Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › dvd-a or sacd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

dvd-a or sacd

post #1 of 71
11/12/09 at 12:35pm
Thread Starter 
Does anyone have any of these systems. It seems to me that sacd was the superior format...

however, both formats are still not catching on. Is dvd-a a better option nowadays because it supports spdif?
Reply
post #2 of 71
11/12/09 at 1:19pm
As a format, SACD is going strong in terms of classical and jazz. According to sa-cd.net's database, over 6,100 titles have been released so far, with an average of 50 new per month. There is also plenty of new hardware supporting the format, usually divided between dedicated stereo players and universal multichannel players (including some Blue-ray compatible), from companies such as Sony, Marantz, Denon, Pioneer and OPPO, among many others.

On the other hand, as far as I know, the one record company still stubbornly supporting DVD-A is Tacet in Germany, but with a very limited catalog of a dozen or so classical titles. For better or for worse, DVD-A is another failed format, in the tradition of Sony's Betamax and Toshiba's HD-DVD.
Reply
post #3 of 71
11/12/09 at 4:04pm
You can go back and forth on the technical merits, but the clear fact is that SACD has far more titles than DVD-A. However, you better like classical and jazz, since that's where you'll find most releases.

I run both formats - I have a few hundred SACDs and only 20-25 DVD-As. I think the both sound excellent, however, SACD has many more titles. I grabbed the DVD-A player since there are a few titles like Pet Sounds and various Flaming Lips discs not available on SACD.

I also think DVD-A is mostly dead. There aren't many releases and the catalog is limited. SACD is alive and doing well enough. SACD seems to have replaced reel-to-reel as a high end format with limited appeal to audio nuts.

I like to use SACD alongside vinyl. I love classical and jazz which are plentiful on SACD. I also listen to rock and classic country and alt.country, which can usually be found on vinyl. So I can get almost everything I listen to in hi-rez or analog.
Reply
post #4 of 71
11/12/09 at 4:45pm
Got my first SACDP recently, have about 10 titles so far, definitely worth a listen.

Why did I wait?

Some SACDs are actually recorded in DSD and some are just converted so not as good. Correct UE?

SACD and HI-DEF Audio from Telarc
Reply
post #5 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:00pm
Do you guys think Blu-ray will be next format?

I always wonder if we will see DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD on Blu ray for audio purpose because of their Hi-res lossless capabilities?
Reply
post #6 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cankin View Post
Do you guys think Blu-ray will be next format?
I don't think the music industry is going to launch another new physical medium.

You guys heard that Elvis will be coming to SACD, right? Confirmed by Steve Hoffman. And now there are rumors of Pink Floyd's long-awaited SACD of "Wish You Were Here" may finally be released in 2010. Between the upcoming SACDs of Nat "King" Cole, the Doobie Brothers, the Band, and Sam Cooke, and me finishing the SACD collection of Genesis and the Moody Blues, I think I will need a second job.
Reply
post #7 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:19pm
I always think Blu-ray is more accessible since players are affordable and most receivers support DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD, but only if the license fees(if any) is reasonable for the industry
Reply
post #8 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundboy View Post
I don't think the music industry is going to launch another new physical medium.
I think the tide is turning:



Susan Boyle's "I Dreamed a Dream" on Blu-Ray

Reply
post #9 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cankin View Post
I always think Blu-ray is more accessible since players are affordable and most receivers support DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD, but only if the license fees(if any) is reasonable for the industry
Players that can play SACD (and DVD-A) are even more accessible and don't require receivers that can decode DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD, but mass market consumers aren't necessarily into getting the utmost in sound quality.
Reply
post #10 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpelg View Post
is the audio only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundboy View Post
Players that can play SACD (and DVD-A) are even more accessible and don't require receivers that can decode DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD, but mass market consumers aren't necessarily into getting the utmost in sound quality.
I thought SACD player were accessible but not anymore, most consumer DVD players don't support SACD now unfortunately and even they do most of them can't transport it out because of DRM. On the other hand, Blu-ray players can decode DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD onboard and can output to receivers thru HDMI. That's why I believe it should be a good medium.
Reply
post #11 of 71
11/12/09 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cankin View Post
I thought SACD player were accessible but not anymore, most consumer DVD players don't support SACD now unfortunately and even they do most of them can't transport it out because of DRM. On the other hand, Blu-ray players can decode DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD onboard and can output to receivers thru HDMI. That's why I believe it should be a good medium.
There are a good number of SACD capable players still available at a good price, especially now that manufacturers are moving away from DVD-based universal players (i.e. the recent departure of Oppo's $170 DVD-based universal player, the 980H). However, I believe Sony's 5-disc SACD/CD changer, the SCD-CE595, is still available. And if you need a universal player, Onkyo's 506 universal player (featuring output of native DSD bitstream via HDMI and Burr-Brown 1796 DACs) can be had for $200.00. Likewise, former relatively-expensive DVD-based universal players like Denon's 2930 are now discounted to $200.00 as well. Similar prices will also get you universal players from Marantz and Yamaha. Move upmarket a little bit and you have Oppo's BDP-83 at $500.00 and a dedicated SACD/CD player from Onkyo for about $400.00.

As for digital output via HDMI, to me at least, it's certainly not a make-or-break deal. It's certainly more convenient to have one single cable handling multi-channel audio (if you're into multi-channel audio). Regardless, it's all going to be converted into analog somewhere down the chain. Therefore, as long as the player can do a good job of doing such a conversion, I don't see why I need a receiver to add to the process.
Reply
post #12 of 71
11/12/09 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cankin View Post
is the audio only?
As I posted in another thread when it was announced, the AES is in fact establishing a BluRay standard for audio releases:

AES Standards News Blog: AES-X188, Blu-ray Disc new project launched
Reply
post #13 of 71
11/12/09 at 6:13pm
Blu-Ray seems silly for audio, it only makes sense from a business standpoint in that people are more likely to have a BluRay player (although really it's not many) than to have gotten an SACD player. BR discs are more expensive to make and honestly have way too much capacity for single album releases. But I can see where it might be going...'get the full Beatles catalog for the umpteenth time, all on one disc! Also now with DRM!'
Reply
post #14 of 71
11/12/09 at 6:23pm
Thanks, Soundboy! I will absolutely pick up the new titles!

As for Blu-Ray music, I don't think they'll make the investment. DVD-A did poorly and SACD turned into a niche product.

Then you have the chicken/egg problem between software and players. If audiophile companies don't produce decent players then people won't buy the discs. But they likely won't produce players unless there are software sales to support them.

Also, I've heard rumors of vicious DRM on upcoming Blu Ray players. SACD is somewhat locked down, but I don't want something that checks in with the mothership every time I want to listen to music.
Reply
post #15 of 71
11/12/09 at 6:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cankin View Post
I always think Blu-ray is more accessible since players are affordable and most receivers support DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD, but only if the license fees(if any) is reasonable for the industry
Yes, I think it can be more accessible. As long as there are BD video players, there will be players for the discs. Sony won't remove it from the PS3 like they did for SACD. One thing that I think kept SACD from becoming successful is that it couldn't be played on a computer at all (and the CD layer doesn't count). I understand why it was designed that way, but this protection also limited its popularity IMHO. BD audio discs would be playable with the proper hardware, and even can be ripped with the help of a sly fox.

As for the BD audio format itself, from my understanding it is going to be compatible with current BD video players. The new "spec" is just for players to not be required to play video in addition to audio. There's no reason not to make the discs compatible, since BD video specs already allow for quality audio (unless they decide to make the copy protection stronger again, but it doesn't look like this will happen). If they tried to do a whole new format, it would be a repeat of the DVDA/SACD situation, and it would likely fail.

As far as licensing fees are concerned, they can always just use PCM if they don't want to pay Dolby or DTS. Although, most of the discs I've seen so far use DTS-HD MA.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › dvd-a or sacd