Talk:DVD-Audio

message: from what i remember the dvda standard missed being put into all dvd video players because they were not finished with their copy protection. if they had just gone without their installed base of players would be incredible by now, a missed opportunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.30.78.7 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: delay of release to finish drm missed opportunity for dvda

message: :"Never mind the quality, feel the width"
I'm not particularly bothered about extra quality or different surround-sound formats, I would prefer to have more music on one disc.
How many CDs could be fitted onto one DVD-Audio disc using the original quality?
--Phil | Talk 08:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Depends, but 20 would be a reasonable estimate. Mirror Vax 11:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the DVD-A format employ compression? (And which kind of compression) The article doesn't say. Thue | talk 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the article does mention it.  It actually depends on how much content needs to be on the disc.  The compression used, if necessary, is Meridian Lossless Packing.  Cheers! --Analogdemon (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass storage 

message: ... is belong to us. (sorry, couldn't resist) --Hdante 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great ! --Hdante 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it.  Please don't edit the article as I'm it's not finished yet.  I'll let everyone know when it's done.  Thanks! --Analogdemon (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this dispute 

message: The list of requested references follow. The list is supposed to be extensive.
* Audio Specifications. Either the name of the "book" or a reference to the specification.
** Done --Analogdemon (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: w00t ! --Hdante 14:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for references 

message: Great work everyone.  This article is light years ahead of where it was 12 hours ago, nevermind before I rewrote it.  Thanks to everyone who offered feedback to the new article, and thanks to everyone who has made edits to improve it.  This is the true spirit of Wikipedia and we all should pat ourselves on the back.  Let's keep it up! --Analogdemon (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work! 

message: I put the word "popular" back into use in the article to reference "Pet Sounds".  It is widely seen by music lovers and critics alike as one of the greatest albums of all time.  Q Magazine votes it the greatest of all time.  Rolling Stone put it as the second best album of all time, and countless others. --Analogdemon (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pet Sounds is popular 

message: HDAD may be just a marketing term, but it's used consistently and referenced by third parties to mean a specific type of disc in a specific format, which is not covered in that section..  HDAD already redirects to this article, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article itself.  It should stay. Torc2 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then write a section describing what it is - including the fact that it is a marketing term from Classic Records. Don't label it as a "format." 68.54.232.221 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDAD 

message: I don't see how reference #4 actually supports this sentence, particularly the part about 48kHz delivery via unencrypted digital:
"Whereas DVD-Video audio formats such as Dolby Digital and DTS can be sent via the player's digital output to a receiver for conversion to analogue form and distribution to speakers, DVD-Audio cannot be delivered via unencrypted digital audio link at sample rates higher than 48 kHz (i.e., ordinary DVD-Video quality) due to concerns about digital copying.[4]"
I've read the reference linked page twice --am I missing something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.102 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of Reference #4 

message: :Image:Yoshimi 5.1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Yoshimi 5.1.png

message: 2qX63Pgx (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to soundblaster no longer contains list of available DVD-Audio titles 

message: "Some labels are releasing DVD titles that are formatted as DVD-Audio on one side and DVD-Video on the other, the DualDisc being one such example." -- either this statement is inaccurate, or the entire linked article is innaccurate. 
-- 
Cyberpear (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Error 

message: The article does not always clearly specify what statements are about technical specs and what statements are about percievable differences. An audiophile reader could easily read this article and be mislead into thinking that superior 2-channel sound from DVD-A compared to CD is a well-established fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knutinh (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of e.g. "fidelity" 

message: There seem to be two very useful wikipedia categories, namely:
Category:Albums_released_on_DVD-Audio and Category:Albums_released_in_Super_Audio, which can be added to the bottom of individual albums. I haven't seen one for Blu-Ray music (or indeed surround albums), but still, I figure the people reading this might be in the know as to which albums are currently missiing from the categories...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.60 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late. DVD-A lags way behind. It's looking like even Category:Music released on Blu-ray might catch up, as studios are really starting to embrace it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.130.221 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making use of categories 

message: I restored software webpage links erased by Blinksternet:
a)"These may be much welcomed links to references." is the phrase used by the Wikipedia engine when it comes to adding links. I assume that, notwithstanding the eraser's extended editing rights, this overall policy of Wikipedia's should prevail
b) There are external links in the SACD article, which, incidentally, were not erased by the same editor's review.
c) There are very few coherent and organised links on the net to the software in question.
d) The edit suppressed a link to the only available open-source software for authoring DVD-Audio discs (dvda-author, DVD audio tools project), a poor decision which seems to run against the grain of Wikipedia's philosophy.
e) I am the main admin of the above-mentioned open-source project. Should Wikipedia editors erase software links again, I will have no other option than opening an autonomous article on DVD-Audio software authoring--I'd prefer not to for obvious reasons.
f) To be fair to competitors I restored all links to commercial stuff, however I would understand if some of these commercial links were retrieved. --Fabnicol (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Can you keep the list of software from becoming too promotional? Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  restore software links 

message: Concerning these tests which were "allegedly" performed where no real difference was discerned when listening to DVD-A and comparing it to a HQ mix of the same recording on a red book CD...GET REAL! 
It is true that the original sound or subsequent mix engineering can make or break a completed work in either case. And to look at a poster-child example of "minimal difference" - I might submit the 1970's "Doobie Bothers" release "The Captain and Me". The original of this work is fantastic and among the finest in both its vinyl and stereo CD formats. The more-recent DVD-A multi-channel re-mix differences are "there" for sure, (especially since the 6 discrete channels (PCM) provide the spatial presence that just cannot be obtained with just 2). BUT that is the rare case for me....and actually where the buck stops. 
Notice I am not trying to impress with talking about sampling rates, bits, or compression schemes - just a baptism of full and pure sound quality, dynamic range, SNR, and excellent staging.
Now for MY "Pepsi challenge": You round up that same group of "Helen Keller wanna-be audiophiles" and bring them to MY living room. I would put on just a single "old reliable": "The Eagles Hotel California". The 2 channel mix is very nice, but the multi-channel DVD-A will blow ANYONE and EVERYONE with ears away. It is the standard by which mixing should be measured to. (Please, DO TRY THIS AT HOME)! 
There are others as well, but I only wanted to make a single point to combat what I perceived to be a very serious misnomer. Sadly, the vast majority of the public could care less about fidelity of sound, (as is evident in MP3, I-pod, and cell phone music popularity). 
SO...(since it's ALWAYS all about the money) DVD-A and SACD are now both dried on the vine. It's sad that "the powers that be" claim to provide the HQ audio as a side order to Blu-Ray movies as the pacifier, yet this leaves a gaping hole in music formats, (one that is unlikely to be noticed at all by the masses). 
That is how it is. I may not like it - but I accept it. However, PLEASE DO NOT insinuate that "there was little difference anyway". That's just ludicrous. (My 2 Cents).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.138 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody is either biased or just plain wrong. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on DVD-Audio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706022607/http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/iseo-rgbtcspd/learningcenter/home/cd_dvdsacd.html to http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/ISEO-rgbtcspd/learningcenter/home/cd_dvdsacd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , I've been reverting non-DVD-Audio-specific additions to . General discussion of these wider controversial points is covered at  and it doesn't serve us to have it covered here too (with a potentially different slant). ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound quality dispute