SACD vs DVD AUDIO

WOW! What a lot of opinions!!!

Here's my take on the SACD vs. DVD-A controversy:

First of all, there is not much content available for either format. Second, there is no gaurantee either format will survive. If either format craters, chances are that eventually you won't be able to buy anything to play it on. So either way you go, there is a chance the hi-rez layer will be basically unplayable one day ala 8 track tape.

Which sounds better? Who knows? On my system, SACD sounds better than DVD-A, because I'm playing SACDs on a Sony AX777ES, and playing DVD-As on a Yamaha DVD-S1200. Not a fair comparison.

However, I think it's still too early to answer this question even with identically mastered sources recorded and played back on state-of-the-art equipment optimized for each respective medium. NEITHER format can perfectly reproduce an analog signal. I think we should have learned from the transition from tubes to transistors and CD's "perfect sound forever" not to be sucked in to endorsing ANY new technology too soon. How many so called "experts" jumped on the transistor or CD bandwagons? Most everyone. these were NEW sounds. and it seems that with new sounds it's easy to tell what it does BETTER than the "old" sound, but it takes a good long while to start hearing into the new problems. There are things transistors did better than tubes, and things CD did better than LP. In both cases it took a LOT of listening before (most) of the "experts" began to complain about "transistorized" sound or in the case of CDs, "digititis" or "listener fatigue." Now some people prefer the new sounds, some the old.

I think the same thing will happen with SACD and DVD-A. Right now, these formats sound so much better than what we're used to hearing everyone is still in the "Oh, wow" stage. give it time and our ears will start to become accustomed to what these formats do WRONG. Then some people will like one, some the other - just as they do today, although individual opinions may change. A lot of people will probably still prefer LPs. I say give it time and let's see what happens. It took me 2 years of being blown away by the dynamic range and lack of surface noise on CDs before I realized that I HATED the sound of CD on a $2000 player made in 1987, and it took an AX777ES in 2002 for me to really begin to appreciate CDs again.

In the meantime, give me a dual-layer SACD over a DVD-A. I HATE DVD-A navigation. Dumb idea IMO. The SACD has a redbook layer playable on my CD player, even if the redbook layer is maximized and compressed to death. If the SACD format craters, at least I'll have that when my SACD player dies. And I don't really care about a bunch of extra video.

However, give me a DVD-A over a single-layer SACD. The DVD-A has a DVD layer I can play if the DVD-A format craters. Even with DVD-A navigation, given the choice between a playable DVD layer and an unplayable SACD, I'll take the DVD layer every time.

 

There's a boatload if you like classic rock, jazz or classical.

That's why some of us who have access to pro environments with state of the art gear have chimed in with an opinion.

I don't honestly think it's a fair comparison to compare hirez to Red Book. The extra sampling rate in DVDA or SACD just adds too much important information. It really is a step change over the normal CD playback.

Yes, both the XA777 and the SCD777 I use are pretty good on Red Book. Great machines! Still, an outboard DAC can improve things like the Weiss or Benchmark gear.

Well that's fair, but hybrid SACDs have a Red Book layer that works on billion installed CD players.

Maybe DualDisc will be an answer if the labels really push it. I have my doubts but anything that gets more hirez out is fine by me.

 

And some others with such access, like David Chesky and Mark Waldrep, don't find DSD superior. So there is no single, factual answer as to which is better.

This constant arguing about which format sounds better is damned silly. I'm far more concerned about getting more releases in either format, and having them mastered properly.

The thing that strikes me as crazy is that this and other forums like HTF have some members who very rarely post about music in general and just show up mainly for the format wars.

 

Unfortunately it's not that easy for some of us, specially those who committed to SACD at an earlier stage. I bought into SACD at a point in time when I wanted to upgrade my 2 channel front end. I had a few choices....stick with Redbook and upgrade my DAC/Transport........go back to vinyl or, go with one of the new formats.

SACD seemed to make the most sense at the time due to the fact that SACD Audio only players were available in all price ranges. These players were ergonomically designed for easy playback in an audio only system and I could also improve my Redbook playback at the same time. After a lot of asking around (including here) I decided to go with the SONY SCD-1 player as it seemed to be a decent quality unit with a reputation for good reproduction of both the CD and SACD formats.

At the time I got involved with SACD and IMO even now to get an equivalent Universal player costs a heck of a lot more....way out of proportion to what I would want to invest. I'm sure if both formats survive there will be universal machines developed that will offer better ergonomics as well as playback of all formats and be in a sane price range for dedicated enthusiasts. At this point in time it seems to get a first class universal player you have to put out between 15K and 35K. I'd love to but, so wouldn't us all if it were that easy!!

I do have a machine capable of DVD-A playback but it absolutely stinks as far as any kind of music reproduction is concerned and, to buy another expensive machine just for DVD-A playback is not an attractive option for me in many respects.

So, all in all I don't think it comes down to a matter of Format superiority but a matter of economics and practical choice as far as what your objectives are in purchasing a playback unit.

In my case it was 2 channel reproduction in a high resolution as well standard Redbook CD and at the time SACD made most sense to me.

Let's get some really good sounding competent well priced universal players out from the smaller Audiophile oriented companies and we can sit back and enjoy the music while the major record companies tear each others hearts out with this inane piggy format war that they are instigating.......to hell with them!

 

Khorn,

You did exactly what you sought out to do: Expand and improve your digital experience. The Sony SCD1 is an excellent player.

Even in these times, although DVD-A can sound excellent, many DVD/DVD-A players aren't all that hot in redbook playback, unless you wanted to pay over $1,000 for it, and even still, you wouldn't get C L O S E to the SCD1 for SACD or Redbook playback.

 

I don't think you can call less than 3000 titles a boatload, especially when a lot of those titles are the same tired reissues we get every time a new format emerges.

I wasn't comparing hirez to redbook. I was comaring the REACTION of people who have heard hirez to the REACTION of people who first heard solid state after listening to tubes for years, or to the REACTION of people who first heard redbook after listening to vinyl for years. In both cases, people were well aware of the sonic limitations of the technology they were used to, and it took awhile to realize what the sonic limitations of the newer format were.

The same thing will happen to SACD and DVD-A. However good these formats are, neither is perfect. As time passes and the ear tunes in, people will become more aware of what the limitations are and start arguing about THOSE. As for myself, I think both formats at their best are better than redbook at its best, but neither is as good as vinyl at ITS best, although both are a lot closer than redbook was.

 

I guess we just have an honest disagreement. How many CDs do you have in your collection? The titles in jazz and classical are fantastic, many new for the offering in hirez. There are royalty issues holding up more releases as well.

I still think its a bad comparison. The reaction was more subtle back then since the changes were more subtle. The changes this time around are tremendous. To my ears it's the first time digital has sounded close to analog.

I don't think that faster sampling rates are any limitation. In fact, I think people will slowly realize how very important this extra musical content is as they upgrade their systems or recordings use newer generation ADCs and DACs.

I would also disagree with you regarding the Dual turntable. Some vinyl is superb but the XA777 should for a reasonable title sound much better. Perhaps it was the vinyl you selected and the corresponding SACD title had poor mastering.

I have compared a Sony SCD-1 several times to a loaded VPI turntable with a Benz Ruby ($10K+ equipment). The VPI was better but it was somewhat close.

I think the XA777 is a fabulous bargain at $2K.

 

I have upwards of 4000 CDs and about 65 linear feet of LPs. There just aren't that many hirez titles (aside from the Stones, Dylan, and Steve's stuff) that I'm interested in, although there's a lot of stuff I'd buy if it ever appears.

 

Your question wasn't phrased to me, but I've got over 2,000 CDs. I'd estimate way less than 5% of them are available on SACD or DVD-A. Probably less than 1%.

 

It’s hard to ‘not’ get SACD in a player today. All this discuss of ‘if’ its going to happen – it already did!

Between 1982 and 1985 the % of CD’s to albums grew at an exponential rate. By 1990 people were saying; ‘…records tapes? Are you kidding?’

The SACD format is excellent. Players will all be backwards compatible to CD’s, can’t say that for vinyl or tape.

So why wouldn’t you buy it is the real question.

It’s the closest think to vinyl I have ever heard. SACD is giving my CAL tube DAC a good hard run and the jury is still out. Stuff a couple of tubes in my SACD Player and I’ll be a VERY happy listener for a VERY long time. Oh and I’m looking into doing it already.

Once Sony lets makers use the SACD decoder in outboard DAC’s and computers, it’s all over for CD Redbook.

 

I agree. It is close to vinyl. You can get tubes in the Shanling SACD player, by the way.

Fair enough. It is still a young format but I don't see it going away and hopefully more titles will arrive that excite you. For me, I love acoustic jazz and classical music and I really have more on my buy list than I can afford to pick up. I have around 400 SACDs now. There are still many artists in hirez like Van Morrison and Bruce Springsteen and more Floyd and Van Halen and Led Zeppelin (available in hirez vinyl from Classic Records) that I want but I think there are royalty issues that will be worked out soon and open up the gates a bit...

 

From an article in the August/September 2004 issue of the absolute sound magazine entitled "THE SOUND OF ANALOG TAPE, LP, CD, SACD, AND DVD-AUDIO;"

Robert Harley: Regarding SACD and DVD-Audio, "do you think one is inherently better sounding than the other?"

Doug Sax: "Right now I can not say that one is better sounding than the other. I know that SACD is more forgiving than the other. It feels more analog to me."

Mark Levinson: "...DSD, when used properly, does not create the stress and confusion that is caused by every PCM recording. This is not opinion, this is physiological fact."

Harry Pearson: "I agree with Doug about SACD sounding more analog..."

 

I also think it sounds more analog. PCM has an inherently metallic sound to my ears. I do like what little 24/192 recordings I have heard.

It may be a matter of preference but done well I think most engineers feel that a pure DSD recording bests a very good 24/96 recording.

You have to keep in mind also that DSD is a very new format. There will be advancements in the converters and recording process. PCM has a 20 year headstart here and late 90s DACs and ADCs sound infinitely better than the studio gear we had in the early 90s and late 80s.

 

Tony Falkner certainly has some questions about DSD in the latest Stereophile.

 

Got a link?

 

I'd rather hear the opinions of professionals using these technologies rather than some journalist.

 

I thought Tony Falkner was a recording engineer, not a journalist???

 

Gabe, Please give a page reference.

 

http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/index2.html

Start here and continue to the next page.


One thing I'd like to point out that there a highly doubt that a group of recording engineers would have a consensus on much in regards to preference. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

Doug Sax prefers sacd over dvd-a for reasons that don't have anything to do with sound (which he states in the TAS roundtable) - he feels both dsd and hi bit pcm are good, although as the quote above states, he feels there dsd is more "forgiving". In the end he prefers analog (as does Falkner) to both.

Mark Levinson makes some pretty strange anti pcm claims, which I have yet to see any proof.

 

The mans name is Tony Faulkner, and yes he is a recording engineer, the article begins on page 50 of the August 2004 Stereophile.

 

My apologies for my poor spelling.

 

My apologies for copying Gabe's poor spelling.

 

Guys, No sweat.

 

he he

 

I guess you're in luck then