SACD vs. DVD-A

steveinaz · June 2004

If I were to support either one of them, it would be SACD. But I won't buy into either until things level out. Still way too dicey for me, I'll stick to a redbook player.

F1nut · June 2004

The comment, "slightly lowered sound levels" for SACD do not make sense to me. In my system I find that each and every SACD has higher sound levels than the same redbook issue. I also noted that the DVD-A used was 24bit/96kHz and all SACD's are 24bit/192kHz, so perhaps that has something to with the difference in dynamics. I do know that most DVD-A's do not fully utilize the formats hi-rez capablities and actually vary quite widely from one release to another.

I use to own the Sony XA777ES, it's not a SACD only player. While the SACD playback was ok, the redbook was not good at all. However, I do agree that the test was done with apples and oranges players.

Steve,

From the SACD conference.....
"In spite of new media on the horizon, SA-CD is likely to remain to highest resolution audio format for maybe twenty years. This from the people whose role it is to promote Blu-ray. Those hanging out for something "better" may want to look into cryonics."

Also, SACD has about 2100 releases with about 100 new ones coming out every month, while DVD-A has about 700 with not too many coming out each month. All signs point to SACD as the format of choice.

TheGrayGhost · June 2004

The problem I see is that her testing methods were apples to oranges to bananas. A better way to test would be to use a universal player like a Denon DVD-5900. This is still not a perfect way to test the formats because the audio circuitry used for DVD-A and CD is different from SACD.

Agreed, and the soundcard used could have been better. However, given the difference in audio circuitry necessary for a comparison I see no other way of doing it.

The perceived "compression" of the converted digital signal comes with the inexpensive analog parts in the DVD player.

What do you mean, perceived? It was a measurement chart showing a 3dB difference between DVD-a and SACD. If the original master used for both had the same dynamic range and there was no compression during the MLP mastering it should have been reproduced with the same range even on the RP-82. Im sure the master had less than 100dB dynamic range. Im still trying to figure out how a DAC with over 100dB DR can compress audio on playback.

I can perceive differences in sound quality between DVD-A and SACD analog playback, but to me the differences are related to the quality of the playback equipment and the mastering of music than the formats themselves.

Of course! The unnecessary compression during mastering of the recording is what prevents me from buying more high res audio. The multi-channel SACD track on 52th Street by Billy Joel is a total waste. The worst over compression and bad channel steering Ive ever seen. The multi-channel track sounds like Joel is singing with a sock in his mouth. The stereo SACD track is very good and seems to have been recorded with the same DR as the master while is ~10 to 12 dB lower than the multi-channel recording.

therockman · June 2004

Originally posted by F1nut
The comment, "slightly lowered sound levels" for SACD do not make sense to me. In my system I find that each and every SACD has higher sound levels than the same redbook issue. I also noted that the DVD-A used was 24bit/96kHz and all SACD's are 24bit/192kHz, so perhaps that has something to with the difference in dynamics. I do know that most DVD-A's do not fully utilize the formats hi-rez capablities and actually vary quite widely from one release to another.

This is not correct. The SACD standard is 1 bit/ 2,822,400 hz. There is no SACD ever made that has 24bit/192khz, this is a PCM encoding format. The basis of SACD tehnology is DSD, defined as containing 1 bit words which are sampled 2,822,400 times per second.

Rocky

tonyv1 · June 2004

Also check the CD layer of Pink Floyd's DOSTM, that was definitely recorded LOUDER and HOTTER than the SACD stereo and MCH layers. Here's what Stereophile has to say about DSOTM .

F1nut · June 2004

Originally posted by therockman
The SACD standard is 1 bit/ 2,822,400 hz. There is no SACD ever made that has 24bit/192khz, this is a PCM encoding format. The basis of SACD tehnology is DSD, defined as containing 1 bit words which are sampled 2,822,400 times per second.

You are correct and what is nuts is that I knew that.....doh

therockman · June 2004

Originally posted by F1nut
You are correct and what is nuts is that I knew that.....doh

Yeah, well I see what time you made your original post and were all likely to have jumbled ideas at that time of the night.

Rocky

Emlyn · June 2004

I followed the links to the reviewer's web site and it turns out she has done an update to her first review. I'm impressed with her efforts, and don't remember anyone else doing something quite like what she has tried to do.

CD--DVD-A--SACD

therockman · June 2004

Thanks for the link to the follow up review. I think that Christina should be lauded for trying to clarify and correct an issue that has certaintly raised a little controversy. The follow up is very articulate and well done.

Rocky

Kpt_Krunch · June 2004

Well - I have some more news regarding SACD & DVD-A. I think - though I am not entirely sure on SACD specs - that DVD-A is now the best - by far - then SACD.

I recently purchased from AIX records in California some DVD-A's. These disks are created SPECIFICALLy for DVD-A. These are not old stereo recordings that have been digitalized, but it has been recorded with the highest standard equipment, 16 stereo mic pairs, on the musicians and throughout the hall the recording is made in, done in 96khz/24bit.

Suffice to say, this stuff is unbelieveable. A lot of bass (mind you it is acoustic bass for the most part) and unbelievable clarity. If you close your eyes on the stage mix you would swear the musicians are in the room with you, and not on a disk.

I say I think as I believe SACD cannot hold the info that a DVD-A can, and if this is the case, then DVD-A wins easily, when recorded in Hi-Res. However, I still prefer the SACD's for old mixes recorded in substandard formats - like DSOTM as an example.

Oh, one more thing - no audio drops on the AIX DVD-A's on my 563 - but that's going soon, to be replaced by a Samsung 941

therockman · July 2004

From an article in the August/Sept. 2004 the absolute sound magazine entitled "THE SOUND OF ANALOG TAPE, LP, CD, SACD AND DVD-AUDIO:"
Robert Harley: In regards to SACD or DVD-a, "do ou think one is better than the other."

Doug Sax: "Right now I can't say that one is better than the other. I know that SACD is more forgiving than DVD-A. It feels more analog."

Mark Levinson: "DSD, when used properly, does not create the stress and confusion that is caused by every PCM recording. This is not opinion, this is physiological fact.

Harry Pearson: I agree with Doug about SACD sounding more analog...."

Rocky Bennett

F1nut · July 2004

I find it interesting that the DVD Forum thinks that by adding the low-rez PCM CD side to it's disc's and therefore making them dual disc's that it's somehow going to make them more appealing. The most obvious drawbacks to the idea would be having to worry about scratching two sides and unless clearly labeled, which side is which?!? I understand their reasoning of having backward compatibility, but I don't know of anybody that plays their hybrid SACD's in their car.

Grasping at straws, anybody?

dorokusai · July 2004

I play hybrid SACD's in my car and work truck.

AsSiMiLaTeD · July 2004

I also play hybrid SACDs in the vehicle, but I assumed I was in the minority...

Danny Tse · July 2004

I usually burn CD-Rs of my hybrid SACDs and play those in the car or on my portable CD player.

As for the upcoming DualDisc, many questioned the long-term reliability of this new "format" because there were some techical compromises involved to achieve the backward compatibility.

There was a SACD conference in Hong Kong in June that was hosted by Sony/Universal/Philips. They did mention the DualDisc. Here's a summary at sa-cd.net.

F1nut · July 2004

Hmmmm.....well, now I know 2 people.....freaks!

tonyv1 · July 2004

More info on the Dual Disc .
But it's this info that sucks: "For example, because of the bonding process, the CD layer of the dual disc can now supposedly play only 60 minutes of content, as opposed to 74 minutes on a traditional red book CD. The DVD layer of the disc is what record industry technology geeks call a DVD 5, which is a single-layer DVD that is not capable of storing as much music and aftermarket goodies as a DVD 9, which is a dual disc DVD."

danger boy · July 2004

i got one of those dual discs.. it's BareNaked Ladies. the disc is quite thick. i'm afraid to get it stuck in the car cd player. so i haven't tried it there yet.

F1nut · July 2004

Al,

I'm curious, is that one of the test disc's or a regular release. I thought they were not going to release the DualDisc until late this year or next? How much thicker is it? Does it say on the disc which side is which?

Jesse

danger boy · July 2004

Jesse,

I got it in Seattle. Seattle is a test market for the dual discs. It is a regular release. of the latest release from BNL. I'll check once i get home. just how thick it is.. but you can easily see it's a bit thicker than a Redbook CD.

Danny Tse · July 2004

I believe the Boston area was the other test market.

DualDisc is often mentioned as the hybrid version of DVD-A. My impression of Sony's involvement in the DualDisc program was that it wants to muddy up the field and sinking DVD-A even faster.

danger boy · August 2004

i finally tried out the BNL dual disc in my car CD player.. it played just fine.. didn't hesitate or get stuck in there at all. I was concerned with the thickness of the disc.. but that wasn't a problem at all.

to bad though that the CD layer side isn't in hi rez stereo. how cool would that be?

F1nut · August 2004

Is the hi-rez side in multi-channel only???

danger boy · August 2004

the hi rez tracks are in surround and in stereo as well. but they are on the DVD side... not on the CD side.

F1nut · August 2004

Ok, got it

therockman · August 2004

Originally posted by danger boy
i finally tried out the BNL dual disc in my car CD player.. it played just fine.. didn't hesitate or get stuck in there at all. I was concerned with the thickness of the disc.. but that wasn't a problem at all.

to bad though that the CD layer side isn't in hi rez stereo. how cool would that be?

That would be impossible because the CD side is just that, CD. A CD is 16 bit 44.1 khz, there can never be anything other than that to be called "CD", that is the redbook standard.

Danny Tse · August 2004

The Los Angeles Times is reporting some legal snags for the CD/DVD Dual Disc format even before it is released. In an article that was recently posted on the Times website said that Philips, who owns much of the intellectual property behind the Compact Disc and licenses the CD logo, wouldnt let Dual Disc use the CD logo because it didnt fit into the CD spec.

The above from an article in audio video revolution. Click here for the complete article.

SACD vs. DVD-A

Comments