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

[John Kotches]

Keith,
I agree that pricing needs to come into check for DVD-A, so that there isn't a several dollar price premium with the format. If they were to package similar to Boz Scaggs' Dig with both DVD-A and CD included in the higher price, I have no issues with it.
The majority of audiophiles on AA that knock DVD-A have never had it in their system -- but they keep repeating the same arguments over and over anyway.
In response to the audiophile knocks:
All DVD-Audio players have video circuitry that can compromise the sound quality.
And many have video circuitry that can be cycled off, making this a non-issue. I doubt many could hear any noise that is theoretically induced by the video circuitry.
Some DVD-Audio discs are encoded with digital watermarking that is said to be audible.
And yet none of the audiophiles can point to any disc that is theoretically watermarked and say "Disc X, Time Y".
The test in Britain was a worst case scenario for watermarking.
Some DVD-Audio discs offer a 5.1-channel track, but no discrete stereo track.
Don't buy the disc. Complain to the record label. SACD has done their marketing homework, by courting the audiophiles first.
Some DVD-Audio discs and players require the use of a TV for playback.
Some of this point was left off, the "trick" is to hit one extra button to initiate playback. DVD-A has to work on more consistent authoring, which isn't exactly new news, I said so 6 months ago in Secrets' DVD-A Benchmark article.
DVD-Audio uses PCM technology, which is viewed by many audiophiles as inferior to SACD's DSD technology as well as vinyl (analog).
SACD has been marketed well to audiophiles -- these same audiophiles ignore the existence of dramatically higher noise in the 4K and up range on DSD.
Many DVD-Audio players are low-end or mid-fi components. A common complaint amongst audiophiles is that few audiophile-quality DVD-Audio players are available.
Instead of marketing for the high-end $$$, DVD-A started at the mid-range. Since audiophiles are by and large a cost pretentious bunch, they immediately viewed DVD-A as "less worthy" because the first player out wasn't a US$5K product.
The balance of players is skewed towards the low end on SACD these days as well, but that fact is overlooked.
DVD-Audio software is sorely lacking, and the number of quality titles are few and far between. Many audiophiles prefer jazz, blues, and classical music, and the selection of DVD-Audio discs within these genres is thin.
Most audiophiles aren't about musical enjoyment. They're about recording quality. Witness the constant salivation over the latest Telarc titles... while sonically pristine they are not compelling performances musically.
Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
As Reagan said...there you go again...

Most audiophiles aren't about musical enjoyment. They're about recording quality. Witness the constant salivation over the latest Telarc titles... while sonically pristine they are not compelling performances musically.

I'm no fan of some of Telarc's performances either, but some great audiophile CDs are great performances: check out McCoy Tyner New York Reunion (a jazz critic favorite , okay I worked on this one), Arturo Delmoni Songs My Mother Taught Me, Keb Mo The Door, Badi Assad, etc.
I actually think this is a myth that audiophile recordings as a group have weak performances. Often, audiophile record labels are small and independent and that gives them more creative ability and opportunity and they stay on the cutting edge as the first SACDs and DVDAs attest to. My experience with Chesky has showed me that often classical musicians of quality have a hard time getting a major label contract so the independents have an advantage with their low overhead and smarter (read less mass market) A&R choices.

 

[Joe Casey]

Soundwise, to my ears, I prefer SACD over DVDA in my system.

My opinion.

Maybe the noise (I cannot hear 'noise' in either format) adds to the flavor (tubes? vinyl?). I feel it's all personal preference. But the sad part, again, is the lack of software for both formats.

 

[KeithH]

John, you make good points. As I said, I was merely pointing out the audiophiles biases, and not necessarily agreeing with them.

I said:

And many have video circuitry that can be cycled off, making this a non-issue. I doubt many could hear any noise that is theoretically induced by the video circuitry.

This is true. The point that I did not make clearly is that many audiophiles believe that inclusion of video circuitry leads to compromises in the design of the audio section. This reasoning is commonly used to explain why DVD players are inferior CD players relative to comparably priced CD-only units. I can't say for sure that that is the reason, but I have often found DVD players to be inferior. That said, there are no absolutes.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
The last time I checked, unless you're on a telephone, 4kHz is considered in band. This was where the rise in noise begins. 10kHz, also considered in band. 20kHz, why yes, that's still in band.
We will never agree on the noise issues Lee
I do agree that there are some very good performances on audiophile labels. There is far, far, far too much dreck. Of all those titles you listed, how many were on Telarc?
McCoy Tyner? Chesky
Keb Mo Sony (yes Sony)
Arturo Delmoni JM Records
Badi Assad (Don't know, but it ain't Telarc )
One we haven't mentioned, but equally good
Bob Mintzer Big Band Homage to Count Basie
If you don't have this, I urge you to go out and purchase it Lee -- as a jazz fan, you really should have this one in your library.
The constant obsession with what is "high-end" and what isn't is a huge part of the problem with many, if not most audiophiles.
There is a difference between audiophiles and music lovers. Music lovers talk about the performance or maybe the historical significance, and audiophiles talk about the recording quality. If you've read some of my reviews, you know where I stand on that
Then again, I've also seen people complain about "all that tape hiss" on Kind of Blue, fogetting that the recording was made 40+ years ago. Also not understanding the significance of the recording -- or appreciating that 'trane was showing the first glimpses of his future genius in his pentatonic explorations of "So What".
Regards,

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Then again, I've also seen people complain about "all that tape hiss" on Kind of Blue, fogetting that the recording was made 40+ years ago.

Those same folks were the first to get rid of those nasty ol' LP's. I don't find the hiss obtrusive, or even noticeable, although I imagine it might be both on a typical audiophile system geared to accentuate "detail". I admit I'm not a true audiophile, though, as I let myself get distracted by the music too easily.

 

[KeithH]

Jack, people often assume that if they hear hiss, then the recording or remastering must be poor. That is not necessarily true. I am big fan of The Dave Brubeck Quartet Time Out. Aside from the stereo and multi-channel SACDs, I bought the remastered CD some months back. As a music collector of sorts, I recently decided to track down the original version of the CD on eBay, which has been out of print for awhile. The original version has a logo on the front cover that says "Columbia Jazz Masterpieces", so perhaps you have it or have seen it. I found a copy in excellent condition on eBay for $7. The difference between the original CD and the remastered version is striking. The original has little to no hiss, which is good. However, more than just the hiss is missing. The sound is flat. The piano is lifeless, as are the cymbals. There is no soundstage and no depth to the instruments whatsoever.

With the remaster, the first thing that was obvious to me was the hiss. However, the instruments sound far more realistic on the remaster. The depth and soundstage are there. The music flourishes on the remaster. The hiss is just part of the recording. To lose the hiss is to lose the music.

 

[Rob Roth]

I've had SACD for a year and DVDA for one day. At this point I believe both have merit relative to CDs. And the cost of both types of machines has fallen quite dramatically! A year ago I bought the 9000ES primarily for the Video performance and, secondarily, for the chance to experiment with SACD. Well, I was soon doing a whole lot of 2ch listening. As specific examples, SACD has got me into Mahler symphonies for the first time (tried twice before). I now have lots of Mahler- both SACD and CD- and I'm very pleased. SACD also got me back into quartet type jazz after a 20 year lapse.

If my new DVDA capability also leads me into new discoveries or appreciation it will be well worth a few hundred dollars. I'm with JohnK on the difference between recording technologies as a means to an end (a musical experience) rather than as an end in themselves. People who have bashed DVDA from some theoretical position could profitably do as I did; get a mid fi player and some cables from a friendly store that offers a 30 day return and try out the format themselves. Even if they keep the player they may well spend less than all of us have on dubious 'tweaks' and upgrades in the past. We're talikng hundreds, not thousands, as the cost of exploring a new format and breathing new life into old works. Why is this a bad thing?

 

[Justin Doring]

John,

"And many have video circuitry that can be cycled off, making this a non-issue. I doubt many could hear any noise that is theoretically induced by the video circuitry."

Less is more. Some machines like the Sony DVP-9000ES do not bypass the circuitry, but merely "disable" it. This, no doubt, has some effect, and this is far from a "non-issue."

"And yet none of the audiophiles can point to any disc that is theoretically watermarked and say "Disc X, Time Y"."

I believe that Tony Faulkner, among others, picked out the watermarked recording every single time.

"Instead of marketing for the high-end $$$, DVD-A started at the mid-range. Since audiophiles are by and large a cost pretentious bunch, they immediately viewed DVD-A as "less worthy" because the first player out wasn't a US$5K product. "

First, "audiophiles are by and large a cost pretentious bunch" is pure conjecture. For every audiophile with a six figure system made up of only ultra-high end equipment, there are thousands with four and five figure systems where value is the key factor in purchasing decisions. As far as SACD v. DVD-A players are concerned, is it wrong to view a $5000 60lb. SACD player as superior to the plastic DVD-A player that Panasonic introduced for a fraction of the price?

"Most audiophiles aren't about musical enjoyment. They're about recording quality. Witness the constant salivation over the latest Telarc titles... while sonically pristine they are not compelling performances musically."

Once again, this is pure, unsupported conjecture. I'm an audiophile and the music, not the equipment, is what moves me. Wanting the music I love to sound the best it can is what makes me an audiophile. I'm a music lover first, however. Telarc has released some excellent sounding and excellently performed discs along with a large number of poor sounding and poorly performed discs. The label receives just as much bashing as they do praise on The Audio Asylum.

 

[John Kotches]

Justin,

One by one....

As far as SACD v. DVD-A players are concerned, is it wrong to view a $5000 60lb. SACD player as superior to the plastic DVD-A player that Panasonic introduced for a fraction of the price?

Weight on source level components is a relatively arbitrary factor in deciding whether a product is superiour or not. Sony chose to cater to the high-end with a $5K player -- that's a marketing decision.

Since I've seen high-end priced components that have used mass loading to increase perceived value, I am somewhat cynical about the "it weighs alot it must be good" school of thought when it comes to source gear.

Heck, I want my music to sound good to Justin -- that's my goal as well. I tend to break it out into music-philes and equipment-philes. People that play recordings because they sound good, but have little in the way of music happening. Me, I'll take a great performance, on a bad recording any day.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Heck, I want my music to sound good to Justin -- that's my goal as well. I tend to break it out into music-philes and equipment-philes. People that play recordings because they sound good, but have little in the way of music happening. Me, I'll take a great performance, on a bad recording any day.

John,
I certainly understand your view and it is one that has been around high end circles a while, pro and con.
What I don't agree with is the "either or" notion of your argument. Either you are an equipment snob or a music lover. You can be BOTH!
I am living proof that they are not mutually exclusive I love equipment and I love music. I like Beck for instance to a degree that I will listen to his songs even in MP3 format (well, okay at least for a few minutes ) And even my expensive rig will not allow me to stop listening to some really aweful pop recordings (I have some Led Zeppelin CDs that out to be taken out back and shot, for instance.)
I do find something very interesting is happening in my music purchases, though. When I stumble across a great recording like the pure DSD Mahler 6 by San Francisco Symphony, I find I want to learn more about Mahler because the great recording gets me closer to a real performance in my living room. So I buy more of the same and get a music education in the process.
And I won't deny that some of us audiophiles will search out certaing companies like Reference and Chesky because in the past we have found good results on both performance AND recording.
Herein lies the beauty of high resolution formats like SACD and DVDA:
I believe that if the mass public were exposed to these formats, then they would hear more of the sound, have less listener fatigue, get more drawn into the music and buy more music. That seems to me would solve all-the promise of vinyl's naturalness but with digital's convenience. Maybe I'm just dreaming but it seems possible.
To get there, if I were David Kawakami at Sony (a really nice guy by the way), I would cajole a big name artist like one of the Beatles or Pink Floyd to let me release a song and then promote the heck out of it. I mean do something really big - TV, etc. to get more awareness of these two excellent formats (did I call I DVDA excellent-oops!) and drive more player sales. The equipment is cheap enough: look at the rave review the SCD775 got in June's Absolute Sound for $250, no $180 street!
I agree that Toto IV is not going to make most reach for their wallet.

 

[KeithH]

Lee said:

What I don't agree with is the "either or" notion of your either an equipment snob or a music lover. You can be BOTH!
I am living proof that they are not mutually exclusive

So, Lee, are you bragging or complaining?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Keith,
I'm bragging as usual!

 

[KeithH]

Lee, that figures. :rolleyes

 

[Lee Scoggins]

First, "audiophiles are by and large a cost pretentious bunch" is pure conjecture. For every audiophile with a six figure system made up of only ultra-high end equipment, there are thousands with four and five figure systems where value is the key factor in purchasing decisions.

This has been my experience as well Justin. Many budget-minded people who just want to have something better than Bose and Adcom, Paradigm, etc. helps get them there.

Good post!

 

[Eugene Hsieh]

Which is better? I dunno. I have a DVD-A player (RP91) and I own all of 1 disc. I have little interest in the vast majoriy of both DVD-A and SACD software out there.

Indeed, if I had to choose, I'd choose plain old CD for now. At least with CD I can find music I actually like.

In fairness I haven't looked much lately at what's out there, but it seems that DVD-A SACD has targeted a market which does not include some of us. I do have some interest in the classical titles available, however. My comments about the software apply more to the "contemporary" titles available.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

At least with CD I can find music I actually like.

Eugene,
I think you are not the only one who feels this way.
I think the high rez format folks have to start getting more big name titles out into the marketplace.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, absolutely. SACD, in particular, has seen far too many small-time performers to get the attention of the masses. That is to be expected from the smaller record labels, which the average listener could care less about. This is why Sony Music needs to get moving with quality titles. It also wouldn't hurt if Universal Music Group would actually release some SACDs. I'd like to see more from Virgin Music too. What's up with the Human League Dare! SACD only being available overseas?

 

[Greg Br]

This sucks, so I whent to get my first multi channel SACD at BB, the only one they had was James Taylor. If they had others that were not marked. I am not going to buy the same two channel stereo cd's that I already have in redbook.

I ended up buying Metalicas Black album in DVD-Audio.

It looks like SACD has very little appeal for my music tastes, and thats with multi-channel.

 

[KeithH]

Greg, Best Buy's selection of SACDs is old and tired. Check www.elusivedisc.com for a good selection of multi-channel SACDs.