DVD Audio vs SACD (1 Viewer)

[PatrickM]

John, your question about players is valid. Lets take a look at what you have. SCD-C555ES which retails for just over $1000 USD and a RP-91 which retails for around $500.

The SCD is a 5 disc changer with multi-channel capability for audio only and its twice the price of the RP91 which is a progressive scan DVD player with the ability to also play DVD-A.

I think we'd have to say that the audio components in your RP91 may not match up to the SCD just due to cost.

Some food for thought,

Patrick

 

[Jaehoon Heo]

RicP,
I may be one of the poorest of, but a DSP engineer. I didn't hear any good technique to apply digital signal processing on noise-shaped signal without converting it into LPFed(or un-noise-shaped) PCM version. Can you guarantee that DSD equipments wouldn't do that inside?
I don't think Sony really disproved Dr. Lipschitz(is this correct?) paper. I heard that they were argueing with some perceptual aspect, not really mathematical.
If you direct me to some good materials for those techniques, or those pro equipments, or the disproof, it will be greatly appreciated.
My another point is that DSD is not free from noise-shaping problem, and limiting the potential of original recording. But I think DSD sounds very good too. Don't think I regard DSD as a crap... I am one of the earliest DSD audience(I think in 1997 or 1998 before SACD rolled out).

 

[Jaehoon Heo]

RicP,

Why insane? Using 'insane' or 'ridiculous' make yourself like those words.

Many of SACD recordings are remastered from analog master, but I think DVD-A recordings remastered from analog are quite rare. But you see that the SACD library and DVD-A library are almost disjoint to each other. So, neither you nor I can really prove your or my claim with disc-to-disc comparison. What players did they use for comparison? All of them used Pioneer DV-AX10? Really fair comparison is hard to make right now.

I am just claiming that theoretically DVD-A has more potential.

 

[PatrickM]

RicP,

The 1812 Overture master was recorded using DSD so even comparisons between DVD-A and SACD can't be made properly there since there is a conversion process to get it from DSD to LPCM.

Patrick

 

[John Morris]

John, your question about players is valid. Lets take a look at what you have. SCD-C555ES which retails for just over $1000 USD and a RP-91 which retails for around $500.

Patrick: I actually paid $800 for the 555es and $500 for the RP91, but your point is valid. I bought the RP91 for DVD playback and the SACD for music. I guess it only makes sense that they should both excel at what they do...

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

In brief response (for the moment, at least) to John Kotches:

Another item not mentioned (and I am no DSP engineer): The ability to do digital crossovers via DSP arithmetic is impossible to do in a DSD environment. As best as I can determine it is impossible to do a correlation between the time (1-bit DSD samples) and frequency (spectral content) domains of the DSD data set.

RicP or Jaehoon, can you address this one, as I agree with John here.
-JNS

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

To quote my cousin,

"Sony's motive for creating SACD was for archival purposes. In that sense, it's not really a forward-looking platform."

Another viewpoint. Good discussion so far, I've got to say.

-JNS

 

[Jaehoon Heo]

Quote :

"Another item not mentioned (and I am no DSP engineer): The ability to do digital crossovers via DSP arithmetic is impossible to do in a DSD environment. As best as I can determine it is impossible to do a correlation between the time (1-bit DSD samples) and frequency (spectral content) domains of the DSD data set."

I agree with you and John. I know it can be done after the conversion into PCM. But without conversion, the shaped noise in the signal may generate side effects, as far as I understand.

Maybe I misunderstood the statement above, but DSD signal can be FFTed directly(as if it were the analog signal of 0/1), and you will theoretically see the original spectrum in band of interest, and modulation components above the band of interest.

 

[RicP]

I am just claiming that theoretically DVD-A has more potential.

Of course we all know that what comes out of the speakers isn't theoretical now is it?

 

[John Kotches]

Well gang, this is definitely turning into some very productive discussion.
Also, good news on the multi-track tape to a channel on a stereo recording. Ed Meitner's going to spend some time out of his busy schedule tomorrow to discuss the mixing process for DSD. That should be an interesting phone call!
Jagan,
Delta-Sigma ADCs are an interesting point that I've heard made on more than one occasion. I have even heard the argument that if you take the output of a 4x oversampling Delta-Sigma encoder with a standard 16bit/44.1K base what you get is the DSD stream.
In terms of intermodulation distortion, this is no different to any other intermodulation distortions. Give me a little bit of time, I'm sure there's a paper describing this -- I have indirect access to a few people that can get me some pointers. Sadly, my point of contact is on the US West Coast and the indirect contact is in Europe through the West Coast, which probably means Monday before I have an answer :frowning:
Damn, I was off learning some other things in the early 90's and missed the Pohlmann article you cited in Stereo Review. I'm not sure I agree but Ken's a bit more advanced than I am
Jaehoon:
Another question I have off to my indirect resource already is with respect to applying comparable DSP techniques to a DSD dataset vs. a PCM dataset.
This is a great discussion we have going.
Regards,

 

[John Morris]

Delta-Sigma ADCs are an interesting point that I've heard made on more than one occasion. I have even heard the argument that if you take the output of a 4x oversampling Delta-Sigma encoder with a standard 16bit/44.1K base what you get is the DSD stream.

Holy Cow! Are these the same DACs used by Denon in their DCM-470 CD Players? They use Delta-Sigma DACs too... and I preferred their BB DACced players to the DS Dac players. Did I simply move to another DS DAC player(my 555es) and deem it better???

Dang, and to think I sold my perfect 370 for around $150...?

 

[Jaehoon Heo]

RicP,
I see. I should be cautious. Using words like "inane" or "ridiculous" makes you like those words...
And why ridiculous? How much do you think the recording format affect the sound quality of recording. You may not agree, but the recording engineers say that acoustics and recording technique like mic placement and mixer settings are much more important than the recording formats. I had to agree... What I want to say is that excellent SACD recordings benefit much from the ability of excellent recording engineers who made them. As an example, Tom Jung of DMP may be the best recording engineer in the world. I don't know all the studios engaged with either SACD or DVD-A, but studios for SACD seem to have greater reputation so far.
You cannot say that DVD-A's from analog master are NOT rare just by showing 2 examples among 100+ DVD-A release. And this is quite out of point. We are beating around the bush.
Finally, I agree with you that what is coming out from the speakers is not the theory. But I would say it can be as the theory says...

 

[KeithH]

Howard, you have many choices in SACD players these days. Some play DVDs too (progressive-scan or interlaced output). Within Sony's line, you can spend $300 to $3000 for an SACD player. What's your budget?

 

[John Kotches]

Did anyone else look at the THD+N numbers for the Sony SCD-C555ES that Stereophile printed in their review?

The measurements looked eerily similar to the predictions that Vanderkooy and Lipshitz made.

-120dB at the bottom end, about -95dB at 20kHz and about -65dB at the limit of testing (50kHz).

So, at 20kHz, SACD has less than CD performance. Very interesting results.

Regards,

 

[RicP]

Quote:

Maybe it's just me, but what does this mean? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[John Kotches]

Ric,

So with modifications, you didn't really pay US$800 for the SCD-C333ES, it's now more along the lines of US$1200 or higher?

This gets you well into some interesting DVD-A players, like the Toshiba SD-9200 / Integra (Forget the Model #) and Pioneer DV-38A, which are a step above the RP-91 for DVD-Audio quality. I know, because I've listened to all of them in the same system context.

SACD is very good. DVD-A on a good player is very good.

SACD is already at its theoretical maximum. DVD-A still has room to improve. Hmmm... makes me wonder about how good things will get with DVD-A if it survives.

Not that I couldn't be happy with SACD, that certainly isn't the case, and I too have both in my system at the moment.

There are a nice mix of newer titles and older analog titles on DVD-A, and it's nice to see an older recording resurrected in either of these formats, like Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, Emerson Lake and Palmer's Brain Salad Surgery on DVD-A (there are many others), and Carole King's Tapestry or Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on SACD.

Regards,

 

[RicP]

Ric,

So with modifications, you didn't really pay US$800 for the SCD-C333ES, it's now more along the lines of US$1200 or higher?

Higher actually, because I bought it when it was first released. But really, price shouldn't be the determining factor of build quality. The 333 goes for $600 now, does that make mine 333ES twice as good? Not really.

The mods were primarily on the transport side...a new clock, some Bybee filters, new Cardas true 75ohm connectors, etc.

So it helps the SACD playback as well, but not as much as it helped the Redbook playback.

I've listened to the Pioneer DVD-A player and I have to tell you...there was little if any audible differences. I went through 5 discs and only on one of them (Metallica-Black Album) could I think I heard a slight difference. Otherwise, they sounded exactly like my RP-91 did. I auditioned both in MY home with MY gear in MY room. I went with the 91 for many reasons over and above the DVD-A playback, but to me it was indistinguishable.

I've only heard differences between SACD decks once as well. Between the 777ES and my Stock 333ES. I listened to the 775ES (I think thats the model -- the low end single disc player) and the SACD playback sounded pretty good on it and in most cases I'd be unable to differentiate 100% between it and my stock 333ES with SACD; with Redbook there were quite salient differences. The modded 333ES is another story altogether though. That is as good or better than a stock 777ES, at least from what I've tested.

 

[Jaehoon Heo]

RicP,

I think you are totally misunderstanding me, and beating around the bush. I wanted to talk about the theoretical story, not the real world, because there are so many things related with the players' actual sound performance. I still believe:

1. SACD studios tend to make better recordings than studios in DVD-A side. That is a good victory for SACD side to attract those excellent studios in its side. Yeah, you may think this is stupid, but I think this really happened to be like that somehow.

2. Most SACD players(except DVD-V capable ones) have more budget to invest in sound quality than similar-priced DVD-A players(all of them are DVD-V capable, meaning much more investment into video side than audio side.) I also mentioned that, thanks to the sophisticated noise-shaping in studio equipments(as in SACD), they will outperform DVD-A players in some price range - I don't know the price range, though.

3. We don't have right recording to make 1-to-1 comparison of SACD and DVD-A at their full potential.

As I said, I am not a naysayer to SACD, I think, because I wrote SACD sounds very good too. I didn't deny your experience, either. You just seem to heat up yourself, just triggered by my theoretical posts, and use some inappropriate words to blame me. I don't want to talk to you any more, unless you come back with more sanity and some theoretical materials to discuss on.

 

[JaleelK]

Hi I am new to this forum, and i was hoping I could get some information on what the difference is between the two. I have heard soem say that SACD is a lower quality than DVD Audio, however I have also heard that SACD is the same thing as a master recording form a studio and therefore the best you can get aside from being there live.

You can't really say, no one can right now. I suggest that you read an article in Sound&Vision Mag where they did a level matched comparison with some very limited material they had in both formats and they came away not being able distinguish the two.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I was hoping to avoid a reply but can't resist as an audiophile. I think I can add value here...
First, I do believe SACD is superior at the current stage of the game. No political agenda, I just have both players and SACD sounds more realistic. By the way, I have worked on 12 different albums as a recording engineer for an audiophile jazz/classical label.
Secondly, a few points:
1. Sound quality is highly dependent of the complete stereo chain, including cables, so further discussions may be improved if replies include "associated equipment" being used. I use a Sony SCD-777ES feeding ARC preamp and amp (VT100) and Maggie 1.6QR speakers via Cardas Golden Reference. Power is regulated by a Richard Marsh designed Monster HTS-5000.
2. Sound quality is highly dependent on elements of the recording chain and whether, in the case of SACD, DSD was implemented throughout the chain.
3. Acoustic recording venues sound particularly better because there are fewer circuits to go through. Every circuit subtracts from the "live sound". This is simply a case of "less is more". The more complicated the performance, the more chances are the recording engineer will make a mistake that subtracts from the sound. Most engineers are taught primarily "multi-mike" techniques that require horrible sounding large mixing boards (read: tons of circuits). Einstein is right, "Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler".
4. Higher end SACD and DVD-audio players do sound better. This is, in part, due to "jitter" a time based distortion that occurs. The more expensive the hardware, the better clocking components and more stable the disc mechanism. Still, the lower end Sony SACD players still sound excellent.
My main point is that all these factors interact in trying to evaluate SACD and DVD-audio on the same stereo system. Overall, most audiophile engineers I know believe that SACD is more realistic and captures the recording acoustic better. Also, there have clearly been examples of DVD audio that over-utilize extra channels to an unnecessary extent. Some DVD-audio recordings are even lower sound quality than the original CD. An example of this is Steely Dan's Two Against Nature, unfortunately one of my favorite albums of recent years.
One more thing: who will win the format battle? I don't know but I believe that it will come down to two simple things: (1) adoption by recording engineers of DSD or not (Sony is pushing this hard I understand), and (2) issuance of "big name" software titles on the consumer side. Here I have a beef: Although there have been improvements of late, we still lack classic albums like the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. More big name titles the better. Come on Sony, I have my checkbook out!
Anyway, that's just my opinion, of course I could be wrong...
Lee