Maybe not!Well I wouldn't go THAT far, Jack ..... but I do wish they'd catch up with the times and consider either SACD or BD~A and dispense with those patently 90's codecs!
SOMEONE'S been reading their Audio Bible! True, Dunc, but not to get into the pros and cons of PCM vs. DSD, I'd still much prefer LOSSLESS SACD over lossy DVD~V DD/DTS.Maybe not!
SACD/DSD is based on older techniques, Noise shaping and Delta-Sigma Modulation, with the former proposed by Cutler in 1954 the latter by Inose & Yasuda in 1962!
DSD is a cheap and very digital way to get higher resolutions by massively over-sampling (modulating!), so easy to manufacture on Silicon.
It was an IEEE 'bible', Oversampling Delta-Sigma Convertors - Theory, Design & Simulation .......... a good soporific!SOMEONE'S been reading their Audio Bible! True, Dunc, but not to get into the pros and cons of PCM vs. DSD, I'd still much prefer LOSSLESS SACD over lossy DVD~V DD/DTS.
If you can find fault with any of Dutton~Vocalion/Epoch SACDs now's the time to Spill........
And why do I know THIS: My King James Version of the Audio Bible TELLS ME SO!
Considering the hefty storage space of a BD~A disc compared to hybrid SACD, not surprised. A real shame that almost ALL single album BD~AsYes, it is.
Which is hilarious to say the least.
Time to play the guessing game of how many hours of 7.1 audio can fit on a bluray at 24/96 LCPM!Considering the hefty storage space of a BD~A disc compared to hybrid SACD, not surprised. A real shame that almost ALL single album BD~As
contain a sh*tload of unused storage capacity. I was really hoping when Universal announced their BD~A launch they'd release oodles of box sets in 96/24 resolution [stereo] on a single BD~A but that never transpired. IMO, it might've piqued an interest in BD~A but they, like all other major music labels, continue to release box sets on individual RBCDs in 44.1/16!
So much for forward thinking!