A thorough review that shows SACD to be very inferior to DVD-A (1 Viewer)

[Brian-W]

At this time, it looks to me like SACD player sales are being driven by audiophile demand, since Sony has put lots of SACD titles out but there are relatively few DVD-A titles. DVD-A titles however may begin to show up in much greater numbers, driven by player sales as technology advances to the point where manufacturers can put a "DVD-Audio" logo on their player for not much money, and you see the 150-200 dollar players all coming out with support.

There are quite a few SACD players under $500, and even more under $1000. The audiophile argument is no longer valid.

Blame the music companies for failing to put out DVD-A, not Sony. Sony developed a more robust copy protection scheme, and that won over Universal/EMI.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
You keep on saying time and time again, that the HF noise is pushed out to the > 50k band, then you talk about supertweeters with response out to > 50K.
The new Tannoy supertweeters have a -3dB point over 50K. If you're listening to DSD, and using the custom filter, guess what's out there? Well I'll be, it's all that "out of band" noise.
"Tannoy, where we're guaranteeing you'll get all the noise you paid for, even in the ultrasonic region."
Regards,

 

[Robert Elliott]

Why does it appear in reading all the comments posted here - I find the article frequently addressed to be worthless and obviously biased - that the proponents gloss over the fact that the noise level is increasing from 11 - 20K and mention 50K every time? Bottom line, the noise levels from SACD are worse than those from CD in the audible range. Are those differences noticable? Only your ears know but technically it is the less robust solution.

Furthermore, a question to which I thought I knew the answer but a comment made here makes me wonder about. It is my understanding that the SACD recording process actually utilizes a process very similar to the PCM recording process; the naive suggestion being how can SACD be superior to PCM if it is leveraging or converting PCM (or something like PCM) and then converting to SACD?

Finally, in the end, specs mean little. It is your satisfaction that is the ultimate and frankly, only, measurement that means a thing. It would be nice if there were a standard nonetheless.

Look forward to your responses.

 

[John Kotches]

Robert,

According to some in the know, including Andrew Demery from the technical side of SACD:

Encoders are 1-bit.

For editing and DSP the data is noise shaped and converted to an 8-bit "Pseudo-PCM" for these purposes. Following that, another round of noise shaping and conversion to 1-bit.

Decoders are 1-bit.

I actually understand Lee's arguments about the noise issues in-band -- one issue is does the noise cross the threshold of audibility? I don't know the answer to that.

What has not been satisfactorily addressed in my minds eye are intermodulation effects of the ultrasonic noise with components in the audible bandwidth.

Regards,

 

[JaleelK]

1. There is no evidence that one can hear the "noise" introduced at the high frequency range. In fact, even The Absolute Sound's Robert Greene who is no fan of SACD has said this may all get pushed out to 50khz. Can the human hear beyond 50khz? Doubtful, but no one knows and testing for it would be complex.

I think the author of the article was suggesting that SACD/DSD,because noise/distortion at the 8K hz and up range, isn't truly a high resolution format and should not be used for archival material. I think you make a good point, is noise audible at 50khz and beyond, I have read in test data one way or the other, I'm going to assume you have, but the author of the article suggest that the noise starts at 8K hz and beyond, is that audible? Well, the gentleman conducted A/B and ABR listening between SACD and DVD-A using the same master and was able to detect differences between SACD and DVD-A, he indicated some flaws with of SACD in comparison to the master and with DVD-A were quite noticeable.

BTW, I have been trying to reach Peter Moncrief to come to the Forum to discuss his article, I want to know if his test was blind/double blind and level matched.

As for KeithH, I think his statement is fine, but when we are discussing objective audio, like we are doing in this thread, its really not relevant.

 

[Phil A]

While I prefer SACD from what I have heard to date, most of the theories at this point in time are just that. The problem is that in order to do a really good comparison one needs to have the same source in both formats at a minumum. Since there is not much to talk about at this point (at least from the consumer product standpoint for us lowly consumers), only time will tell. Even playing the same source on the same machine in the same system may be hard since a piece of equipment may be better for one source vs. the other. I read an article that the producer or engineer or "Both Sides Now" preferred the material in SACD but since it was WB, it was released in DVD-A. For now I am happier to have material better than convential CDs and with the DV-47A in my bedroom system, I can play and enjoy both formats and with my main system on the other side of the wall, feed it 2-channel stuff. It should be very interesting to see what happens when DVD-A approves their digital connection and what software is available in both formats. I suspect we will see more universal players. Some time down the road Pioneer should have a better model, the Marantz and Denon merger may produce a universal player, Linn should have theirs out before the end of the year, etc/

 

[Westly T]

This is a very quickly written, non-technical opinion I’ve formed over the last few days. Please forgive it’s poor form as I was doing other things at the same time. I'm also leaving shortly and don’t have time to correct it.

So far, with the limited titles I have, I find DVD-A to sounds more real to life to me. The highs are much more apparent and even harsh when compared to CD's or SACD. They are very detailed and accurate. CD's sound somewhat dull in comparison. It somewhat reminds me of the difference I hear between Minidisk and CD. (MD's sound "simplified", detail and depth is lost IMHO. Not very noticeable in my car audio system, perhaps it even sounds better in the car, but definitely noticeable on my home system) My player seems to lack the common features CD players have like random disk - track play. Some disks don't play on their own and multi-hannel or stereo is something you have to choose on the software of the disk (Like DVD's). I find it troubling that they aren't setup like music disks, but like DVD's with options in the software of the disk needing to be manipulated between disks. The player seems very basic and unfinished, lacking any multi channel options and basic features it should have as a music disk changer. (JVC FA90BK)

To me the SACD titles seem to be very smooth and well setup. It's very comfortable to listen to and is easy on the ears. There is a lot of detail, specially in the mid ranges. The player has a better setup and I like that it plays just like a CD, no setup required or studio intros when you play it. The player has the usual features, like shuffle, that you find on a regular CD player. Stereo or multi-channel is selected on the player and stays where you have it set. I did hear one passage on the demo disk where it seemed to replace a sound with noise, but only on that one song and only a few times.

Over all I like both formats and think both have issues. SACD seems more refined but also compromised to sound a way that is less accurate. I think some material will sound better on SACD and that the software available is better controlled and setup for the most part, just as a studio recording sounds better then a live concert (IMHO). They currently are very lacking in their selection of available music types. DVD-A on the other hand seems to me to be more like actually being there, rather then listening to a modified mix a studio had reworked. DVD-A seems to have a wider range of music types in spite of the fact they have less titles available. I will keep both and enjoy them as more titles become available. PS I do agree DSD sounds like the better way of doing it, even if SACD is not perfect as of yet. - My initial two cents.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,

There you go again (in honor of President Reagan)...

You are putting words in my mouth. The Tannoy tweeters are used by audiophiles to listen above 20khz. I do believe we hear north of 20khz, likely to 30khz for females. From 30khz and up, especially 50khz+, it is very doubtful to be audible and certainly not definitely measured to date.

The theory is this, DSD pushes most of this ultrasonic noise out beyond 50khz.

As far as below this in DSD, even John Atkinson who measures all this extra noise statistics you present over and over, says it is very subjective whether we hear it!

I just don't care what happens way out there if SACD has great dynamics, transparency and midrange purity.

By the way folks, there are non-PCM recording chains out there, 100% pure DSD.

Lee

 

[Dzung Pham]

As for KeithH, I think his statement is fine, but when we are discussing objective audio, like we are doing in this thread, its really not relevant.

Jaleel, since you claim to be an expert on DBTs, you should know that DBTs can not be used to show preference. BTW, if level-matched DBTs had been used in the article, one would think they would have said so. Since it wasn't mentioned, I severely doubt DBTs were used. But even if DBTs were used, the only objective statment that could be made is that DVD-A and SACD sound different. Which one sounded more accurate was based on the opinion of the writer and is therefore subjective. So Keith's remarks are completely relevant.

 

[Robert Elliott]

Short and to the point. I just went and listened to SACD. It was a brief audition but I came away with two things: I didn't hear any noise that disturbed me and the cymbals sounded just like cymbals. Is it better than CD? Absolutely. Does it have some technical shortcomings? I am certain it does. Did I hear them? No. Of course, it was playing on Sony speakers which aren't exactly high-end.
Quite honestly, I will upgrade my DVD player at some point to include DVD-A and I was already in the market for a new CD player. A thorough evaluation will be conducted at that point so I may grab a SACD player as well. Of course, I now have to reconsider what I may be missing in the New Tube 4000. Anyone familiar with this player who can give first-hand listening comparisons to SACD?

 

[Ian Montgomerie]

"There are quite a few SACD players under $500, and even more under $1000. The audiophile argument is no longer valid."

(In response to my statement that SACD player sales are being driven by an audiophile market due to greater titles, whereas DVD-A may end up being driven by player sales because it is a cheap feature to put in a player).

The recognized price points within the industry are $100 for low-end, $200 for "step-up", and $300 for high end. Anything significantly above 300 dollars is not mass-market, not for a DVD player. A 400-500 dollar SACD player is still a specialty/audiophile sale. Something that people aren't going to buy unless they are also getting some SACD disks to listen to (or loads of money to burn). And there still aren't nearly enough titles to penetrate much beyond an audiophile/high-end listening market.

DVD-A, on the other hand, may get substantially cheaper in a year or so. You will see DVD-A as a feature adding only 10-20 dollars to player cost, and so becoming ubiquitous in the 200 dollar "step-up" players. In that case, large numbers of people who do not have any DVD-A discs or even plan to buy any, will still buy DVD-A players. Just like a lot of people who do not have progressive TVs are starting to buy progressive players, simply because prices have fallen so they figure it's a feature they might as well have, just in case. "Just in case" is a big part of the pull the industry uses to convince people to buy 200-300 dollar players instead of 100 dollar players. But it doesn't convince joe consumer to pay 400-500 dollars.

 

[Justin Doring]

"The recognized price points within the industry are $100 for low-end, $200 for "step-up", and $300 for high end."

Rrrriiiigghhhhtt.

 

[KeithH]

Ian said:

A 400-500 dollar SACD player is still a specialty/audiophile sale. Something that people aren't going to buy unless they are also getting some SACD disks to listen to (or loads of money to burn).

A person could buy the Sony SCD-C222ES SACD changer for $380-500 and buy few or no SACDs. Remember that it plays CDs too. Likewise, one could buy the Denon DVD-1600 progressive-scan DVD-Audio player and buy few or no DVD-Audio discs. Remember that it plays DVDs and CDs too. Just because these players handle the high-resolution formats, don't assume that people who buy them are going out of their way to find them or are necessarily buying into these high-resolution formats. It isn't hard to track down these players. You want the 'C222ES? Call OneCall, Oade Bros., Crutchfield, or J&R Music World, or go to Tweeter. You want the '1600? Call Crutchfield or go to your local Denon dealer. Tweeter may have it.

 

[Brian-W]

ou will see DVD-A as a feature adding only 10-20 dollars to player cost, and so becoming ubiquitous in the 200 dollar "step-up" players.

In addition to echoing the sentiments of "price vs. performance" (re: $100-$300 players, this is a joke), if this were the case, consumers would never have bought into DVD. Period.

Having worked on the manufacturing side, $10-$20 added cost does not = $200 players. That is a significant cost, and when adding in distribution, sub distribution, and finally retail, $10-$20 is a substantial number.

And it's been noted before the SACD royalty is significantly lower because there aren't a dozen manufacturers involved in the standard.

 

[JaleelK]

Jaleel, since you claim to be an expert on DBTs, you should know that DBTs can not be used to show preference. BTW, if level-matched DBTs had been used in the article, one would think they would have said so. Since it wasn't mentioned, I severely doubt DBTs were used. But even if DBTs were used, the only objective statment that could be made is that DVD-A and SACD sound different. Which one sounded more accurate was based on the opinion of the writer and is therefore subjective. So Keith's remarks are completely relevant.

I'm not an expert on DBT and never claimed to be one. In his article "Digital Wars", I don't think Peter Moncrief actually said he preferred DVD-A over SACD because he liked the sound better. I think he preferred DVD-A because it's more accurate to the original master and better suited fo archival material, at least according to him it is.

I think your statement "if level-matched DBTs had been used in the article, one would think they would have said so" is good one and I tend to agree with you here, however its still an assumption and I rather deal with concrete facts.

Your statement " Which one sounded more accurate was based on the opinion of the writer and is therefore subjective" I disagree with. Mr. Moncrief conducted an ABR test, which means he compared A to R and B to R, R being the reference or original master and "A" being either SACD or DVD-A and "B" being SACD or DVD-A If you are conducting controlled

listening test like this, you are trying to find out which one, A or B sound like or indistinguisable from the ori-

ginal, which is R. When Peter Moncrief conducted this test, he found SACD severly flawed in comparison to the master, he stated the various flaws he found.

As far as DBT, some have accused him of being biased in favor of DVD-A, yet they offer no proof of his bias, but lets assume he is bias, DBT would eliminate any bias from influencing his test results. I'm trying to contact him so that he can come to the Forum to discuss his article with us.

Again, KeithH statement had more to do with subjectivism,

I think this thread is more about objectivism and being objective.

 

[JaleelK]

Jaleel, once again, do an extending listening of SACD. Don't comment on the resolution of a format that you largely unfamiliar with. You have no real experience with SACD, yet you assume the pitfalls the writer speaks of are legitimate. Don't become biased by an obviously biased writer. Let your ears decide. I have.

I've had all the experience I need with SACD, I'm not going to spend my money on a format that maybe flawed. I already have DVD-A and if this gentlemen truly have some insights on where the industry might be going DVD-A instead of SACD, I'm going to take a wait see approach. As you know, I

brought home two SACD players, I wasn't really unimpressed with the sonic performance of the players as I was with the functionality, As I have told you, I don't like Sony SACD players for various reasons that has nothing to do with sound.

 

[Dzung Pham]

Ideally, this A-B demo between the two competing systems would have been an A-B-R, with us sitting in the recording studio, hearing the mike feed from the live performing violin as a reference R, and comparing this reference to the two competing systems A and B, to see how each system differed, and which was more accurate overall. But, since our space-time worm didn't put us at the time and place of the original recording, this ephemeral experiment was lost forever.

Let me paraphrase for you if you still don't understand: an ABR was NOT conducted. And if you agree with me that a DBT probably was not conducted, then an ABR would be equally inconclusive.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I've had all the experience I need with SACD, I'm not going to spend my money on a format that maybe flawed. I already have DVD-A and if this gentlemen truly have some insights on where the industry might be going DVD-A instead of SACD, I'm going to take a wait see approach.

In any format "war", a wait and see approach may not be bad if you are willing to miss some good sonics.

As far as the format being flawed, two well-regarded record labels, Analog Productions and Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs have thrown their weight behind SACD after considering DVDA and will release the bulk of their new titles in the Super Audio format.

Many recording engineers and musicians like Ed Meitner, Mark Levinson and Michael Bishop were impressed enough to go Super Audio only.

If you went to any recent home theater or stereo shows, such as NYC Hifi Show or CES high end at Alexis Park, UK show, you heard a thousand times more Super Audio being played as a source than DVDAudio. In fact DVD Audio was hard to find at the NYC and UK shows. I guess audiophiles who love music have voted with their checkbooks on which sounds better.

Lee

 

[Ian Montgomerie]

At best, any such classification is completely arbitrary, but your classification makes no sense. You mean to tell me that the JVC XV-SA95GD seven-disc DVD-Audio changer for $300 at Best Buy is high-end? I don't think so.

First, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the pattern of features, and number of units sold, based on price. For example, the "low end" has all the basic features you need for the device, and is targeted the most at mass sales with low margins, whereas the "step-up" has substantially higher margins, carrying just enough added features to entice lots of consumers to buy. Above the "high end" of around 300 dollars, sales volume drops off dramatically, gross margins rise dramatically, and buyers are usually better classified as early adopters, afficionados, etc. rather than the "average consumer".

For example, DTS decode is a good identifier of step-up DVD players. DVD Audio and progressive support have been good identifiers of high-end, but now progressive is appearing in step-up products (especially some el-cheapo progressive solutions). SACD is just starting to come down into the high end, where upper-middle-class people not specifically planning to buy SACDs will sometimes buy an SACD player "just in case".

 

[Ian Montgomerie]

In addition to echoing the sentiments of "price vs. performance" (re: $100-$300 players, this is a joke), if this were the case, consumers would never have bought into DVD. Period.

Having worked on the manufacturing side, $10-$20 added cost does not = $200 players. That is a significant cost, and when adding in distribution, sub distribution, and finally retail, $10-$20 is a substantial number.

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? The first consumers who bought into DVD were early adopters, videophiles, etc, a small minority willing to pay lots of money for a player. Then DVD followed the standard growth cycle of a consumer electronics device (albeit very quickly). As companies refined their technology, and competition was attracted to the market, player prices came down. As prices came down, people less and less gung-ho about the format, and in lower and lower income brackets, began to buy (also dependent on the gradual growth of the available titles to interest more and more people). Sales continue to increase as features get cheaper. Now that Walmart and the like are occasionally carrying DVD player loss-leaders for 80 dollars or so, DVD technology has fully entered the mainstream. The market is still far from saturated, but manufacturers still need to convince people to upgrade older players, and to convince new buyers that they should spend 200-300 dollars instead of getting a bargain basement player. So there is a very strong pressure to get new features _cheap_. Consumer electronics manufacturers don't get excited if they can deliver a cool feature in a 400 dollar player. They get very excited if they can have it in a 200 dollar player.

As for 10-20 dollars of added cost not meaning 200 dollar players, I'm not sure what your reasoning there is, either. The "core DVD video" feature set - the stuff you normally find on players without stuff like progressive, DVD audio, or SACD - is getting cheaper and cheaper. With some of the new stuff my company (and its competitors) are doing, DVD-Audio is well within the reach of step-up players. Of course the 10-20 dollars in unit cost to the manufacturer (over and above that of a DVD-Video only player) will be marked up to a larger difference in sticker price. Though it doesn't add to distribution and packaging since that is already counted in the sticker price of a DVD-V player. That's a similar role to what DTS decode has been playing in the past. But the point of a "step-up" player isn't that the consumer NEEDS the features, it's that they'll pay for neat features anyway if they don't push the price out of the appropriate mass-market target range.