DVD-A vs SACD..Which do you like best? (1 Viewer)

[Jeffrey Noel]

Thought I'd ask before I go out and buy the Sony 775 SACD player. Have any of you compared DVD-A and SACD and found one to be superior? I know it's all opinion, but I was just curious.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Greg Br]

I like DVD A better but I have the 775 player and it is a great cd player for your system, and everyone needs a good cd player!

 

[Mark Brewer]

I just got the 775 about a week ago, but I'm waiting for some SACD to come in the. So.....

I went out and got the JVCxv-sa70bk DVD-A/DVD-V

It sounds great!!!!

My wife who thinks more than 1 speaker is overkill was impressed.

But also I'm looking foward to hearing SACD when the discs come in.

 

[KeithH]

I have both formats and prefer SACD. DVD-Audio has some standout titles musically and sonically, but not nearly enough of them. Obviously, the SACD catalog is limited too, but there are many more titles out on SACD than DVD-Audio. Also, I feel SACD on the whole sounds better than DVD-Audio, though admittedly, I am using different components for such comparisons. Along those lines, I feel SACD players are better audio components for the most part. The majority of SACD players are built to a higher standard than DVD-Audio players. Finally, SACD is more user friendly, since it operates just like a CD.

The problem with asking this sort of question is that no one can answer which format is better inherently. All we can do is say which one we prefer based on our experiences and the current state of each format. For example, if there were more DVD-Audio players available that offered the quality of Sony's ES SACD players for the money, I would have a more positive view of DVD-Audio. Likewise, if DVD-Audio were to catch up with SACD in the number of titles available, I would once again view DVD-Audio more favorably.

 

[Micahel C]

I also have both formats, but prefer DVD-A over SACD due to the music titles available. Of the over 600 SACD's available, I own a total of 12. Out of over 200 DVD-A's I own 50. I'm strictly into multichannel surround music so the massive collection of stereo SACD's hold no interest for me. In addition, the majority of titles are jazz or classical which I don't listen to. In contrast, the majority of all DVD-A's are multichannel and there are a lot of pop/rock titles currently available. Bottom line is I purchase the titles I like regardless of format.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I guess my tag line below gives me away but I have both and prefer SACD due to the more natural sound. I believe more titles will be coming but I feel the sound quality in general is on average better than DVDA. I also work in a studio and DSD seems more like the master tape to me when the team A/Bs the sources on the recording chain. I also find accessing the music to be more convenient with SACD. If you go this route, the more recent pure DSD recordings are the better records to get, particularly the new releases from Analogue Productions.

 

[Phil A]

I have both formats as well and prefer SACD in terms of sound quality vs. CD and in ease of use. The main advantage to DVDA is that it will play on any DVD player, unfortunately without a DVDA player, this means listening to a DD or DTS mix which in most cases I have heard are clean recordings but unfortunately play games with the rear channels and don't sound very musically natural (e.g. background vocals from the rear channels). I would prefer that DVDA would leave the DD or DTS mix behind and include the highest resolution DVDA on the disc. Hopefully the studios will pump out more software for each.

 

[Greg Br]

Since the majority of SACD is two channel thus far and I like the multi channel format I play more DVD Audio titles. Both formats have great resolution so picking which one I use comes down to the title I want to listen to at any given time. Since I needed a solid DVD player I got one with DVD Audio, since I needed a good cd player I got one with SACD playback, so I did not need to make a choice. The biggest problem for me is not the format but the bass management issues and the fact my receiver only has one set of 6 channel inputs. I know the ICBM is there but once you add the extra cables and shipping that item will be about the cost of my two players together, $400, which is still not much but to a low end audio guy like me...

 

[John Kotches]

I have capabiity for both, and to date DVD-A has more titles of personal interest to me.

Both are capable of exquisite reproduction, and both continue to frustrate due to lack of availibility of standardized digital outputs.

Regards,

 

[Micahel C]

Jeffrey,

As you can tell from the varied responses, as Keith mentioned, it all boils down to a matter of personal preferences. You'll note however that there are a lot of individuals listening to both formats. Personally, I feel sorry for those folks who've aligned themselves specifically to one format or the other and spend all of their time berating the other side. In the end, they are the real losers due to limiting themselves to basically half of what is available. There is great music to be heard on both formats and the music is what it's all about.

 

[Jeff Keene]

What Micahel said.

My player (Pioneer 47a) has been called a much better DVD-A player than SACD player. SACD still sounds better than CD to me, but yeah, I guess with the unscientific comparisons I've been able to make, DVD-A fills the room a little more with my player. To me it's like saying the prime steak at Mortons tastes a little better than the prime steak at Ruth's Chris.

Ultimately, I waited until I could have both without a silly mess of wires. I'm now very happy to be able to buy any disc that strikes my fancy, and know that it will make me smile.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I agree with what Micahel said as well. I listen to both, but I still prefer SACD so far.

 

[David Judah]

I like them both audio quality-wise.

From a general use standpoint, I like the fact that DVD-A is capable of being connected to a display device and content providers have the flexibility to add pictures, lyrics, information about the artists, interviews, music videos, etc...

I know some consider it a liability, and think the audio suffers because there is a video section included, but I have not found that to be the case.

DJ

 

[KeithH]

Michael said:

I know some consider it a liability, and think the audio suffers because there is a video section included, but I have not found that to be the case.

Many believe that DVD players suffer as CD players due to the inclusion of video circuitry. I have observed this. Now, I can't say whether video circuitry causes interference with audio circuitry, though it is a possibility if the design is poor. However, my main issue here is that the allocation of a portion of a design budget to video circuitry can lead to compromises in the audio section. This manifests itself in the observation that DVD players are inferior audio components in relation to comparably priced CD players, in my experience. As an extension of this notion, it is possible that video circuitry compromises the sound quality of the DVD-Audio format, but no one can say for sure.
My main issue with the incorporation of video into DVD-Audio is that it renders discs more cumbersome to use than CDs and SACDs. With my DVD-Audio player, I can operate Warner discs very easily without a TV. However, discs from other labels are not user friendly in this department. Also, some players are difficult to operate without a TV. I just don't like the fact that the use of a display was made the standard instead of creating a standard for both hardware and the authoring of software where the use of a display would be optional.

 

[Jeff Keene]

My main issue with the incorporation of video into DVD-Audio is that it renders discs more cumbersome to use than CDs and SACDs.

I agree completely. I only have a few DVD-A's so far, but they each behave differently. I want to put in the player and hit play. The player should know whether I prefer multichannel or stereo by default. SACD's work this way. With DVD-A's I've had to turn on the darn TV too many times to figure out what was going on.

 

[KeithH]

Jeff, as I said the Warner discs are easy to negotiate without a TV on my Technics DVD-A10. However, a couple of weeks ago, I bought the Queen A Night at the Opera DVD-Audio disc (DTS Entertainment) and had to use the TV. It's a pain when you are used to going without the TV. The majority of my DVD-Audio discs are from Warner.

 

[Phil A]

I don't know why DVD-A did this or the case that is different (in most cases) from CDs or DVDs. My "Brain Salad Surgery" (Rhino) is in a regular sized CD case. It also has a little set of instructions on how to play the thing without a video monitor. My main system is going back together (hopefully in the next 4 weeks) and I will probably get the new Marantz (multi-channel) SACD player and use the DV-47A which is in the bedroom system on the other side of the wall as a DVD-A source with 2 channel connected all the time and when I want multi-channel I made a long cable to go from the Pioneer output to sit behind my preamp so I could just swap the 6 RCAs (may eventually make a switch box but for now I will be happy to have my main system). I have one of those pyramid things to control a unit in the other room and I will output the DV-47A in composite to the main system but I certainly won't want to turn on my Sharp 9000 projector just to get a menu so I most likely will end up with a small color or B&W TV set with a video input that I can run from the DV-47A. A friend of mine did the same things since when he listens to music he just wants to listen to music.

 

[David Judah]

I appreciate your POV, Keith, and with many DVD players, I agree with you. There are a few players, however, that have above average or even exceptional audio sections, so while your observations hold true for the majority, I wouldn't consider it an absolute(I'm sure we disagree about the DVD-A10 and the RP-91).

My main issue with the incorporation of video into DVD-Audio is that it renders discs more cumbersome to use than CDs and SACDs

In some installations, I can see where this is the case, but IMO, the benefits(added features and information about the artists)outwiegh that disadvantage.
If I just want to listen to a DVD-A, my RP-91 lets me bypass the video circuitry(and I turn off the TV), but I haven't noticed any audio difference when the feature is engaged or disengaged.
I think, too, that is why many audio enthusiasts tend to favor SACD. It seems like many of them view DVD-A, with its video connection, as too mass market and DVD-Videoish to be seriously considered for quality audio.
I don't agree with that assessment, but I think that is often the perception.
DJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I think, too, that is why many audio enthusiasts tend to favor SACD. It seems like many of them view DVD-A, with its video connection, as too mass market and DVD-Videoish to be seriously considered for quality audio.

David,
I am enjoying your posts but I think you have gone a bit too far here.
Many audiophiles have nothing against the video aspects - I personally like the idea of getting a DVD player in the deal. Most of us that like SACD like it purely for sonic qualities. Mass market or not, we just want the best possible sound to show off our over-priced sound systems!
With all due respect, I think it is dangerous to generalize here about the video characteristics.

 

[John Geelan]

So far my vote has been in the DVDA category mainly because of DVDA's excellent Classic Rock library. They sound great and I love the albums.

I'm hoping SACD which also sounds very good releases some more titles that I would like other than Toto, Micheal Jacskon, Billy Joel and Journey.

SACD should get your vote if you like Classical, Jazz or Vocal Music at this point.

JohnG