SACD & DVD-A

[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.

[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