SACD vs. DVD-A: USA Today Article

Here's a link:



Big Guns Join SACD/DVD-Audio Fight

 

Sounds like nothing's changed, and the article was well written. Both formats have a big run for their money.

I really like SACD best, but there's enough on DVD-A to NOT ignore it. Warner and Capitol have a big enough catalog to fuel a long life for DVD-A.

But I'm still hoping that the labels see the higher resolution and dedicated DAC for SACD is superior. Then again, an SACD is part DVD too. A fine mess, but interesting nonetheless.

 

I agree with you except on the point of Capitol. I am not and have never been convinced that EMI Group is as firmly committed to the DVD-A format as many seem to think. Virgin, an EMI label, is releasing the entire Peter Gabriel catalogue on SACD in Europe, mirroring the Universal label Geffen who hold the rights to the catalogue in the US and are releasing it on SACD. EMI is also releasing Dark Side of The Moon on SACD, Blue Note, another EMI label, will be releasing Norah Jones on SACD, among other titles.

I don't see the battle as being over, but I definitely feel at double the titles, nearly double the amount of labels backing it and the more straightforward nature of the format, and the hybrid capability which exists already for SACD, that SACD has less of a struggle than DVD-A. Anyhow, one thing the article alerted me to was the R.E.M. DVD-A of Document which I had no idea was coming. Although I would have preferred it and all the other R.E.M. titles on SACD, I will have to pick this release up and hopefully it's just as good as or better than the Automatic for The People DVD-A.

 

How are the R.E.M. DVD-A's? Are they multichannel only?

 

I feel the REM DVD-As are very good. And, no they are not multichannel only - all include a dedicated stereo mix.

Be forewarned, though, that "Automatic for the People" is a digital recording so the DVD-A is on 48/24 in both surround and stereo - but it still sounds good.

I actually enjoyed "Reveal" more than ever in MCH.

"Document" was supposed to be released today, but I thing the date has been pushed back to 2/11/03.

 

This whole DVD-A v. SACD is becoming some what (watt) tiring. In time, with more Universal players, studios will have no trouble putting out what they want, etc. Think Dolby Digital v. DTS (that's STD backwards, kids!!)

Todd

 

I agree that as more Universal players hit the market a lot of the "hot air" being blown about regarding SACD vs DVD-A will be moot.

But - we still have somewhat different media formats. And being an adopter of both I prefer SACD. It is easier to use (at least with the dedicated SACD/CD players I own), doesn't require the possible need for a TV monitor to navigate the disc to get the music you want, and generally sounds very natural with a good recording.

DVD-A authoring standards don't seem to be set in stone - so you get some discs that are easy to navigate and play, both stereo and MCH, without a TV. Yet you have other discs that without a TV you can go crazy trying to find what you want and how to access it. There needs to be standards on how the discs are authored and how they react when you place them in your player.

And lastly, to my ears - SACD sounds more natural, whereas DVD-A still has, even with the greater resolution, that digitally etched quality that all PCM recordings tend to exhibit. (But that could also be due to my DVD-A player - the Technics DVDA-10 as opposed to my Sony XA777ES SACD player).