SACD & DVD-A

[Quagmire]

Just thought I'd offer up a topic for discussion to those who are interested...

At this point, how do you all see the "format war" between SACD and DVD-A shaking out? Is it really a format war at all? Can both formats successfully co-exist and gain enough market share stay viable? Can either format be successful? Which format do you prefer?

I'm interested to know...

What things you like about SACD and what things you don't like?

What things you like about DVD-A and what things you don't like?

Have fun!

Q

[hmmmm]

I'll keep this short. I think they both sound great. I can't tell the difference in quality between the two but I prefer DVD-A because I like having the extra videos and on screen commands and photos etc on my big screen. When we have friends over it just looks kind of cool when the music is playing. I don't know if either will survive but I sure hope at least one does.

[JSE]

I don't have any experience with SACD but I do have a DVD-A player and love it. Unfortunately, I don't think either format will make it. I think they will be eclipsed by some form of "E-Music" like MP3 or something web based that can be downloaded to a hard drive. It's like APS film, APS has advantages over 35mm for most consumers and it should have been a hit for the average consumer but digital cameras came into the mix and now APS is fading fast as will 35mm in the near future. DVD-A and SACD are great formats that offer superior sound in most cases but it's come to late and the avg. consumer which probably makes up 99% of the market does not care to have the "best" sound but rather the "convenient" sound. I give these formats another year or two and they will fade.

JSE

[hmmmm]

I give these formats another year or two and they will fade.

JSE

Please don't say that, you'll make me cry.

[JSE]

"Please don't say that, you'll make me cry."

Hmmmm,

I am right there with you. I love DVD-A. I only have a few but man, they sound awesome. I am amazed by the Blue Man Group DVD-A. This has to be one of the best out there in terms of sound and "coolness". I really hope I am wrong but I fear these formats are shortlived. If they do stay, then I guess DVD-A would have an edge due to the video, like you mentioned.

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't have any experience with SACD but I do have a DVD-A player and love it. Unfortunately, I don't think either format will make it. I give these formats another year or two and they will fade.

JSE

Dude! You get the wrong wrong bad answer award for this day. First, all of the large music companies have supported both formats. Secondly they have spend HUGE sums of money upgrading facilities to high resolution 5.1 I know many a engineer that has had to go back to mixing school(figure of speech by the way) to learn how to mix in 5.1.

I do not think anyone within the music industry expected DVD-A and SACD to take off like a rocket. I also do not think they did a very good job of rolling out the hardware, and coodinating the roll out with manufacturers(i.e lack of bass management and digital output)

You know, they said the same thing about Dts, and look what has happened ten years later.

[Smokey]

I also do not think they did a very good job of rolling out the hardware, and coodinating the roll out with manufacturers(i.e lack of bass management and digital output).

Hey TT

I believe that is where the torn lies within flower. It all comes down to compatibility and convenience.

IMO, DVD-audio will eventually take over SACD for average consumers and SACD will only be targeted toward high end audio. This trend already have started by DVD players being able to play DVD-audio also, and it is selling for dirt cheap....which again goes back to the issue of being more convenience for consumers :)

BTW, I don't appreciate being paired with "Bose-basher" (Wooch) and "grasshopper" (Q) as The Three Stooges <img src="http://www.findagrave.com/photos/10311/343/CF46570359_1071082147.gif"> :D

[kexodusc]

I have an SACD player with a few titles, but I've recently been turned on to DVD-A since receiving a few for christmas. Comparing audio quality, I can't tell any difference if one does exist, but if you search yahoo or google for scientific comparisons, you'll find most agree DVD-A is theoretically better. However, both haven't reached their full potential yet.

I seriously doubt that DVD-A will fade. More manufacturers are starting to produce compatible players. Most major music manufacturers have also identified DVD-A in their annual reports to shareholders as being the largest opportunity for growth in the music industry in the next 5 years due to improved quality and increased protection against piracy. If their willing to dump millions into these formats and promote them, I'm sure they'll be available for awhile.

We should keep in mind that both these formats are still in their introductory stage and have yet to progress to the growth stage, though I feel that will likely occur in the next year or two.
We all know Sony (boo) is going to fight to keep SACD alive.

I love the fact that there are "universal" players that support both formats.

I also love the fact that SACD's have CD audio tracks to play in standard CD players, and similar for DVD-A where the Dolby Digital or DTS tracks are a nice plus.
In the last year I've found the price in both drop substantially too, so this is a good sign.

I do agree that one day, a superior sounding internet based digital product will be available for consumers, but I doubt the world will make a complete switch...at least not soon.
MP3's have already started to decline in popularity, I think this coincides with SACD, DVD-A, and DVD video music titles increasing in popularity, as well as piracy litigation fears. Lots of people just love the packaged good, album art, liner notes and all...something a computer file will not be able to offer as well.

But, I'm open to the possibility another format will emerge soon that will replace both, creating the next laser disc phenomenon, leaving us all wondering, "what if?"

[JSE]

Sir,

"Dude! You get the wrong wrong bad answer award for this day. First, all of the large music companies have supported both formats. Secondly they have spend HUGE sums of money upgrading facilities to high resolution 5.1 I know many a engineer that has had to go back to mixing school(figure of speech by the way) to learn how to mix in 5.1. "

I hope your right. I understand how the industry is supporting DVD-A and SACD, but none of that will matter if there is a more convenient, same quality alternative that the majority of average consumers will use. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but if I were a betting man I would not bet on these formats in the long run. Next 2 to 5 years? Sure. After that? No way.

Oh, bye the way. Where's my award?!?! :D

JSE

[46minaudio]

I would buy either.I just waiting for a player that will house 5 discs, do bass management for both sacd and dvda, with distance settings and I would like this player to be priced under $300..When this happens Im in..I know its unaudiophile like but I love my DD,DTS music DVDs and cant wait for 5.1 DVDa SACDs...

[Quagmire]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. I had hoped this topic would generate some interesting discussion and I haven't been dissappointed. I wanted to wait for at least a few replies before I chimed in with my own opinions and preferences... so here goes.

First of all, I think both formats sound awesome, but if I had to choose one over the other based soley on sound quality, I'd have to give the edge to SACD. Of course this is totally a subjective opinion based on a relatively limited exposure to both formats, but again, if I HAD TO choose, I'd choose SACD.

Things I like about both formats:

DVD-A: When good judgement and attention to detail is exercised, the surround mixes can sound stunning. I like some of the extra's included on the discs, like: GUI for speaker setup, onscreen menus to select tracks from Surround Playlist's and Stereo Playlist's, lyrics and artist bios; music videos, etc... I also like that most all DVD-A discs have surround mixes of the music and that they can be enjoyed in DD or DTS by those owning standard DVD Video players.

SACD: When good judgement and attention to detail is exercised, the surround mixes can sound stunning. I like the convenience of the CD format. Personally, I think it was a mistake to launch this format without ALL releases being Hybrid discs. I think if they had done this to begin with, the format would be much further along in gaining widespread acceptance than it currently is. Be that as it may, most new titles coming out are Hybrids. I like that this format is not tied to a video display so that if one wants to, one can use it in a music only system or not be required to fire up the television just to listen to music. I like the portability of the format - like I said, at least with Hybrid discs, all of the conveniences we have become accustomed to with redbook CD's remains intact.

Things I dislike about both formats:

DVD-A: When poor judgement is used in the creation of the surround mix, the results can be aweful. I don't like the format being tied to a video display or AV system where it cannot be enjoyed in a music only system. In a strange way, I see DVD-A competing more with its DVD-Video conterpart than with SACD. What I mean by that is, I would personally rather watch James Taylor in concert "Live at the Beacon Theater" in Dolby Digital surround than listen to a DVD-A of that concert with still images. However, I wouldn't mind listening to that concert if I could just walk over to a CD player, pop in the disc, hit play and enjoy.

SACD: When poor judgement is used in the creation of the surround mix, the results can be aweful. I don't like that all discs aren't Hybrid and I don't like that all discs don't offer a surround mix.

As you can see, there is more that I like about SACD than what I don't like about the format. It is my hope that SACD will succeed and that DVD-A will fail, although I make no predictions about how it will all shake out. I just don't believe that both formats can successfully co-exist, or that it is desirable for them to co-exist. As it is right now, there are some titles that are available on one format but not on the other... What a pain the the a$$! If people want more software to choose from, I think one of these formats needs to come away a clear winner and the other needs to go bye bye. Like I said, if it were up to me, I'd choose SACD, but that's only my preference.

Q

[Crunchyriff]

I just bought Peter Gabriel's "SO" on SACD. (it's) My 1st SACD.

This disc doesn't appear to be in anything than stereo format. (my 5.1 isn't picking up anything, and I've double -checked all my settings and connections) I'm getting 2 channel stereo here. No sub, center, anything else. (bummer) Running the Pioneer DV-563 into an Onkyo TS-DX777 with the multi-input selected.

That being said, my first impression of this format:

OH MY....

[recoveryone]

I just bought Peter Gabriel's "SO" on SACD. (it's) My 1st SACD.

This disc doesn't appear to be in anything than stereo format. (my 5.1 isn't picking up anything, and I've double -checked all my settings and connections) I'm getting 2 channel stereo here. No sub, center, anything else. (bummer) Running the Pioneer DV-563 into an Onkyo TS-DX777 with the multi-input selected.

That being said, my first impression of this format:

OH MY....I pick up the Peter Gabriel Shake the Tree SACD and had the same results. I feel the SACD format is maybe best used with larger (floor standing) fronts. No love for ths sat & sub setup:(

[Geoffcin]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. I had hoped this topic would generate some interesting discussion and I haven't been dissappointed. I wanted to wait for at least a few replies before I chimed in with my own opinions and preferences... so here goes.

First of all, I think both formats sound awesome, but if I had to choose one over the other based soley on sound quality, I'd have to give the edge to SACD. Of course this is totally a subjective opinion based on a relatively limited exposure to both formats, but again, if I HAD TO choose, I'd choose SACD.


With the DVD-A MLP encoding there is no loss of signal information during playback. Quite litereally it is a perfect clone of the original.

A quote from Robert Stuart of Meridian Audio Ltd., developer of Meridian Lossless Packing;

“When the final master is ready, it is the job of MLP to deliver it exactly. To guarantee this, the MLP workflow includes a proofing step, which establishes bit-accuracy. Furthermore, the player actually checks that the transfer process from master to output is lossless. This ability, to actually deliver the full master quality, is unique to DVD-Audio.”


"And how good is PCM packed with MLP? “The coding space provided in DVD-Audio with 96kHz and 24bits is rectangular, with a dynamic range of 144dB that pertains over the entire 48kHz audio bandwidth. This means that the finest musical nuances can be delivered on the disc without the need to compromise by either chopping off high-frequency information or swamping it in a wash of noise. No other music carrier can approach this. Certainly single bit coding can’t; its range is only 120dB up to 20kHz and less than 60dB up to the player roll-off of 50kHz! This, and jitter sensitivity, are the very reasons the high-end gave up using bitstream conversion ten years ago. So, DVD-Audio’s coding space is huge, and to be able to fit six of these channels onto a disc is a spectacular achievement.”

SACD is very good, but there can only be one "Best"

[kexodusc]

Excellent post Geoffcin. I do agree that DVD-A technically has more potential, unfortunately not all studio mixing takes advantage of this yet. Live and learn I suppose, some early CD and vinyl recordings were quite poor as well.
I dont have a preference for one format over another. And I'm not worried about either format becoming obsolete. If such an occurance happens, I'll assume there's something even better available, or one format is dominating and more titles are readily available. A definite plus in either situation. Plus, I still enjoy my vinyl collection, and as long as we have working players, there's no reason we can't continue to enjoy SACD and DVD-A long into the future.
If the SACD's are all sold as hybrids, I think it may have a competitive advantage over the DVD-A format in that mass distribution could be possible with out any added costs to retailers. In fact, it's not impossible to think that all CD's from now on could be hybrids to offer a competitive advantage, meaning stores wouldn't have to set up new shelves for SACD's or keep track of more inventory. And people wouldn't need to buy another player. I hope companies realize this.
On the other hand, a few DVD-Video concerts (Norah Jones comes to mind) come packaged with studio albums on CD's for a dollar or two more than the standard version DVD title, something DVD-A should be able to provide as well...That would be excellent, one for the car, one for home.
Personally, I still find 2 Channel stereo at high resolution (192/24) is the way to go for ultimate detail...I'd put it ahead of my turntable anyday if the recordings are done well, CD didn't even come close. However, I'm fast becoming a fan of 5.1 audio, something I was rather adverse to originally. I even prefer a good DVD-video concert over the same recording on CD, it just seems to sound better (though with Dolby Digital or DTS compression, I don't think it should technically, any comments?)
Can't stress enough that both formats are extremely young still and I'm sure the best is still well into the future from both. The shift to 5.1+ systems has really only taken off in the last 3-4 years.

[Quagmire]

Geoffcin,

You said that sound quality is recording driven and I certainly don't disagree. Thus far, I prefer the sound of what I've heard on SACD over that which I've heard on DVD-A, but as I said in my earlier post, I came to this conclussion by totally subjective means. As should be obvious by the bulk of my earlier post, much of the reason I prefer SACD has to do with the convenience of the format coupled with what I believe to be extraordinarily good sound. Make no mistake, I want one of these two formats to succeed and the other to go away, but at this point I prefer the total package that SACD has to offer.

Thanks for all of the technical information. I take it for granted that your preference is for DVD-A, but I'm curious to know how you feel about some of the "inconveniences" of that format which I identified in my post. Perhaps you don't see them as inconveniences at all? I'm curious to know what you think of the format as a whole - sonics aside. Care to elaborate?

Q

[Geoffcin]

Geoffcin,

You said that sound quality is recording driven and I certainly don't disagree. Thus far, I prefer the sound of what I've heard on SACD over that which I've heard on DVD-A, but as I said in my earlier post, I came to this conclussion by totally subjective means. As should be obvious by the bulk of my earlier post, much of the reason I prefer SACD has to do with the convenience of the format coupled with what I believe to be extraordinarily good sound. Make no mistake, I want one of these two formats to succeed and the other to go away, but at this point I prefer the total package that SACD has to offer.

Thanks for all of the technical information. I take it for granted that your preference is for DVD-A, but I'm curious to know how you feel about some of the "inconveniences" of that format which I identified in my post. Perhaps you don't see them as inconveniences at all? I'm curious to know what you think of the format as a whole - sonics aside. Care to elaborate?Q


Actually, all technical benefits aside, my personal preference for DVD-Audio comes from the fact that I got it pretty much for free when I bought my JVC XV-SA70 DVD player. For me, inconvenience in use is an understatement, as I don't/can't have it hooked up to play the 6 channel DVD-A encoding, but rather use it's 2 channel output to my Audio setup. I was rather angry that the player doesn't have a digital 6 channel DVD-Audio output, until I discovered that NONE of the DVD-Audio player do. This "design flaw" was intentional so that you couldn't not digitally copy the disk. SACD has a similar design in this respect, as they were both designed for copywrite protection.

Another reason I don't like SACD is that I DON'T want to buy another CD player. I've already got a good one, and I don't need to spend more money!

DVD-Audio sound quality is easily better than most of the redbook CD's that I own. This doesn't mean that I'll never buy a CD again, as I still do almost every week. Until the selections are more numerous, and they engineers have figured out a way to use the format up to it's formidable capabilities CD's will be a viable format. For me at least.

[Geoffcin]

Personally, I still find 2 Channel stereo at high resolution (192/24) is the way to go for ultimate detail...I'd put it ahead of my turntable anyday if the recordings are done well, CD didn't even come close. However, I'm fast becoming a fan of 5.1 audio, something I was rather adverse to originally. I even prefer a good DVD-video concert over the same recording on CD, it just seems to sound better (though with Dolby Digital or DTS compression, I don't think it should technically, any comments?)
Can't stress enough that both formats are extremely young still and I'm sure the best is still well into the future from both. The shift to 5.1+ systems has really only taken off in the last 3-4 years.

Thanks for the kind words!

Interesting that you compare Hi-Rez 2 channel to vinyl. That's EXACTLY what I thought the moment I hooked it up. It might also have been that some of my first DVD-Audio titles were the Grateful Dead, the Doors, and the Doobie Bros. All three of which were beloved records in their time for me, but long ago lost to scratches, wear, and the apathy of setting up my cranky TT. Was I on for a shock when I put them on in DVD-Audio. It was like hearing them for the first time. You can hear right to the sonic floor of the master tape!

Concerts DVD's are another story entirely. I find them very enjoyably, and I don't think the DD, or DTS encoding takes away at all. I just got the Santana Supernatural concert on DVD, and the DTS encoded audio is very impressive. As compared to CD I don't know, but we are talking about a total AV package, and to that a CD can't be compared.

I am resisting 5.1 audio in a big way. I have a decent dedicated HT system, and a rather expensive 2 channel audio system. The only gear that is used by both is my DVD player. That being said, the quality of the new mulit-channel high-rez formats can't be denied, and I may have to reevaluate my dedication to "2 channel audio only" in the near future.

[kexodusc]

Concerts DVD's are another story entirely. I find them very enjoyably, and I don't think the DD, or DTS encoding takes away at all. I just got the Santana Supernatural concert on DVD, and the DTS encoded audio is very impressive. As compared to CD I don't know, but we are talking about a total AV package, and to that a CD can't be compared.

I am resisting 5.1 audio in a big way. I have a decent dedicated HT system, and a rather expensive 2 channel audio system. The only gear that is used by both is my DVD player. That being said, the quality of the new mulit-channel high-rez formats can't be denied, and I may have to reevaluate my dedication to "2 channel audio only" in the near future.

So, you'd recommend the Santana DVD?
I was like you, resisted the 5.1 audio at first, but it's really grown on me, even on DVD videos there's intimate about the sound that CD never quite captured. I do think DVD-A and SACD are better in 2-channel, partly because mostartists record albums with 2 channel play back in mind, and 5.1 processing was more of an afterthough. Though I admit, a few artists are opening their eyes (and ears) to the 5.1 possibilities. Diana Krall's 5.1 performances on DVD-A are incredible.
Eventually I'd like to see artists writing and recording music with 5.1 audio in mind.
For example, in one of Diana Krall's performances (the name of the song escapes me) her band is situated on stage, with a full symphony accompanying her in front of the seating area...the recording mikes must have been in between the two groups because the symphony is dedicated mostly to the rears at a lower volume while her band plays up front. The effect is quite stunning. It really reproduces the sound in 3 dimensions.
On the other hand, a few rock DVD-A's I've heard try to dedicate symbals, drums, guitars, and bass to different channels with mixed results.
As more and more artists (and maybe engineers) experiment, the results will probably improve. Well, I hope so anyway.

[Crunchyriff]

I am using floor/towers with the Onkyo. So that isn't a problem. It would be nice if my sub was geting some LF information on this disc.

After listening to the disc for a few spins, I'm blown away. (the first listen I was stunned, the second listen was more of a "let's see if it still sounds like that" reference spin)

Huge, 3-d sound. The soundstage is quite deep. I had to run around to my tower surrounds to see if they were actually working or not (they weren't)...that's how good, how full and deep the soundstage is. BTW, I'm listening to the disc with the EQ flat. No cut or boost anywhere. I could stand to boost the lows a just a tad (simply for preference), but it wouldn't sound as "real" as it does. Many listeners (generally non-musicians) do not understand the difference between the real 'live' sounds of instruments, vs. artificially booosted frequencies (IE low end) that you get in recorded and reproduced media.

This is great stuff.

I need another trip to Best Buy.....

[Geoffcin]

So, you'd recommend the Santana DVD?
I was like you, resisted the 5.1 audio at first, but it's really grown on me, even on DVD videos there's intimate about the sound that CD never quite captured. I do think DVD-A and SACD are better in 2-channel, partly because mostartists record albums with 2 channel play back in mind, and 5.1 processing was more of an afterthough. Though I admit, a few artists are opening their eyes (and ears) to the 5.1 possibilities. Diana Krall's 5.1 performances on DVD-A are incredible.
Eventually I'd like to see artists writing and recording music with 5.1 audio in mind.
For example, in one of Diana Krall's performances (the name of the song escapes me) her band is situated on stage, with a full symphony accompanying her in front of the seating area...the recording mikes must have been in between the two groups because the symphony is dedicated mostly to the rears at a lower volume while her band plays up front. The effect is quite stunning. It really reproduces the sound in 3 dimensions.
On the other hand, a few rock DVD-A's I've heard try to dedicate symbals, drums, guitars, and bass to different channels with mixed results.
As more and more artists (and maybe engineers) experiment, the results will probably improve. Well, I hope so anyway.

YES, I would recommend the Santana Supernatural DVD. It was one incredible concert, with many guests from Rob Thomas, to Sarah McLaughlin and more. I don't believe I saw one person in the audience sit down during the entire concert! There must have been a lot of energy in that room, and a good portion of it was captured on the DVD.

I just did a test with the DVD from Fleetwood Mac, "The Dance" using the Audio setup and the stereo side of the disk first, and then playing the Dolby-ES version through my HT (I have a 7 speaker HT setup). While the 2-channel Audio side was very good quality, and my Audio speakers throw a huge soundstage, the Dolby-ES version seems to convey a bit more realism that you actually AT a concert. It just made better sense to listen to the performance DVD through the HT system, and that's what we did. I still think that studio mastered stereo CD's, and the stereo encoded DVD-A's that I have sound better in stereo, but I am certainly open to being proved wrong.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Quag,
Since things are slowing down for me, I took the opportunity to do some reading and research on this topic. First, I haven't seen formats that created this kind of controversy since DD and Dts. Just like those formats the audio community is deeply divided about which is more sonically superior. First you have the audio journalist who are much more DVD-A oriented(and much more supportive of DD by the way), and the audio engineers which have a much stronger SACD leaning(and tend to be big Dts supporters)

Audio journalist and naysayers.

This group tends to have NOTHING good to say about SACD. I mean NOTHING!! They point out the DSD process as mangling transient tails, siblants on female vocals, and inverting phase above 8khz. In this area many write that notes(there are no notes to speak of above 8khz, only harmonics) sound frazzled with a very trashy like distortion. The constantly comment that the entire system is based on flawed theory that 64 times oversampling coupled with a 1 bit converter is enough resolution for high fidelity audio. They claimed that both Sony and Phillips built this technology on a platform that is 4 times worse than 16/44.1khz PCM. They claim that DSD relies heavily on averaging a waveform, and PCM does not and follows every curve of the waveform exactly. Cymbals, triangles, gongs which have very high frequency harmonics are poorly handled in the DSD stream because of its inability to cleanly process signals above 8khz. I read about 8 different reviews of the DSD system by various audio journalist(or scientist. One particular journalist reports of a direct comparison between 24/192khz DVD-A, SACD and a live violin(which is not a fair comparison at all really 24/192khz has a much larger bandwith than SACD) which he describes 24/192khz as trashing SACD. I personally do not beleive this at all because this just does not square with my experience with both formats. No differences I have heard in my career(with the exception of a comparison between 16/44.1khz CD vs SACD) ever really arises to a trashing(a subtle improvement is more accurate). He claims that the 24/192khz data stream sounded exactly like the live violin, while the SACD bitstream sounded like "someone put a blanket over the violin and played it". I tend to discount journalist who use inflammatory words like "trash" and "night and day", Doing a little research on this person, he primarly writes articles on room acoustics, not equipment or format reviews. Also of note, the sponsers of this comparison have come forth as VERY early supporters of DVD-A. So much for objectivity and journalistic ethics.This journalist also claims that Sony's mastering facilities truncates the CD layer of the hybrid SACD disc from 16 bits down to about 12 bits just to emphasize the superior sonic abilities of SACD over redbook CD. I am highly doubtful of this one, but I also understand that Sony and Phillips have sunk big R&D money into DSD and SACD, and cannot really afford to lose the format battle. I seriously doubt however that they would sabotage the CD layer because it is relatively easy to find this out.

Engineers
I could not find even ONE engineer to support the above mentioned journalist assumptions and comments. NOT ONE. The engineers that have come out in support of SACD are numerous from what I gather. Some noteables include Jack Renner and Michael Bishop of Telarc, Tom Jung of mobile fidelity, George Massenburg of Gataway mastering facility, grammy award winning David Chesky of Chesky Records, Chuck Ainley, Eliott Scheiner, Alan Parsons, Al Schmitt, Jay Newland & S. Husky Höskulds, Dave Russell, Phil Burnett & Roger Nichols, David Bianco, Jim Scott, Richard Dodd & Stephen McLaughlin, and the list goes on and on

I have found in my own experience that I do not agree with the audio journalist that was passively mentioned above. Both formats represent a HUGE improvement over the CD redbook standard. I think they should both co-exist just like DD and Dts do. Manufacturers should hurry up and get universal players on the market for the benefit of both formats.

I do not think that the potential of either SACD or DVD-A has been reached yet. I believe that ALL consumer products on the market right now that have DVD-A or SACD playback capabilities degrade both formats because of filter problems, and sub-par A/D D/A conversion. I do not know even one DVD player(even the high end models) that has a true ability to decode 24 bits(its more like 18-20 bits accurately). However, I have found MANY high end dedicated CD players that do better(but are not perfect)at this than DVD players.

My conclusions on this are for the current state of each format. Both have the potential to sound better than they currently do. For live recordings that require no, or minimal editing and sweetening, I would go with DSD/SACD. For studio projects and projects that require extensive editing and sweetening, I would go with DVD-A. The post production tools for DVD-A are more extensive, easier to find, and cheaper than with SACD(this is from a engineers perspective)

So this is what it looks like so far, journalist love DD and DVD-A, recording engineers like Dts and SACD. I think its probably too early to tell which REALLY sounds better. We certainly won't know until some profound improvements are made to DVD and SACD players.

[mtrycraft]

Maybe you talked witht he wrong people.

http://www.stereophile.com//features/374/index.html

And, Dr. Stanley Lip****z also presented an AES paper on this. So, therte is no real 1 bit processing at Sony anymore. Too much high frequency distortion.

[kexodusc]

Some pretty interesting comments...most reports I've seen from engineers actually favoured the DVD-A format, but now I wonder if they had a vested (and biased) interest. I think they cited the compromised recording process as a setback in SACD, but if memory serves, it was the same or similar process to DVD-A recording.
Sony has a vested interest in both formats, but for the sake of mass production and non-proprietary media, I could see DVD-A winning out. Especially if people perceive value added in the video stuff on DVD-A's. I don't, but maybe some people like them.

It would be a shame if SACD is, in fact, superior, and it doesn't survive. Kind of like Beta. I'm really happy with Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" SACD.

I don't think it matters, I can't honestly say I can tell a clear difference between the two, and since I intend to have a decent universal player, I'm not leaning one way or another. It is very possible that both formats will thrive, as DTS and DD have.
Nothing wrong with a little healthy competition, either.
BTW, does anyone know which format (if either) has more storage capacity?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Maybe you talked witht he wrong people.

http://www.stereophile.com//features/374/index.html

And, Dr. Stanley Lip****z also presented an AES paper on this. So, therte is no real 1 bit processing at Sony anymore. Too much high frequency distortion.

Mtry,

I have carefully read Dr. Stanley Lip****z paper. He was asked by Warner to submit it which makes me question his motive. This is now the second time Warner has tried to torpedo competition(look back at the Dts vs DD argument, and see who ran the tests on the Dts encoder). Warner has a vested interest in DVD-A, so I will wait until a third, non vested party to perform test, or present a paper on the 1 bit 64 time oversampling scheme before I form my opinion.

I trust the people that USE both formats on a daily basis, not the people who write about it. IMO journalists always seemed to have an alterior motive, especially when they are trashing something. I am also concerned when they write negative things about a format, and my own hands on experience doesn't mirror their comments. I do not believe Sony's hype, nor do I trust the anti Sony crowd either. Just like with Dts, if the engineers(the people who use it everyday)sing the praises of a format, then it must be good. They don't have an allegiance to anyone but their clients.

[nick4433]

Uh, sorry for the ignorance on these formats Q but my processor does not have 5.1 analog ins so I guess I have to go without it but the positive side is it saves me the expense that I would have incurred! (LOL)

[Woochifer]

I trust the people that USE both formats on a daily basis, not the people who write about it. IMO journalists always seemed to have an alterior motive, especially when they are trashing something. I am also concerned when they write negative things about a format, and my own hands on experience doesn't mirror their comments. I do not believe Sony's hype, nor do I trust the anti Sony crowd either. Just like with Dts, if the engineers(the people who use it everyday)sing the praises of a format, then it must be good. They don't have an allegiance to anyone but their clients.

T -

Good to hear a voice of reason on topics that seem to generate more nonsensical polarization than anything. My demos thus far with SACD and DVD-A have convinced me that either format would be an improvement over two-channel CD. As for the merits of one versus the other, I'm not quite as concerned since either way the listener gets a jump up in resolution, along with (in most cases) improved mastering, and multichannel surround to boot.

It is interesting though that your impression is that audio journalists are solidly behind DVD-A because TAS and Stereophile seem to favor SACD. Just as an example, Shane Buettner, one of Richard Hardesty's proteges at TAS, has done several articles on the two formats and probably reviewed more DVD-A, SACD, and universal players than anybody; and he generally favors SACD, though he doesn't trash DVD-A in the process. If anything, I see DVD-A marketed more as a mass market format, and SACD marketed towards the audiophile market, which is ironic considering that SACD's hybrid disc capability makes it more suited to the mass market.

The current issue of TAS has a pretty good article on the status of both formats. Supposedly, the wave of recent SACD/CD hybrid releases from the likes of Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones have bottled up the manufacturing capacity for the hybrid discs, and they're pretty much selling as many as they can make. SACD can win this format war, or at least force the market towards universal players, if Sony and its SACD partners decide to standardize all of their new releases around the hybrid disc format. But, supposedly that can't happen until more capacity comes online, and Sony lets go of the idea that they can successfully keep SACD viable as a niche audiophile format and charge premium pricing.

Right now, I favor DVD-A simply because I can play them back on my regular DVD player! Even with just the backup DD soundtrack, I can already hear what the multichannel mixes do, and with the backup DTS soundtracks, I already pick up sound quality that audibly rivals the CD versions, multichannel or not. Higher resolution would be gravy. In the end, I think the advent of universal players will render this whole debate moot, and for now I'm still waiting for the right model to hit my price point.

[Woochifer]

BTW, I don't appreciate being paired with "Bose-basher" (Wooch) and "grasshopper" (Q) as The Three Stooges <img src="http://www.findagrave.com/photos/10311/343/CF46570359_1071082147.gif"> :D

Hey Smoke, what makes you think that T was referring to "Stooges" rather than "Stogies"? And besides, why am I am Bosebasher? I'm merely a truthseeker! Does that make me an angry person? Just don't ever invite me over with that Wave music system infomercial on the tube ... I'm liable to ... uh ... permanently reshape some material items around the living room if that happens.

[GaToy]

My biggest gripe is the lack of newer music for either of the formats. If the music companies have dumped this much money into something you would think they would make more music to support it. I don't want to hear the Beatles in 5.1. Nor do I listen to classical music. Why can't they put out music that appeals more to the younger generations. They are 90% of all music sells. I think this is one of the key factors that is killing both formats. The same thing happened to Mini Disk. Noone wanted to get Top Gun on Mini Disk they wanted newer music. And they didn't want to have to order it.

~C.C.~

[Geoffcin]

My biggest gripe is the lack of newer music for either of the formats. If the music companies have dumped this much money into something you would think they would make more music to support it. I don't want to hear the Beatles in 5.1. Nor do I listen to classical music. Why can't they put out music that appeals more to the younger generations. They are 90% of all music sells. I think this is one of the key factors that is killing both formats. The same thing happened to Mini Disk. Noone wanted to get Top Gun on Mini Disk they wanted newer music. And they didn't want to have to order it.

~C.C.~

I've got a couple of DVD-Audio disks from newer groups and they are the ones that suck. It was a waste of bandwith in my opinion. The worst part is I cant even listen to them in the car, the one place where there lack of fidelity woudlnt matter!

[kexodusc]

I've got to agree with the earlier post about the titles that are being remixed into SACD or DVD-A. They seem to be older albums that I already have...and while I appreciate the higher resolution, it'd be nice to see more selection.
At the same time, there's only a half dozen albums that were purchase worthy last year, and probably none of these artists or their labels could afford investing in a newer format.
I really hope the universal players that are becoming more accessible solve this problem and encourage progression.
Good reference to MiniDisc, hopefully Sony's learned from that mistake...premium pricing, and poor marketing destroyed an extremely innovative product (though there has been a recent surge in the portable media area).
If anyone's wondering, I've found that Europe seems to be ahead of North America in terms of SACD and DVD-A selection, including several popular releases by American artists. Unfortunately, the cost of shipping and currency conversion destroys most of the incentive to purchase these.

[Quagmire]

Quag,
Since things are slowing down for me, I took the opportunity to do some reading and research on this topic. First, I haven't seen formats that created this kind of controversy since DD and Dts. Just like those formats the audio community is deeply divided about which is more sonically superior. First you have the audio journalist who are much more DVD-A oriented(and much more supportive of DD by the way), and the audio engineers which have a much stronger SACD leaning(and tend to be big Dts supporters)

Audio journalist and naysayers.

This group tends to have NOTHING good to say about SACD. I mean NOTHING!! They point out the DSD process as mangling transient tails, siblants on female vocals, and inverting phase above 8khz. In this area many write that notes(there are no notes to speak of above 8khz, only harmonics) sound frazzled with a very trashy like distortion. The constantly comment that the entire system is based on flawed theory that 64 times oversampling coupled with a 1 bit converter is enough resolution for high fidelity audio. They claimed that both Sony and Phillips built this technology on a platform that is 4 times worse than 16/44.1khz PCM. They claim that DSD relies heavily on averaging a waveform, and PCM does not and follows every curve of the waveform exactly. Cymbals, triangles, gongs which have very high frequency harmonics are poorly handled in the DSD stream because of its inability to cleanly process signals above 8khz. I read about 8 different reviews of the DSD system by various audio journalist(or scientist. One particular journalist reports of a direct comparison between 24/192khz DVD-A, SACD and a live violin(which is not a fair comparison at all really 24/192khz has a much larger bandwith than SACD) which he describes 24/192khz as trashing SACD. I personally do not beleive this at all because this just does not square with my experience with both formats. No differences I have heard in my career(with the exception of a comparison between 16/44.1khz CD vs SACD) ever really arises to a trashing(a subtle improvement is more accurate). He claims that the 24/192khz data stream sounded exactly like the live violin, while the SACD bitstream sounded like "someone put a blanket over the violin and played it". I tend to discount journalist who use inflammatory words like "trash" and "night and day", Doing a little research on this person, he primarly writes articles on room acoustics, not equipment or format reviews. Also of note, the sponsers of this comparison have come forth as VERY early supporters of DVD-A. So much for objectivity and journalistic ethics.This journalist also claims that Sony's mastering facilities truncates the CD layer of the hybrid SACD disc from 16 bits down to about 12 bits just to emphasize the superior sonic abilities of SACD over redbook CD. I am highly doubtful of this one, but I also understand that Sony and Phillips have sunk big R&D money into DSD and SACD, and cannot really afford to lose the format battle. I seriously doubt however that they would sabotage the CD layer because it is relatively easy to find this out.

Engineers
I could not find even ONE engineer to support the above mentioned journalist assumptions and comments. NOT ONE. The engineers that have come out in support of SACD are numerous from what I gather. Some noteables include Jack Renner and Michael Bishop of Telarc, Tom Jung of mobile fidelity, George Massenburg of Gataway mastering facility, grammy award winning David Chesky of Chesky Records, Chuck Ainley, Eliott Scheiner, Alan Parsons, Al Schmitt, Jay Newland & S. Husky Höskulds, Dave Russell, Phil Burnett & Roger Nichols, David Bianco, Jim Scott, Richard Dodd & Stephen McLaughlin, and the list goes on and on

I have found in my own experience that I do not agree with the audio journalist that was passively mentioned above. Both formats represent a HUGE improvement over the CD redbook standard. I think they should both co-exist just like DD and Dts do. Manufacturers should hurry up and get universal players on the market for the benefit of both formats.

I do not think that the potential of either SACD or DVD-A has been reached yet. I believe that ALL consumer products on the market right now that have DVD-A or SACD playback capabilities degrade both formats because of filter problems, and sub-par A/D D/A conversion. I do not know even one DVD player(even the high end models) that has a true ability to decode 24 bits(its more like 18-20 bits accurately). However, I have found MANY high end dedicated CD players that do better(but are not perfect)at this than DVD players.

My conclusions on this are for the current state of each format. Both have the potential to sound better than they currently do. For live recordings that require no, or minimal editing and sweetening, I would go with DSD/SACD. For studio projects and projects that require extensive editing and sweetening, I would go with DVD-A. The post production tools for DVD-A are more extensive, easier to find, and cheaper than with SACD(this is from a engineers perspective)

So this is what it looks like so far, journalist love DD and DVD-A, recording engineers like Dts and SACD. I think its probably too early to tell which REALLY sounds better. We certainly won't know until some profound improvements are made to DVD and SACD players.
T-man,

Thanks for the insightful reply. It is nice to get some feedback about these two formats from someone on the inside. It's unfortunate that so much BS seems to swirl around this subject - it's hard to know what or who to believe. That's why, as an end user, I have decided to make my judgment based upon my own listening experience and as I've already pointed out, at this point I'd have to give the edge to SACD in terms of sound quality. Note that I used the term "edge" which denotes that the differences are narrow and small - not "night and day" as the journalist you cited would have us believe. I think anybody who claims to hear huge sonic differences between these two formats is either self delusional or trying to promote a particular agenda. I'm not saying that folks shouldn't be allowed to express a preference for one format or the other, just as I have done, but I believe to claim such huge sonic differences does more to discredit their position rather than bolstering it.

No, for me the issues which make it easier to decide which format I prefer are the convenience and usability (a word?) of the end product. This is where SACD definitely pulls ahead in my book. IMO if SACD had been launched from the beginning in the Hybrid form, this so called "war" would be over by now. But even this late in the game, If those backing SACD would make a commitment to make all future releases Hybrid and increase the number of discs released with multichannel mixes, I think they can still go along way in capturing most of the market share for "High Rez" music. Personally, I don't want to see both formats existing side by side. I'd rather that one or the other become widely accepted so that we can see a real push in software availabiltiy. It sucks to want to buy a product which is simply not available - we need more titles! It also sucks to think that you may be investing in a format which may die soon. I'm sure this has hampered sales to some degree. I know I own a few discs from both formats but I am hessitant to purchase too many of either format until this thing shakes out a little more. I think it is possible that many others are hedging on their commitment to either format until they see a clear winner too. I do have to admit that competition between the two formats has at least brought prices down a little; something which probably would have occured more slowly without the war. Gotta look for those silver linings!

Q

[Quagmire]

Uh, sorry for the ignorance on these formats Q but my processor does not have 5.1 analog ins so I guess I have to go without it but the positive side is it saves me the expense that I would have incurred! (LOL)
I hear ya, Nick. You know what's funny is that until they finally start to come out with some good combo players, even those of us who have 5.1 analog inputs have to choose a player which support one or the other format, or buy two different players and change out the wiring each and every time. This is what I have done... bought two inexpensive players to compare the formats. Well in all honesty, I needed a good progressive scan DVD player anyway, so I just found one that included DVD-A as an additional feature. I already had an entry level Sony CD/SACD player, so the expense wasn't that great but the inconvenience of both players needing the 5.1 inputs on my pre/pro is a PAIN IN THE A$$!

Good to hear from you!

Q

[TinHere]

Thought some might be interested in this.

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0104/22.flipdisc.html

[woodman]

As you can see, there is more that I like about SACD than what I don't like about the format. It is my hope that SACD will succeed and that DVD-A will fail, although I make no predictions about how it will all shake out. I just don't believe that both formats can successfully co-exist, or that it is desirable for them to co-exist. As it is right now, there are some titles that are available on one format but not on the other... What a pain the the a$$! If people want more software to choose from, I think one of these formats needs to come away a clear winner and the other needs to go bye bye. Like I said, if it were up to me, I'd choose SACD, but that's only my preference.
Q

I'm at a total loss to understand your POV, Q. Why do you want one of the two formats to FAIL? Why do you think it necessary for that outcome to happen? I also don't understand your criticism of DVD-A as being "tied to the video display" ... it can certainly be played without the TV set being turned on, can't it?

For what it's worth -based upon my many, many, many, many years of experience within the industry - here's what I think will be the outcome of this so-called "format war":

... both will survive and co-exist, for there is no possible reason why one of the two MUST fail. With the introduction of "universal players" which can handle both formats, there is no longer any need for consumers to choose one format over the other, nor does it make any sense for them to have to choose.

The success (or lack thereof) of both formats will be inextricably tied to the availibility of the software that people want and are willing to pay for. With both formats co-existing in the marketplace, and an increasing number of consumers having the ability to play either format at home, the amount of available software automatically increases ... this can only be a good thing that will contribute to the viability (and therefore, the longevity) of both.

[Quagmire]

Woodman,

Let me explain my POV. I want one of the two formats to fail because then all support will be firmly placed behind the winning format - hardware and software alike. I want High Resolution Multichannel Audio to be successful because I don't like the trend toward lesser quality formats like MP3 displacing CD's. I may represent a minority "nitch group" but I really do care about the sound quality of what I listen to. I'd rather see the complete success of one format and the complete demise of the other rather than live with the lackluster success of both.

Even though I agree with Sir Terrence the majority of the time, I don't see his comparison of SACD & DVD-A to DD & DTS as being quite applicable in this case. DD and DTS do exactly the same thing, although at arguably different levels of excellence, and can exist side by side on the same disc: Not so with SACD and DVD-A. They may be vying to claim the same Hi Rez mulitichannel audio market, but their approaches to how to fulfill this role are very different - one is A/V based and the other one isn't. I know that this may seem like a small difference, but it really isn't. When I say that DVD-A is tied to a video display I don't mean that you have to listen to it and watch it at the same time, but you do need a video display in order to navigate through the menu options just like you do with DVD-Videos. The format presupposes that the disc is going to be played in a DVD player and so there is a reliance on using the display to navigate through the menu items. Not so with SACD. These discs play just like the CD's that we've become accustomed to over the years. You can actually have a system, just for listening, which contains nothing more than an SACD player, a receiver (or seperates), and speakers. What's more, this system will still play all of the redbook CD's you've purchased over the last decade or so.

You said: "...an increasing number of consumers having the ability to play either format at home..."

But what if you aren't "at home"? What if you're at the beach, sitting on a patio or deck, riding a bike or jogging, camping, or anywhere else that you don't have a video display but would like to enjoy music? With the move to Hybrid discs, this isn't a problem.

Look at it this way... Say SACD had been issued as Hybrid Multichannel to begin with and it had gotten a fairly good foothold. Why would there be a need for DVD-A? Both formats are Hi Rez and Multichannel so why the need for duplication? There really isn't a need for both in my opinion. So what if DVD-A begins to include a CD layer on the flip side as TinHere pointed out? You still couldn't listen to the high resolution tracks in an "audio only" system like the one I described above; but putting that aside for a moment, why would you need SACD anymore? I believe it is inevitable that at some future date there will be a point of acceptance for one format and the ultimate dismissal of the other. I just think that the sooner this takes place, the better for all concerned. Universal players may forestall this inevitability for awhile but they can't prevent it altogether IMO. It also doesn't bode well that even expensive universal players being released now don't have the reputation for doing an equally good job at both formats.

I don't expect you to agree with it, and I know I could be wrong, but that's my POV still the same. By-the-way, love the Steven Wright quote. He is so cool.

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Woodman,


Even though I agree with Sir Terrence the majority of the time, I don't see his comparison of SACD & DVD-A to DD & DTS as being quite applicable in this case. DD and DTS do exactly the same thing, although at arguably different levels of excellence, and can exist side by side on the same disc: Not so with SACD and DVD-A. They may be vying to claim the same Hi Rez mulitichannel audio market, but their approaches to how to fulfill this role are very different - one is A/V based and the other one isn't.
Q

Q,
When you think of it really, the SACD and DVD-A comparison to DD and Dts is quite applicable.

Dts and DD represent a major breakthrough in film sound over Dolby Stereo.
SACD and DVD-A represent a major breakthrough in music reproduction over redbook CD

Just like DD and Dts, SACD and DVD-A were developed, and released within a relatively tight timeline.

Just like DD and Dts SACD and DVD-A have VERY vocal supporters and detractor.

Just like DD and Dts an insuing format war is hurting the reputation of both parties.

Just like with DD and Dts the DVD-A supporters are accusing Sony of botching the CD layer of their hybrid discs just to make the SACD format sound better on the same disc. Does anyone remember Dolby not sharing information with Dts in regards to lowering the surround channels 3 db when transferring theatrical prints soundtrack to DVD's. After not sharing the information they accused Dts of "cooking" their soundtracks to make them sound better.

Just like with DD and Dts the press has largely(but no fully) come out supporting DVD-A. They also supported DD, with one home theater magazine refusing to even listen or review the Dts soundtrack when it was released. And just like with Dts audio engineers have fully supported SACD.

I see so many simularities between all of these formats and the reaction to them it is frightening.

I hope both audio formats survive just like I did with DD and Dts. I like choice. I do not want to be stuck with one format that one party controls. Competition leads to innovation.

[Quagmire]

Terrence,

I see the similarities, but only to a point. Unfortunately, where this comparison between the hi rez music formats and the discrete movie formats diverges is at the most important link - the end user. For those titles which make it available, DD and DTS movie soundtracks can be accessed ON THE SAME DVD DISC so that the choice of which track to listen to is simply a menu selection. There are of course titles which only offer the DD soundtrack or the DTS soundtrack but those are becoming more the exception and not the rule. More frequently, both soundtracks are available side by side on a disc; especially with the advent of "special edition" and "extended version" releases. Also, since these soundtracks are associated with the video information contained on the disc, it is not perceived as an inconvenience that a video display is needed for their viewing/listening. But how happy do you think most folks would be if the CD's they've been listening to for years suddenly required a video display to navigate through track selections? I venture to say that this would be perceived by most as an unnecessary complication and a nuisance.

By contrast with the DD & DTS comparison, the choice between which hi rez musical format one prefers MUST BE made at the checkstand. This has to be decided at the time of purchase and if one want both versions of a particular release (don't know why anyone would accept to make critical comparisons) they must be purchased seperately which will of course cost you double. Even the arrival of universal players does not gurarantee the success of both formats or eliminate the need to choose one format over the other: I haven't heard of any plans to include both formats on a single disc such as they have with DD and DTS. So it is possible for someone to buy into one or the other of the formats only to have it fail... and ultimately, I do believe that one of these formats will fail or become such an niche market as to make its costs very prohibitive. Why do I believe that one format will fail? Because as I've just described, folks must choose between them and in essence place their vote for one or the other with their dollars at the checkstand. In the end, the industry will get behind whichever format receives more "votes" because that's where the money is. That's why, for now, I'm placing my votes for the musical format that still offers the most flexibility for those of us who want to maintain high quality music only playback systems. Backers of both formats are taking steps for compatibility with redbook CD but DVD-A must still be tied to a video display to enjoy the high resolution tracks - not so for SACD.

I'd like to be wrong about this whole issue: Nothing would make me happier than for both formats to be equally successful; but as a practical matter, I just don't think that's possible. As a curiousity, T-man, do you own more DVD-A's or SACD's?

Q

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence,

I see the similarities, but only to a point. Unfortunately, where this comparison between the hi rez music formats and the discrete movie formats diverges is at the most important link - the end user. For those titles which make it available, DD and DTS movie soundtracks can be accessed ON THE SAME DVD DISC so that the choice of which track to listen to is simply a menu selection. There are of course titles which only offer the DD soundtrack or the DTS soundtrack but those are becoming more the exception and not the rule. More frequently, both soundtracks are available side by side on a disc; especially with the advent of "special edition" and "extended version" releases. Also, since these soundtracks are associated with the video information contained on the disc, it is not perceived as an inconvenience that a video display is needed for their viewing/listening. But how happy do you think most folks would be if the CD's they've been listening to for years suddenly required a video display to navigate through track selections? I venture to say that this would be perceived by most as an unnecessary complication and a nuisance.

By contrast with the DD & DTS comparison, the choice between which hi rez musical format one prefers MUST BE made at the checkstand. This has to be decided at the time of purchase and if one want both versions of a particular release (don't know why anyone would accept to make critical comparisons) they must be purchased seperately which will of course cost you double. Even the arrival of universal players does not gurarantee the success of both formats or eliminate the need to choose one format over the other: I haven't heard of any plans to include both formats on a single disc such as they have with DD and DTS. So it is possible for someone to buy into one or the other of the formats only to have it fail... and ultimately, I do believe that one of these formats will fail or become such an niche market as to make its costs very prohibitive. Why do I believe that one format will fail? Because as I've just described, folks must choose between them and in essence place their vote for one or the other with their dollars at the checkstand. In the end, the industry will get behind whichever format receives more "votes" because that's where the money is. That's why, for now, I'm placing my votes for the musical format that still offers the most flexibility for those of us who want to maintain high quality music only playback systems. Backers of both formats are taking steps for compatibility with redbook CD but DVD-A must still be tied to a video display to enjoy the high resolution tracks - not so for SACD.

I'd like to be wrong about this whole issue: Nothing would make me happier than for both formats to be equally successful; but as a practical matter, I just don't think that's possible. As a curiousity, T-man, do you own more DVD-A's or SACD's?

Q

Q, I guess I am pretty much split in half. I like jazz and classical and it seems that SACD has more titles released in these genre. However, I also like R&B and funk and it seem that DVD-A offers more of these. I love both of these formats and would like them both to make it.

I think personally they can co-exist. Sony and Phillips have a huge cache of classic titles in two channel stereo that can(very easily)be repurposed to multichannel(its nothing more than pulling whatever ambience trails you can find in the mix rearward with a little added delay or GOOD reverb). There is just too much music already out there, and to be created which can support both formats. I think DVD-A is perfect for studio projects that require heavy cutting and editing, and SACD is perfect for live, low edit performances. I think that each(with the introduction of iniversal players) can find a niche that propers them both.

[snodog]

I agree! I think a short ways and maybe a turn or two down the road cds, dvds, and all the rest will be layed to rest. Actually, everyone's parents will still have them and continue to look for them complain at christmas that they cant find those dvdvds any more??? Anyhow I think it will be a whole lot of music like mp3s with a menu you can select songs from and create playlists and such and have a media player too....hmm kind of like the windows player except for home theatre.

[sofsoldier]

I have yet to hear SACD, but I do have DVD-A and I have to say I am very impressed with the formats ability to bring music closer to its analog cousin - the LP. That said, I think the market for SACD and DVD-A will remain since there is a sub-culture that is already aware of their sonic capabilities and will more likely be sold in specialty shops only - that is if MP3 music takes over.

In my opinion, it was the consumers hearing a difference between CD's and LP's (on standard consumer gear) that allowed CD to become so succesful. The same should be true with DVD-A and SACD but everyone seems to be focused on MP3. To be honest, there is very little sonic difference between CD and MP3 (that point can be argued for sure), but the hope is more affordable "universal" DVD players will be released to allow the consumer to finally experience the sonic quality of SACD and/or DVD-A.

[TinHere]

Update..Dual discs are being test marketed.

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/

[jamison]

My biggest gripe is the lack of newer music for either of the formats. If the music companies have dumped this much money into something you would think they would make more music to support it. I don't want to hear the Beatles in 5.1. Nor do I listen to classical music. Why can't they put out music that appeals more to the younger generations. They are 90% of all music sells. I think this is one of the key factors that is killing both formats. The same thing happened to Mini Disk. Noone wanted to get Top Gun on Mini Disk they wanted newer music. And they didn't want to have to order it.

~C.C.~

Personally, i would love to hear some of the beatle music in 5.1 sacd or dvda
sgt peppers or abby road would be killer, my biggest complaint is the quality of music these days, most new artists are producing material that is only worth the bandwidth of mp3 let alone cd or sacd or dvda.
i grew up on seventies and eighties music and i say now WHERES THE BEEF!
lets start putting out music worthy of these new formats. i was an avid rock and roller and very few albums sound unique these days, everything seems to have a grunge sound to it/
thank god my musical taste has expanded quite a bit. i now enjoy jazz classical, blues, pop and easy listening.

[kexodusc]

Personally, i would love to hear some of the beatle music in 5.1 sacd or dvda
sgt peppers or abby road would be killer, my biggest complaint is the quality of music these days, most new artists are producing material that is only worth the bandwidth of mp3 let alone cd or sacd or dvda.


Hear, Hear!!! Amen to that...as a musician, I have to agree with this statement wholeheartedly...too much crap is being produced because too many people are buying albums for 1 song.
But to be fair there are still a few good artists out there...personally I can't wait for Norah Jones' new album, and I think Rush is working on something new as well. Pearl Jam's still putting out quality material.
Speaking of Pearl Jam, what the hell is this Creed nonesense all about? Who the hell buys their albums, why have they sold millions? I don't know anyone who owns one.

Lots of good music in the vaults, it'd be real nice if we could see some more SACD/DVD-A releases!!!

[GaToy]

I don't have to like what you like and if it was still popular thats what they would still be making. Most all of those people are dead. That was music from your generation. This is music from mine. I personally would love to see some of Michell Branch's stuff on SACD. Oh and by the way, I love the grunge stuff you hate so much. Its kind of funny you would mention the Beatles. Didn't they change the face of music much the same way Nervanna did. I can't believe you could even try to throw the eighties in there. Most of the music from the eighties was crap. Don't get me wrong. There was alot of good artists then too. It's just a shame you can fit ever good song in those ten years on a ten disk set. Which brings me to your other statement. One hit wounders, the seventies and eighties are ruled in this department. Like I said, if you don't get newer music out there for these formats they will be put on the shelf just like Mini Disk. So sit in your basements and cuddle your Rio Speed Wagon and Gratefull Dead albums all you want. Change is iminnent.

~C.C.~

[GaToy]

I happen to love Creed and would much rather hear it than CCR.

~C.C.~

[jamison]

by one hit wonders do you mean groups like Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd,Fleetwood Mac, Van Halen, Journey,Eagles, Eric Clapton, AC/DC ? I think these groups changed the face of music way more than nirvana or creed did. dont get me wrong i do like some of nirvanas songs but i dont think they are revolutionary. as far as most of these groups most of them are still around with a few exceptions. (John Bonham, Bon Scott etc). by the way what happened to nirvana or creed? you dont hear much about them either. lets see what people think about the music you are listening to now in 25 years.I think they will know more about groups like led zepplin or Pink floyd than they will about creed or nirvana. and i don't sit in my basement either, i listen to music in my living room with a 10k sound system that i have paid for by working 65 hour work weeks for 15 years.

[kexodusc]

I don't have to like what you like and if it was still popular thats what they would still be making. Most all of those people are dead. That was music from your generation. This is music from mine. I personally would love to see some of Michell Branch's stuff on SACD. Oh and by the way, I love the grunge stuff you hate so much. Its kind of funny you would mention the Beatles. Didn't they change the face of music much the same way Nervanna did. I can't believe you could even try to throw the eighties in there. Most of the music from the eighties was crap. Don't get me wrong. There was alot of good artists then too. It's just a shame you can fit ever good song in those ten years on a ten disk set. Which brings me to your other statement. One hit wounders, the seventies and eighties are ruled in this department. Like I said, if you don't get newer music out there for these formats they will be put on the shelf just like Mini Disk. So sit in your basements and cuddle your Rio Speed Wagon and Gratefull Dead albums all you want. Change is iminnent.


Listen up, SON, I'm 25 years old and hardly removed from the 90's. In fact that IS my generation...the problem is, since 96 music's been so watered down and derivative there's been few bands to peak any interest. In fact, you could argue the entire 90's was based on "Retro-everything" and didn't have its own sound.
Creed? A group that admitted to starting out as a Pearl Jam cover band. Godsmack (read Alice In Chains) Korn...great at first, but now they put out records like they're going out of style to milk money of the 13 year old "hard core" kids that buy that crap...and the 786 bands that SOUND JUST LIKE KORN...blech!!!
I saw Nivana live twice (not sure who Nervanna is)...Grunge died almost 10 years ago when a drug-addicted idiot put a bullet in his head. "I'm rich and famous, my life sucks-I'm so depressed, I need heroin -BANG!!!"
on Nirvana's greatest day, multiplied by a factor of 1000 times, they don't even come close to breaking the ground that the Beatles did. And they were finished before I was born.
Before you go knocking some of these "dead artists" remember that they paved the way for really crappy "Puddle of Mudd" bands to get airplay and have survived the test of time.
Led Zeppelin still rules. Who the hell was Slipknot?
Music today is more about image than sound...how much goth make-up can we wear? How far do we have to go to shock our parents? How depressing can I make my lyrics sound? How low can I drop the tunning on my guitar? Hardcore? I could kick the crap out of most of these goofs.
Before you go bashing the past, I suggest you sample a bit more of it, then you'll realize why we "old folks" from generations passed find Creed and todays other headliners to be such a copy of credible musicians that it's insulting to us.
There are a few good rock bands left. Dream Theater comes to mind, you've probably never heard of them because MTV doesn't like them.
One hit wonders: I'll name a few bands from the 90's who's name begins with the letter "S" that the world has long since forgotten, the entire alphabet wouldn't fit on this forum...even 1 hit wonders from the 70's and 80's still get airplay
Seven Mary Three, Slipknot, Soul Asylum, Silverchair, Stabbing Westward, Sponge, Savage Garden, Screaming Trees, Seal, Sloan, Spin Doctors...anyway you get the idea.

The reason very few of the bands from today are releasing high rez formats is because nobody would buy them.
REO Speedwagon and The Grateful Dead? You watch too many sitcoms, kid. Hardly representative of any generation of music. Someday you'll kids will want to know what you listened to growing up...and when you tell them Nickelback (AKA Theory of a Deadman, AKA Bush, etc) they'll ask you "Who?"

[GaToy]

I happen to be 30 years old. This just shows how little you know and quick you are to overlook the facts.

Listen up, SON, I'm 25 years old and hardly removed from the 90's. In fact that IS my generation.

Don't make me laugh. I have been watched bands come and go long before you. And for you to say that there is no music out there anymore shows just how closed minded you really are.

and i don't sit in my basement either, i listen to music in my living room with a 10k sound system that i have paid for by working 65 hour work weeks for 15 years.

And I think that is very sad. I listen on my 7K system that I have paid for in 5 years working 10 hrs a day 7 days a week. So I don't think you have anywhere neer the comitment to music I do.

(not sure who Nervanna is)...

Yeah that's real funny. You know damn well what I meant.

I for one love Bush, Sound Garden, Savage Garden and many others that have come out in the last 10 years. But do we have any of them on SACD. NO! Alanis Morricett ( I know I didn't spell it right) Pearl Jam, Enigma, NO. All the Music for SACD right now is classical or jazz. So remember, I have seen bands come and go long before you were able to get enough allowance from your parents to go out and buy it.

~C.C.~

And SON I think you need to sit down and check you attitude before I have to put your ass in time-out.

[kexodusc]

Oh jeez...you are threatening to kick my ass from behind your computer screen.
Get real, tough guy...next you're going to tell me your a millionaire ninja too?
Whatever kid, come back when you graduate from high school.

"and i don't sit in my basement either, i listen to music in my living room with a 10k sound system that i have paid for by working 65 hour work weeks for 15 years.

And I think that is very sad. I listen on my 7K system that I have paid for in 5 years working 10 hrs a day 7 days a week. So I don't think you have anywhere neer the comitment to music I do."

Jesus man, you are so full of bull****, these 2 consecutive sentences(that means back to back, junior) clearly contradict each other catching you in your stupid lie.
Not only are you a liar, you're stupid, too! LOL!

I don't give a damn how old you are, boy, you are clearly overmatched here.
Go listen to Creed, you lost everyone's respect when you confessed to liking them.

[GaToy]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RgAKAzAUOLAC9n3BCSXLaHfUyhhGbFB12vpGOfFWIYP1Yu416 2n84OadyWO9jruqrOwqYki*QycODXhAeVlWZD2nKqLCWZ126Zy McmVg4ko/100_0644.jpg?dc=4675445791043821127
http://groups.msn.com/mudcricket/myhometheater.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=695

I have no problems showing my system off to any one. I have worked my ass off to have what I have and I happen to be quit proud of it.

Qoute{Oh jeez...you are threatening to kick my ass from behind your computer screen.
Get real, tough guy...next you're going to tell me your a millionaire ninja too?
Whatever kid, come back when you graduate from high school.}Quote

Quote{Jesus man, you are so full of bull****, these 2 consecutive sentences(that means back to back, junior) clearly contradict each other catching you in your stupid lie.
Not only are you a liar, you're stupid, too! LOL!}Quote

I think we have this backwards. Your really a kid aren't you. If not, thats the only conclusion that you have left me with. Do you actually think taking my statements and warping them is going to make me mad. Yeah right.

The only thing that you have proved is that you are too imature to carry on an intellectaul conversation. Not everyone likes the same music or anything else for that matter. I happen to listen to Rap, Heavy metal (the older stuff), Grunge, Alternative, Trash, Contemperary, and some country. I am tiered of having the same Led Zepplin and Skynard songs thrown at me over and over again. Where is the variety? I never said there is anything wrong with any of these artists (which is what is what you have tried to twist my comment into). I love Pink Floud. And coincidentally the Division Bell is one of my favorite's by them. And that too is a newer release thats not available. Why not??? Every song on that album rocks. You should be so narrow minded and brodden your horizons a little more often. If your never looking for anything else you will never find anything else.

P.S. I built this entertainment center, sofa table, and speaker stands. And I think they came out quit nice. Even though i'm not using the speaker stands any more(I moved them up onto the walls. I will be posting newer pics soon.)

~C.C.~

[Quagmire]

Excuse me guys...

I know it's none of my business, but can I impose upon you two to stop with the bickering. When I started this thread I didn't really think this was the kind of topic that would degenerate into this kind of pointless arguing. I'm truly not trying to take the "holier than thou" stance here, and I know that a little heated debate never killed anyone, but you guys just seem to be taking it down to the personal level for no good reason. Like "You're a little boy!" "No you are!"... Stop already. Just cool off a bit and I think you'll both see that this really isn't worth getting ugly over. I for one can understand the points that each of you is making - Grunge isn't exactly my favorite genre of music either, and so it wouldn't be high on my list of desired releases for the hi rez formats. But for those who enjoy this type of music, I can certainly understand their frustration over not having these titles available in SACD or DVD-A right along side of those so called, "audiophile" styles of music. On the other hand, I can relate to those who might think the higher resolution is being wasted on this type of music. I can't see those who migrate toward this type of music talking about how much "air" there is around the instruments and how "upper octive harshness" has been removed. Because from my ol' fart perspective, adding upper octive harshness seems to be what this music is all about. But see, there go my own biases showing thru again. We all have likes and dislikes, and I think we have to agree to start any dialog by accepting this fact. Once that's done, much of the "upper octive harshness" we bring to the table will be removed from our posts.

The truth is, what would really make me happy is to see as much material as possible available in these higher resolution formats. I for one am troubled by the trends toward lowering our standards for musical fidelity with the likes of MP3 and such. I would like to see a reversal of this trend and a demand from consumers for higher fidelity offerings from every genre of music. From my perspective, it may not make much sense that someone listening to Grunge or Rap or Alternative would care or notice a difference in sonic sound quality, but I also believe that we all should have the right to expect the best from those producing the music that we enjoy. Maybe that's something we can all agree on despite our musical tastes. Maybe?

Q

[GaToy]

I won't argue that there isn't much to gain in the High fidellity area. The reason i'd like to see it is for the descrete multi channel aspect. Being in the center of the action. You can't get this with Music DVD's. Most of them are recorded live. I want the same as whats on the CD's only clrearer and better. I bought the Three Doors Down DVD-A disk. When I listened to it on my Pioneer 667A (the same thing as a 563A) I heard things I never had before on the regular CD.

~C.C.~