DVD-A or SACD? (1 Viewer)

[KeithH]

Michael,
I absolutely agree with your point about the marketing of surround sound to the masses. However, the average Joe who looks at the Sony SCD-CE775, DVP-NS500V, and DVP-NC650V SACD players at Best Buy will see primarily stereo SACDs alongside them. Also, I was only considering a fair comparison of DVD-Audio and SACD with CD, which would be in stereo. That is why I only considered a $200 pair of Polk speakers in my "typical consumer" system and not a 5.1 set-up. Also, I still feel that most people have stereo systems, not surround-sound systems, so many will probably compare the formats in stereo. If DVD-Video movies have not convinced the majority of people to set up 5.1 systems in their homes, multi-channel music won't either. Music DVDs and DTS CDs certainly have not.
On a related and somewhat sobering note, I wonder how many people out there with DVD players have them connected directly to their TVs for audio, like a VCR, instead of to a stereo system.
Robert,
No problem. Glad to help.
Ric,
So, you got an 'XA777ES? Interesting. Did you get it primarily for multi-channel SACD or were you looking for better CD and stereo SACD playback than your modified 'C333ES could provide? I suppose if you mainly wanted multi-channel SACD, you could have gone with the 'C555ES for a lot less. I know you have been very pleased with the mods on the 'C333ES and with the Perpetual Technologies P-1A/P-3A combo for CD playback, so I thought you would stick with it for CDs and stereo SACDs. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how the 'XA777ES sounds with CDs via the analog outputs and through the P-1A/P-3A set-up. The DAC system and analog output stage on the 'XA777ES are very well-regarded, which is why I am curious as to what you find out. Is it possible that you will sell the 'C333ES or will you keep it for the convenience of a changer?
Evan,
Regarding the CD performance provided by the 'C555ES, like anything else, opinions vary. In reading opinions expressed on Audio Asylum, keep in mind that you are often dealing with people who own or are otherwise very familiar with high-end equipment. What are the 'C555ES naysayers basing their opinion on? What are they comparing it to? In comparison to CD players by Mark Levinson, Krell, Cary, Arcam (certain models), BAT, Musical Fidelity, etc. or more expensive SACD players such as the Sony 'XA777ES or Marantz SA-1, no, the 'C555ES is not going to set the world on fire. Even if they are comparing the 'C555ES to comparably-priced CD players, don't lose sight of the fact that they are expressing their opinions. My opinion is that for $800, the 'C555ES is an outstanding redbook CD player. In the end, you need to get your hands on the player and demo it in your system for awhile with your favorite music. Compare it to other comparably priced CD players. Then decide if it is right for you.

 

[KeithH]

Andrew said:

Actually, do $200-400 recievers even have 5.1 analog inputs and passthrough?

More and more receivers are being equipped with 5.1-channel inputs these days than just one or two years ago. Honestly, I don't know if $250 models have 5.1-channel inputs, but $400 models certainly should. As for analog bypass, the cheaper receivers may not have it for the stereo analog inputs. The 5.1-channel inputs should employ analog bypass by default. Of course, if we consider the average consumer, he or she doesn't know what analog bypass is anyway. If they were to play SACDs and CDs through their systems without analog bypass employed, maybe they wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two formats. Any conclusions drawn could be unfair to SACD. That certainly is problematic. Excellent point. It would be interesting to compare SACD and CD in budget systems with an analog bypass mode engaged.

 

[Greg Cellini]

Hi guys,

The consumer electronics industry being what it is, I thought I'd relay some info that might be of some help.

Let's consider that almost every professional recording system, tape or virtual, of which I know uses a linear PCM format, the majority of those being 24/96. Obviously, analog tape is still preferred by some users (2" tape at 30IPS is still tough to beat), but the overwhelming majority of the latest stuff is PCM based. Virtually EVERY affordable digital multitrack recorder or workstation, currently being offered to professionals, from companies such as Korg, Akai, Roland, Lexicon, Fostex, Mackie, Tascam, Emu, Yamaha, Creative Technologies and DigiDesign, utilize a PCM format. Even SONY’S latest professional 5.1 digital mixer (DMX-R100) and 48-track recorder (PCM3348) are designed to work with and record PCM signals. Virtually EVERY professional digital sampling instrument in existence, past or present, utilizes a PCM format. Let me point out that it would be fairly difficult to find a recording, made within the last 15 years, where samplers weren’t used during the recording process. Samplers are used to “fly in” lead and backround vocals, guitar solos, orchestrations, sound effects and pretty much anything else you can imagine and even some you can’t. In short, some of the instrumentation and vocal sources that you currently listen to originated as PCM data before it was even printed onto a multitrack recorder; analog or digital.

Those of you who support the SACD format would do well to consider that some of the existing and most of any future releases were, and will be, ultimately converted from PCM. Given this specific but very common situation, any advantages that SACD supporters claim over DVD-Audio (slim as they may or may not be) are completely invalid and quite frankly ludicrous. Why convert something that originated as PCM to DSD? Makes no sense. Just something to think about, guys. The majority (certainly not all) of the music you will be listening to, at least in the foreseeable future, will originate from a PCM source. For those of you who aren’t aware, DVD-Audio is PCM format.

Please understand, I am in no way inferring that one format sounds better that the other. Indeed, both formats exceed the threshold of human perception. I'd suggest that those of you that hear a difference perhaps focus on a variable associated with your hardware rather than the actual formats.

Both formats sound outstanding, however, if one format is to be standardized, logic dictates that it should be DVD-Audio. Logistically, I don't see the need for a perfectly good, hi-resolution, 24-bit master to be re-sampled, re-crunched and converted (thereby possibly DEGRADING it) to DSD. WHERE'S THE LOGIC IN THAT??? Even if you're dealing with a primarily analog sourced master, almost everything from vocals to drums are routinely washed through effects processors during the recording process. This means a variable portion of that pristine analog vocal track is being digitized and processed into, for example, a reverberant signal; in a proprietary PCM format. It's then converted back to analog and sent to the console to be combined with the original analog signal. All digital processors basically work this way and all of them use a PCM type of format; even the newest one from Sony (DRE-S777)!

What I'm trying to convey is that the preferred digital standard in the professional recording industry is 24/96 PCM. The recording industry (THE SOURCE OF THE MUSIC WE LISTEN TO) is supporting PCM. The peripheral industries that supply it are primarily manufacturing and developing PCM based product. This is not opinion, but a fact reflected by the overwhelming installed base of PCM recording equipment. The new Studer and SSL digital mixing consoles are PCM based as are the new digital multitracks from Studer and Otari. You'll notice I said "new", not "existing". This is the format the recording industry, as a whole, is supporting. This is the direction in which they are heading.

Bottom line; the recorders, mixing consoles, keyboard instruments and effects processors, with VERY few exceptions, are all PCM based. In short, the source of the stuff we listen to, by an overwhelming majority, for better or worse, is PCM. Even if SACD is a superior sounding format, ITS ONLY GOING TO SOUND AS GOOD AS THE SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having said ALL that, I’ll personally be happy to support the first format that implements a FRIGGIN' DIGITAL OUTPUT STANDARD!!!!!!!!!!!!! No bass management? No time alignment? No sale!!!

Respectfully submitted,

Greg

 

[Marty Neudel]

>SACD and DVD-A aren't intended for people with a Walmart bought RCA home theater in a box. These formats are intended for us HT dorks.<
Actually, SACD is aimed more at the audiophile dork. However, given the reluctance of the software people to accept high-quality digital media in the consumer's hands and given the sluggishness of the world economy, it may be a while before either or both take off. The most important factor is likely to be the depth of the format-backers' pockets.
Marty

 

[David X]

Nice thread ...
Since I started my current upgrade cycle with the delusion of just a dvd player upgrade and a new low end receiver for a 2nd system, I have been looking at the low end stuff quite a bit ... (I ended up with new speakers and sub, and still have the same old dvd player).
Yes, some low end receivers have 5.1 inputs.
For example: Kenwood VR-509, Onkyo 494. Both can be found in the $220 - $280 range.
The kenwood also has on optical out and 2 component video inputs and one component video output @ 10 Mhz.
Kenwood VR-509 back panel
-David

 

[KeithH]

David, do the Kenwood and Onkyo receivers have analog bypass for the stereo analog inputs?

 

[Michael_T]

Both formats sound outstanding, however, if one format is to be standardized, logic dictates that it should be DVD-Audio. Logistically, I don't see the need for a perfectly good, hi-resolution, 24-bit master to be re-sampled, re-crunched and converted (thereby possibly DEGRADING it) to DSD. WHERE'S THE LOGIC IN THAT???

Your argument makes logical and theoretical sense, but my ears tell me differently. I am well aware of the fact that many SACDs will be converted from PCM to DSD - but I have both formats hooked into my system, and I still believe SACD to give the smoother, more musical sound.

Then again, it seems possible that the majority of releases by SONY on SACD have been taken from purely analog sources, which may explain why we haven't seen too many "new releases" on SACD - which has been a major complaint of late on audioasylum. And the new releases I do have on SACD, like Aerosmith "Just Push Play" and Train "Drops of Jupiter", don't sound as good as 99% of all the other SACDs I own - so your argument has a load of truth to it. In fact, the Aerosmith SACD is the worst SACD I own, and I have stated this before, actually, to my ears, sounds worse than the redbook CD (this is the only disc where I can admit to this). But I have also heard some pretty terrible DVD-Audio discs supposedly made from recordings with some PCM inherent in the recording chain. Hootie and the Blowfish comes to mind. I have now listened to that disc 3 times, trying to find where I may have been at fault in my initial impressions on how harsh and bad the disc actually sounds. My opinion still stands, the vocals particularly on this disc are harsh to the point of being unmusical, and at higher volumes almost unlistenable. So both formats can have their problems, and are less than perfect.

Only time will tell which format, if either, will be the better with the longest staying power. My opinion is that both will be niche products for a long time to come, with just enough software to keep the converts happy - but nothing is going to dethrone redbook CD all that quickly.

 

[David X]

Keith:
The Kenwood apparently does. On this vr-509 features page scroll down to the bottom of the "audio features" section and roll your mouse over "source direct listening mode".
Not sure about the Onkyo .. I can't find anything in the manual or onkyusa web site that describes an analog bypass mode. (though it is described as "DVD-A ready", which is rather funny in itself.)
-David

 

[Evan S]

I got my 555ES last night and IMO, even the most rudimentary of systems should be able to tell the difference between Redbook and SACD DEPENDING ON THE RECORDING. Billy Joel's 52nd St. was better on SACD than on Redbook, but the difference was much smaller than I expected based on word of mouth. However, the Luther Vandross cut on my sampler disk included with the player was night and day better than Redbook. How that wouldn't be reproduced on even the most entry level systems is beyond me. My system right now is in the middle of an upgrade and I'm unfortunately having to use a very old receiver to run my SACD through in 2 channel mode only and yet the differences are very clear.

 

[AjayM]

Not so much anymore for SACD, if you know where to shop. Best Buy sells single-layer stereo SACDs for $16.99 and single-layer multi-channel SACDs for $18.99, which is comparable to the prices of CDs at many stores. Note that all multi-channel SACDs have stereo tracks too.

Sure, Best Buy has some good prices on SACD's (cheaper than online in many cases), but their selection is very limited. And if you walk a few aisles over you can pick regular CD's all day long for what, $12-13, out of how many tens/hundres? of thousands of titles? That may be enough of a difference that J6P might say "Why spend an extra $5 for each disc?".

Price and selection is what is going to keep J6P away from these specialty items. Unless the record companies "force" the upgrade (like from going to LP to CD) then I don't see either format taking over anytime soon.

Andrew

 

[KeithH]

David,

Thanks for the info. I would expect Onkyo to include analog bypass on even its entry-level receiver, but maybe they didn't. Hmmm....

Evan,

Glad to hear you are enjoying SACD. My feeling is that the Billy Joel SACDs (I have The Stranger, 52nd Street, and An Innocent Man) are better than the corresponding remastered CDs, which I have as well, but the difference is not astounding. I have not heard the Luther Vandross cut on both CD and SACD, but I am intrigued.

How do you like the 'C555ES in general? I know you just got it, but how do you like it as a CD player? What were you using before for CDs?

 

[JaleelK]

I beg to differ. I own what many would consider mid-fi (Integra 6.2 receiver, NHT 2.5i fronts, NHT Audiocenter 2, NHT 1.5 surrounds, Paradigm PDR-10 sub, Technices DVD-A10 DVD-Audio player, Sony 333ES stereo SACD player, Sony CE775 multichannel SACD player), and I can most definitely hear the difference between the formats.

I doubt if there are detectable audio differences between DVD-A and SACD, unless you conduct a double blind level matched listening test between both formats you're never going to know,sighted listening test are unreliable as you might bias in favor one format over the other.

 

[JaleelK]

Regarding the CD performance provided by the 'C555ES, like anything else, opinions vary. In reading opinions expressed on Audio Asylum, keep in mind that you are often dealing with people who own or are otherwise very familiar with high-end equipment. What are the 'C555ES naysayers basing their opinion on? What are they comparing it to? In comparison to CD players by Mark Levinson, Krell, Cary, Arcam (certain models), BAT, Musical Fidelity, etc. or more expensive SACD players such as the Sony 'XA777ES or Marantz SA-1, no, the 'C555ES is not going to set the world on fire. Even if they are comparing the 'C555ES to comparably-priced CD players, don't lose sight of the fact that they are expressing their opinions.

Those opinions are mostly unreliable opinions from so-called golden-ear audiophiles who usually fail to distinguish a $300. CD player from a $2,000 in double blind level matched listening tests.

 

[Greg Cellini]

Thanks for the reply.

"But I have also heard some pretty terrible DVD-Audio discs supposedly made from recordings with some PCM inherent in the recording chain. Hootie and the Blowfish comes to mind. I have now listened to that disc 3 times, trying to find where I may have been at fault in my initial impressions on how harsh and bad the disc actually sounds. My opinion still stands, the vocals particularly on this disc are harsh to the point of being unmusical, and at higher volumes almost unlistenable. So both formats can have their problems, and are less than perfect."

Mike, I don't think the formats are at fault. As previously stated, both formats are sonically beyond human perception. In fact, SACD and DVD-Audio are sonically superior to most recording equipment (microphones, consoles, etc..) and even the actual playback devices. A more plausible supposition would be that the remix and/or remaster was, by definition, mixed differently. Maybe the vocal track was a little hotter in the mix. Maybe the engineer decided it needed (for better or worse) a shot in the upper-mids. Maybe he was mixing at the end of the day and over-compensated the high-end on everything. The number of variables associated with any remix can be nearly infinite.

Essentially, if one SACD or DVD-audio disc sounds dramatically better than another, you can reasonably conclude, given the superior fidelity of either format, that the discrepancy lies in or around the source material.

Best wishes,

Greg

 

[Evan S]

Keith, I won't reserve judgment on the 555ES until I have it hooked up to my "final" system (which means whenever Outlaw releases their 950).
I've only had the player hooked up for an hour now and seeing as I'm house sitting for my father, I can't play with my new toy. I do believe in "burn in" and I need to give the player 20-25 hours before critical listening.
First impressions? Compared to the Yamaha CDP-91 5 disk changer I was using before, Redbook playback is indeed better, but not by as great a varience as I expected. This could be two things. Either my expectations for the 555ES were too great or my Yamaha is a better player than I gave it credit for. Granted it's about 8 years old, but in doing a side by side comparison using the same amplification and speakers, the differences were there, but slight. I'd say the Yamaha gave me 90% of the performance of the 555ES in redbook mode.
SACD truly is worth the price of the player however. In comparing the Billy Joel in SACD and Redbook, the differences were there, but I have heard this is a mediocre SACD transfer and I would agree with that now. However, hearing the clarity, soundstage and overall impact from general cuts by Cindy Lauper and Luther Vandross, I am now a convert. Vocals come through much clearer than on Redbook and the clarity is astounding. Sounds incredible.
My system right now is just two channel...Paradigm Studio Reference 40's hooked up to a 20 year old Harman Kardon 680I receiver. When I finally get my Anthem MCA 5 hooked up to the Outlaw 950 with all 5 speakers (Paradigm Ref 20's in the back coupled with a Studio CC) I will give you a more critical review. Build quality is awesome though. No complaints there at ALL!

 

[RicP]

Those opinions are mostly unreliable opinions from so-called golden-ear audiophiles who usually fail to distinguish a $300. CD player from a $2,000 in double blind level matched listening tests

Proof please??? If one more "naysayer" (I'm holding my tongue here) spouts the term "double blind level matched listening test" without offering up any sort of proof or documentation whatsoever I'm going to blow a gasket.
I've asked this 12 times before and gotten absolutely no answer so I don't know why I'm trying again...
Jaleel,
Please offer some proof or other documentaion that doesn't come from the ABX site that shows conclusively that "so-called golden-ear audiophiles" were usually unable to differentiate between a $300 CD player and a $1000 CD player.
BTW, I have a $125 CD Player at home and a $2000 CD player. I'll put up $10,000 cash that I can pick out each one 100% of the time. Anyone willing to put up the cash and challenge me please by all means let me know...I could use a new HDTV.

 

[KeithH]

Jaleel, your comments are at best, comical. Give us a break already. If you listened to CDs on my Sony CDP-CX333ES megachanger and Sony SCD-777ES or between the 'CX333ES and my Ah! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 and told me that you honestly didn't hear a difference (not talking about volume here), I would have to tell you that either you are deaf, or pardon my French, full of $hit. To conclude that there is no difference is, frankly, asinine.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

I notice nobody has any problem with sighted tests of display devices.

 

[RicP]

Essentially, if one SACD or DVD-audio disc sounds dramatically better than another, you can reasonably conclude, given the superior fidelity of either format, that the discrepancy lies in or around the source material.

This I agree with. Until we have a singular recording session that is captured in 24/96 PCM, DSD, and 2" analog Tape, and then released on DVD-A, SACD, and Vinyl simultaneously, we will never be able to truly say which format is better.
What I will say based on my 15 months experience with SACD is that for material that was originally recorded in the analog domain, I find DSD/SACD to be a better representation of the music. I've listened to 5 or so DVD-Audio discs from masters that were recorded originally analog and while they sound very very good, miles better than a 16/44 CD, the albums that I've heard on SACD just sound a little bit better, warmer, more "analog".
Now whether this is due to the mastering and/or recording being better on SACD releases is hard to say. If that's the case then I'd say, "Let's get the SACD engineers over to Warner to do some DVD-Audio discs!"
My feeling is that DSD is a better represenation of an original analog signal than hi-rez PCM is. Not by much, and certainly not by "miles", or "light years". In fact the difference to me is subtle, but it's the higher register than usually makes the difference. The SACD's I have that were sourced from analog tape sound warm and have a "you are there" quality. The DVD-A's that I have that are sourced from analog tape sound sharp and clear, very good, but still sound the slightest bit "digital". It's a hard thing to describe so I hoope that I'm doing it well, but that's the best way I can put it.
As far as SACD's from material recorded in PCM, I wouldn't expect the SACD to sound any better in that case, however due to the way that DSD works, I wouldn't expect it to sound any worse either.
I've heard stinker SACD's and stinker DVD-A's over the last year, I've also heard incredible SACD's and incredible DVD-A
s. However, when pressed...the incredible SACD's are just a little bit more incredible than their DVD-A counterparts...so far.

 

[Michael_T]

I couldn't have said it any better, Ric. Thanks for the very coherent and "dead on" post.