Surround sound, SACDs and DVD Audio

[PJPJ]

Thanks, I'll have a look under the stairs and squint at the board - it'll be a case of getting my head at the correct angle and then pull back and forth to get the board in focus. The pleasures of decrepitude.

[Gordon]

This is interesting, but perhaps too alarmist.

There are 1.5 million offending devices out there known to violate EMC regulations, not by a small margin but by 30dB ie 1000 times the power they should be emitting. That isn't alarmist if you live next door. There are only 25 million households in the country so that means more than 5%. That's fine if you aren't one of them.

The manfacturers know who they are [Belkin has at least one product] but will do nothing unless OfCom do anything. They have known for several years and will not act.

Regarding ring mains if there are separate ones your system will probably not work.

[Dave2002]

There are 1.5 million offending devices out there known to violate EMC regulations, not by a small margin but by 30dB ie 1000 times the power they should be emitting. That isn't alarmist if you live next door. There are only 25 million households in the country so that means more than 5%. That's fine if you aren't one of them.

The manfacturers know who they are [Belkin has at least one product] but will do nothing unless OfCom do anything. They have known for several years and will not act.

Regarding ring mains if there are separate ones your system will probably not work.

When ADSL first became known to me (before it was actually deployed) I was sure that there'd be problems due to radiated interference. This has not, so far as I know, been a major problem, and ADSL and other digital distribution schemes do seem to work, at least moderately well. There almost certainly is some additional radiation, but the nature of it is such that it appears to be fairly benign at least regarding some other equipment such as FM radios. My powers of prediction are not always infallible!

In order to test out whether mains power comms units necessarily cause problems I have now set up a portable FM set about 1 ft away from one of my Zyxel Powerline units. There is no unnacceptable noise from the FM set with the antenna fully extended.

I turned on iPlayer on my TV running via my satellite box to ensure that there is significant data traffic and set it to the highest quality level. There is no significant noise from the FM set. I also turned off the comms unit at the mains to see if that made a difference, and also as a further check stowed away the antenna on the FM set. Shortening the antenna caused hiss, but cross checking with other locations relatively far away from the mains shows that this happens independently of the mains, i.e there is hiss with a shorter antenna throughout our house. With the antenna fully extended I was not able to detect any significant interference due to our powerline LAN. If there was any noise it was largely inconsequential. OTOH as mentioned already, interference from some (e.g. Panasonic) DECT phones can be very significant.

This doesn't prove that there can never be interference from Powerline LANs, but the units on mine do not cause any obvious problems. This shows that acceptable performance is possible. It may be that some systems cause problems, but I'd suggest that these are not functioning properly or not specified correctly.

[Dave2002]

Not qute SACD related, but this article about the digitising of some Mercury master material is interesting -

http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf

Some enthusiasts have wondered why the Mercury material hasn't all been re-released in SACD (presumably 3 channel) format. I do have some 3 channel Mercury SACDs, but the box set only contains 2 channel CDs. Some people have said that it costs more to make an SACD. I don't know how true this is.
There will be more effort initially, but I'd have thought the actual pressing costs could now be insignificantly more than CDs. My guess would be 10p/disc, but there may be factors I don't know about.

[PJPJ]

Very interesting, but, you're right, it isn't SACD related.

Wilma Cozart Fine took charge of the reissue on CD of the Mercury material. Some of the masters were on tape, and some on 35mm film (like Bert Whyte's Everest recordings) and it is interesting to read about the deterioration with which the restorers had to cope. Everest's were stored in rather less suitable circumstances, and the film has become far more damaged over time as a result.

In a few cases Mrs Fine had to resort to a tape version (for example Janis in Rachmaninov PC1, I understand) but she refused to sanction for release any imperfect ones whose only effective master was a second-generation copy. That is the reason why some Mercury recordings did not appear on CD.

For SACD release, all of the masters were remastered afresh by Universal engineers not Wilma Cozart, and to DSD. From 1955, the masters were two channel stereo, so the SACD has but two channels; it was only later on that three channels were used (as in Everest) and the difference in sound quality is, I think, substantial.

The CD layer of this second release for SACD doesn't use the later remastering. Instead, Wilma Cozart's early 90s remasters were used. So, if you do have SACD playback facilities you can enjoy two different remasterings on the same disc.

Those who collected the SACDs as they came out were disappointed the releases stopped with Universal's giving up on SACD. Only in the past few months, has the Japanese arm begun to use the format again, Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky symphonies one of the releases details of which I posted in the bargains thread. Whether Universal follow EMI (in the Signature series) in reissuing this historic analogue material on SACD is anyone's guess but they have dipped their toe into the not quite so expensive 24 bit download market. I think it's unlikely more high resolution Mercury releases will see the light of day.

I don't have the recent box of Mercury CDs so can't say how recent the mastering are of some of the material. I guess they're Cozart's?

Very little of the extensive mono library was reissued on CD, and none on SACD. Some of the mono recordings were re-made in stereo, yes, THAT 1812, but lots wasn't. To hear those, especially for some interesting American music, you need Pristine Audio's transfers from the LPs (or the LPs themselves).

It does cost more to produce an SACD disc, but not by as much as it used to. However, there are indeed other factors affecting SACD costings. I was horrified to hear from Robert von Bahr, who has probably issued more SACDs than anyone, and if not, it's still rather a lot, that, because a hybrid SACD will contain at least two programmes, if not three, this means that two, if not three copyright bills need to paid in at least one country, making SACD production of in-copyright music a bloody expensive business.

The Everest material ended up on CD, and a single solitary SACD. Much has been released on DVD-A coupled with a CD by Classic Records. There won't be any more - the rest of the film masters have disintegrated. When Everest shut up shop after just a few years in operation, the Cozart Fines bought some of the equipment.

This interesting release:

http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//CD1190.htm

has Bert Whyte, pre-Everest, as a guest of the Fines at Mercury's recording of Kubelik's Smetana Ma Vlast in 1952 - recording as well, but in STEREO.

[Dave2002]

It does cost more to produce an SACD disc, but not by as much as it used to. However, there are indeed other factors affecting SACD costings. I was horrified to hear from Robert von Bahr, who has probably issued more SACDs than anyone, and if not, it's still rather a lot, that, because a hybrid SACD will contain at least two programmes, if not three, this means that two, if not three copyright bills need to paid in at least one country, making SACD production of in-copyright music a bloody expensive business.
.

This seems like an unnecessary legalistic refinement. If the music is the same in all the layers then why should more copyright payments be necessary?

However, there would be copyright issues about the production of each layer, as different people could be involved. Surely, however, the issuing company could decide to treat a hybrid product as just one entity, and sort out the payments to the production teams internally. This is on the same level as the picky detail which determines that if the Times chooses to print one of Shakespeare's Sonnets in some fancy font for one issue of their paper, then although the sonnet is clearly now out of copyright, the "typesetters" and other production members of the paper run (or online version) do have a copyright claim, and others are not allowed to copy the layout and visual impression. If that were the only source of a particular sonnet, then would the Times be allowed to claim royalties on any other versions which could be shown to derive from their work, even if only the words were copied?

I think that at times these things get totally out of hand.

[Bryn]

This seems like an unnecessary legalistic refinement. If the music is the same in all the layers then why should more copyright payments be necessary?

However, there would be copyright issues about the production of each layer, as different people could be involved. Surely, however, the issuing company could decide to treat a hybrid product as just one entity, and sort out the payments to the production teams internally. This is on the same level as the picky detail which determines that if the Times chooses to print one of Shakespeare's Sonnets in some fancy font for one issue of their paper, then although the sonnet is clearly now out of copyright, the "typesetters" and other production members of the paper run (or online version) do have a copyright claim, and others are not allowed to copy the layout and visual impression. If that were the only source of a particular sonnet, then would the Times be allowed to claim royalties on any other versions which could be shown to derive from their work, even if only the words were copied?

I think that at times these things get totally out of hand.

Dave, I think he crucial point being made was contained in the phrase "in at least one country". Copyright legislation varies from country to country.

[Gordon]

When ADSL first became known to me (before it was actually deployed) I was sure that there'd be problems due to radiated interference. This has not, so far as I know, been a major problem, and ADSL and other digital distribution schemes do seem to work, at least moderately well. There almost certainly is some additional radiation, but the nature of it is such that it appears to be fairly benign at least regarding some other equipment such as FM radios. My powers of prediction are not always infallible!

When BT among others were developing ADSL in the late 80s there were many tests done to measure radiation from telephone lines especially those strung up on poles. The lines under ground were less of an issue because they are bundled in cables and ducts and have some screening built in. All the predictions of high levels of radiation were not found to be true. ADSL spectrum is in the 1 MHz region [300 metres wavelength] and so any radiation affects MW transmissions and is very unlikely to hit FM at 100 MHz. The telephone line is a long pair or wire loop and so the wires will not act as an efficient aerial. The ADSL signal is a form of COFDM so will have a noise like interference footrprint which is relatively benign.

There was also the reverse concern that a local MW transmitter [or anything that radiated at around 1MHz] could cause interference into telephone lines carrying ADSL. This was a small concern around Brookmans Park etc but the lines are not good aerials and are loops so you would have to be right on top of the transmitter to get serious problems. Anyway your ADSL modems/routers would mitgate the effect to some extent by setting their power levels during synchronisation.

.....but I'd suggest that these are not functioning properly or not specified correctly.

Yes. There is a spec for these things - EMC spec is EN 55022 - and any electrical device must meet its requirements to gain a CE mark. Those that do so do not cause a problem. The ones that don't can still carry a CE mark because the system of regulation isn't working. The consumer doesn't know which is which.

As regards copyright fees Bryn is right, it varies from country to country and some of them think that a hybrid CD is two separate publications ["published editions" is how the copyright act of 1988 describes them] of the same material and so should attract two publication fees. It isn't the music alone and its peformance that is being protected it is also the format of publication. The discmaker also has to pay royalty on both CD and SACD/DSD patent pools and he shows that he has a licence by placing the respective logos on the disc and its packaging.

[Gordon]

Not qute SACD related, but this article about the digitising of some Mercury master material is interesting -

http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf

Thanks for that, very interesting. Look particularly at section 6, last sentence. That tells a tale.

[Dave2002]

Thanks for that, very interesting. Look particularly at section 6, last sentence. That tells a tale.

What I'm still not sure about is how many of the Mercury recordings were made using more than 2 channels - and I don't mean current style multi mike setups. Is there a list somewhere? There seems to be a feeling that at least the three channel ones sound better than the two channel ones (when replayed using the appropriate number of channels). That would fit in with the results from some relatively early experiments in representing a more natural representation of sound in a hall.