[yfei]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus it's pretty clear SACD is ahead mostly because of marketing. can't even find frickin' DVD-A's in a normal music store.

In local bestbuy store, there are 100+ DVD-A titles and only 50+ SACD titles, both sold cheap, around $15

For sound quality, I haven't audit DVD-A yet, but I think higher sampling rate more bits PCM won't solve the problem, SACD is the right way to go.

 

[Calanctus]

I agree that the marketing for SACD has been better than the marketing for DVD-A. 'Bad' (SACD marketing) is definitely better than 'really crappy and dumb' (DVD-A marketing).

Here are 3 more reasons why SACD is ahead of DVD-A at this time:

1. DVD-A discs don't necessarily contain a dedicated stereo mix. All SACDs contain a hi-rez stereo mix.
2. DVD-As have no indication on the packaging as to what mixes are on the disc (hi rez stereo? hi rez multichannel? Dolby 5.1 [as some do have]) you'll never know just by examining the label)
3. Navigating the DVD-A menus either requires (according to some) or is much easier with (according to others) a TV monitor. [/list=1]
   
   Note that I'm not asserting that SACD has better sound quality than DVD-A, although there are plenty of listeners AND SOME ENGINEERS who are of that view.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

it's pretty clear SACD is ahead mostly because of marketing. can't even find frickin' DVD-A's in a normal music

Virgin Mega and Tower Records and FYE have lot's of both formats. Amusicdirect.com has approx. 1400 DVD-A's and SACD's available for mail order and TelArc has a large assortment online.
Both onlines e-mail you with 20 new recordings a month and pre-releases.

BTW- Santana's Abraxas is available in both formats as are many more. The good thing about DVD-A's (besides the extra visuals), is that most can be played on any Dolby Digital 5.1 DVD player without the need for extra equipment. Also, most come with a 2- channel high res layer for headphone listening.

I got the Pioneer Elite DV-47Ai which plays both formats, but if you want to save a little cash, you can get the DV-45a for 3 and change. Just realize that you need a receiver that can accept 6 discrete analog inputs, for the better quality (not the digital input).

 

[Calanctus]

Quote:

Originally posted by immtbiker The good thing about DVD-A's (besides the extra visuals), is that most can be played on any Dolby Digital 5.1 DVD player without the need for extra equipment.

Yes, but users must also know that if they play it on an old player they won't get the hi-rez layer--they will only get Dolby. Most or all new DVD players will be DVD-A capable...but users should still be alert to what layer their player defaults to, or else they may STILL end up listening to the Dolby layer instead of the DVD-A layer.

DVD-A: a potentially great format screwed up by poor implementation. Maybe it will still recover....

 

[markl]

SACD is the product of Sony/Phillips, they have a direct interest in the format and control over roll-out, distribution, and marketing. They also own a lot of the recordings, so they can more easily have them re-mastered into SACD.

DVD-A is a standard that different companies have signed up to support, it's not "owned" by anyone, it's a totally different ballgame. There is no one company rolling it out or with direct P&L responsibility for DVD-A if it succeeds or fails.

These are the reasons why SACD is ahead for now, and why there are more SACD releases.

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl SACD is the product of Sony/Phillips, they have a direct interest in the format and control over roll-out, distribution, and marketing. They also own a lot of the recordings, so they can more easily have them re-mastered into SACD. DVD-A is a standard that different companies have signed up to support, it's not "owned" by anyone, it's a totally different ballgame. There is no one company rolling it out or with direct P&L responsibility for DVD-A if it succeeds or fails. These are the reasons why SACD is ahead for now, and why there are more SACD releases.

So which do you prefer?

 

[markl]

If they can find a way to allow you to drop in a DVD-A, hit "play" and have it play back just like a regular CD, then I am indifferent to either format, they're both superior to CD. However, the way DVD-A is set up is just stupid, they make you have to hunt through on-screen menus to get it to play back.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl If they can find a way to allow you to drop in a DVD-A, hit "play" and have it play back just like a regular CD, then I am indifferent to either format, they're both superior to CD. However, the way DVD-A is set up is just stupid, they make you have to hunt through on-screen menus to get it to play back.

You can just hit play, and also skip to the next track, etc. like a
CD but it is sssssllllllllllllllooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww!

-EDIT-

It also defaults to the surround mix, and there isn't a way that I know of to switch without using the menus...

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

BTW- Santana's Abraxas is available in both formats as are many more

Slight edit of my own quote:

Santana's Abraxas is available in both SACD and "DTS" (which really should be included in this thread). Although DTS CD's are not equal in quality to DVD-A, they are quite clean and available in surround sound using the digital output of any modern DVD player that is DTS capable. DTS is better sounding than Dolby Digital, and if the original analog master was well done (like Don Henley's "The End of the Innocence"), then it sounds better than 16bit CD's. Except for the lack of surround sound, 24 bit CD recordings, played on 24 bit sources, give it a run for the money, IMHO.

The only thing that I do not like about DVD-A over SACD, is the inconsistency of playback options. Some start playing right away,
some need input from the TV, some play 5 different ways, some play three different ways. There are discs that you can change to 2 channel high res mode for headphones, using the audio button on the remote, while some make you change the properties in the player's set-up before starting the disc. But, I guess all of this occurs, beacause as markl stated, no one company owns DVD-Audio, and each company (Rhino, TelArc, Silverline), has their own vision of what DVD-Audio should be like.

 

[Jasper994]

People in the industry really should be reading this stuff.

 

[Calanctus]

markl, great point about the ownership of SACD versus DVD-A. The DVD consortium has screwed up just about every step in the commercial implementation: clunky user interfaces, confusing labelling, little software (definitely less than SACD right now), no certainty as to what tracks you get on a given disc....even the packaging is bad: non standard CD size boxes that won't fit in a CD rack. Too bad.

 

[immtbiker]

yeah...that's another thing. Those damn unorthodox jewel cases.
Wassup wit dat?

 

[kartik]

Which brings me to an interesting point. HAving bought the SACD player I did a little more research about it and found a couple of threads on audioasylum which actually had rankings in european magazines of these SACD and multiformat players. One of them from 2001 had this ranked 4 behind the Accuphase, Phillips SACD 1000 and Marantz SA-1. It wasn't behind by much. Surprusingly the SCD-1 ranked 10 while the 777ES ranked 7. Considering the company this seems to be in and considering its original retail was $3699 (As per Sharp), its current value at $1199 on ebay is pretty good particularly considering its DSD output capability. I think the downsides in terms of the 2-channel capability seem relatively minor for people who can only hear 2 channels on headphones. Another plus is that it has a decent (hopefully!) headphone output with a volume control, obviating the need for a headamp. Considering its cost as head amp + source it seems reasonable.

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally posted by immtbiker yeah...that's another thing. Those damn unorthodox jewel cases. Wassup wit dat?

The reason for them is that they wanted to help out the consumer by clearly differentiating between CDs and DVD-Audio discs. This way the consumer is given notice that they are buying something different rather than something that will play on their CD player.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

The reason for them is that they wanted to help out the consumer by clearly differentiating between CDs and DVD-Audio discs. This way the consumer is given notice that they are buying something different rather than something that will play on their CD player.

That's not necessarily true. I have DVD-Audios that come in CD size jewel cases, then, I have some that are halfway inbetween the 2 formats. Also, a lot of the earlier cases came cracked in their packages because the swivel hinges couldn't support the pressure put on them. There is a lot of inconsistency in DVD-A.
But, I do love the sound, and will continue to support the format.