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

[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?!?!

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.