7 Mar
2005
7 Mar
'05
11:01 a.m.
From: Alfons Adriaensen
<fons.adriaensen(a)alcatel.be>
The only limitation of not using MLP would be that you can't have six
channels at 24/96.
Why not? Flac + open DVD-audio format for N channels.
Juhana
--
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev
for developers of open source graphics software
7 Mar
7 Mar
11:31 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 05:01:14PM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Do you know any DVD-A player that has a FLAC decoder built in ?
The DVD-A spec does not allow anything but MLP, or no compression,
so no manufacturer will ever make such a thing.
--
FA
From: Alfons
Adriaensen <fons.adriaensen(a)alcatel.be>
The only limitation of not using MLP would be that you can't have six
channels at 24/96.
Why not? Flac + open DVD-audio format for N channels. 
12:02 p.m.
Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 05:01:14PM +0200, Juhana
Sadeharju wrote:
Do you know any DVD-A player that has a FLAC decoder built in ?
Mabye KiSS will add it to their players.
From:
Alfons Adriaensen <fons.adriaensen(a)alcatel.be>
The only limitation of not using MLP would be that you can't have six
channels at 24/96.
Why not? Flac + open DVD-audio format for N channels. The DVD-A spec does not allow anything but MLP, or no
compression,
so no manufacturer will ever make such a thing.
Is there a way to play lossless multi-channel audio with DVD-Video
players? AFAIK most video players only play the first two PCM channels.
But DVD-Audio players should play multi-channel PCM audio from a video
DVD. Is there any reason not to produce a DVD-Video intead of DVD-Audio?
(What are the aditional features of DVD-Audio besides MLP?)
12:24 p.m.
oliver oli wrote:
Is there a way to play lossless multi-channel audio
with DVD-Video
players? AFAIK most video players only play the first two PCM channels.
I think the DVD-Video spec allows for multi-channel PCM, but I'm not
sure if any disks (or even players) have ever tried.
But DVD-Audio players should play multi-channel PCM
audio from a video
DVD. Is there any reason not to produce a DVD-Video intead of DVD-Audio?
(What are the aditional features of DVD-Audio besides MLP?)
One difference is that the maximum bitrate allowed for audio on a DVD-V
is 6.1Mbit/s, compared with 9.6Mbit/s for a DVD-A disk. So this allows
more channels of uncompressed PCM at higher sample sizes and
samplerates. You can also create a DVD-A disk without any video content
at all - so giving the whole capacity of the disk to audio.
DVD-A also supports multiples of 44.1KHz (44.1KHz, 88.2KHz and
176.4KHz), as well as 192Khz - DVD-V only supports 48KHz and 96KHz.
DVD-A disks also allow slideshow like images to be displayed (and
navigated) independently of the audio - in a DVD-V disk, the video and
audio are linked together and can't be navigated independently.
Finally, DVD-A incorporates what is known as a Simple Audio Manager
(SAMG). This is compared with an Audio CD's Table of Contents and gives
the user full access to the audio content of the DVD-A without needing a
monitor. It also allows for the possibility of "simple" DVD-A players
like portables or in-car units to be built.
Some more details (and links to other resources) are on my project
website here:
http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net
Dave.
4:32 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 16:31 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 05:01:14PM +0200, Juhana
Sadeharju wrote:
Do you know any DVD-A player that has a FLAC decoder built in ?
The DVD-A spec does not allow anything but MLP, or no compression,
so no manufacturer will ever make such a thing.
Isn't this reading the spec upside down? As I understand it, it is the
disc that must follow the spec in order to be playable in a DVD-A
player. A manufacturer can produce a combined CD/RW/DVD+-[A-Z]/credit
card/FLAC toaster if there is a market for such a product.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
From:
Alfons Adriaensen <fons.adriaensen(a)alcatel.be>
The only limitation of not using MLP would be that you can't have six
channels at 24/96.
Why not? Flac + open DVD-audio format for N channels. 
5:17 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:32:16PM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Isn't this reading the spec upside down? As I
understand it, it is the
disc that must follow the spec in order to be playable in a DVD-A
player. A manufacturer can produce a combined CD/RW/DVD+-[A-Z]/credit
card/FLAC toaster if there is a market for such a product.
I'm not so sure about that. Every manufacturer would need a license
from the DVD consortium, and there will be conditions attached.
The perverse thing is that while other industries are being forced
to split up their activities (e.g. infrastructure and services in
telecomm) in order to enable competition, the music industry and
consumer equipment manufacturers are now one and the same. Only a
few big ones remain, and nobody seems to see any harm in that.
But even that small number of major companies can't always agree.
For example, the only reason why such an abomination as SACD exists
is because Sony is boycoting DVD-A, not for any technical merits
the marketdroids have invented. In fact the future of DVD-A looks
quite insecure ATM.
--
FA
8 Mar
8 Mar
6:12 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 22:17 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:32:16PM +0100, Jens M
Andreasen wrote:
... and we don't know these conditions, so here we have reached a dead
end!
Isn't this reading the spec upside down? As I
understand it, it is the
disc that must follow the spec in order to be playable in a DVD-A
player. A manufacturer can produce a combined CD/RW/DVD+-[A-Z]/credit
card/FLAC toaster if there is a market for such a product.
I'm not so sure about that. Every manufacturer would need a license
from the DVD consortium, and there will be conditions attached.
The perverse thing is that while other industries are
being forced
to split up their activities (e.g. infrastructure and services in
telecomm) in order to enable competition, the music industry and
consumer equipment manufacturers are now one and the same. Only a
few big ones remain, and nobody seems to see any harm in that.
Now it is me being not so sure about this!
While googling around for FLAC, I find this information from, of all
creatures, Metallicas home-site:
http://www.livemetallica.com/faq.asp#faq3a
* Extract your FLAC files to WAV; simply drag all your FLAC
files onto the FLAC front-end software and click the DECODE
button.
* Drag the WAV files onto your favorite CD burning software.
...
So the artists simply do not depend on the major labels for distribution
anymore. The economi behind can be served by pay-pal, your local bank or
russian maffia (whoever you trust the most), my main point being that
the gap, from a well produced demo to a record receiving airplay and
international recognition, is reduced to being within the realms of a
bedroom-studio enterprise. Talent and/or good marketing considered an
advantage of course ...
But even that small number of major companies
can't always agree.
For example, the only reason why such an abomination as SACD exists
is because Sony is boycoting DVD-A, not for any technical merits
the marketdroids have invented. In fact the future of DVD-A looks
quite insecure ATM.
Very few people believe DVD-A (and friends) is a 'must' for consumers. I
welcome the higher sample rate, and for an intermediate format 24bit is
most convenient. To take advantage of 24bit dynamics at home, without
annoying the neighbours, is near impossible though.
We are drifting away here, but Dave Chapmans original considerations
still makes sense in the context of a theater or otherwise acoustically
controlled environment. The most likely outcome is that DVD-A/SACD will
be abondoned completely, and replaced with userfriendly formats.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
7:25 a.m.
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
We are drifting away here, but Dave Chapmans original
considerations
still makes sense in the context of a theater or otherwise acoustically
controlled environment. The most likely outcome is that DVD-A/SACD will
be abondoned completely, and replaced with userfriendly formats.
I'm not sure what you mean by userfriendly. If you remove MLP and the
encryption, then I would consider DVD-Audio as havng the potential to be
very user-friendly. There is no need to create a new format - just
"open" an existing one.
Yes, the official specs are "secret", but so were the DVD-Video specs,
and that didn't stop the Linux DVD-player authors. A DVD-A shares many
of the same concepts (and very similar data structures) to a DVD-V, and
I've already started to document a fair amount of the structure of a
DVD-A here:
http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/spec.shtml
A very useful "feature" is that even on encrypted commercial DVD-As, the
.IFO files are not encrypted - only the .AOB and .VOB files are.
And the recent news about the reverse-engineering of ALAC (and other
codecs in the past) casts doubt on the fact that MLP will remain
proprietory forever.
Dave.
8:29 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 11:22 +0000, Dave Chapman wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by userfriendly. If
you remove MLP and the
encryption, then I would consider DVD-Audio as havng the potential to be
very user-friendly. There is no need to create a new format - just
"open" an existing one.
The need for a new format is the obvious advantage of FLAC compression.
On the other hand, iff the data fits on a single CD (oh wait, DVD) then
there is no need.
Excuse me my ignorance, but:
Is the spec open enough to create n-channel masters? Are there consumer
players in existence with more than two channels out? (and here I do not
mean the 5:1 audio from DVD movies.)
Yes, the official specs are "secret", but so were the DVD-Video specs,
In some parts of the world, this is an infected subject ...
and that didn't stop the Linux DVD-player authors.
A DVD-A shares many
of the same concepts (and very similar data structures) to a DVD-V, and
I've already started to document a fair amount of the structure of a
DVD-A here:
http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/spec.shtml
A very useful "feature" is that even on encrypted commercial DVD-As, the
.IFO files are not encrypted - only the .AOB and .VOB files are.
And the recent news about the reverse-engineering of ALAC (and other
codecs in the past) casts doubt on the fact that MLP will remain
proprietory forever.
OK!
Dave.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
9:54 a.m.
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 11:22 +0000, Dave Chapman
wrote:
The problem with DVD-Audio is not so much the total playing time (dual
layer disks may be able to help there) but it is the 9.6Mbit/s maximum
bandwidth. 6 channels of 24-bit/96KHz uncompressed PCM is 13.842Mbit/s
which is why MLP is compulsory in that case.
I don't think that FLAC-on-DVD-Audio is any more or less likely to be
supported by hardware manufacturers than a completely new format.
Existing DVD-Audio players already support "unofficial" formats such as
MP3/JPEG CDs, DivX etc. So unless there is a contractual clause
specifically for "high resolution audio", the precedent has already been
set.
I'm not sure what you mean by userfriendly.
If you remove MLP and the
encryption, then I would consider DVD-Audio as havng the potential to be
very user-friendly. There is no need to create a new format - just
"open" an existing one.
The need for a new format is the obvious advantage of FLAC compression.
On the other hand, iff the data fits on a single CD (oh wait, DVD) then
there is no need. Excuse me my ignorance, but:
Is the spec open enough to create n-channel masters?
If you mean do I understand the spec enough to author such disks, then
the answer is almost a yes. The only DVD-Audio player I own at the
moment is stereo-only, so I haven't investigated 6-channel authoring
very much. But I have looked at it briefly, and I don't think 6
channels will be any harder than 2 channels.
Are there consumer
players in existence with more than two channels out? (and here I do not
mean the 5:1 audio from DVD movies.)
Yes, most DVD-Audio capable players have 6 analogue outputs. It's only
the very low-end ones which only support stereo output.
Unsurprisingly, DVD-Audio players also have crippled digital outputs to
prevent copying (and to prevent the use of external DACs - unless your
DAC has the required encrypted digital connections).
Dave.
10:05 a.m.
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Excuse me my ignorance, but:
Is the spec open enough to create n-channel masters? Are there consumer
players in existence with more than two channels out? (and here I do not
mean the 5:1 audio from DVD movies.)
As DVD-A was invented for PCM and multi-channel, DVD-A players can play
more than 2 channels. Most DVD-V players cannot play more than 2 PCM
channels. Question is: how many DVD players support DVD-Audio?
13 Mar
13 Mar
2:16 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 13:29 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Excuse me my ignorance, but:
Is the spec open enough to create n-channel masters? Are there consumer
players in existence with more than two channels out? (and here I do not
mean the 5:1 audio from DVD movies.)
You can play high quality 5.1 or 2.0 audio from SACD discs. And those
also play on standard CD players. I personally would like to see SACD
winning over DVD-A. Because of different coding, it also simplifies D/A
converters and thus improves sound quality.
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
4:10 p.m.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:16:14 +0200
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi> wrote:
You can play high quality 5.1 or 2.0 audio from SACD
discs. And those
also play on standard CD players. I personally would like to see SACD
winning over DVD-A. Because of different coding, it also simplifies D/A
converters and thus improves sound quality.
There are many knowledgable people who disagree:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=it&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=brnb…
Personally, I think SACD is mostly marketing.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Java sucks. C sucks slightly less so, but only because it makes
no pretense at all about being a high level language.
14 Mar
14 Mar
2:49 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 07:10 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
There are many knowledgable people who disagree:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=it&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=brnb…
Personally, I think SACD is mostly marketing.
Typical newsgroup FUD.
First of all, most of current A/D and D/A converters are delta sigma
modulators. If you record something at for example 24-bit 192 kHz (using
typical delta sigma converter), do some editing (in float format) and
then output the master as PWM for SACD. Then you can use very simple D/A
converter. Currently the difference to usual DVD-A player is that the
player does the PWM conversion. No difference here...
And nowadays you can buy PWM power amplifiers too, in ideal system you
could drive those directly from SACD bitstream without additional
conversions.
It is more probable to have poor format converter and D/A converter in
cheap DVD-A player than in studio equipment.
I have built number of audio D/A conversion systems and I still prefer
true multibit (20-bit) Burr-Brown converters. However, non delta-sigma
converters are very rare in lo-fi and mid-fi equipment and very quality
sensitive.. Problem with delta-sigma conversion is worse DIM distortion
performance, this is not something SACD-specific.
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
6:29 p.m.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:49:03 +0200
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi> wrote:
Typical newsgroup FUD.
The paper referenced is this one:
http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, two absolute *GIANTS* in the field of digital
audio theory and practice.
First of all, most of current A/D and D/A converters
are delta sigma
modulators.
Yes, but from what I've heard, with modern delta-simga converters,
the minimum bit width is 4 bits, not one bit.
If you record something at for example 24-bit 192 kHz
(using
typical delta sigma converter),
The A/D converters now use a minimum of 4 bits.
do some editing (in float format)
Ie it gets convertered to PCM.
and
then output the master as PWM for SACD.
They *may* be some advantage here in that you can pay for a very
expensive PCM -> SACD converter at the mastering stage and the
playback system becomes simpler.
However, Sony is pushing SACD as a complete solution for the whole
audio chain. Sony and others are working on SACD multi track recorders
and so on. It is this in particular that Lipshitz and Vanderkooy and
trying to address.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Linux is produced to be used, whereas the others are produced
to be sold" -- Bobby D. Bryant
6:54 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 09:29 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
However, Sony is pushing SACD as a complete solution
for the whole
audio chain. Sony and others are working on SACD multi track recorders
and so on. It is this in particular that Lipshitz and Vanderkooy and
trying to address.
That is stupid (IMHO). I thought that they were recommending use of
192/24 PCM for processing. And DSD only at final stage for producing the
actual bitstream for disc.
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
7:31 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:29:49AM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
That's right. One-bit converters are 'out'.
The paper referenced is this one:
http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, two absolute *GIANTS* in the field of digital
audio theory and practice.
Indeed they are. Thanks for that pointer.
First of all,
most of current A/D and D/A converters are delta sigma
modulators.
Yes, but from what I've heard, with modern delta-simga converters,
the minimum bit width is 4 bits, not one bit. They *may* be some advantage here in that you can pay
for a very
expensive PCM -> SACD converter at the mastering stage and the
playback system becomes simpler.
There's little value in simplicity if you spoil it by adding encryption
and DRM.
--
FA
13 Mar
13 Mar
4:54 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:16:14PM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
You can play high quality 5.1 or 2.0 audio from SACD
discs.
And do nothing else with then at all. It's a completely closed format.
And those also play on standard CD players.
Only because the flip side *is* a CD, and without that SACD
wouldn't sell at all. You could do the same with any new format.
I personally would like to see SACD winning over
DVD-A. Because of
different coding, it also simplifies D/A converters
It doesn't at all. And it complicates all the rest. Any idea of how
to mix, filter, or in general do whatever non-trivial operation
without first going to PCM ? It's possible, but horribly complicated.
and thus improves sound quality.
Again, that's a myth.
--
FA
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:11 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
It doesn't at all. And it complicates all the
rest. Any idea of how
to mix, filter, or in general do whatever non-trivial operation
without first going to PCM ? It's possible, but horribly complicated.
Of course you would use usual PCM for editing. I was talking about the
last stage from disc to audio output. Your average <1000€ CD player has
1-bit converter anyway. With SACD you could just remove some of the
processing for going from PCM to 1-bit.
And SACD is meant for high quality analog playback, not to be processed
after read from disc...
P.S. I like minimalist high-end audio systems.
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
3:25 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 12:54, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:16:14PM +0200, Jussi Laako
wrote:
Yes, it is simply a temporary "backwards compatibility" workaround to
change formats.
The second layer is _not_ mandatory in the "standard". That is, at some
point, when an acceptable proportion - determined by marketroids,
nothing technical about this - of the players can play sacd natively, it
will be eliminated and the disks will only be playable in a sacd player.
Presto, big media companies are back in control of the whole production,
pressing and copying chain. Don't expect to see a sacd writer in your pc
any time soon :-)
-- Fernando
You can play high quality 5.1 or 2.0 audio from
SACD discs.
And do nothing else with then at all. It's a completely closed format.
And those also play on standard CD players.
Only because the flip side *is* a CD, and without that SACD
wouldn't sell at all. You could do the same with any new format.
4:18 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:25:31AM -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Yes, it is simply a temporary "backwards
compatibility" workaround to
change formats.
The second layer is _not_ mandatory in the "standard". That is, at some
point, when an acceptable proportion - determined by marketroids,
nothing technical about this - of the players can play sacd natively, it
will be eliminated and the disks will only be playable in a sacd player.
Presto, big media companies are back in control of the whole production,
pressing and copying chain. Don't expect to see a sacd writer in your pc
any time soon :-)
Or even an (unencrypted) digital output playback system.
Recent rumours may indicate yet another direction this story could take.
Some 'observers' indicate they wouldn't be surprised at all if Sony was
to abandon SACD in favour of Blue Ray. And that will be PCM again, using
'Dolby Digital Lossless' as the mandatory compression format. DDL is just
the new marketing name for MLP...
--
FA
15 Mar
15 Mar
midnight
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 12:15, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:25:31AM -0800, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Hmmm, are there consumer level blue ray writers in the pipeline? I would
be surprised if they selected a media that could be written "at home".
-- Fernando
Yes, it is simply a temporary "backwards
compatibility" workaround to
change formats.
The second layer is _not_ mandatory in the "standard". That is, at some
point, when an acceptable proportion - determined by marketroids,
nothing technical about this - of the players can play sacd natively, it
will be eliminated and the disks will only be playable in a sacd player.
Presto, big media companies are back in control of the whole production,
pressing and copying chain. Don't expect to see a sacd writer in your pc
any time soon :-)
Or even an (unencrypted) digital output playback system.
Recent rumours may indicate yet another direction this story could take.
Some 'observers' indicate they wouldn't be surprised at all if Sony was
to abandon SACD in favour of Blue Ray. And that will be PCM again, using
'Dolby Digital Lossless' as the mandatory compression format. DDL is just
the new marketing name for MLP...
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:33 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Only because the flip side *is* a CD, and without that
SACD
wouldn't sell at all. You could do the same with any new format.
Well, not the flip side. It's dual layer.
And that is good feature for new formats to be somewhat compatible with
older equipment. That is yet-to-be-seen on DVD-A (well, I have actually
heard something about some dual layer DVD-A).
I'm rather happy with my CD/SACD/DVD-A player anyway. No matter what
kind of discs I feed.
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
4:20 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:33:10PM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
Yes, you're right.
Only because the flip side *is* a CD, and without
that SACD
wouldn't sell at all. You could do the same with any new format.
Well, not the flip side. It's dual layer. And that is good feature for new formats to be
somewhat compatible with
older equipment. That is yet-to-be-seen on DVD-A (well, I have actually
heard something about some dual layer DVD-A).
Seems it is coming. Someone (forgot the name) has found a solution for
the main problem which had to do with the thickness of the disk, and
is now licensing that technology.
I'm rather happy with my CD/SACD/DVD-A player
anyway. No matter what
kind of discs I feed.
Enjoy it !
--
FA
4:13 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
It doesn't at all. And it complicates all the
rest. Any idea of how
to mix, filter, or in general do whatever non-trivial operation
without first going to PCM ? It's possible, but horribly complicated.
See http://www.cirrus.com/en/images/product_diagrams/4398blkdiag_mag.gif
and "Direct DSD" path. Which one of the paths, the "Direct DSD" or
the
"PCM" you think is easier and cheaper to make good quality?
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
4:53 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:13:59PM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
See
http://www.cirrus.com/en/images/product_diagrams/4398blkdiag_mag.gif
and "Direct DSD" path. Which one of the paths, the "Direct DSD" or
the
"PCM" you think is easier and cheaper to make good quality?
This confirms that you can't even have a digital volume control without
going back to some form of pseudo-PCM. How do you control volume on your
all digital DSD-to-PWM amplifier ?
The 'pure DSD' way of course can be quite simple, but with all the
limitations that simplicity brings along.
For example, high quality surround should use a format that is independent
of speaker layout (such as Ambisonics), and have the decoding done in the
player, using information about the listener's speaker setup. Just to do
this, DSD would have to be recoded to PCM (unless you do it in the analog
domain). Just from the practical side, distributng audio in PCM format is
much more flexible.
As to pure quality, DSD has an incredible resolution at low frequencies,
but that goes down rapidly as frequency rises. With PCM you get the same
resolution over the entire frequency range. And with 24 bits, you have
a coding space that is much bigger than what your ears are capable of
decoding.
--
FA
15 Mar
15 Mar
1:13 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
going back to some form of pseudo-PCM. How do you
control volume on your
all digital DSD-to-PWM amplifier ?
Probably something like adjusting voltage of the switch FET driven by
DSD...
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
2:53 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:13:46PM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
That would completely obliterate the efficiency of the PWM mode amplifier.
And the control range could be rather small...
--
FA
going back to some form of pseudo-PCM. How do you
control volume on your
all digital DSD-to-PWM amplifier ?
Probably something like adjusting voltage of the switch FET driven by
DSD...
6:49 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 19:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
That would completely obliterate the efficiency of the
PWM mode amplifier.
Compared to what? Typical analog class-A or high biased class-AB?
I think that could be used in combination with suitable FPGA software to
control the bitstream. With that, the efficiency may even increase.
And the control range could be rather small...
That's true..
I'm currently designing an audio player (hardware & software). I think I
will add support for playback of ogg/vorbis, flac and maybe some pwm/pdm
audio from DVD data discs (current drives can read data at rather high
rates).
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>
7:13 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:49:55AM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 19:54 +0100, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
You can't get worse than class-A (for power efficiency). Maybe the ideal
solution is a passive attenuator between the amp and the speaker, using
big variable resistors as you can see in picturese of in Einstein's lab :-)
A purist's solution could be to replace the speaker's permanent magnet by
a regulated DC-powered one...
--
FA
That would completely obliterate the efficiency
of the PWM mode amplifier.
Compared to what? Typical analog class-A or high biased class-AB?
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:23 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 10:16, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 13:29 +0100, Jens M Andreasen
wrote:
I would prefer the opposite. I don't think I will ever have the ability
to burn my music at home into an SACD. The whole thing is designed so
that you cannot do that.
There's a thread in lau about dvd-audio, it would seem that that could
become a possibility (except for one lossless proprietary codec that is
part of the standard, but is optional if I understood correctly).
-- Fernando
Excuse me my ignorance, but:
Is the spec open enough to create n-channel masters? Are there consumer
players in existence with more than two channels out? (and here I do not
mean the 5:1 audio from DVD movies.)
You can play high quality 5.1 or 2.0 audio from SACD discs. And those
also play on standard CD players. I personally would like to see SACD
winning over DVD-A.
8 Mar
8 Mar
7:25 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:12:49AM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 22:17 +0100, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
You can be sure that these conditions will be in the interest of the DVD
consortium, and therefore will
- require strict adherence to the DVD specs,
- not favour any open consumer formats.
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:32:16PM +0100, Jens M
Andreasen wrote:
... and we don't know these conditions, so here we have reached a dead
end! Isn't this reading the spec upside down? As I
understand it, it is the
disc that must follow the spec in order to be playable in a DVD-A
player. A manufacturer can produce a combined CD/RW/DVD+-[A-Z]/credit
card/FLAC toaster if there is a market for such a product.
I'm not so sure about that. Every manufacturer would need a license
from the DVD consortium, and there will be conditions attached.
...
So the artists simply do not depend on the major labels for distribution
anymore.
Some artist have chosen not to depend on the major labels. But that is
a long way from your generalisation above. Most artist still _do_ depend
on them, and that will not change overnight.
We are drifting away here, but Dave Chapmans original
considerations
still makes sense in the context of a theater or otherwise acoustically
controlled environment.
Dave's project is interesting as it would provide the means to author
a format that is accepted by mainstream consumer equipment. For local
or specialised operations you could as well just use WAV files.
The most likely outcome is that DVD-A/SACD will
be abondoned completely, and replaced with userfriendly formats.
It would be a very _desirable_ outcome to have open consumer formats,
but that is not sufficient to make it the 'most likely' one IMHO.
--
FA
8:43 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 12:25 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
You can be sure that these conditions will be in the
interest of the DVD
consortium, and therefore will
- require strict adherence to the DVD specs,
- not favour any open consumer formats.
What you say here is that: Not even MS could ever produce a mediaplayer
capable of playing DVD audio, because any idea of an OS (including
Windows) opens up for the idea of any replay format.
Try again :)
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
8:46 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:43:12PM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 12:25 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen
wrote:
Try what ?
--
FA
You can be sure that these conditions will be in
the interest of the DVD
consortium, and therefore will
- require strict adherence to the DVD specs,
- not favour any open consumer formats.
What you say here is that: Not even MS could ever produce a mediaplayer
capable of playing DVD audio, because any idea of an OS (including
Windows) opens up for the idea of any replay format.
Try again :)
9:14 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 13:46 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:43:12PM +0100, Jens M
Andreasen wrote:
Try to convince me that the (unknown) conditions of the DVD-A consortium
is so strict that not even Microsoft could be allowed to produce a
media-player (implicitly in software) because: On the the same machine
it would be possible to read (by third party software) any data by any
interpretation.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 12:25 +0100, Alfons
Adriaensen wrote:
Try what ?
You can be sure that these conditions will be in
the interest of the DVD
consortium, and therefore will
- require strict adherence to the DVD specs,
- not favour any open consumer formats.
What you say here is that: Not even MS could ever produce a mediaplayer
capable of playing DVD audio, because any idea of an OS (including
Windows) opens up for the idea of any replay format.
Try again :)
9:33 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:14:05PM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Try to convince me that the (unknown) conditions of
the DVD-A consortium
is so strict that not even Microsoft could be allowed to produce a
media-player (implicitly in software) because: On the the same machine
it would be possible to read (by third party software) any data by any
interpretation.
I've no interest in trying to do that...
--
FA
10:08 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:33 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
I've no interest in trying to do that...
Great! :=)
We shall now resume to our regular free programming, this week coming
from Brazil:
http://www.pacificocean.com.br/musicas/011hi.mp3
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
10:56 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:07 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:33 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen
wrote:
We shall now resume to our regular free programming,
this week coming
from Brazil:
http://www.pacificocean.com.br/musicas/011hi.mp3
... and also from the same source we have:
http://www.pacificocean.com.br/musicas/001hi.mp3
.. which is kind of the one I liked best from the beginning.
(and yes, this time it is me responding to me?)
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
11:35 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:56 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> We shall now resume to our regular free
programming, this week coming
> from Brazil:
... and also from the same source
we have:
http://www.pacificocean.com.br/musicas/001hi.mp3
.. which is kind of the one I liked best from the beginning.
The disadvantage with these samples are that they indeed are "samples",
taken out of context to give you an impression of the capabilities of
the author. It is my belief that you guys can figurure out how to email
when and if you need him ...
.. Thankou very much Brazil, but programmers needs more .. so let's go
to France and see what is on offer this week:
http://olivier.renouard1.free.fr/Musics_OGG/Bonus/DK%20Project%201%
20(45kbps).ogg
(I am not sure the link works (but I belive it do), please notify me
elsewise.)
(and yes, this time it is me responding to me?)
And people that know me realizes that no AI can make a fool outof
it/himself the way I do ;)
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
9:41 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:14 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Try to
convince me that the (unknown) conditions of the DVD-A consortium
is so strict that not even Microsoft could be allowed to produce a
media-player (implicitly in software) because: On the the same machine
it would be possible to read (by third party software) any data by any
interpretation.
Uhmm .. There is of course the possibility of buying excactly that right
to the highest bidder.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
10:16 a.m.
WARNING!
We are hijacked by mailers. I did not respond to myself:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:41 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:14 +0100, Jens M Andreasen
wrote:
Try to convince me that the (unknown) conditions of the DVD-A consortium
is so strict that not even Microsoft could be allowed to produce a
media-player (implicitly in software) because: On the the same machine
it would be possible to read (by third party software) any data by any
interpretation.
Uhmm .. There is of course the possibility of buying excactly that right
to the highest bidder.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen
7267
days inactive
7275
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
40 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Alfons Adriaensen -
Dave Chapman -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Fons Adriaensen -
Jens M Andreasen -
Juhana Sadeharju -
Jussi Laako -
oliver oli