SACD Vs. DVD-A format

[brushro]

When discussing these multi-channel formats is there a clear "winner" or who does a better job?...is it worth missing out on the DVD-A titles to buy a SACD only (Sony) unit?-Are either/both of these formats & the'yre respective commercial title availability (presently or in the future) something that will be with us awhile?-which has more demand for sales to steer the market?
Thank You

 

[pbarach1]

When discussing these multi-channel formats is there a clear "winner" or who does a better job?...is it worth missing out on the DVD-A titles to buy a SACD only (Sony) unit?-Are either/both of these formats & the'yre respective commercial title availability (presently or in the future) something that will be with us awhile?-which has more demand for sales to steer the market?
Thank You

I have seen various posts saying "SACD is dead," but others disagree (since there is still a fair amount of classical music being issued overseas on SACD, and some here). My impression is that SACD is definitely dead if you don't listen to classical music.

When it comes to DVD-Audio, I think it's safe to say that it's dead.
Not that there's anything wrong with the sound quality of either format--the problem was marketing.

 

[MACCA350]

As to the differences between SACD and DVD-Audio.

SACD: at its core is DSD encoded audio, 1bit/2.8224MHz with a max frequency response of 0Hz-100kHz and a dynamic range of 120db
This DSD encoding is what Sony uses to store all their masters(apparently they were transferring their original PCM stock over to DSD, although I'm not sure if they are still doing this)

This DSD encode is compressed losslessly using DST(Direct Stream Transfer) to fit on the DVD layer of a SACD(DST is mandatory for multichannel and optional for stereo recordings)

DVD-AUDIO: at its core is Linear PCM encoded audio, up to 24bit/192kHz with a max frequency response of 0Hz-96kHz and a dynamic range of 144db. This Linear PCM encoding is what most of the industry uses to store their masters.

This Linear PCM encode is compressed losslessly using MLP(Meridian Lossless Packing) also known as PPCM(Packed PCM) to fit on the DVD-Audio disc

Taken from Wikipedia:

....one cannot make a direct comparison between DSD and PCM. An approximation is possible, though, and would place DSD in some aspects comparable to a PCM format that has a bit depth of 20 bits and a sampling frequency of 192kHz. PCM sampled at 24 bits provides a (theoretical) additional 24dB of dynamic range. Due to the effects of quantization noise, the usable bandwidth of the SACD format is approximately 100kHz, which is similar to 192kHz PCM.

Because it has been extremely difficult to carry out DSP operations (for example performing EQ, balance, panning and other changes in the digital domain) in a 1-bit environment, and because of the prevalence of studio equipment such as Pro Tools, which is solely PCM-based, the vast majority of SACDs, especially where rock and contemporary forms which rely on multitrack techniques are concerned, are in fact mixed in PCM (or mixed analogue and recorded on PCM recorders) and then converted to DSD for SACD mastering.

cheers

 

[markw]

Neither of them are setting sales recores as oppossed to redbook CD's, but it would appear that SACD has more titles available and is outselling DVD-Audio.

As for which is "better", well, I'll not go there. Combo players are available so a forced choice isn't necessary. I'd say they are very, very close and it would be difficult to poick a clear winner by listening, assuming a direct comparison could be made.

But, I will say that when considering their relatively equal sound quality, I'd be putting more emphasis on what's available for each format.

 

[Geno]

As Mark W just said, it's difficult to pick a clear winner in the sound quality department. I have about 50 titles now, about half & half. SACDs are mostly jazz & classical, while my DVD-As are mostly rock/pop. Personally, I like the DVD-A format best simply for the video features, which are kind of an expansion of album art. For example, my copy of Donald Fagan's "Nightfly" has a cool animated video of "New Frontier" as well as the lyrics. You get only a "now playing" display on SACDs.

 

[Seth=L]

As Mark W just said, it's difficult to pick a clear winner in the sound quality department. I have about 50 titles now, about half & half. SACDs are mostly jazz & classical, while my DVD-As are mostly rock/pop. Personally, I like the DVD-A format best simply for the video features, which are kind of an expansion of album art. For example, my copy of Donald Fagan's "Nightfly" has a cool animated video of "New Frontier" as well as the lyrics. You get only a "now playing" display on SACDs.

I too am a DVD-Audio fan, but I could live without either format.

 

[mtrycrafts]

When discussing these multi-channel formats is there a clear "winner" or who does a better job?...is it worth missing out on the DVD-A titles to buy a SACD only (Sony) unit?-Are either/both of these formats & the'yre respective commercial title availability (presently or in the future) something that will be with us awhile?-which has more demand for sales to steer the market?
Thank You

Here is a listening evaluation of the two formats.

http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf

Sony doesn't use the 1bit SACS in the studio. That has been shown to be flawed in an JAES paper. Instead they use at least a 4 bit DSD process.
There is an article in Stereopile by David Rich on it as well.

 

[nav]

I own more DVD-Audio albums than I do SACD, but that's largely just because the music I wanted to listen to was available there. I tend to buy a CD and throw it straight into my computer for a lossless rip (to FLAC on a mirrored RAID array for longevity) and then try to never take it out of its packaging again. Both DVD-Audio and SACD albums tend to complicate this process unnecessarily with encryption layers (on disc for DVD-Audio and during DSD transfer for SACD), which obviously sours me on the mediums somewhat.

It seems that most people that manage to transfer DSD to their computer from SACDs do so through modified external players (if someone knows an easier way that doesn't run over four-figures, I'd love to hear it). With DVD-Audio, on the other hand, it is possible to rip the encrypted AUDIO_TS information but it's far too much effort; perhaps if the format ever reached the popularity that DVD-Video has, it would become just as easy. So, I just rip the VIDEO_TS or just their PCM tracks (in good old FLAC) from DVD-Audio discs to my computer instead.

So, if I had to pick one of the formats as my favorite I'd choose DVD-Audio. Though, I do find 1-bit sampling somewhat fascinating and I do like that SACDs are more CD-like than DVD-like in presentation. When both formats die for good due to poor public recognition I will feel they fully deserve it for the trouble they've caused me through their copy-protection.