sacd - dvd-a

[footman]

<font color='#000000'>Over the past three months I have purchased 11 high resolution discs. &nbsp; All new artists from different music genres. &nbsp; Each offering something different with highly acceptable audio. &nbsp; I have been doing audio for over 30 years, sacd and dvd-a has breathed &nbsp;new life into my interest. &nbsp; My buying of cd's and lp's will not stop but I will always browse first &nbsp;at the new formats.</font>

 

[im timmy]

<font color='#A8A8A8'>Hello, I have recently purchased my first dvd-a/sacd player and am a novice listener to these 2 newer formats. I am looking forward to buying some new dvd-a's. Some titles include EAGLES, LED ZEP, THE BLUE MAN GROUP DISC etc. I am wondering if anyone can explain some of the differences between the 2 formats and what I can expect. Does 1 format have any audio quality difference than the other? I keep seeing comparisons between dvd-a and sacd, but don't quite understand if 1 is superior to the other. Just lookin for some opinions, thanks

</font>

 

[RX-V2400]

<font color='#000000'>As we already have 5.1,6.6 DTS why do we need a nother format for music without the video. If THX make movie sound "so good" how come SACD is better?</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>DTS & Dolby Digital sound okay for what they are- extremely compressed formats.  They are to SACD & DVD-A as MP3 is to LPs or CDs.  The whole raison d'ete for DTS is to cram sound onto a disc that needs most of the bitrate for video.  While not 'high end', DD & DTS work well and sound great for what they are.

SACD & DVD sound so much better because they devote many times more space to the audio signal.  On a DVD movie you may have only 10% of the disc reserved for the sound.  On an SACD virtually all the room is for the music.

As for THX, it arguably can offer an improvement if all the components are certified, but THX mostly pertains to film sound and has very little to do with music performance.</font>

 

[RX-V2400]

<font color='#000000'>Hello Rob:

What I was getting at is this: As most of usl have 5/6.1 systems with DVD players why not utilize a regular DVD that is 100% dedicated to music (no video) so we can play Hi-Fi multi-track music from our DVD players, avoiding buying a new player. Would not the sound quality then be as good as SACD or the same as DVD-audio, or is this DVD audio? And if so why the need for SADC?</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>Even with the awesome capacity of a DVD disc, you still can't fit 5.1 X 96khz X 24 bits on the disc. &nbsp;DVD-A utilized "MLP" or "Meridian Lossless Packing" to squeeze all that data in (think Winzip for music- the data is compressed and reopened losslessly. &nbsp;This was designed my guys obviously a lot smarter than me!).

As for SACD, the main "need" being served by this product is the need for Sony to develope a new revenue stream. &nbsp;Sony & Philips hold the patent for the CD (which every manufacturer had to pay for for many years)- now this patent has expired. &nbsp;So they need a new proprietary technology to whore out...er, I mean, "liscence out."

I think SACD sounds great, but at the end of the day I wish it'd never been created. &nbsp;Mostly it just dilutes what little mainstream interest there is in hi rez MC, IMOHO. &nbsp;DVD video has a lot of momentum, and without the Format War talk I think DVD-A coulda been launched more successfully. &nbsp;Of course, with the way it's lauch was (mis)handled, Ebola got a warmer greeting...

I'b be happier if SACD would just go away, in one sense. &nbsp;DVD-A makes more sense on many levels (a proven & mature technology in PCM, good compatibility with DVD-Video, strong coattails to ride on, lots of flexibility on how the channels are coded, extra video content, etc etc).

NOTE: &nbsp;before you think I don't like SACD, think again. &nbsp;I have exactly 25 DVD-A discs and 25 SACD. &nbsp;It's a dead heat in my collection.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Rob Babcock : As for SACD, the main "need" being served by this product is the need for Sony to develope a new revenue stream.  Sony & Philips hold the patent for the CD (which every manufacturer had to pay for for many years)- now this patent has expired.  So they need a new proprietary technology to whore out...er, I mean, "liscence out."

Tsk, tsk! You aren't suggesting that such crass considerations mean more than a pure desire for ultimate sonic fidelity on their part, are you?

Besides that, I read in The Audio Critic that another reason is that SACD is easier to copy-protect and watermark*. DVD copy protection, as you may recall, was cracked by a teenager awhile back.

I still think that the future of audio will not involve any sort of disks at all, but an "audiophile iPod" equivalent. I would be willing to bet that the technology is already there, but the lawyers and suits are holding it up. Thus concludes my conspiracy theory!

*Aczel, Peter. "Direct Stream Digital and the 'Super Audio CD': Big-deal technology or bigtime marketing?" The Audio Critic, issue 26, Fall 2000.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>I personally haven't been too impressed with the few sacds I own, but it is a little better, mostly on the low end (like an Lp). I don't go out of my way to buy them, and I only buy hybrids. I think it unwise to buy single layer discs, (unless money isn't an issue) as the format might go the way of quadrophonic. I haven't heard dvd-a yet. I think the dvd guys really screwed up bad not coming out with very many discs, as opposed to Sonys and others aggressive sacd output. I'll have to agree with Rip on the conspiracy issue. Isn't it funny how all this stuff is coming out with the free mp3 downloading and all...    

</font>

 

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>The one that will win is the one with the titles, so far sony has the lead. It is just that simple, have software for people to buy or go the way of the Laser Disk, DAT, Betamax, ect. The SACD seems like the winner so far. DTS 96/24 sounds superb I wish they would produce more titles.</font>

 

[mikenyc]

What's up with SACD ????

<font color='#000000'>The one that will win is the one with the titles, so far sony has the lead. It is just that simple, have software for people to buy or go the way of the Laser Disk, DAT, Betamax, ect. The SACD seems like the winner so far. DTS 96/24 sounds superb I wish they would produce more titles.</font>

It seems that with the announcement of the impending release of "regular" (apparent jewel box packaged) CD versions of the already released Bob Dylan hybrids, I see in a couple of forums that I subscribe to, a "concern" that there is the Smell Of Death around the SACD format, in general.

GRANTED, SONY and UMG, in particular, are in the middle of some corporate upheaval at the moment, and at least SONY's future SACD release schedule seems to be non-existent at the moment.

In addition to this, and with all of the talk starting about Blue Ray , IS the technology at the crossroads, marketing wise, or is it REALLY starting to die on the vine ????