Is it worth diving into SACD and DVD-A?

[3db]

I don't have a player compatable with these formats nor do I own and of these formats. I'm quite happy with the CDs and vinyl that I own. Am I missing out on something? Does it really add realism to the music like 5.1 did to movies/films. I really enjoy the imaging and lifeliek soundstage from my two channels.

 

[sgtpepper9]

Depends on the mix really. If the 5.1 mix is just sending the ambient part of tracks to the rear and vocals to the center while the rest is in the main 2 stereo speakers, it's pretty lame and boring. Stuff like The Flaming Lips and The Super Furry Animals, with really interesting and crazy mixes, are fun to listen to. Even Pink Floyd - DSOTM is pretty good. Basically, I think it depends on when the mix is done (i.e. was the music made with 5.1 in mind or not). So, in short, unless you are dying to hear some multichannel music that you're excited about, you're probably ok with what you've got. Having said that, I think The Flaming Lips albums make it all worth it

 

[sgtpepper9]

I should have mentioned this before. If you're looking to get a new DVD for whatever reason, it might make sense to get one that is SACD and DVD-A compatible. I know the Oppos are and don't break the bank. Just might as well get the most compatibility for your buck.

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't have a player compatable with these formats nor do I own and of these formats. I'm quite happy with the CDs and vinyl that I own. Am I missing out on something? Does it really add realism to the music like 5.1 did to movies/films. I really enjoy the imaging and lifeliek soundstage from my two channels.

I think the major benefit of SACD and DVD-A are the surround capabilities. This is especially true or antiphonal programs.

The Britten War Requiem under Rilling has a good deal of the whole program from the rear backs. The children's chorus is at the back, at the back and the parts involving the music of the WW1 poets. The Latin mass from the front with the main Orchestra. I actually own quite a lot of antiphonal music on SACD.

However you put your finger on the problem, it requires a special player to play them. The next issue is that SACD is very difficult to set up for optimal results. This stems from the fact that SACD is not PCM based but uses Direct Stream Digital (DSD).

Set up and decoding issues are most confused areas in SACD. Few people have it straight, and the players manuals are dishonest.

First no consumer products can perform any processing within DSD other than decoding.

No bass management and no delay or channel balancing, only volume.

If your receiver or prepro has no DSD decoder, and most don't, then the player must convert from DSD to PCM before sending the signal via HDMI.

If your pre pro or receiver has a DSD decoder, then HDMI 1.3 will support sending DSD to the processor via HDMI.

However if the receiver or pre pro does not convert DSD to PCM, there is still no bass management, delay or LFE ouput, or output of any kind to the sub. Also after PCM conversion and decode, the surround signal is sent to wrong speakers. So the whole issue is a mess. By wrong channels I mean that the rear channels are sent to the surrounds and not the rear backs as they should be for SACD. SACD has a different speaker mastering layout from Dolby 5,1.

To top it off many SACD players do not output at all from the DSD decoder, but always do a PCM conversion, but this is not admitted to in the manual.

I have no experience with DVD A as this never had any significant penetration among classical companies.

AES are making a heavy push to phase out SACD and DVD-A. I agree with that. They have a lot of educational materials and on line videos to members to assist the switch to audio only BD as a replacement.

 

[Alex2507]

Our very own Gene just got through saying something about SACD holding it's own as a niche market. I removed my SACD/DVD-A player from my main system in favor of a Panny BD60 but it's going to make it's way back. It is/was a Denon 1920 and I really liked the picture quality with DVD's too. The 1920/30/40's can be had for cheap too. I would go for the 1930 or 1940 because they have a xover of 80Hz as opposed to 100Hz in the 1920. You need a rec'r with 6/8 channel inputs to do it right. (EDIT: except for what TLS said about all that HDMI gobblygook.) As has been mentioned, the quality depends on the mix but it can be done for not too much money.

You can't be a real RocknRolla with out it.

I only have a small collection of MCM discs but I like them and I like the fact that I am the only kid on the block that even knows what it is.

The AES better back off.

 

[supervij]

I completely enjoy the surround mixes of a lot of my SACDs and DVD-As, and am a sucker for a well-mixed surround album. Whether the album/music was created with surround in mind is irrelevant; it's how well the mix was done, period.

I get an extreme kick out of surround music. Some of my favourite surround mixes include:

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
Genesis - The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
The Beatles - Love
The Blue Man Group - Audio
Queen - A Night at the Opera

and many others. Hell, even Britney Spears has a great surround disc! (Okay, the music isn't to my taste, but the surround mix is absolutely stellar.)

If you get a kick out of hearing directional cues coming out of your surrounds, you might really enjoy surround music. Next time you're in the market for a new player, get a universal and try out a DVD-A or m/c SACD. Some of them can be had for pretty cheap (my Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon was $12 at the time). You never know, you might enjoy it. Or if you don't want to go to the trouble, find a friend (perhaps here on AH) who does have a universal and some surround music and ask for a demo. Easy as cake, simple as pie.

cheers,
supervij

 

[Alex2507]

Hell, even Britney Spears has a great surround disc!

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Give him a break, she was quite eye pleasing ... long time ago

 

[3db]

That is way too funny. You're killing me!!

 

[sgtpepper9]

I completely enjoy the surround mixes of a lot of my SACDs and DVD-As, and am a sucker for a well-mixed surround album. Whether the album/music was created with surround in mind is irrelevant; it's how well the mix was done, period.

I get an extreme kick out of surround music. Some of my favourite surround mixes include:

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
Genesis - The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
The Beatles - Love
The Blue Man Group - Audio
Queen - A Night at the Opera

You're right. The Beatles - Love is a perfect example of music which wasn't made with surround sound in mind but is still excellent. It all does depend on the mix. It's just I find a lot of SACDs under-utilize the surround speakers. I find my Bob Dylan SACDs to be a bit on the boring side as far as surround usage goes. Not saying that the albums don't sound better than their CD counterparts, just lacking in the surround department.

 

[j_garcia]

Discs are still available and a few artists are still releasing SACDs and DVD-As, but not enough to justify top dollar being spent on new gear if you don't already have an existing collection of discs IMO. Discs are harder to find and the best examples, many of which are OOP, can be quite expensive. Are they both great formats? Yes. There are a lot of great discs out there; just be aware that you are either going to pay a lot for some of them and/or have to do a little work at locating them.

 

[jliedeka]

Hardly anybody is making DVD-As anymore which is too bad since it is probably the best audio format prior to DTS HD-MA and Dolby TrueHD.

The two areas you will find high resolution discs are rock mixed in surround and classical. There are lots of classical SACDs of some very good performances.

That said, the higher number of bits doesn't really translate to better sound. Perceptual studies have shown that the mastering of the material is the key. SACDs don't otherwise sound better than CDs.

I think that if you are willing to spend the money on the playback gear and are interested in rock mixed in surround, I would say go for it. Otherwise, you really aren't missing much.

Jim

 

[j_garcia]

That said, the higher number of bits doesn't really translate to better sound. Perceptual studies have shown that the mastering of the material is the key. SACDs don't otherwise sound better than CDs.

That may be true for 2ch, but you can't get multichannel mixes on CD aside from dts-CDs which also arent around any longer. Some of the multichannel mixes, such as DSotM are definitely worth getting a rig setup.

 

[PENG]

That said, the higher number of bits doesn't really translate to better sound. Perceptual studies have shown that the mastering of the material is the key. SACDs don't otherwise sound better than CDs.

I don't know anything about those studies but I do find mastering is the key. I have quite a few SACD and DVDA but my best sounding discs are CDs. Sure enough CDs are not multichannel but then we have BR so if I were to do it over again I would not bother with SACD and DVDA. I am hoping that there will soon be audio only BR discs.

 

[j_garcia]

I am hoping that there will soon be audio only BR discs.

You mean like this one? http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mozart-Piano-Concerto-No-25-and-Piano-Sonatas-Blu-ray-Review/2102/

AFAIK, they have been releasing Audio only BDs for over a year. The vast majority are classical though.

 

[PENG]

I have no idea they have been around for over a year. Looks like they are expensive but so are, in fact more so, SACDs. Classical is fine for me, most of my DVDA/SACD are classical ones anyway. Thanks for letting me know. I paid $1,700 for my DVD-3910 a few years ago and had I not done that I could now buy 2 Oppo 83 SE. Well actually as I said to do it over again I would have not have bothered with the universal players. A nice CD player plus a Pioneer Elite BDP with Wolfson DACs will cover Stereo and BR Multi channel music.

 

[Cristofori]

I don't have a player compatable with these formats nor do I own and of these formats. I'm quite happy with the CDs and vinyl that I own. Am I missing out on something? Does it really add realism to the music like 5.1 did to movies/films. I really enjoy the imaging and lifeliek soundstage from my two channels.

If your very much into classical or to a lesser extent Jazz, well then yes. There are TONS of new classical titles in SACD out there, and more coming out all the time. This is pretty much the only genre that has fully imbraced SACD, and it's probably the only reason while there are still SACD players available. So once again, we all need to thank the classical genre for giving us the better technology.

If your mainly into rock/pop, then unfortunately, most of the few releases that came out are now out of print and/or hard to find. Occasionally, there are new releases or limited edition SACDs put out by various labels but again, are sometimes harder to find and/or expensive.

Although I've never used the multi-channel capability, as I'm a 2-channel guy with music like yourself, I can tell you with certainty that the SACD sound is noticeably superior to most redbook CD and vinyl, sometimes less so and sometime more. Most of this improvment comes from the lower end of the spectrum. I have only noticed a very slight improvement (if at all) with things like solo piano for example.

It isn't entirely dependent on being multi-channel either. There is still an obvious improvement in sound with most discs even with the stereo SACD layer.

Sony makes a budget SACD player, the SCD-CD595, for around $150 that is still available at Best Buy or Crutchfield if you want to start exploring SACD for cheap. It's SACD capability is actually pretty good. Sony did invent the format after all.

If you want to get serious, Marantz makes the highly regarded SA-8003 2-channel only dedicated SACD player for around $1000, but you can find it on sale cheaper.

Then there are the myriad of universal players, which I might personally pass on for music only purposes given a choice.

 

[TLS Guy]

Our very own Gene just got through saying something about SACD holding it's own as a niche market. I removed my SACD/DVD-A player from my main system in favor of a Panny BD60 but it's going to make it's way back. It is/was a Denon 1920 and I really liked the picture quality with DVD's too. The 1920/30/40's can be had for cheap too. I would go for the 1930 or 1940 because they have a xover of 80Hz as opposed to 100Hz in the 1920. You need a rec'r with 6/8 channel inputs to do it right. (EDIT: except for what TLS said about all that HDMI gobblygook.) As has been mentioned, the quality depends on the mix but it can be done for not too much money.

You can't be a real RocknRolla with out it.

I only have a small collection of MCM discs but I like them and I like the fact that I am the only kid on the block that even knows what it is.

The AES better back off.

Why should they back off? It would make sense to have one carrier for hard copy.

It would save big money to have one hard copy music carrier. BD can do it all and video.

I have just obtained some opera on BD.

One, Tannhauser on ArtHaus, in 7.1 DTS Master HD is a revelation. On this rig it is very close indeed to the real thing. You really do feel to be in a large opera house. The dynamic rage is huge.

I think the reason that it is better is because processing is possible so speaker settings are preserved. I think the discreet 7.1 has added enough information for the performance and the venue to be reproduced with great accuracy.

It is also nice to not have to turn the studio between digital precessing and my analog system to do channel balance and bass management. You can't do delay easily in the analog domain and never well.

If you convert SACD to PCM the surround information is sent to the wrong speakers, as SACD has a different speaker layout from Dolby digital.

SACD has always been a problem child and needs to become a foot note to audio history, like spaced audio tape head stereo.

The BD I mentioned above certainly gave by far the "Closest Approach to the Original Sound" I have ever heard, and by a big margin.

The whole sound stage seemed totally released from the speakers. At no time was I aware of their presence sonically. An enormous sound stage with nigh on perfect perspective and depth.

I'm really enthusiastic about this new medium for audio. I think it is the most exciting development in audio play back since the stereo LP in 1959.

And by the way anybody who can't tell a huge difference between these new loss less codecs and lossy AC3 on DVD is listening on a low resolution system. I bought Master and Commander on BD to directly compare it to my DVD copy. Even the speech of movies is more natural with better speech discrimination. My wife noted that right away. That was interesting as NPR found most listeners were able to tell the degradation of lossy codecs on speech more easily than on music. I did not have the dialog channel tuned up by the way. The increase in clarity of the dialog was most evident in scenes where there was a lot of action.

 

[Cristofori]

Why should they back off? It would make sense to have one carrier for hard copy.

It would save big money to have one hard copy music carrier. BD can do it all and video.

I have just obtained some opera on BD.

One, Tannhauser on ArtHaus, in 7.1 DTS Master HD is a revelation. On this rig it is very close indeed to the real thing. You really do feel to be in a large opera house. The dynamic rage is huge.

I think the reason that it is better is because processing is possible so speaker settings are preserved. I think the discreet 7.1 has added enough information for the performance and the venue to be reproduced with great accuracy.

It is also nice to not have to turn the studio between digital precessing and my analog system to do channel balance and bass management. You can't do delay easily in the analog domain and never well.

If you convert SACD to PCM the surround information is sent to the wrong speakers, as SACD has a different speaker layout from Dolby digital.

SACD has always been a problem child and needs to become a foot note to audio history, like spaced audio tape head stereo.

The BD I mentioned above certainly gave by far the "Closest Approach to the Original Sound" I have ever heard, and by a big margin.

The whole sound stage seemed totally released from the speakers. At no time was I aware of their presence sonically. An enormous sound stage with nigh on perfect perspective and depth.

I'm really enthusiastic about this new medium for audio. I think it is the most exciting development in audio play back since the stereo LP in 1959.

And by the way anybody who can't tell a huge difference between these new loss less codecs and lossy AC3 on DVD is listening on a low resolution system. I bought Master and Commander on BD to directly compare it to my DVD copy. Even the speech of movies is more natural with better speech discrimination. May wife noted that right away. That was interesting as NPR found most listeners were able to tell the degradation of lossy codecs on speech more easily than on music. I did not have the dialog channel tuned up by the way. The increase in clarity of the dialog was most evident in scenes where there was a lot of action.

Is there any sign that there will be audio only BD discs coming out in these new formats (not that I understand any of the multi-channel aspects just yet)?

I wish that somebody would start carrying on with the promise that was started with SACD!

 

[chadburger]

Depends on the mix really. If the 5.1 mix is just sending the ambient part of tracks to the rear and vocals to the center while the rest is in the main 2 stereo speakers, it's pretty lame and boring. Stuff like The Flaming Lips and The Super Furry Animals, with really interesting and crazy mixes, are fun to listen to. Even Pink Floyd - DSOTM is pretty good. Basically, I think it depends on when the mix is done (i.e. was the music made with 5.1 in mind or not). So, in short, unless you are dying to hear some multichannel music that you're excited about, you're probably ok with what you've got. Having said that, I think The Flaming Lips albums make it all worth it

I think this is exactly opposite of what I want and enjoy most about SACD or DVDA........the sense of space is what I want, goofy affects I find odd and many times annoying. I have no use for a guitar player jumping from speaker to speaker and vocals shift from front to back but everyone has a different idea on what pleasing. I would say in general if you have not got in the game its harder to start cause the discs often times get more expensive and harder to find.