[Jasper994]

Yeah well my Daddy says DVD-A is better!!! Oh wait my daddy's a dumbsh*t so that doesn't count... but, but DVD-A is still better!!!

My 45mm says so!

 

[D-EJ915]

DVD-Audio discs do come in nicer cases...than SACD ones do

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Oh, no, now you've done it. SACD come in much nicer cases than DVD-Audio discs.

 

[Zoomie]

OK, I'll bite, they are both garbage

I have just about sworn off the hi-res formats - at least until they sort themselves out. I have five DVD-Audio disks and they do sound quite good (with the exception of two, but I guess that's a bad percentage isn't it

) However, the better my system gets, the more I prefer good ol'redbook. DVD-A has become a giant hassle with the lack of a digital output without modding my player and the need for a monitor of some kind to navigate the menus. I bought a little 7" LCD from ebay just so that I didn't need a television to listen to music. I think the upsampling mod that I just ordered for my Link III will nail the coffin closed on DVD-A for me

 

[planar]

The problem with those high resolution format is: they need an extremely quiet power supply.

Until now, the highest "output" resolution of redbook standard is achieved by Wadia - 14bits.

Tom Evans and 47 Lab both agree that there are no analogue components that can "fully" handle high resolution signals.


And we do have 20 years of know-how on redbook standard, so no wonder people still buying highend redbook CDP.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

I disagree that that's the only criteria. I mean 16 bits doesn't just mean noise-floor, it also means separation, soundstage, etc. I don't have the best equipment in the world, but I could tell the difference between a 16/44.1 version of tracks from I, Robot and a 24/96 DAD I have of the exact same album (all through the exact same gear).

 

[planar]

Yes, we can hear the difference now between redbook (16bit/44.1Hz) and either of the new formats.

My point is to get the theoritical maximum resolution out of new formats require very very transparent analogue components.

So we still can hear the difference, but we may not be able to hear "ALL" of the differences right now.

 

[markl]

To the original question: one of the problems with DVD-Audio is that there are so many different versions of it, whereas SACD is a single, consistent format. DVD-Audio players have 24/192 *capability* but that doesn't guarantee that every disc is released at maximum resolution. They can be 24/96 or even 24/48 (in the case of the Bjork DVD-Audio disc). If you get a SACD disc, you know you are getting it in full SACD resolution at its maximum capability because there is only one way to encode SACD. SACD (DSD) is a completely new way of encoding music digitally, so "24/96" type representations don't apply.

Mark

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk I disagree that that's the only criteria. I mean 16 bits doesn't just mean noise-floor, it also means separation, soundstage, etc.

A point of correction, agreed there are other factors involved however a low noise floor directly affects separation and soundstaging. Give it a little thought and you will see why...

 

[Music Fanatic]

One problem with hi-rez formats in multichannel is that there is still not a good understanding among recording engineers about how to properly master a multichannel disk.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

edited

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl To the original question: one of the problems with DVD-Audio is that there are so many different versions of it, whereas SACD is a single, consistent format. DVD-Audio players have 24/192 *capability* but that doesn't guarantee that every disc is released at maximum resolution. They can be 24/96 or even 24/48 (in the case of the Bjork DVD-Audio disc). If you get a SACD disc, you know you are getting it in full SACD resolution at its maximum capability because there is only one way to encode SACD. SACD (DSD) is a completely new way of encoding music digitally, so "24/96" type representations don't apply. Mark

Actually, they go all the way down to 44.1khz/24bit... Linkin Park - Reanimation... Also some of the newer releases are 44.1khz/24bit in their 5.1 mixes and 96khz/24bit in stereo like the Marvin Gaye and Diana Krall discs...

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by theaudiohobby A point of correction, agreed there are other factors involved however a low noise floor directly affects separation and soundstaging.

We're not in disagreement.

Analogy: the vibrancy of a purple object depends on (a) the purpleness of the object, and (b) your ability to see the colour purple.

(a) being my point, (b) being yours.

 

[JaZZ]

Mark...
Quote:

...one of the problems with DVD-Audio is that there are so many different versions of it, whereas SACD is a single, consistent format. DVD-Audio players have 24/192 *capability* but that doesn't guarantee that every disc is released at maximum resolution. They can be 24/96 or even 24/48 (in the case of the Bjork DVD-Audio disc). If you get a SACD disc, you know you are getting it in full SACD resolution at its maximum capability because there is only one way to encode SACD.

...keep in mind that SACDs with full resolution are still a tiny minority -- full resolution implies DSD recording (and processing). In reality most SACDs are recorded in low-rez PCM (44-48 kHz/16-24 bit), mid-rez PCM (96 kHz/20-24 bit) or analog, only few in high-rez PCM (192 kHz/24 bit) or DSD.

This is not a statement against SACD -- because it sounds great. But I for one have taken care to avoid low-rez PCM recordings, whereas good analog recordings as well as all from 96 kHz up are welcome.

 

[planar]

Will fully DSD-recorded-processed-manufactured SACDs still offer standard redbook tracks alongside stereo/multi channel DSD-SACD tracks?