SACD vs DVDA? (1 Viewer)

[DavidBelis]

Can someone please briefly enlighten me as to what Super Audio Compact Discs (SACD) and DVD Audio (DVDA) are, and how they differ?

1.First thing I don't understand, is how does SACD work? Don't all cds hold up to 650 or 700 megs. So, how do they manage to improve the quality over standard cds using the same amount of data? Is it a completely different medium? If not, then why can't regular cd players play them?


2.How does SACD differ from DVDA quality-wise, price-wise,and availability-wise (ie. how common or uncommon or albums in these formats).
Also, would regular DVD players (ie. my Panasonic RP62) play DVDA, or would I need to get a completely new player?


Can someone please fill me in on these music formats that I know pretty much nothing about?

Thanks you.

 

[Jeramy_K]

Both formats are enhanced audio discs. Both offer multi channel playback potential. However not all discs are available in multi channel.

SACD was founded by Sony. Here is their link : SACD

DVD-A does require a DVD-A compatible player to play the disc in it's intended format. It too outputs through 6ch analog for multi channel just like SACD.

I'm sure other members can add additional info. If you're considering one or the other I'd suggest holding off as the SACD/DVD-A combo players continue to roll out and drop in price.

 

[Justin Lane]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly David, if you do a search you will come up with more information then you could ever desire. These threads usually break down into format war deals, and are getting old at this point.

J

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

Read this.

-JNS

 

[LanceJ]

For (animated! ) dvd-audio information, go here:

http://www.panasonic-europe.com/dvdaudio/

LJ

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

From that same site...

Daniel Barenboim recording Beethoven Symphonies

(Streaming Video requires the RealPlayer)

-JNS

 

[KeithH]

David, I agree with Justin. Do a search for information on the two formats. These discussions usually degrade into "my format can beat up your format." At the end of the day, both formats significantly better the sound quality offered by the CD, and both formats have their share of quality titles and quality players. Both formats are worth having.

 

[Alex Prosak]

If you don't want to spend the $ for a universal player now or wait for cheaper ones, look at the titles each format has available and pick the one that has more titles that suit your tastes.

 

[Darryl]

I would like to congratulate everyone on keeping this thread as free of contention as this topic could possibly be. Let's keep it that way!

 

[Philip Hamm]

DVD-A Rules and SACD sucks! Anyone who would waste their money and time on SACD is a friggin' moron.





..... I have both ....

 

[Phil A]

I would comment, but being a genuine moron (yes I have both formats) it is beyond my capacity.:frowning:

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I enjoy both formats but I prefer Super Audio.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Ooops. I meant....

SACD Rules and DVD-A sucks! Anyone who would waste their money and time on DVD-A is a friggin' moron.














...... I still have both .....

 

[Philip Hamm]

being a genuine moron (yes I have both formats) it is beyond my capacity.

I know better than that!

 

[Mark All]

Here we go--headed for 12 pages and 3,000 hits this time around?

They both rule. One more than the other though.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Also, would regular DVD players (ie. my Panasonic RP62) play DVDA, or would I need to get a completely new player?

A lot of DVD-Audio discs have DVD-Video content (similar to the CD layer on hybrid SACDs). Your Panasonic could play the DVD-Video content. Assuming that your Panasonic was not designed specifically to support DVD-Audio content, it would NOT be able to play the DVD-Audio portion of a DVD-Audio disc.

 

[Andrew Pratt]

Try reading though this site

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hirezaudio.shtml

It does a great job listing what's available in both formats etc.

PS you RP62 can't play DVD-A's at their full resolution but all DVD-A's also contain some sort of Dolby Digital track as well that you can play. It isn't going to sound as good obviously but it might be better the regular CD in some cases

 

[KeithH]

Thomas said:

Record company vehicles to get you to buy albums all over again -- this time in copy-protected or scrambled format.

I won't deny the business element involved with the introduction of SACD and DVD-Audio, however, both formats are better than CD. SACD and DVD-Audio offer better stereo sound as well as multi-channel capability. Furthermore, DVD-Audio offers video content.

Also understand that the technology of digital audio had not advanced by 1982, when the CD format was released, to the point that SACD and DVD-Audio could have been unveiled. It's not as though technology companies had SACD and DVD-Audio back in 1982 but consciously decided to release digital audio in waves (in nearly 20-years increments) in order to sustain their livelihoods. There was no sandbagging back in '82. This is not to say that the 16/44.1 format that became the redbook standard was the best digital audio format that could have been released in 1982. It may not have been, but a format that would have been significantly better was not available back then.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

A problem with many DVD-Audio discs: the introduction of audible water marking into the recording, thus diminishing the overall audio fidelity.

SACD, though it does have copy protection on the discs and players, does not alter the audio stream itself.

There has yet to be a recording made and given out for public consumption (that I am aware of) that was taken from the same microphone feeds that were split into two separate recording machines (one DSD based and one PCM based) in order to do an actual head-to-head comparison of the audio quality of each format in both stereo mode and multichannel mode.

That MUST be done soon and to be fair, the stereo recording should compare 24 bit/192 kHz PCM against DSD, and then in multichannel mode compare 24 bit/96 kHz PCM against DSD since that is what consumers get (in the case of stereo 24 bit/192 kHz PCM, not always, which is a shame).

Also, recording industries using SACD as their delivery medium should mix and edit and master their products using DSD at all times. Except for some audiophile labels dedicated to absolute quality, usually the recording engineers use some software like ProTools which is PCM based. That audio format conversion will defeat the purpose of using DSD in the first place.

Dan

 

[LanceJ]

A problem with many DVD-Audio discs: the introduction of audible water marking into the recording, thus diminishing the overall audio fidelity.

I couldn't let this one go :frowning:.

I have yet to read of anyone FOR SURE hearing this. And I personally never have heard it, even on a system made up of a $3500 Denon DVD-9000 player, and B&W Nautilus 803 speakers.

Philosophically speaking, watermarking is wrong. But in the REAL world, it is a non-issue.

LJ