 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.54.232.221
In Reply to: RE: A correction posted by Charles Hansen on May 30, 2007 at 10:00:49
Note that my post says that multi-channel without lossy compression on DVD-V is not "feasible." I recognize that it is POSSIBLE, but it simply isn't a realistic option.Unscrew your propeller beanie and put your marketing hat back on.
Edits: 05/30/07Follow Ups:
< < I recognize that it is POSSIBLE, but it simply isn't a realistic option > >
I'm not so sure that it is (or isn't) realistic. I suppose it depends on whether or not the existing hardware supports multi-channel PCM. And I honestly don't know that answer to that.
When DVD first came out, all of the players had only two (stereo) analog outputs. So clearly a multi-channel PCM disc wouldn't play more than the front two channels on a machine like that. DTS was added to the DVD-Video specification at the 11th hour, and when DTS discs first became popular there were very few surround-sound processors that could decode DTS. So for several years all DVD-Video players above the cheapest entry level models had built-in DTS decoding and 5.1 analog outputs. What I don't know is what would happen if you were to play a multi-channel PCM DVD-Video disc in a player like that. It might play all of the channels and it might not.
I never tried the experiment because the authoring software for DVD-Video was (is?) very costly and complex. (I have made some multi-channel DVD-Audio discs with Cirlinca's $35 package, and it is trivially easy.)
But whether or not the existing hardware supports multi-channel PCM is somewhat besides the point. The point is that if there really were a demand for high-resolution surround sound (which I doubt), it would have been a hell of a lot easier to do it with DVD-Video instead of making a complete new format (eg, DVD-Audio or SACD). They could have easily have made "multi-channel" DVD-Video players for more money than a normal "stereo" DVD-Video player, just like you can get a multi-channel receiver for more money than a stereo receiver.
I still maintain that the decision to attempt the introduction of a new format two years after the introduction of DVD-Video was a colossal mistake. A brief look at the history of music playback formats, noting what was successful and what wasn't successful (and why) would have saved a lot of people a lot of time and money...
None of what should have or could have been done matters anymore. The reason I say that multichannel uncompressed PCM isn't feasible or realistic is precisely because it WAS NOT promoted or supported from the inception of DVD-V. Instead, as you and I agree, the DVD Forum wasted several years coming up with a new, problematic variation that was riddled with compatibility issues, and allowed the market to completely get away from them. What this this means that the vast majority of DVD player owners don't have a player, processor, or receiver/linestage capable of effectively supporting anything but 2ch analog, or whatever can be pumped over a Toslink or S/PDIF connection. So even though multichannel uncompressed PCM is technically possible on DVD-V, the market simply isn't there, making it unfeasible and an unrealistic option. OK?
The OP was spinning a variation of the old "DVD-based media will take over just because everyone has a DVD player" chestnut that the fanboys and format cheerleaders have paraded past us so many times. There are myriad reasons why this was never going to happen. Again, most of this has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with the market.
nt
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
