SACD Players

[BinFrog]

BinFrog, what are some of the DVD-A's you find that are done right? I'm tired of 'hit and miss' DVD-A's. My first one was Fragile by Yes and it's perfect. However my next 4 or 5 totally stank up the joint. Then I got a couple of REM discs that were nice..then some crappy ones...then Deadwing by Porcupine Tree which might be the best one yet..then some more junk...which ones do you like?

I actually started a website where I was reviewing DVD/SACD's...I might expand on that. It's at http://www.chuckamuck.com/music but I only had a few discs the last time I updated it.

The Porcupine Tree DVD-A discs are good, but they are limited much like the SACD version of Brother In Arms because of the source material already being compressed too much.

Some DVD-A discs to check out:

Either of the Blue Man Group releases
Buena Vista Social Club (self-titled)
Pat Metheny Group - Imaginary Day (Boring disc, great sound)
Medeski Martin and Wood - Uninvisible
The Doors - LA Woman (surprisingly good for its age)
Studio Voodoo (self-titled) (bizarre trance/world beat music but sounds awesome)

Queen's "A Night At The Opera" is fun too. The sound is good but not amazing, but to hear Bohemian Rhapsody the way it was meant to be heard is truly a gift.
Bela Fleck - The Bluegrass Sessions: Acoustic Planet #2

[BinFrog]

BinFrog, did you read the interview? I think you should if you didn't. The point was clearily made that you can't go by what recordings are out there as the few DVD-A recordings compared to the SACD recordings are not up to the same standards of quality. The interview discusses which storage format will provide a better audio experience and the technical arguments supporting DVD-A are significant.

The interview did not focus on which existing recordings sound better and thus indicate which format is better, that is far to subjective an approach. If the technical differences are as extreme and significant as stated, then it stands to reason there may be serious merit for considering DVD-A as the format of choice. I will not pretend to be technically competent enough to make any such conclusion. That said I have found enough information out there that strikes me as reliable, both from people I know and information I have read, that leads me to believe that just dismissing DVD-A outright in favour of SACD may be a poor decision.

I am sure there are many fantastic SACD recordings, I just do not want to assume that SACD is the best we can get realistically when it is apparent we have more options open to evaluate.

Right, but what I am saying is that I have read tons of reviews about the format war, and some people think SACD is clearly the better format while others think DVD-A is. They compare technical specs side by side and both sides think they have the better format. Some people simply think DVD-A is better because of the added content (pictures, lyrics, videos, etc). However, based on the technical specs alone of the resolution, I have read more reviews saying SACD is the better format. Lets not forget DVD-A is just a newer, much less compressed version of PCM. SACD uses DSD technology which is something entirely new. No, new does not mean better.

After listening to plenty of titles in both formats, I'm still convinced SACD is slightly better.

[shokhead]

I cant hear any difference but for poor mixing on both sides. Heck,i like DTS Music better then either. If you have some DVD-A they might also have DTS,try it,you might like it.

[N. Abstentia]

Yeah that's true, I still prefer the DTS version of The Police's Singles album. I have about 10 or so DTS music discs still! Some of that stuff will probably never see SACD or DVD-A.

[Dusty Chalk]

Lets not forget DVD-A is just a newer, much less compressed version of PCM.

Yeah, but let's not downplay it, neither. The fact that they've pushed the frequency-related problems even farther out of hearing range is an audible improvement; similarly, the bit-depth and its related issues, whatever they are (aliasing?). Going from 16/44.1 to 24/96 was an audible improvement (in my book).

I haven't actually heard the same recording on the same player in both formats, but I've heard enough familiar recordings on both to endorse both as worthy of adopting.

[Slosh]

Besides lack of good titles (for both formats) my biggest problem with DVD-A is the stupid ass menu systems. They should have made the audio-only portions operate just like a CD where you just pop it in the tray and hit play. At most the only interaction anyone should ever need to get some music going is to hit the "audio" button to go to and from stereo/surround. This is one area where SACD got it right.

SACD sounds better to me. Sounds just like vinyl less the surface noise. DVD-A sounds like a somewhat smoother CD with better treble extention but still sounds digital.

But both formats do indeed sound better than CD. Even the titles that don't blow you away are better; it's just sometimes you have to play back the CD to notice the improvement.

[Dusty Chalk]

Besides lack of good titles (for both formats) my biggest problem with DVD-A is the stupid ass menu systems. They should have made the audio-only portions operate just like a CD where you just pop it in the tray and hit play. At most the only interaction anyone should ever need to get some music going is to hit the "audio" button to go to and from stereo/surround. This is one area where SACD got it right.

I have to agree with this completely. There should be a default, and you shouldn't have to turn any television on just to get things going (play), much less switch from one audio layer to another. Those are just the basics.

It's an audio format, for pete's sake.

[BinFrog]

Yeah, but let's not downplay it, neither. The fact that they've pushed the frequency-related problems even farther out of hearing range is an audible improvement; similarly, the bit-depth and its related issues, whatever they are (aliasing?). Going from 16/44.1 to 24/96 was an audible improvement (in my book).

I haven't actually heard the same recording on the same player in both formats, but I've heard enough familiar recordings on both to endorse both as worthy of adopting.

Or even up to 48/192

[BinFrog]

I have to agree with this completely. There should be a default, and you shouldn't have to turn any television on just to get things going (play), much less switch from one audio layer to another. Those are just the basics.

It's an audio format, for pete's sake.

Most newer DVD-A players (mine is a universal player) are smart enough to know that if you just hit play on a DVD-A, it should go straight to the surround mix.

[Slosh]

Most newer DVD-A players (mine is a universal player) are smart enough to know that if you just hit play on a DVD-A, it should go straight to the surround mix.

It depends on the disc. I have mine set up like that too but some discs force you to select from the menu no matter what. Stupid design for an audio format.

[Dusty Chalk]

Yeah, unfortunately, it depends on how the disk was authored, it's not in the spec. It should be required that way, though.

[Woochifer]

Good discussion! I want to also add that even if you don't own a DVD-A player, you can still enjoy the multichannel audio tracks because all of them include at least a 5.1 Dolby Digital track.

However, the real fun starts with the DVD-A discs that DTS Entertainment puts out (this includes the Blue Man Group, Porcupine Tree, and Medeski Martin and Wood releases). All of the DTS Entertainment DVD-A releases use the full 1.5k bitrate version of DTS (not the half bitrate version that you get with most DVD movies). The full bitrate version of DTS can sound incredible, and unlike with DVD-A players that require multichannel analog audio connections, the DTS track can fully integrate with your receiver's bass managemet settings. Some other DVD-A discs also use the full 1.5k bitrate DTS, but it's more hit and miss.

[shokhead]

Best sounding Disc i own is my 24 bit DTS Don Henley .

[C-Z]

Where DVD-A has a problem is that you cannot fully get rid of the "digital glaze" that affects the sound of most PCM based sources.

This kind of unsubstantiated, vague statement drive me crazy. It is the sort of thing that manufacturers of ridiculously priced audio products will say - for example audio cable companies. I am fully aware of the technical issues associated with digitizing music, but what the heck is "digital glaze" - do the French use it on pastries? It tends to smooth out the pastry, so is that good or bad?

FA - I would definitely get a universal player so you can buy any title and not worry about compatibility. Pioneer makes a cheap player that works fine for most applications. I myself have one of them downstairs, and a Pioneer Elite 47AI in the main home theater.

Both SACD and DVD-A can sound great if done properly - a function of the engineers etc. that made it.

My issue with SACDs is that many are stereo only - I want multi-channel too! Like that you can play the CD layer in cars etc.

DVD-As have DTS, so anyone with a DVD player can play multi-channel, which is fun, if lower res. Do hate the menus - hard to play them without the video on.

CZ

[Audio Girl]

FA, if you decide to replace that receiver, you might check out the Rotel RSDX-02 (about $1250 new, can possibly buy it for less used on audiogon). It's a surround sound receiver with built-in DVD-A with excellent video and audio capabilities. We installed this unit in our master bedroom system in the previous house, and it was excellent. We paired it with an on-wall plasma, the B&W Cinema Series in-wall speakers (2-front l/r, center, 2-rear l/r) and a B&W ASW-650 sub. Nice little system. We haven't decided where we are going to install it in the new house...possibly may move it to the family room (to replace an eons old Yahama receiver).

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, if you decide to replace that receiver, you might check out the Rotel RSDX-02 (about $1250 new, can possibly buy it for less used on audiogon). It's a surround sound receiver with built-in DVD-A with excellent video and audio capabilities. We installed this unit in our master bedroom system in the previous house, and it was excellent. We paired it with an on-wall plasma, the B&W Cinema Series in-wall speakers (2-front l/r, center, 2-rear l/r) and a B&W ASW-650 sub. Nice little system. We haven't decided where we are going to install it in the new house...possibly may move it to the family room (to replace an eons old Yahama receiver).

You had all that in your BEDROOM??? Wow. The most technologically advanced thing in my bedroom is my clock radio with REALLY BIG numbers so that I can read it without my glasses on. Hehehe.