SACD or DVD-Audio?

[thecoolguy11]

I have the option of buying a DVD player with DVD-Audio only (no SACD) and the second option is that of buying a Universal player.
In terms of features and also reviews, the DVD-audio only player seems to be a better option. I just want to know that off the two audio formats, which is the more popular of the two formats and will I be smart or will I be stupid if I don't buy the player that supports SACD.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Good chance you might regret buying a player that won't play SACD. It all depends upon how deeply you plan to delve into hi res music. Most of the best sounding discs I've personally heard/owned were DVD-A, but there's a lot of good stuff on SACD, too.

Besides, a universal player really isn't going to cost much more, if any.

 

[rgriffin25]

I would have to say get the combo player. Sometimes a title is only available on a one format. Don't limit yourself if you can afford to play both. I own about 4 times as many SACDs as I do DVD-A. There are others that have more DVD-A discs.

 

[WmAx]

I have the option of buying a DVD player with DVD-Audio only (no SACD) and the second option is that of buying a Universal player.
In terms of features and also reviews, the DVD-audio only player seems to be a better option. I just want to know that off the two audio formats, which is the more popular of the two formats and will I be smart or will I be stupid if I don't buy the player that supports SACD.

I triple the suggestion. Get a universal player! They are cheap these days. No good reason I can think of to limit yourself to one or the other.....



-Chris

 

[BuddTX]

The only problem is that there does not seem to be a universal player out right now that has DVI or HDMI.

At least not one that has a reasonable price tag.

I am hoping the Samsung 941 turns out to be a good DVD player. It was supposed to be available on Sept 30th, now reports are saying OCT, NOV or even Jan.

 

[happy540i]

There are more DVD-A available out there than SACD. And, you're correct by saying that there is no combo player out there that's reasonably price with all the option you want. I have a 3910 for a month now and all I've been using it for are DVD-V and DVD-A. I still haven't tested the SACD yet because of the limited availability of the said format.

 

[thecoolguy11]

Is there a special cable requirement?

One more question.
If I buy the player that supports DVD-A or SACD or both, do the interconnects come packaged with the player or is their a special interconnect that sells to be able to play multi-channel? Can I just buy three RCA cables or is their a special cables

 

[Mort Corey]

Depending on the player, you'll most likely need SIX RCA cables....five channels plus sub for DVD-A and SACD and a receiver to accept same. If you want a taste of well mixed SACD have them demo Dark Side of the Moon.

Mort

 

[thecoolguy11]

Will 3 stereo cables work?

Will 3 stereo cables work instead of 6 mono cables? Buying stereo cables seems to be an inexpensive option

 

[MarkSJohnson]

Yes...

Yes...same thing!

 

[goodman]

There are more DVD-A available out there than SACD..... I still haven't tested the SACD yet because of the limited availability of the said format.

I believe it's just the opposite. Check out Music Direct or Amazon to see what I mean. The SACD catalogue contains far more titles than the DVD-A catalogue. Many SACDs, however, are classical or jazz, or classic rock, e.*., Pink Floyd, Police, Kinks, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, etc.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Goodman's right- if you're talking sheer numbers, SACD has a bit larger catalog. That said, I have more DVD-As. It comes down to the amount of titles vs the titles I find interesting. SACD has Billy Joel & Elton John, but DVD-A has Porcupine Tree and Flaming Lips. It depends on what you want to hear.

 

[RaT]

The only problem is that there does not seem to be a universal player out right now that has DVI or HDMI.

At least not one that has a reasonable price tag.

I am hoping the Samsung 941 turns out to be a good DVD player. It was supposed to be available on Sept 30th, now reports are saying OCT, NOV or even Jan.

We just ordered the Denon 2910 which has DVI/HDMI as well as being a universal player.

 

[Colonel_Tomb]

I have the option of buying a DVD player with DVD-Audio only (no SACD) and the second option is that of buying a Universal player.
In terms of features and also reviews, the DVD-audio only player seems to be a better option. I just want to know that off the two audio formats, which is the more popular of the two formats and will I be smart or will I be stupid if I don't buy the player that supports SACD.

I have a universal player (Denon DVD-2900), and that's probably the best way to go. But if you were to omit one format, omit DVD-A, not SACD. Both DVD-A and SACD sound very good, but DVD-A was implemented with arrogance toward the consumer, and I'll tell you why that is:

1. Compatibility and portability. Just about everybody wants to be able to tote their music around, at least in the car, but you can forget about that with DVD-A (unless you own a new Acura TL), because DVD-A only plays in DVD players. Most SACDs, on the other hand, are dual-layer hybrids. (And I dislike single-layer SACDs for the same reason.)

2. Inventory. Because DVD-A isn't multi-layer, retailers need to carry (and you need to buy) two copies of your favorite titles -- one on DVD-A, and one on CD. Sux! (And, yeah, I own two copies of "Pet Sounds" and two copies of "Metallica" and two copies of "Harvest" . . . did I mention that this sux?) Hybrid SACDs are "single-inventory."

3. Packaging. Don't ask me why, seeing that DVD-A is a music format, but they just had to package DVD-A disks in those big, goofy DVD-V cases. They don't fit in my CD rack properly, but the proponents of the format don't care. SACDs are packaged same as CDs.

4. Interface. With DVD-A, you need a TV to navigate the disk! What an unbelievably dumb idea! (Yeah, you can pop it in a press Play, but lemme see you cue up Track 7 without a video display.) SACD works just like a CD.

5. Availability. Maybe this is a good sign, but the selection of SACDs is leaving DVD-A in the dust, at least for the types of music I buy (rock and jazz). Even though I started out supporing both formats, I have halted all DVD-A purchases for the reasons stated here, and I expect termination of the format in the next year or two. As someone else has pointed out, most mainstream music buyers don't know or care about SACD/DVD-A, and I don't think the niche will suport two formats. DVD-A will die quietly, I suspect.

So, if I had bought a nice Sony player (SACD-only), I'd have been perfectly happy, and I suspect you would be too. But don't limit yourself to DVD-A, or you'll probably regret it.

 

[Rob Babcock]

In my experience, 4 of those points apply equally to SACD. Maybe it's dumb luck, but I find more stuff I want on DVD-A. I've never seen a portable SACD player, although one may exist. Some SACDs have a CD layer (called 'hybrids'), but most of my SACDs don't- this means they're totally nonportable, too. And I do have some DVD-As in regular jewel cases (Flaming Lips, for example) and well as many SACDs in that absurd quasi-jewel case (ie same general size, but non standard case with rounded corners. Break one and you'll pay $2 each to buy one from the one or two companies that actually sell them).

I don't know what kind of player you guys are using, but I'm exasperated by the totally false claim, repeatedly made, that you need a monitor to play DVD-A: this is simply not the case! At least with my players, you pop them in and press "play"! Voila, they play! Perhaps you haven't set up the player to default to that layer? In that eventuality, you may indeed need a monitor for initial setup, but of course you don't to play them back. Of course, every DVD-A I have has extra video content (eg lyrics, pictures, etc). You won't get to see them without a monitor or course, but you needn't avail yourself of the video stuff if you only want to listen to the audio track.

Curiously, I started out supporting both formats, but I've sold off all my duplicate SACDs and now mostly buy DVD-A, and when the same thing is available for both formats it's the DVD-A that I buy. Mostly this is due to the fact that IMOHO, DVD-A generally sounds better. [Before you reach for the flamethrower, I realize many SACDs have a PCM conversion in the process somewhere, and it's rare to get a perfect apples-to-apples compro. I'm only basing this statement on the 50 or so of each format I've used, and not necessary the same ones. So in a general sense, I've found that with the discs I've heard, DVD-A tends to sound better. Could be my ears or simply a fluke in the discs I've heard. Now, grab the napalm if you must!] I rather expect SACD to fade away over then next few years. Already the rumors are there that Sony is pulling the plug, and DSD is nowhere to be found on the standards list for BluRay, which I think is telling since Sony is the bit booster of that format (and given that there are several lossless codecs already worked into the mandatory standards for BR & HD DVD).

That said, I'll continue to buy both formats as necessary to get a given album, and I'll always keep a universal player as long as I have both types of discs. Obviously, is so often said, YMMV. Despite the title of this thread, I don't think an argument of the merits of each was what he intended. A universal player is still a great idea, and of course whichever format "makes it" will be supported. After all, one may kill off the other, or both might succeed, or both might fail- statistically, the latter is the most likely guess. But either way, a good universal will not only play them all, but you regular CDs and DVDs.

 

[Colonel_Tomb]

Maybe it's dumb luck, but I find more stuff I want on DVD-A.

Maybe it's a difference in musical taste, but my experience is exactly the opposite. I have 51 high-resolution disks, only six of which are DVD-A. There are a few more DVD-A disks available that I've considered buying, but, as I've already stated, I'm wary of the format. On the other hand, I'll soon be placing an order for 17 more SACDs, none of which are available on DVD-A.

If there are any major catalogs available on DVD-A, damned if I know about them. Just off the top of my head, I know of several popular catalogs available on SACD -- The Rolling Stones' entire ABKCO catalog, the Police, Peter Gabriel, most of Bob Dylan -- and the Kinks' Konk/Velvel catalog is coming out in stages. Plus there are myriad rock 'n' roll classics available on SACD, without question more than on DVD-A. Or go to http://www.highfidelityreview.com and follow the release news. It runs about 5 to 1 in favor of SACD.

I've never seen a portable SACD player, although one may exist. Some SACDs have a CD layer (called 'hybrids'), but most of my SACDs don't- this means they're totally nonportable, too.

As I stated in my original post, I don't care for single-layer SACDs either. Many early SACDs were single-layer (I believe the original plant couldn't produce hybrid disks), but now dual-layer disks are the norm, so there's no need for SACD portables, although a 5.1 SACD system for the car would be cool. ('Course this would debut in an S-class Benz or the like.)

The vast majority of the SACD titles I have or want are hybrids, and of the 45 SACDs I currently own, 39 are dual-layer. In my next SACD order -- pending some new releases from Universal -- 15 of the 17 disks will be dual-layer. I'll admit, though, that there are a few existing SACD titles out there I'd like to have, but they're single-layer, and I won't bite

And I do have some DVD-As in regular jewel cases (Flaming Lips, for example) and well as many SACDs in that absurd quasi-jewel case (ie same general size, but non standard case with rounded corners. Break one and you'll pay $2 each to buy one from the one or two companies that actually sell them).

I have never seen a DVD-A in a standard-sized jewel case; glad to hear there's such a thing. As for the "deluxe" SACD case (with the rounded corners), it's exactly the same size as a standard CD case, and I actually like them. ('Course I've never broken one.) But you do realize that many DVD-A's use the same style rounded-corner jewel case, only (for no apparent reason) larger?

Curiously, I started out supporting both formats, but I've sold off all my duplicate SACDs and now mostly buy DVD-A, and when the same thing is available for both formats it's the DVD-A that I buy. Mostly this is due to the fact that IMOHO, DVD-A generally sounds better. [Before you reach for the flamethrower, I realize many SACDs have a PCM conversion in the process somewhere, and it's rare to get a perfect apples-to-apples compro. I'm only basing this statement on the 50 or so of each format I've used, and not necessary the same ones. So in a general sense, I've found that with the discs I've heard, DVD-A tends to sound better. Could be my ears or simply a fluke in the discs I've heard. Now, grab the napalm if you must!]

I don't buy this part, but it's not flame-worthy. All the SACDs and DVD-As I own sound excellent (except for the very-early Rolling Stones, which can't be saved), but, to be honest, I have my doubts as to whether SACD or DVD-A really sounds better than a newly remastered CD. But that's another issue, and I'm gonna start a new thread to see what others think of just that.

For what it's worth -- not so much in my book -- the "golden-eared" crowd at The Absolute Sound insists that SACD sounds "more like analog," meaning, to them, better.

I rather expect SACD to fade away over then next few years.

I think the introduction of DualDisk strongly suggests that DVD-A, as originally conceived, is already dead.

 

[Unregistered]

Get a universal

This shouldn't be a quandry. You can have both for under $200 with the Pioneer 578.

You can go up the ladder and get a Denon 2900 for $699 shipped from Crutchfields.

You can buy the Sony 975 and the Panasonic s97, have both, and probably spend less total than you would on even the nice Denon.

Botton line: Don't need to choose between the two; get both!