SuperDisc Music by Monster Music

[JKalman]

Yowser, another DVD-A medium?!?!

SuperDisc Music

Fine with me, as long as I can keep getting more 96 Khz 24 bit discs. :B It has to be better than DualDisc which has got to be the dumbest thing in years IMO. To create the potential for high resolution music then not enforce advanced resolution as a prerequisite to use the label. What dipsh***... :M Though the DualDiscs that do have advanced resolution are great, like all the Talking Heads discs.

[Chris D]

You have typed the word "Monster" on a webpage. Thank you for using the copyrighted word "Monster" and furthering our empire. Please send a check for $1.00 for typing the word "Monster" to the following address for copyright usage:

Noel Lee
666 Bunnybrook Lane
Detroit, Michigan 12345

Thank you for your patronage of Monster products.



Seriously... I'm hoping that they do start using the new High-Def audio formats made for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray for high-def audio discs, not just movies. haven't seen any yet, and these "SuperDiscs" just use regular DTS and Dolby.

[JKalman]

The check is in the mail... :E

They are practically using Advanced Resolution stereo and surround for all intensive purposes, of course they call it High Definition instead, but it is still 96 KHz and 24 Bit PCM, even if it is DTS and Dolby. I'm not sure what kind of compression they use, whether it includes MLP and if it is stored in the LPCM format though.

The annoying thing is that their poll concerning which artist to release next is composed of artists who already have DVD-A/SACD albums out, most of which I own...

[jim777]

I found hidden in the F.A.Q. that the "high definition" stuff is only DTS-encoded music. These discs are inferiour to DVD-A. They are in fact audio on a DVD (DVD-V) like in any other movie...

As usual, Monster is doing stupid marketing based on confusion to sell it's silly stuff,

This is just outrageous...

[joetama]

Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster Monster

Ok, so I'm excited about new ultra-high definition audio formats. I am not excited however by Monster trying to trick me into something that is not any better format.

[JKalman]

I found hidden in the F.A.Q. that the "high definition" stuff is only DTS-encoded music. These discs are inferiour to DVD-A. They are in fact audio on a DVD (DVD-V) like in any other movie...

As usual, Monster is doing stupid marketing based on confusion to sell it's silly stuff,

This is just outrageous...

It is not inferior if it is using 96 KHz and 24 bit, unless you compare it to some rare DVD-As with 192 KHz and 24 bit. Even then, the 24 bits are what make the quality difference anyway, since a dynamic range of over 118 dB is needed for noise free music reproduction. They may use different methods to compress or deal with the storage, but as long as the material is 96 KHz and 24 bit and is converted to PCM so my C-5xe can play them, then it is just as good. If they aren't using a higher resolution and dynamic range though, that would be lame.

[JKalman]

I found hidden in the F.A.Q. that the "high definition" stuff is only DTS-encoded music. These discs are inferiour to DVD-A. They are in fact audio on a DVD (DVD-V) like in any other movie...

As usual, Monster is doing stupid marketing based on confusion to sell it's silly stuff,

This is just outrageous...

I don't see anything hidden in the FAQ that suggests anything fishy. The FAQ seems fairly straight forward that the playback is 96 KHz and 24 Bit, and will only downgrade the sampling and bit rates if your player doesn't support DVD-A, DTS, or DD techniques. Where are you referring to?

[jim777]

I can give you compressed 192kHz 24bits if you want; will it be better than upsampling uncompressed 44.1k 16b redbook.........? Your MP3s are decoded to 48k 16b, does it make them sound as good or better than redbook CD's?

This is simply DTS and Dolby audio on a standard DVD-V, I guess the "confusion" tactic is working.

I'm making my living on the design of audio codecs, trust me. This is shitty dishonest marketing, period.

[DifferentLee]

It is not inferior if it is using 96 KHz and 24 bit, unless you compare it to some rare DVD-As with 192 KHz and 24 bit. Even then, the 24 bits are what make the quality difference anyway

Nope. Sampling rate is equally or more important. I used to make my living working on records and if the word length is kept equal 192 beats 96 and 96 beats 44 and neither are subtle.

[jim777]

Nope. Sampling rate is equally or more important. I used to make my living working on records and if the word length is kept equal 192 beats 96 and 96 beats 44 and neither are subtle.

Ok but please keep in mind that Monster is using lossy-compressed (DTS or Dolby) audio that decodes to a 96kHz. This thingy is a DVD-V that plays in your regular DVD player. This has nothing to do with DVD-A that can provide lossless 96kHz 24-bits.

Now should we put to market 128kbps AAC 192kHz 24bit files instead of DVD-A's and SACD's?? Is a 1024x768 (lossy) JPEG better than a 800x600 (lossless) TIFF now?? Ok, might be a funny comparaison.

Anyway, my point is, why so much fuss from MONSTER about audio on a standard DVD??? And why make it confusing enough for people to think that it is something new? something better?

Just don't buy into this one... well, unless you understand that you are buying some audio on a DVD. That has been already available for years though


SuperDisc.... why not call it a MonsterDisk. and replace the 's' by another letter if you want :twisted:

[JKalman]

Nope. Sampling rate is equally or more important. I used to make my living working on records and if the word length is kept equal 192 beats 96 and 96 beats 44 and neither are subtle.

Oh, what proof do you have of this? How does 192 beat 96 when the human ear can not detect the difference? I understand that it is technically better in terms of coming closer to the analog signal, but can you actually hear the difference between the two with the same gain levels? Past a certain level it doesn't make a difference to the human ear. Go below that level and it does, but we aren't talking about levels lower than 40 KHz in this thread.

The importance of bit rate on the other hand can be proven:

"Fiedler's study has shown that a dynamic range of up to 118 dB is necessary for subjectively noise-free reproduction of music. He considered the peak instantaneous sound level of various sources, as shown at the top of the figure, and the just-audible threshold for white noise added to the program source when the listener is in a normal listening situation, as show at the bottom of the figure. He used musical performances of high peak levels in a quiet environment and a very simple recording setup. The results are summarized in fig. 5-12. The signal-to-noise ratio offered by a 16-bit PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) system is shown to be inadequate for all but the piano solo. Future developments will undoubtedly require greater dynamic range than that offered by 16-bit digital systems." (The Master Handbook of Acoustics, F. Alton Everest, pg. 104 of the fourth edition)

[JKalman]

I can give you compressed 192kHz 24bits if you want; will it be better than upsampling uncompressed 44.1k 16b redbook.........? Your MP3s are decoded to 48k 16b, does it make them sound as good or better than redbook CD's?

This is simply DTS and Dolby audio on a standard DVD-V, I guess the "confusion" tactic is working.

I'm making my living on the design of audio codecs, trust me. This is shitty dishonest marketing, period.

I don't use MP3s.

I should perhaps communicate that my interests are not in multichannel. I'm concerned with their stereo material, which doesn't appear to use DTS or DD, it uses PCM stereo. I don't currently have a surround system. I am probably turning my setup into one in the next year, but I haven't been a fan of surround sound except in movies, which is why I ended up trading mine in for a better stereo setup. My concern is high resolution stereo via my Ayre C-5xe. PCM stereo is not compressed from what I have read online. No confusion here, unless they are lieing about using PCM stereo.

[JKalman]

Ok but please keep in mind that Monster is using lossy-compressed (DTS or Dolby) audio that decodes to a 96kHz. This thingy is a DVD-V that plays in your regular DVD player. This has nothing to do with DVD-A that can provide lossless 96kHz 24-bits.

Now should we put to market 128kbps AAC 192kHz 24bit files instead of DVD-A's and SACD's?? Is a 1024x768 (lossy) JPEG better than a 800x600 (lossless) TIFF now?? Ok, might be a funny comparaison.

Anyway, my point is, why so much fuss from MONSTER about audio on a standard DVD??? And why make it confusing enough for people to think that it is something new? something better?

Just don't buy into this one... well, unless you understand that you are buying some audio on a DVD. That has been already available for years though


SuperDisc.... why not call it a MonsterDisk. and replace the 's' by another letter if you want :twisted:

I understand your frustration, but I don't think anyone here was fooled into thinking it was something new. I'll buy some if I get a high resolution stereo version of an album I like. They state everything you need to know in the FAQ, where is the deception? DVD-A comes on a DVD also, as well as PCM Stereo. Of course, right now it looks like they are just rereleasing things that were already on DVD-A and SACD pretty much. I would prefer DVD-A to keep going, or for DualDisc to make PCM stereo a requirement for the DualDisc designation, but what can I do?

Of course, SACD is no prize horse either: SACD - with AES Paper link.

[JKalman]

Ok but please keep in mind that Monster is using lossy-compressed (DTS or Dolby) audio that decodes to a 96kHz. This thingy is a DVD-V that plays in your regular DVD player. This has nothing to do with DVD-A that can provide lossless 96kHz 24-bits.

Now should we put to market 128kbps AAC 192kHz 24bit files instead of DVD-A's and SACD's?? Is a 1024x768 (lossy) JPEG better than a 800x600 (lossless) TIFF now?? Ok, might be a funny comparaison.

Anyway, my point is, why so much fuss from MONSTER about audio on a standard DVD??? And why make it confusing enough for people to think that it is something new? something better?

Just don't buy into this one... well, unless you understand that you are buying some audio on a DVD. That has been already available for years though


SuperDisc.... why not call it a MonsterDisk. and replace the 's' by another letter if you want :twisted:

BTW, the lossy compression schemes in DTS and DD used by SuperDiscs remove elements the human ear can't detect, so I still don't see what the big problem is?

Psychoacoustics in software

[jim777]

I understand your frustration, but I don't think anyone here was fooled into thinking it was something new.

Then everything is fine with me. I guess that I made my point.

And as you noted, DSD is not often implemented as a 1-bit sigma-delta. It doesn't mean that the DSD representation is bad. Multi-bit oversampling DACs (kind of a mix of DSD and PCM) often sound the best for both DSD and PCM. Doesn't mean that PCM is no good either. Let's not begin another debate on that :B

And yes, DTS has so little lossy compression to do to that I'm not sure that one can hear the difference with a DVD-A. I would hesitate to say the same about DD. But with my work I'm pratically trained to hear codec signatures, so don't mind about my opinion on that

For that and the other items you brought up, I wouldn't want to bring up a format war... :W

BTW psychoacoustic codecs are based on simplified listening tests (on simple tones and noise, etc) and we try to extrapolate that info to a rich and complex mixture called music... we try the best we can

[JonMarsh]

BTW, the lossy compression schemes in DTS and DD used by SuperDiscs remove elements the human ear can't detect, so I still don't see what the big problem is?

Psychoacoustics in software

Who's human ear?

I'm going to drive a stake in the ground here, folks. The linear PCM encoded sound on LD's was in general SUBSTANTIALLY better than the DD or DTS "lossy" encoded material- though the latter uses 24/96, and the former "only" 16 bit at 48 kHz.

There's a reason the new HD video disk formats are offering "lossless" encoded sound tracks- it's called sound quality. For a disk which is ONLY about music, and not video, using lossy encoded formats just doesn't cut it, anymore than MP3 at high encoding rates cuts it.

Just MHO, of course.

This is the sort of thing where you should vote with your pocket book. If the music floats your boat and makes you happy, what the hey. OTOH, if there's an SACD, XRCD, or even HDCD encoded version available, you might give that a listen instead. At least the limitations will only be the digital accuracy; you won't be throwing away part of the sonics just to support lossy compression.

Best regards,

Jon

[JKalman]

Just MHO, of course.

You are entitled to an opinion... :P

One important reason for putting uncompressed audio on the new format is for easier processing. It is much easier to process an uncompressed discrete signal. It is one less level of overhead in the playback system. This would allow less complex circuit boards, less energy consumption, less money spent on the internal components and circuitry, etc.