Dvd-a Vs Sacd (1 Viewer)

[Carl Gaff]

Okay. I'm ready to switch to one of these formats. Please give me some insight into the folowing:

1. Which format (in your opinion) is better?

2. Why?

3. Which format has the most software available?

4. What are the prices of the discs?

Thanks in advance for all info.

 

[Al B. C]

Here we go again!

Sorry Carl - I couldn't resist.

 

[Justin Lane]

Buy a universal player and enjoy both formats. They both are improvements over CD.

J

 

[Marc Colella]

Both of these formats are better than CD, and they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

My advice (for what it's worth):

Look at the titles both formats offer, and figure out if there are enough titles in either format to keep you busy.
I recommend not purchasing either formats on the promise of future titles.

There may be many titles you aren't familiar with on either format, so instead of diving in and spending big money on a machine and the titles in a trial and error type test - seek out the MP3s or streaming samples to see if it may be something you like.

A format's only as good as the titles it offers.

 

[Tomoko Noguchi]

Question 3 and 4:

Right now SACD has more discs out. Prices for SACD range from $14-30 depending on the disc. Prices for DVD-A are slightly higher with discs ranging in price from $17-30. Prices are different depending on the store you buy from. There are sales.

 

[David W Johnson]

If you are on a budget and can't afford the Universal players, go with an SACD/DVD-Video player. You can still play DVD-Audio discs on the player, but it will be the Dolby-Digital audio track that you will hear (which is still an improvement in most cases over CD-Audio).

 

[RobBenton]

Actually dolby digital is much worse then CD.. it is more like mp3 but it is in 5.1 so which is more important is up to you. I agree that both formats have advantages. If you want extras with your music choose DVD-A and if you want an experience more like CD's then go with an SACD player. I have to say that it is unfair to say that SACD has more titles.. it is true that overall it does but the vast majority are stereo titles and for a lot of people it is the 5.1 that interests them. If you look at 5.1 titles i believe DVD-A actually has more (though it is close either way). SACD has a lot more classical and jazz stuff where as DVD-A has much more classic rock and pop stuff. Right now I have both formats and I own about twice as many DVD-A as SACD but it all boils down to your taste in music.

 

[Tomoko Noguchi]

Rob,

SACD by far has more titles than DVD-A. By far. How many you own doesn't count in the total number overall.

 

[Jordan_E]

I second going the universal player route. With mine, I just pick and choose from either format and enjoy!

 

[Philip Hamm]

4. What are the prices of the discs?

See above web page.

I highly recommend both formats.

 

[Jesper]

4. What are the prices of the discs?

Depends were you buy! But DVD Audio disc are very often cheaper than the 2 channel SACD disc.

Don't go for a universal player - waste of money. Go buy DVD Audio player instead, much better choice. Why? Because record companies will release some titles in both format - take Dark Side Of The Moon - who need's the SACD version, when we will have the DVD Audio version this fall/winter with all the extra stuff and better quality.

 

[Paul Seyfarth]

Just look at the titles that you want that are out and coming out for each format. Then decide if there is a big difference between the two. Right now I am likeing SACD more, but I used to like DVD-Audio more. I have both.

 

[Dan Joy]

[rant]Howe about doing a search of the gazillion threads that have discussed this to vomit proportions![/rant]
Ok rant off!

I have both and enjoy both. To me it borders down to the original recording.. if the source is bad all will be bad.

 

[Ken Stuart]

I would say that if you don't have any particular reason to buy a player now, hold off.

Several things may/will occur:

Near future - more universal players (Pioneer is coming out in a few months with a less expensive player than their current "45a".

Farther future - players with digital output. Right now, both DVD-A and SACD players require SIX ANALOG OUTPUTS, and the decoding is in the player. This is in contrast to DD and DTS which are usually decoded in the player, with one relatively inexpensive digital connection to the player for audio.

Right now, if you don't have 5 full range speakers and a subwoofer, you will encounter some problems and/or compromise and/or need to buy a $250 bass management device and six more interconnects.

If this sounds like a mess -- it is!

I recently bought a DVD-Audio player only because my regular DVD player broke down, and the DVD-Audio feature was only $20 more than the same model without DVD-A.

Otherwise, knowing everthing that I know now , I would have waited.

PS If you nevertheless want to get one, which player you get will depend on several factors which you did not specify:

- The amount of money you have budgeted (if less than $200, then your only choice for a new retail product is DVD-A).

- Whether you want SACD and/or DVD-A for improved fidelity or for surround sound. If for surround sound, then DVD-A is better.

- The sort of music you find yourself listening to, while seated in your listening room and doing nothing else. If this is jazz/classical, then SACD has more. If your answer is "rock/pop", then DVD-A has more.

( You can see a natural split here -

well heeled, jazz and classical listener interested in better fidelity rather than surround sound = SACD

on a budget, rock and pop listener interested more in surround sound = DVD-A

BUT favorite artists can swing the choice:

SACD = Miles Davis (and colleagues), Rolling Stones, Peter Gabriel

DVD-A = ELP, Yes, Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac, Doors

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Farther future - players with digital output. Right now, both DVD-A and SACD players require SIX ANALOG OUTPUTS, and the decoding is in the player. This is in contrast to DD and DTS which are usually decoded in the player, with one relatively inexpensive digital connection to the player for audio.

This is incorrect. When using a digital connection from the DVD player to the receiver/processor, the DD/DTS decoding is done in the receiver/processor, not in the DVD player. In the future, even if a DVD-Audio/SACD player provides a digital output for the high-res six-channel signal, your receiver/processor will need to be upgraded to decode these formats (unless you already have one of the very few models that have DVD-A/SACD decoders).

 

[John Kotches]

Scott,

It depends on whose digital solution you are using in terms of what gets passed digitally.

The Meridian solution has the player decode everything (DD, DTS, MLP) and passes PCM plus metadata flags identifying the content for processing and D/A in the companion processor (568.2MM or 861v3).

I think that Denonlink uses the same approach, but am not certain of this.

I don't have sufficient familiarity with the Pioneer firewire solution to comment on it.

Regards,

 

[Mark Hedges]

I don't have either format yet but my vote goes to SACD. The reasons are:

1) No need for a visual menu to play what you want. Many DVD-A disks require you to navigate a menu similar to a DVD-Video disk. IMHO, this move was completely boneheaded because it makes it very difficult for DVD-A to move into portable applications such as cars.

2) Backwards compatibility w/ regular CD players. Most SACD's have a redbook audio layer that can be played on any cd player. I don't think DVD-a will ever be able to have this. The closest they may come is a "flipper" disk with CD on one side and the DVD-A on the other.

You can probably tell that I put a lot of stock into portable applications and backwards compatability. I believe that for a new format to be successfull it will have to be just as easy to use as a current CD. People will want to buy 1 disc only and play it at home, in their car, at work, etc. Only SACD comes close to allowing you to do that.

Mark

 

[Jesper]

Good morning Mike!



First of all cd is a dying format and will die very fast. Look at this - when we will have HD DVD (much storeage) what can we use cd for with 700mb? Again Nothing. I know many people have cd players - so what? When people are buying new equipment - do you think they are cd players? Hell no. I can see what you mean about backward compatibility, but I think it's time for you look forward instead. And we will see cd layer on DVD Audio no doubt - but I don't care, really. Perhaps we could even see mp3 format and why not? Joe6pack can't hear any different between MP3 and the cd format anyway.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Joe6pack can't hear any different between MP3 and the cd format anyway.

Nor can a lot of people with decent equipment who encode their MP3s properly.

 

[RobBenton]

Just to be clear I said that if you compare the number of titles available in sacd and DVD-a and only look at how many there are in 5.1 sound it is about the same. If you include stereo titles then yes sacd has many more but most people want to upgrade for the 5.1 not the high quality stereo (i said most people not everyone)