SACD/DVD-A: Any good hi-rez album review sites out there?

[kexodusc]

Loving most of the hi-rez stuff I've heard so far and I'm looking to expand my library.
Problem is, I'd like to avoid buying duds (who doesn't). Not only that, some artists put out their releases in both SACD and DVD-A...which is better and why?

I know a few of you are into the hi-rez formats as well (N. Abstentia's web site is pretty good), but I'm just curious if any of you are aware of a half decent website that reviews hi-rez releases.

[-Jar-]

Loving most of the hi-rez stuff I've heard so far and I'm looking to expand my library.
Problem is, I'd like to avoid buying duds (who doesn't). Not only that, some artists put out their releases in both SACD and DVD-A...which is better and why?

I know a few of you are into the hi-rez formats as well (N. Abstentia's web site is pretty good), but I'm just curious if any of you are aware of a half decent website that reviews hi-rez releases.

Here's one:

http://www.highfidelityreview.com

Very in-depth reviews for the most part.

[Woochifer]

Another good site that you should check out is www.musictap.net

[newtrix1]

http://www.sa-cd.net/toprecommendations

[Dusty Chalk]

Not only that, some artists put out their releases in both SACD and DVD-A...which is better and why?

Neither is better, although both are an improvement on regular redbook CD. DSD is supposed to be more phase-accurate than PCM, even high-rate, but it also has an inordinate amount of ultrasonic hash, so...which is more important to you?

Also, SACD does not include video, so if you're talking about Shania Twain, I think DVD is better.

[kexodusc]

Neither is better, although both are an improvement on regular redbook CD. DSD is supposed to be more phase-accurate than PCM, even high-rate, but it also has an inordinate amount of ultrasonic hash, so...which is more important to you?

Also, SACD does not include video, so if you're talking about Shania Twain, I think DVD is better.

Uh...thanks Dusty, but i wasn't questioning which format is better, that's an invitation to start a flame war...but rather when artist like, say, Dianna Krall puts out an album in both SACD and DVD-A (she has for some reason), it's quite possible that one will be mixed differently or better for whatever reason...I'm hoping some these great links will point that out.

So far I don't have for one format over the other, nor do I see reason to develop one.

[shokhead]

Neither is better, although both are an improvement on regular redbook CD. DSD is supposed to be more phase-accurate than PCM, even high-rate, but it also has an inordinate amount of ultrasonic hash, so...which is more important to you?

Also, SACD does not include video, so if you're talking about Shania Twain, I think DVD is better.

And how much video is there on DVD-A? I havent seen much.

[Dusty Chalk]

And how much video is there on DVD-A? I havent seen much.

Well, in Shania's case, some is better than none.

Wink wink nudge nudge knowhutImean knowhutImean?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Neither is better, although both are an improvement on regular redbook CD. DSD is supposed to be more phase-accurate than PCM, even high-rate, but it also has an inordinate amount of ultrasonic hash, so...which is more important to you?

Also, SACD does not include video, so if you're talking about Shania Twain, I think DVD is better.

Ultrasonic noise is inaudible, it's beyond human hearing. So why is it a bad thing? Personally I like both high rez formats, though I have a preference for DSD for recording.

[Dusty Chalk]

Ultrasonic noise is inaudible, it's beyond human hearing. So why is it a bad thing?

The high-frequency "hash" that is part of the DSD playback is theoretically inaudible, but it's still an artifact, and so, is deleterious to more accurate playback.

For one thing, although it may not fry your tweeters and/or supertweeters, it could still cause distortion simply by its sheer magnitude (whether it's audible or not, your tweeters/supertweets are still trying to reproduce it -- they don't know the difference). And the distortion could "trickle down" to the audible range.

Hence bad.

I'm not saying it's inexcusable -- I own an entire CD shelf of SACD recordings, and find their sound more "analogue-y" -- I'm just saying it's a trade-off, and you have to consider which you prefer. And really, there is no way to judge short of listening for yourself.

I've got both players, so I don't have to choose.

And then there's watermarking...