Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › SACD OR DVD-AUDIO--Explained!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SACD OR DVD-AUDIO--Explained!

post #1 of 48
6/28/01 at 5:03pm
Thread Starter 
Hey guys I ran across these articles from CNET, and some audiophile sites comapring DVD-A to SACD.

it's worth a good read.

http://www.cnet.com/electronics/0-32...5812389-1.html

http://www.365proaudio.com/technology/candvd.shtml

http://hometheater.about.com/gadgets.../aa020301a.htm
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #2 of 48
6/28/01 at 5:31pm
Thanx for the read - very nice stuff, though i don't like how everyone bashes MD....
Reply
post #3 of 48
6/28/01 at 6:34pm
It's important to keep in mind that what these people are writing is intended for mass-market consumers. Those of us who can tell the difference between different CD players will easily be able to tell the difference between a Technics $200 multi-purpose wunderkind and SACD-only players.

Some of those articles said that SACD audio is currently only in 2-channels. Well, there are many players either available or in production (like the Marantz SA-12, the Sony SCD-XA777ES) which will be compatible with 2-channel and 6-channel audio SACD.

I think one of the articles even said that DVD-A has the "potential" for 96 KHz. This is very much out of date, considering that DVD-A discs will generally have a sampling rate of 192 KHz.

I would recommend the following Stereophile side-bars if you would like to read a slightly more serious discussion about SACD.

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?180:15

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?180:7

Dan
Reply
post #4 of 48
6/28/01 at 7:29pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks!! great info DAN
Reply
post #5 of 48
6/30/01 at 1:33pm
I stopped reading the CNET article after the first paragraph:
Quote:
Twenty years have come and gone since compact discs vastly improved the quality of audio we listen to...."
Change the word "quality" to "convenience" and I might agree, but I would word it:
Quote:
"Twenty years have come and gone since compact discs have made us forget what quality audio sounds like..."
If it's so vastly improved, why are they bothering with SACD/DVD-A/HDCD etc.?
Reply
post #6 of 48
6/30/01 at 2:56pm
Thread Starter 
I"m confused, CD sounds better than tape, DAT. and those stupid sounding records.

Now what's really interesting is I hear people saying that LP sounds better than CD, I find that hard to believe.

AS for CD, I feel the industry neede a change back in 1995.
Reply
post #7 of 48
6/30/01 at 3:12pm
LPs are records...

And they do have the potential to sound far better than standard red-book CDs with proper equipment. It's just that a good $200 CDP will blow away a $200 turntable set-up. There are just so man things to worry about on a record player -- aside from the actual turntable, there's the tonearm, the cartridge, and so much other stuff that I just don't know about (I have a cheap old Sony turntable).

If you listen to something like dance and techno, there is very little need for an audiophile turntable set-up. There is no natural sound for techno, since all of that music is just synthesized (with few exceptions). If you want to hear the sweetness of a Stradivarius or a great orchestral performance, a good turntable will be much more natural and musical than a good CD player.

Interestingly enough, though, it seems that nowadays more records are being released by techno "artists," because it seems to be easier to mix on them. For example, Moby and the Chemical Brothers like to release on LP.
Reply
post #8 of 48
7/1/01 at 1:53am
That's the key, most electronic and rock music wouldn't benefit much from any format upgrades. Acoustic music is the most hard to reproduce, and thus requires the best in playback technologies.

When I listen to St. Germian, it does not matter if I'm listening to it on my 5 year old portable or my digital separates sysytem. When I listen to Mccoy Tyner's New York Reunion, thats where I really know something missing from my portable and 44/16 PCM playback its self. In addition, Most jazz and classical records are produced on a much higher level than that of mainstream music, so the argument of 'the quality of the recording being FAR more important than the failings of the CD medium' becomes less relevant when it comes to those styles of music.

And as far as turntables go, most cheap and older setups suck big time. But I think you would have a hard time saying a good vinyl setup playing a Classic Records 45LP OVERALL sounds worse than even the best CD version.

Just my two cents
Reply
post #9 of 48
7/1/01 at 3:10am
Quote:
Originally posted by Paradigm
I"m confused, CD sounds better than tape, DAT. and those stupid sounding records.
Actually.. now I'm confused you your statement.

You say that "CD sounds better then [...] DAT"...

Um... CD and DAT shouldn't sound different if both are at 44.1khz sampling rate, right?

Indeed, DAT should be able to sound better than CD, since it can sample at 48khz as compared to CD's 44.1khz. I even believe that some DAT recorders can sample at 55khz.
Reply
post #10 of 48
7/1/01 at 3:23am
Thread Starter 
Not a chance CD is much better than DAT, i have comapred both side by side, plus dat can wear out
Reply
post #11 of 48
7/1/01 at 3:24am
Quote:
Originally posted by Paradigm
I"m confused, CD sounds better than tape, DAT. and those stupid sounding records.

Now what's really interesting is I hear people saying that LP sounds better than CD, I find that hard to believe.

AS for CD, I feel the industry neede a change back in 1995.
Paradigm,

Have you ever actually heard a good vinyl rig? I don't mean a Technics DJ turntable, I mean a good turntable. Like you, I thought the vinyl-sounds-better-than-CD crowd was nuts until I got a job at a hi-fi store many years ago and heard a Linn LP-12 turntable with Linn Ekos tonearm and Linn Troika cartridge. Couldn't believe what I was hearing.

If you've never heard a good vinyl-playing rig, than you've never heard what's on those big round black vinyl discs.
Reply
post #12 of 48
7/1/01 at 3:26am
Thread Starter 
Thats what extreme audiophiles keep telling me, that LP's are better than CD.

Then again they are using $15,000 LP tables
Reply
post #13 of 48
7/1/01 at 3:35am
Quote:
Originally posted by Paradigm
Thats what extreme audiophiles keep telling me, that LP's are better than CD.

Then again they are using $15,000 LP tables
Paradigm,

Extreme audiophiles? One need not spend $15,000 on a player. You can get a Rega setup for well under $1,000 that will still show you much of what's on those LPs.

Reply
post #14 of 48
7/1/01 at 5:19am
Thread Starter 
Extreme audiophiles=like to spend $80,000 on a table trust me, it's crazy

Also My next door neightbour has a $15000,00 DAC it the thing sounds just as good as a 2 channel SACD, no joke
Reply
post #15 of 48
7/1/01 at 12:27pm
You can get a decent used turntable for $200 or less. There's a ton of 20 year old Thorens, Duals, etc on eBay that are still great performers. Then spend what you want on the cartridge, but even a $50 low end Grado cartridge will give you enough to see the smoother, more realistic sounds vinyl can offer. But it does take time and knowledge to set one up properly, it's not plug and play like CD's. You need isolation from floor vibrations, proper cartridge mounting, proper tracking force and anti-skating, vinyl that was well engineered and that's been properly cared for and cleaned, AND a decent phono stage on your amp or an outboard one. And when listening to vinyl through headphones, any shortcomings will be extremely noticeable. That said, it's STILL worth it for the improvement over CD's if sound accuracy is important to you.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › SACD OR DVD-AUDIO--Explained!