SACD or DVD-Audio (1 Viewer)

[mofet_n]

I'm interested in getting a sacd or dvd audio player (I would prefer to have 2 different components). But I'm still debating between SACD or DVD audio formats. (Which is better, which lets you have 5.1 surround). And for my second question, which brand should I look into= marantz, denon, pioneer, panasonic, ... Budget between 3-400$ can, and not looking to purchase from online retailer.

How is the Panasonic dvds55s = could get it cost at like 180$
or Pioneer dv563As which plays dvd-audio and sacd

I currently have a HK 325, which sony 715p dvd and polk audio speaker type Rti series.

 

[FeisalK]

how many analog inputs does the HK have? it might not be possible for you to connect 2 hirez players both needing 5.1 analog inputs. IF you are considering the 563a might as well get it and get the best of both worlds. Of course there are other better (also more expensive) players - we are still waiting for a review of the Yamaha S2300MkII

 

[Jim Rakowiecki]

They are both great formats. I'd do the Pioneer which by all reports can be had for about $175.00 and spend the rest on some new music.

 

[Brian+H]

It's good to see more people getting interested in hi-res.

The best solution at the moment is to get the most expensive universal player you can afford.

Sacd has more titles and which sounds better is purely a matter of personal taste and preference.

Generally, if you love cd sound, you'll drool over a well-mastered dvd-a.
If you love vinyl sound, you'll drool over a well-matered sacd.
All bets are off on a poorly mastered and engineered disc on either format.

Both give you the possibily of surround. SACD gives you backward compatibility with cd players if it's a "hybrid" sacd.
Sacd is so far the more successful format, in terms of label support, and title numbers.

Looking at both formats around the world, I'd be surprised if dvd-a becomes the next standard for consumer audio.
Too much support for sacd already.

I think dvd-a will become this decades version of DAT.
IMO

 

[Jeff W.]

I would think the opposite.

The analog-only output of SACD already turns off most enthusiasts, and the last thing Joe Everyman wants is YAGDF (yet another goddam format), and they already made him buy a DVD player last year.. now ANOTHER one? Highly unlikely.

 

[Tim Hoover]

Hi-rez DVD-Audio tracks are also analog-only....

 

[HankM]

The Dec/Jan Absolute Sound liked the Yamaha S2300, I didn't know that there was a MkII version coming. I'm awaiting a Denon 5900 review. My current hi-rez players are:

Sony SCD-777ES (SACD)
Panasonic RP-91 (DVD-A)

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Your decision should be driven by software availablity, both now and in the future. I listen to classical music, so SACD is the way to go for me. But pop music is evenly divided between the two formats.

 

[LanceJ]

If your just into the surround aspect & good sound, then dvd-audio is a good choice since they always have either a 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS track, which (obviously) is accessible through the digital output.

And these formats have the advantage of proper bass management & distance compensation (delay) capabilities.

If you're into really good sound--stereo or surround--then yes, you have to use the player's analog outputs for this. And also, all the disc's features are available when using a dvd-audio player (i.e. music still plays while simultaneously viewing track menu or lyric screens; track scan features now enabled; and most discs start playing immediately when the tray shuts). And some new discs do most of these things even when played on a dvd-video player.

As many people--pro reviewers & consumers--have found out, on "mid-fi" HT systems (say from $1000 to $3000 excluding TV) the Dolby and especially the DTS tracks can sound quite similar to the dvd-audio 5.1 tracks. For many people this is plenty good enough without investing in a dedicated hi-res player. And IMO bass management for hi-res still sucks--it's almost embarrassing actually.

And for stereo fans, many dvd-audios from audiophile labels (& even some from Warner, Capital & DTS Entertainment) feature 96kHz/24bit "regular" PCM tracks that will playback on dvd-video players (with the exception of a few early model players). Look for them to write it as 96/24 LPCM or just PCM--the "L" stands for "linear", as opposed to PPCM where the "P" stands for "packed" >>> this means it uses the Meridian Lossless Packing format or--whew!--"MLP".

LJ

 

[Jeff W.]

Well, shows what I know then. All I know is someone gave me a "DVD audio" disc and when I put it in my 5-yr old DVD player it plays just fine, in digital sound, and the picture is just some screen-saver cartoon type stuff. But it definitely plays in digital because I don't have the analog connections hooked up at all, and my receiver recognizes it as Dolby Digital 3/2.1

 

[John Garcia]

Many DVD-As may include DVD-V material that can be played on any DVD. This is NOT the same as high resolution audio.

My vote is for SACD, but I have and enjoy both. Hybrid SA includes a CD layer that can be played by any player, while DVD-A is limited to DVD and DVD-A players only.

 

[LanceJ]

Just to reinforce something:

ALL dvd-audios are required to include a Dolby Digital and/or DTS track.

But, they are not required to have videos or on-screen material (the dvd-audio version of Elvis Presly's Elv1s album is one example of this). This is totally up to the disc's creator.

Right now it looks like different dvd-audio labels are still figuring out what features customers like, so keep sending in those dvd-audio feedback cards! Well, Warner does this anyway.

LJ

 

[Lewis Besze]

Is you budget for both? If yes I would buy a universal player,though under $400.00 the Pioneer is currently the only choice,as far as I know. To get 2 separate cheaper players is doable as well but do you have 2 sets of inputs?

 

[LanceJ]

Jeff: Screensaver? Er, that disc wouldn't happen to be that recently released Flaming Lips dvd-audio would it? It has what are called "frequency waveform cartoons" for each track--basically they are for eye candy while listening to the music. Though from what other members reported even on a dvd-audio player they are restricted to using the 5.1 Dolby Digital track (this disc is massively crammed with features--read about it [url=http://www.flaminglips.com/content/discography/a/11_dvd.php?sid=&contentMode=

 

[JohnMW]

Have you auditioned a Denon DVD-2200/2900/5900? These players actually have full bass mgmt. and work well IMHO.

 

[John Garcia]

My Sony222ES has decent bass management. My 2200 is pretty good too, though I run it stereo with no bm.

 

[Justin Lane]

Though the 222ES has bass management, I would call it far from decent. The cutoff point is too high for most decent speakers (120 Hz) and at least in my system, it appears to downgrade the sound quality. The ICBM (which I have yet to pick up) is still probably the best way to go until a secure digital connection for Hi-res has been accepted across the market.

J

 

[Jeremy Scott]

i would chose dvd-audio over sacd (like i did). dvd is the future, not cd's.

i bought the panasonic f85 dvd-audio player. hi rez music sounds nice.

 

[Lewis Besze]

You know I remember the same problem existed at the dawn of DD @'96,,though it was more of techical issue as not many DSP chips were equiped with sucg thing.I also blaim the music industry on this with their relentless stuborness in their part to reckognize the fact that most people don't have tower speakers all around,as they touting it around.
Only digital interface can fix this mess IMO.

 

[FeisalK]

you'd think that if their targeted mass market would be sub/sat systems, they'd get BM right first of all