SACD/DVD-A Questions

[Paul F]

Hi, since I've never owned a player capable of handling these new discs - here's a area I don't understand.

My understanding is that both of these formats increase listening quality/pleasure primarily through the use of multiple recording channels that then are reproduced accordingly in a good 5.1/7.1 HTS. Is this true at all? True for just one of these formats and not the other (if so which is which)?

Do either of these formats actually have a higher quality recorded input? Does that make sense? What I mean is like the old CD days when you could tell if a CD contained music that was recorded digitally, or in analog etc - AAD, DDD? - Or, do you still have to look for higher quality recordings via their labeling - ie: "Masters"? Or has that just become a marketing term with no real meaning anymore with regards to actual quality?

What if you want to play a title only in Pure-Direct 2 channel stereo? Does being recorded for multiple channels (5.1/7.1) on SACD or DVD-A actually reduce that listening mode experience? Would just a super high quality recording on a CD play/sound better in that mode???

Sorry if these are really dumb questions!

Thanks for taking the time to fill me in. I've just bought a 3805, am in the process of buying the speakers to give me 5.1 'surround', and am looking forward to buying a higher quality DVD/SACD/DVD-A player, and am already wondering what kind/titles I will buy to start putting a huge grin on my face and impress the wife!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hi, since I've never owned a player capable of handling these new discs - here's a area I don't understand.

My understanding is that both of these formats increase listening quality/pleasure primarily through the use of multiple recording channels that then are reproduced accordingly in a good 5.1/7.1 HTS. Is this true at all? True for just one of these formats and not the other (if so which is which)?

Do either of these formats actually have a higher quality recorded input? Does that make sense? What I mean is like the old CD days when you could tell if a CD contained music that was recorded digitally, or in analog etc - AAD, DDD? - Or, do you still have to look for higher quality recordings via their labeling - ie: "Masters"? Or has that just become a marketing term with no real meaning anymore with regards to actual quality?

What if you want to play a title only in Pure-Direct 2 channel stereo? Does being recorded for multiple channels (5.1/7.1) on SACD or DVD-A actually reduce that listening mode experience? Would just a super high quality recording on a CD play/sound better in that mode???

Sorry if these are really dumb questions!

Thanks for taking the time to fill me in. I've just bought a 3805, am in the process of buying the speakers to give me 5.1 'surround', and am looking forward to buying a higher quality DVD/SACD/DVD-A player, and am already wondering what kind/titles I will buy to start putting a huge grin on my face and impress the wife!

Not a dumb question at all.
To answer in a simple way, those formats are equivalents although differently processed. Certainly they are made from the same master as there is usually only one recording of the event movie. At least the modern ones are. Now if you pick a very old movie, that is a different story as you woul dget it off an old analog master movie track.

If you only want a stereo presentation, your new processor is where you turn to selct this mode. Be sure to read the manual as it has lots of info and will surely answer your questions.

Get a universal player to play the new audio formats as well as the two movie encoding formats and CD. You don't really need to spend much today.

 

[Paul F]

Thanks for the reply. I should be more specific and phrase my questions above to music rather than movies. Since many artists make multiple recordings of the same material at different times using different equipment - does purchasing a DVD-A or a SACD of such a recording in any way relate to it having been from a 'higher fidelity' recording session/mastering work?? Or, would a cheaper, but better recorded/engineered/mastered CD provide a better 2 channel stereo pure-direct mode experience? Is there sufficient info on the new format discs to make an informed decision at the store, or can you only get it from magazines/websites/forums??

If something is engineered explicitly for 5.1/7.1 do you lose something if you play it back in 2 channel as opposed to something explicity engineered for superior 2 channel reproduction????

Thanks for any more input!

 

[Unregistered]

Since many artists make multiple recordings of the same material at different times using different equipment - does purchasing a DVD-A or a SACD of such a recording in any way relate to it having been from a 'higher fidelity' recording session/mastering work??

The quality of mastering varies from disc to disc regardless of whether it is a redbook cd or a sacd/dvd-a. You cannot assume that a sacd/dvd-a was mastered from a higher fidelity master tape and even if it were, there is no guarantee that it will sound better than a normal cd. Just look at the difference between original cds and remasters of the same cd. Some will say 'remastered from the original masters'. That doesn't guarantee that it will sound better and oftentimes it doesn't. Mastering skills vary widely just as the skills of doctors, lawyers, plumbers, etc vary.

 

[FallenAngel]

There are some 2000 SACD and I think less than 1000 DVD-A releases. Often classicial music, jazz and those pop/rock albums we had on vinyl but deteriorated after hundreds of listenings. Many can be bought on-line, not only on Amazon but also at specialized sites.

It's a new technique and industry is still learning. But none of my first 11 purchases has been a disappointment. It is quite easy to find reviews on internet, to check out a particular disc.

Regarding sound quality compared to CD, it is indeed very much depending on recorded material and how it is treated. Some bad stuff out there, but also some serious work using original pre-mixing master tapes.

I'd say multichannel is a matter of taste, and budget for HiFi surround speakers. IMO a good 5.1 remix reinforces the details in the music.

Cheers
FA

 

[Paul F]

Kool,
That seems to be sort of what I was thinking - ie: that SACD/DVD-A in and of itself is not any guarantee of recording quality. I'm still interested in finding out if two absolutely equal recording sessions would result in absolutely equal quality if engineered for both 5.1/7.1 AND 2channel stereo AND were only played back on 2 channel stereo.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Kool,
That seems to be sort of what I was thinking - ie: that SACD/DVD-A in and of itself is not any guarantee of recording quality. I'm still interested in finding out if two absolutely equal recording sessions would result in absolutely equal quality if engineered for both 5.1/7.1 AND 2channel stereo AND were only played back on 2 channel stereo.

I see what you are after. You will get a headache if you ponder this too much. There has been lengthy debates of this at other places.

Just because the technical specs are superior for DVD-A and SACD doesn't mean you will hear it. Human hearing is rather limited and over rated at times by audiophiles

There is not a credible test disc to compare audible differences between Red Book, and the other two. Or between the other two. Probably for good reason


But, if you did find the right disc, no real reason why it would matter as the hearing is the limiting factor, not the medium. So, get a universal player, and get the music you enjoy.