SACD & DVD-A

[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