvement.

> I'm not certain
> that it makes production sense in terms of pre-recorded movie
> distribution,

For pre-recorded movies, it's the ability to offer DVD _and_ Blu together on
the same disc, plus games and other features. Probably most important for
studios are the anti-copying schemes that are being built into both HDDVD
and Blu-ray.

> but lord knows that we in the audio/video field need a more robust and
> stable media for data backups, if nothing else. I'm not a firm believer
> in
> leaving hard drives lying around with data on them and then expecting them
> to work a few years later.

Agreed. Your use model isn't what is driving the industries.
>
> It just seems to me that if Blu-ray (backed by the 9 companies) is to
> become
> worth the manufacture then the market is simply going to have to be as a
> data backup device.

Not at all. Entire seasons of HD TV can be available on one robust disc
(I've watch our Blu guy clean magic marker off of the data side with a
scouring pad). It's about lots of protected content.


> Who's going to want yet another format, particularly
> when it means another piece of equipment. As far as data throughput, it
> won't offer any advantage in HD presentation, and as Stephen St. Croix has
> been talking about, unless HD systems are pixel mapped for presentation,
> there are just too many scalings taking place between playback device and
> the viewing screen. Plus he mentioned that in his system, when true pixel
> mapped scaling HD takes place at the viewing screen the scene is more than
> one could expect their own eyes to see in reality.

Then we get to market the hype!


> So if there's no advantage because of significantly higher data rates,
> there
> will be less advancement in HD presentation and it almost seems a wash.
>
> If you get any more information you can pass on, please do.
>
Everything is still pretty closely held by all the folks involved. Luckily
for me, HP's primary Blu-ray business and technical types sit about 3 aisles
over, so I can get the straight poop. I just can't share it.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:59:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <020520051952513422%ihate@spamo.com>,
david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:

> In article <polymedia-108471.09350602052005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <300420052134265548%ihate@spamo.com>,
> > david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One note, when you use the converter to change the 5 individual 48k
> > > files into the one AC3 file (I think that's what it's called) for your
> > > standard DVD, some data compression takes place. The resultant file is
> > > considerably smaller than the sum of your original individual surround
> > > files, or at least was for me the times I authored some multimedia
> > > DVD's with 5 channel sound.
> > >
> > > I was pretty disappointed the first time I did one of these as I really
> > > cared about the audio and didn't want it freeze dried, but the DVD
> > > itself did sound ok and the client has been back for more.
> > >
> > > I used the A.Pack that's part of Apples's DVD Studio Pro.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There's some tricks that you can use during encode to make it sound
> > better. You have to ignore the defaults and Dolby recommendations (most
> > facilities concerned with audio learned this some time ago).
> >
> > Plus, it all depends upon the program material. Some stuff will sound
> > great and you'll hardly notice the difference while other material will
> > suffer no matter what you do.
> >
> > I must say that Dolby Digital is pretty good at what it does, for the
> > most part, providing that you don't use the encoder defaults.
> >
> > --
> > Bobby Owsinski
> > Surround Associates
> > http://www.surroundassociates.com
>
>
>
> Bobby,
>
> Any tips on which defaults to change?
>
> I looked at the A.Pack prefs for one of my projects, and I believe the
> highest data rate I could choose was 448kps.

Most DVD players will not play anything higher than 448. 384 is the
most common, but 448 should sound better depending upon the program.


>
> The Dialog Normalization was preset at -27 dbfs. Is it ok to change it
> to a higher number?

If you want the output level to be exactly the same as the input level
to the encoder, set it to "-31".

I know, that seems backwards but there's a logic to it that only Dolby
can seem to figure out. Basically, it means there's 0 dB change. The
default of "-27" is 4dB lower than the input. While anything less than
-31 might work for program with dialog, stick with -31 for music.

While some people try to adhere to the initial intention of Dialnorm (to
keep all program at the same level), most people can't figure it out,
don't have the time or patience or just get frustrated with it all, so
they'll just set it to -31 (or keep it at the default) and be done with
it.


>
> Another preference, Bit Stream Mode was "Complete main.". Should
> another one (e.g. "Dialog" or "Voiceover/karaoke") be used for just
> someone speaking? (This project was for a museum display.) Would you
> choose "Complete Main" or "Music and effects" for music?
>


This is a metadata setting and usually won't affect the final output.
The exception being that it could select the compression settings on
your player or receiver if it's (the player) set that way. Keep it at
Complete Main or Music and Effects.

The real important parameters are on the Preprocessing page. Set the
Compression Preset to "None". Everything else will give you pumping and
breathing.

DO NOT select RF Overmodulation Protection. This is a parameter of days
gone by when people connected their VCR's via the RF input on the TV.
It'll just add glitches and weird artifacts. Also the same goes for
Digital Deemphasis (do not select).

Best to select the rest of the parameters except for "Apply 3dB
Attenuation" which is just to compensate for the unbalanced surrounds in
film mixes.

Keep in mind that despite these settings, things can still sound wacked
if the compression is selected on the player or receiver. That's the
unknown - how your client/customer has set his on-board parameters.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:07:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2_Gdnali4P8o_OrfRVn-og@rcn.net>,
"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

> I'm not surprised as far as the majors are concerned, but I guess I'd need
> to do some research to see just how far up DVDs with music/video content
> have gone while CDs have been falling off. That's a reasonable correlation,
> I believe.
>


It's way up according last year's RIAA stats. Music DVD was up 66% (29
million units - $561M) over the year before, which was up 64% over the
year before that. That not big numbers in the grand scheme, but it's an
exploding category if you listen to label insiders.

FYI, SACD was DOWN 39.6% at 790,000 units from the year before, as was
DVD-Audio at -20.6% at 350,00 units.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
May 4, 2005 7:01:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks!


David Correia


CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Warren, Rhode Island




In article <polymedia-A7C9FF.07591703052005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In article <020520051952513422%ihate@spamo.com>,
> david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <polymedia-108471.09350602052005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> > Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <300420052134265548%ihate@spamo.com>,
> > > david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One note, when you use the converter to change the 5 individual 48k
> > > > files into the one AC3 file (I think that's what it's called) for your
> > > > standard DVD, some data compression takes place. The resultant file is
> > > > considerably smaller than the sum of your original individual surround
> > > > files, or at least was for me the times I authored some multimedia
> > > > DVD's with 5 channel sound.
> > > >
> > > > I was pretty disappointed the first time I did one of these as I really
> > > > cared about the audio and didn't want it freeze dried, but the DVD
> > > > itself did sound ok and the client has been back for more.
> > > >
> > > > I used the A.Pack that's part of Apples's DVD Studio Pro.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's some tricks that you can use during encode to make it sound
> > > better. You have to ignore the defaults and Dolby recommendations (most
> > > facilities concerned with audio learned this some time ago).
> > >
> > > Plus, it all depends upon the program material. Some stuff will sound
> > > great and you'll hardly notice the difference while other material will
> > > suffer no matter what you do.
> > >
> > > I must say that Dolby Digital is pretty good at what it does, for the
> > > most part, providing that you don't use the encoder defaults.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bobby Owsinski
> > > Surround Associates
> > > http://www.surroundassociates.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Bobby,
> >
> > Any tips on which defaults to change?
> >
> > I looked at the A.Pack prefs for one of my projects, and I believe the
> > highest data rate I could choose was 448kps.
>
> Most DVD players will not play anything higher than 448. 384 is the
> most common, but 448 should sound better depending upon the program.
>
>
> >
> > The Dialog Normalization was preset at -27 dbfs. Is it ok to change it
> > to a higher number?
>
> If you want the output level to be exactly the same as the input level
> to the encoder, set it to "-31".
>
> I know, that seems backwards but there's a logic to it that only Dolby
> can seem to figure out. Basically, it means there's 0 dB change. The
> default of "-27" is 4dB lower than the input. While anything less than
> -31 might work for program with dialog, stick with -31 for music.
>
> While some people try to adhere to the initial intention of Dialnorm (to
> keep all program at the same level), most people can't figure it out,
> don't have the time or patience or just get frustrated with it all, so
> they'll just set it to -31 (or keep it at the default) and be done with
> it.
>
>
> >
> > Another preference, Bit Stream Mode was "Complete main.". Should
> > another one (e.g. "Dialog" or "Voiceover/karaoke") be used for just
> > someone speaking? (This project was for a museum display.) Would you
> > choose "Complete Main" or "Music and effects" for music?
> >
>
>
> This is a metadata setting and usually won't affect the final output.
> The exception being that it could select the compression settings on
> your player or receiver if it's (the player) set that way. Keep it at
> Complete Main or Music and Effects.
>
> The real important parameters are on the Preprocessing page. Set the
> Compression Preset to "None". Everything else will give you pumping and
> breathing.
>
> DO NOT select RF Overmodulation Protection. This is a parameter of days
> gone by when people connected their VCR's via the RF input on the TV.
> It'll just add glitches and weird artifacts. Also the same goes for
> Digital Deemphasis (do not select).
>
> Best to select the rest of the parameters except for "Apply 3dB
> Attenuation" which is just to compensate for the unbalanced surrounds in
> film mixes.
>
> Keep in mind that despite these settings, things can still sound wacked
> if the compression is selected on the player or receiver. That's the
> unknown - how your client/customer has set his on-board parameters.
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com
!