Choosing Between SACD & DVD-A: Is It Too Early? (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

So Chuck, I guess you can see the obvious answer to your original question in the responses here....
IMO yes it is too early.
My prediction is that neither of these formats is ever going to be any bigger than the old MFSL and DDCC Audiophile CD market. The clientelle is the same. I have a DVD-A player and it sounds fantastic though there's very little available.
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[Chuck C]

too early....that's what I thought.

------------------
Chuck
Chuckster's HT Equipment List
The Dorm Room Theater

 

[Chris-C]

Not too early!
I'm enjoying both formats right now-No Toto though!
Chris
------------------

 

[Eugene Hsieh]

with the recent announcements by UMG and other large labels to support SACD, I pretty much give the edge to SACD in the format war, since those with the most software wins

That's a valid argument, but I don't think number of software titles equals software availability. I can walk into a number of local stores and find DVD-A (with stuff I have zero interest in mind you) where as it's very difficult to find SACD locally. MarkFrab's comment about the availability of the players is also noteworthy. However, that is not to say I believe DVD-A will be the next CD. People say it's too early really to say and they're right. However, I feel that CD will be the next CD, and as I've said earlier DVD-A and SACD will be niche products with DVD-A being more common for various reasons.
Does anybody know the licensing differences between the two technologies? Sony's involvement with SACD makes me wonder if it's going to be another MiniDisc and Beta. Popular in Japan but shunned (relatively) in so many other places.
Oh, and as anyone knows (and many have already stated), any digital format can be pirated. If there is a want to pirate something, it will be done. People used to say that CD pirating was not a big issue because of the infrastructure required. (I'm not talking about CD-R, etc. but CD pressing plants.) Then they said DVD pirating would not be a big issue for the same reason. Now pirated DVDs are US$1 each in Asia. If it ever comes to pass that SACD is mainstream and there is a market for it, then they will be easily pirated. It's just another digital format after all.
------------------
Eugene Hsieh, VisorCentral FAQ Editor
1000 km on a tank of gas??? Check out the Prius and drive the future now!
Check out my switched Dual Boot DVD Player Hack.

 

[RicP]

If it ever comes to pass that SACD is mainstream and there is a market for it, then they will be easily pirated. It's just another digital format after all.

Yes it is. However...
SACD includes a "visible" watermark on the disc itself that must be read by the player before the disc will even load. If a disc does not have a valid watermark, the player will not even load the TOC off the disc. In order to create this watermark you MUST use an authorized SACD pressing plant.
This will not eliminate piracy of course, but it WILL make it much more expensive than simply pressing a DVD.
------------------
http://www.ricperrott.com
Ric Perrott - My DVD's

 

[MarkFrab]

Chris-C quote: SACD does not rely on PCM coding as does DVDA-therefore a cleaner less processed signal.[/quote]
On offense, but this shows how unfamilier most people really are with DSD. An SACD recording is processed much more than PCM. There are something like 7 output filters on the original Sony SACD player! I think newer players only have 4. And the SACD recording process goes through a huge abount of DSP processing to move the noise into the ultrasonic band!
PCM recording is a far simpler process - sample the sound, write an n-bit word, repeat. In fact, I believe I read that during the mastering process, the DSD signal is converted to and from a PCM stage at some point - can anyone confirm this?
As far as winning and losing go... and the death of the CD. The fact is that the recording industry hates CDs - it's just too easy to copy them. Once either format is widely entrenched (and as I state in my post above, I think that format will be DVD-A), they will begin scaling back on CD releases and drop the price of DVD-A software.
Soon after that, CDs will be a thing of the past - much like cassettes today. SACD might hang around for the audiophiles but DVD-A will be the new common ground.
It won't matter that people bought the DVD-A capable players to play back DVD-V - because regardless the reason, those players will be out there in largers numbers than the SACD players.
Regards,
Mark
[Edited last by MarkFrab on August 29, 2001 at 07:12 PM]

 

[JohnFR]

quote: Why? Because very soon, "universal players" will be out that play everything: CD/VCD/DVD-V/DVD-A/SACD/CD-R/CD-RW, etc, etc.[/quote]
Exactly. As soon as one the above comes out that is quality and reasonably priced, I'm there.
There really doesn't have to be a winner or loser, IMO. If cheap players abound that can play everything, both formats may thrive for quite a while, which is good for us. Competitive formats will be good because they will work to drive software prices down. Since we're really talking about the same disk with different decoding, everyone can have a universal player and have access to both formats. This is not the Betamax/VHS situation where you could not have a player that played both formats.
I do think eventually one of the high-rez format will slowly eclipse CD, although people will have CDs in there collections and still be able to play them on universal players.
JR
[Edited last by JohnFR on August 29, 2001 at 07:15 PM]

 

[Philip Hamm]

Since we're really talking about the same disk with different decoding, everyone can have a universal player and have access to both formats.

DVD-A and SACD are completely different disc technologies. They're about as much "the same" as CD and DVD are "the same".
------------------
Philip Hamm
Pat's the best!™
AIM: PhilBiker
click on the little green house to see the evolution of my home theater!

 

[Wayne_T]

I posted the attached in a similar thread on AVS:
A couple of recent articles infer that the big music companies are not committing all their eggs to one basket.
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0801/28.bmg.shtml http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0801/27.sacd.shtml
A point made in one of the articles is the obvious reason why the music companies will do everything in their power to make one or both of these formats succeed:
"...the music industry has billions of dollars to gain if they can resell their back catalog as they did starting in 1983 with the Compact Disc."
I wouldn't bet against them.
------------------
The bitterness of low quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price has passed.

 

[RicP]

I believe I read that during the mastering process, the DSD signal is converted to and from a PCM stage at some point - can anyone confirm this?

Absolutely 100% Incorrect. DSD is DSD from start to finish in either a native recording or an analog DSD remaster. There is no PCM involved at all.
Creating a DSD master from an LPCM recording is another matter however.
------------------
http://www.ricperrott.com
Ric Perrott - My DVD's

 

[Charles Bober]

First of all, I haven't demoed any of these high resolution formats in person. But I have been doing a lot of technical research to understand how each technology works and what the "experts" are saying about each. There are so many points to examine here, I'll try to keep it minimal. If anyone wants to get into specific specs, e-mail or ICQ me and we can discuss it privately. I don't want to inundate and spew data aimlessly.
quote: In fact, I believe I read that during the mastering process, the DSD signal is converted to and from a PCM stage at some point - can anyone confirm this?[/quote]
Sorry but that's incorrect. DSD is a signal encoding process just like PCM is. DVD-A, not SACD relies on PCM technology. Simply, DVD-A=PCM, SACD=DSD.
Now getting back to the topic at hand, "Choosing Between SACD & DVD-A." All factors point to SACD being the superior high resolution format. The "experts" are singing its praises over DVD-A. Home Theater Mag calls it "...probably the most analog-sounding digital format [they've] ever heard..." Producer Larry Klein, who has worked on recordings for Joni Mitchell & Shawn Colvin, prepared mixes for both DVD-A and SACD and quips, "The sound quality [of DSD recording] is by leaps and bounds the best I've ever heard from a digital format." Bruce Swedien, 5-time Grammy winning producer who has worked with Count Basie, Duke Ellington, & Sarah Vaughn, reports, " I hear the dynamics [with DSD] exactly as they went in, which, to me, is the bottom line."
This is just a small sampling of "experts" who have chimed in regarding the DVD-A vs. SACD debate. Now if these engineers, who live the analog recording world everday, say that SACD presents the truest representation of "what music sounds like in real life," then I give it my ultimate priority. When these gurus can barely tell the difference between analog and DSD, us non-gurus have to take notice.
Both formats offer backwards compatability with current CD players. Both formats offer multi-channel mixes. Both formats offer alternative mixes other than the high resolution option.
So what will set the 2 apart? It should stricly be the audio performance, right? Well we all know from the Beta/VHS war, that is not always true. Marketing plays a major part in the battle. Kenwood, Panasonic, Pioneer, JVC, Onkyo/Integra, Konka, Toshiba, & Yamaha offer DVD-A players ranging from $240-$1626 (using www.pricescan.com ) with models from Denon, Meridian, HK, Rotel, & Samsung on the way. Sony, Marantz, Sharp, Accuphase, and Classe offer 2-channel SACD players, with Sony & Philips making multi-channel machines ranging from $700-$6500 (and 50 additional licensees that have not announced any plans to offer any players). So we have diversity with big names on board regarding both formats. Software wise, only Sony for SACD and Warner Music for DVD-A are offering titles.
So with all the "other" issues being equal, shouldn't the overall audio performance be the deciding factor? The media itself isn't changing (like with LP vs. CD) so the size, convenience, & portability factor doesn't change either. All new formats are considered audio/videophile technologies as we are the early adopters and crave the advances in our beloved passion. So shouldn't we, the educated, united home theater/audiophile junkies that we are, say which format becomes the standard? I only press this issue so that we once again realize that only by participating do we shape our hobby and earn the right to handpick the superior technology, so another Beta doesn't lose out to an inferior competitor. Participating also gives us credibilty when we offer feedback and suggestions, or if we complain and bitch.
Let the information flow continue. This is great!!!!!!
------------------
DTS Laser Disc. Size Does Matter
[Edited last by Charles Bober on August 29, 2001 at 11:13 PM]
[Edited last by Charles Bober on August 29, 2001 at 11:14 PM]
[Edited last by Charles Bober on August 29, 2001 at 11:15 PM]

 

[JohnFR]

DVD-A and SACD are completely different disc technologies. They're about as much "the same" as CD and DVD are "the same"

Well, they both in fact use a disc of the same size which is read by a laser, so I disagree that the disc technologies are "completely different" to that extent. I do realize they are not the same on the shiny side.
The point is, you can stick all three of these discs into the same hole and play them in a player designed for all three formats.
JR

 

[PatrickM]

Charles,
I really don't know which is better but I know that I'm probably going to have players that do both. I already have a DVD-A and I'll be getting a SACD in a bit.
As for what the experts say, you listed some that say SACD is better. The head of Telarc also believes this but there are many who say 24/96 or 24/192 LPCM is better as can be found in the Issue 130 and Issue 131 of The Absolute Sound.
Paul Stubblebine who has been mastering recordings since the early 70's. He was one of the first to produce an LP from an entirely digital source in 78 and was one of the first to use HDCD. His quote, "I've done most of my work with SACD and, at its best, it can sound really, really good. But, I've found that DVD-A can sound noticeably better if done right.
In an in depth analysis in the same issue the opening quote by Robert E. Greene is, "SACD is advertised as more 'analog' in sound; DVD-Audio is said to have less information. But as we shall see, the opposite is true.
It then goes on to describe the technologies and why this is true.
There was also one PhD. in mathematics who dissected the DSD process and proclaimed it to be much less accurate than LPCM.
In issue 131 Robert E. Greene brought together a panel of listeners and compared the exact same recording made into a CD, SACD and DVD 24/96 (since they didn't have a DVD-A at the time but the DVD 24/96 is basically DVD-A without MLP) and the panel came out on the side of the DVD.
I'm not saying one is better than the other but there are experts who are well regarded on both sides that have completely differing views so it is way too early to decide which if either format will win the war.
Patrick
------------------
If you live in Vancouver, B.C. or the surrounding areas, take a look at the Local Home Theater Forum Meets section for a Vancouver meet.
My DVD Collection

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I personally believe that SACD *and* DVD-A are enough improved from CD, that it actually doesn't matter which is the "better" sounding format. Bottom line, they both give better sound quality than 16 bit/44.1 kHz PCM. And I'm betting, that with a properly conducted A/B/X test, with source material of the same mastering, (the *only* difference being DVD-A vs SACD), I would be really willing to bet that a difference can't be heard. By anyone.
And even to go out on a limb, I bet that *most* people (not all, but most) wouldn't even hear a difference between the same 2 channel master between CD and either DVD-A or SACD.
Ever try to set the levels on your HT by ear alone? Then compare with a sound meter? People's hearing isn't that great.
But I don't think the average Joe Schmoe on the street will look at it at quite that level.
I think the person who talked about the *availability* of the software got it right.
Me, cruising my neighborhood used/new CD/DVD shop today. Not even looking, I found 1 DVD-A disc. No SACD discs. Maybe that will change over time. It will have to for *any* of the two formats to survive.
------------------

 

[Chris-C]

Ouch MarkFrab that hurt!
I guess I was caught up in the Sony hype of their new format, but there is No PCM in DSD thats for sure.
Thanks for the shot.
Now i'm recovered I thought I would relate a Real World situation with my SACD/DVDA comparisons.
As some know I have both multichannel formats,and am trying to compare the two with each new batch of software I receive.
Tuesday I received 2 multichannel SACD's.
Billy Joel's "The Stranger" and Jeff Beck's "Blow by Blow".
Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" is also on its way.
At first play I was deeply disappointed with the new discs-as compared to DVDA's.
The reason being-on the SACD's the mixing of vocals and instruments seemed foreign compared to DVDA.
Most of my DVDA's (18 so far) all sound like they were Remastered with the same equipment-although they were not.
So they all seem to blend into my meager 5 speaker setup (no sub) smoothly.
I realize since I don't have the same titles in both formats my observations are also more difficult.
With the SACD's it appears that the redirecting of vocals and intruments are more obvious.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Part of my distress was my SACD player's bass management was set to all 5 speakers large,and I was getting "muddy" (technical term) sound from my small center channel and rears.
Once I changed the SACD's(Sony CE 775) bass management to front/large-center/rear small the playback improved greatly.
Since the mixes are now more clear it's revealing how the engineer's steer the music.
So for now as I still am tweaking my settings and I don't think I prefer either format over the other.
They're both revealing and clear.
As a side note the gentleman who noted only Sony and Warner are releasing SACD and DVDA titles that is incorrect.
Those are the major labels ,BUT there are many smaller label SACD's and DVDA's also available.
As for finding titles in B&M stores-Tower Records in Calif has a section, but most other retail stores are very slow to commit or acknowledge. Plus Tower is full MSRP no discount!
Thats whats great about the "net" leading the way in new technology and formats, and lower prices(usually).
Regards
Chris
------------------

 

[Philip Hamm]

quote: Both formats offer backwards compatability with current CD players.[/quote]Once again, this is incorrect. DVD-A is not backwards compatable with CD at all. It's not even backward compatible with DVD-V unless the DVD-A authors decide to throw a DVD-V session on the disc. SACD has a CD backwards compatability layer, but it is not universally applied to SACD recordings.
I think, as I wrote previously, the answer to Chuck's original question becomes more apparent with every post.
------------------
Philip Hamm
Pat's the best!™
AIM: PhilBiker
click on the little green house to see the evolution of my home theater!
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on August 30, 2001 at 07:37 AM]

 

[John Kotches]

Phil,
They don't "decide" to include a DVD-V layer (actually a VIDEO_TS directory).
It is mandatory in the DVD-A spec to insure backwards compatability with all DVD-V players.
Regards,
------------------
John Kotches
Contributing Writer
Link Removed

 

[Charles Bober]

Phil,
Both formats either offer right now or will offer in the future some sort of backwards compatability with CD players. I do not have my reference materials in front of me as I'm at work. I will post later this evening with that data. These technologies are so uncharted (not necessarily new) that I haven't memorized the specs by heart. Plus we have 2 competing formats that go about the high resolution process in totally different ways.
We ARE the audio/videophiles and either don't know, understand, or agree on the these formats. Imagine what J6P is thinking. He is definitely steering clear of this whole mess. Indeed this might turn out to be, as stated earlier, the audio industry's "Laser Disc."
Phil----------do you think we need an archive for the DVD-A/SACD formats outlining the specs, encoding procedures, & FAQ's? I'd be delighted to write it up and submit it for HTF. Subject to your approval of course

------------------
DTS Laser Disc. Size Does Matter

 

[ReggieW]

I agree with Philip.
DVD-A is certainly NOT backwards compatible with a CD player anymore than a DVD is AT THIS TIME. I have never been able to play a DVD-A on a regular CD player, period, and the instructions on my DVD-A's strictly state that "this disc cannot be playeed on a CD player and most DVD players." If a regular two channel stereo, DD, or DTS track is included on the disc, THEN it can be played on a regular DVD Video player. If a DVD video player is not equipped to handle a high-resolution music format, it won't play it, trust me, I've tried it. I am speaking from experience as an owner of a DVD-A player, not what I've heard or read.
REG
[Edited last by ReggieW on August 30, 2001 at 11:05 AM]

 

[Philip Hamm]

quote: Both formats either offer right now or will offer in the future some sort of backwards compatability with CD players. [/quote]I believe that it is completely impossible to create a DVD that is backwards compatible with CD players. Unless someone finds a way to change the laws of physics it simply can not be done.
quote: It is mandatory in the DVD-A spec to insure backwards compatability with all DVD-V players.[/quote]I was unaware of this. Acording to the http://www.digitalaudioguide.com/faq/dvd-audio/faq_3.htm#Can%20my%20DVD-Video%20player%20or%20my%20CD%20player%20play%20DVD-Audio%20discs?
------------------
Philip Hamm
Pat's the best!™
AIM: PhilBiker
click on the little green house to see the evolution of my home theater!
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on August 30, 2001 at 12:00 PM]
[Edited last by Philip Hamm on August 30, 2001 at 12:01 PM]