dvd-audio/sacd?

dave shepard

I have read where there is a battle between the two formats like between vhs and beta. I see that there are groups on both formats that I would like to listen to but none have both formats avable. I was thinking of adding a sacd to my system but don't want to if one becomes extinct like beta. I was wondering if anybody has heard which seems to be the most popoular of the two and will most likely survive? I also see that they have came out with a player that plays all formats including dvd-audio and sacd any info on those? Makes me wonder why they didn't do that in the first place.

Thanks
Dave

F1nut

Per Music Direct's website, 703 SACD's and 19 DVD-A's. Per Red Trumpet's website, 384 SACD's and 40 DVD-A's. Make of that what you will, I've ordered a SACD player. I've heard of the combo players coming out, but believe in order to do that, too many compromises are made in sound quality, but that remains to be seen. Of note, Sony has commited to releasing all future SACD's in the hybrid format, while the DVD-A guys are still thinking about releasing a DVD-A/CD format. Probably too little, too late.

Edit: I should have said, Sony will be releasing all CD's in the SACD hybrid format.

dave shepard

I have yet to listen to an sacd, does it offer the seperation of sound on a 5.1 system that the dvd-audio does?

Thanks Dave

F1nut

Dave,

No offense, but I'm in the camp that thinks surround sound might be ok for movies, but sucks for music. However, I have read reviews that are favorable to multi-channel SACD and I can say that in 2 channel it's awesome.

Shizelbs

I agree with F1nut, music should not be created for surround sound. I am enthused at the prospect of improved quality for 2 channel, but I find it irritating to be in surround music. Its the best thing ever for movies, but not too appealing for music. I find it hard to believe that in a sense I am in the middle of a bunch of instruments. I like feeling like I am in the audience, not on the stage. Furthermore, I am really irritated by the sense that one symbol is front right to me, the snare behind me, and the high-hat to the front left of me. Just too fake.

ChrisDurano

I couldn't agree more with the previous two observations. I love the sound of instruments behind the vocals (just like a concert). I do, however, enjoy listening to DSPs occasionally...like concerthall, jazz, etc. Its a nice change sometimes and its not as extreme as the DVD-Audio & SACD separation where you feel like your more on the stage than in the audience. Of course it seems like I'm always using my headphones when I'm listening to 2-channel formats because of my wife.:mad:

mhw58

You guys should hear more multi-channel music before
you tune it out. I have a quad dts cd of Dark side of
the moon that is fantastic. I also have quad dts cd's
of Wish you were here and Atom heart mother. I love
them, you can hear things in the mix you don't hear in
two channel. I also have the dvd-audio of Queens a night
at the opera and it is awesome. You should hear Bohemian
Rhapsody in 5:1. The new Beatle anthology dvd's are fantastic.
I am the walrus is amazing in 5:1. I love two channel but
multi channel when it is done right is great. I'm not talking
about live cd's or dvd's but studio stuff that was recorded
on 4, 8, 16 or even 32 channels. When stereo first came out,
many people thought it was gimmicky and you can remember
early stereo recordings where the vocals were in one channel
and the instruments were in the other. It sounded gimmicky but
after awhile, it was perfected. Multi channel music is in that
early phase where some recordings are great and others
are not. The new SACD Dark side of the moon is supposed to
be incredible while I've read others that prefer the quad version.
Pink FLoyd worked on quad back in the 70's so this is not new.
I think multi channel music is hear to stay and will only get better.
I have sda1c's as my fronts and 2's as my rears so quad sounds
fantastic on my system.
Keep your ears and mind open.
Mike

jmasterj

I have both formats, and enjoy them both. I have about 5 SACD, and 4 DVD Audio disc. All are multi-channel and sound great. I also enjoy playing regular CD's in the Jazz Club mode on my receiver. I think SACD is in the lead of the format wars. Mainly because SONY music is putting out a lot of disc. It's all about copy write protection. You can't copy a SACD so people wont be able to burn one for friends. Friends will have to buy one. Now as for DVD Audio they have picture capability. If they would market it right it could succede also. Take a listen on a good quality system. Tell us what you think.

jmasterj

PS. I plan to up grade my SACD player to the Phillips 963 it not only has Progressive scan, and SACD, but it up samples regular CD's so they sound like SACD's. Price is reasonable too.

HBombToo

I really think upsampling is a lot of hype and pose my reason as a question. If we start with 16 bits and upsample to 24 how do we get better sound quality? If it was not there to begin with then its still not there regardless of a 44.1 or 48 or 96 rate.

Reduce jitter and quality will go through the roof.

HBomb

gidrah

Originally posted by HBombToo

Reduce jitter and quality will go through the roof.

HBomb

I could be way off base here, but I think this is the basis for upsampling. When sped up it acts more like a fluid stream instead of stops and starts.

I'll continue to hold out for the final verdict and cost reduction. I will say that SACD seems to rule the hi-end market compared to DVD-A.

HBombToo

Probably what you have (experienced/or saying) is that higher bit and higher rate systems have more accurate clocks hence less jitter. Jitter occurrs between the transport and the DAC so the higher the bit rate the more jitter will effect the transfer and thats the reason for more accurate clocks.

This is a real tough subject even for the most technical of audiophiles. Redbook CD is a 16bit word length and is created from a sampling rate of the analog @ 44.1 Khz which just slightly over the Nyquist rate or twice the highest frequency. So for frequencies over 22.05 kHz the alias becomes so bad that an accurate representation can not be achieved so in theory cannot be recreated by the DAC. At sample rates of 96 kHz we are looking at a top end frequencies of 48kHz/24 Bit quantization being accurately reproduced but, ("is it"), the frequency we hear or the harmonics available from reproduction. I would agree that harmonics to that point are what is responsible for a warmer more accurate sound reproduction but from redbook if they are not captured in the first place they cannot be recreated by upsampling.

Messy stuff here and this is just my take on the whole topic
HBomb

danger boy

I only have experience with DVD-audio. For those people who don't understand how good mulitichannel audio could sound.. I say take a listen. It is not anything like the old Quad stereo. It's so MUCH better.

I've got about a dozen DVD-a discs now. The clarity is amazing. I listen to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody in 5.1 high resolution 24 bit pure audio. it blows away any other previous versions of that song. It even blows away the DTS version of the song.

It was "different" when I first played a DVD-a disc.. but I love the sound that comes from 6 speakers as oppsed to just two in stereo. If you get the opportunity to listen to DVD-a, give it a listen in a well set up room. While mine is not ideal by any means.. it it impressive to say the least.

AS for which format will succeed, it's still to early to tell. If the record companies and the makers of the players don't push the their respective formats forward.. both will die like Beta did. ANd while we all know that Beta was the better format.. it lacked publicity. VHS won out only because it was shoved down our throats. Beta had better sound quailty, better picture quality over VHS. This is where we are at with the multichannel formats. IN this case... neither may survive.

It appears that Sound and Vision is supporting the multichannel formats.... with their coverage slanted towards DVD-audio.

As for multi-format players. Yeah bring em on baby! I'm so ready for a multi-format player at a reasonable price it can't get here soon enough.

This is my last point here. and someone correct me if i'm wrong. but multichannel formats pass thru their signal "clean".. without going thru the receivers processors? IF that is indeed the case.. since decoding of these formats is done in the player.. the signal should be truer or cleaner, right?

that's all folks!

Al

ChrisDurano

I noticed you have fx300i's for your surrounds Al. How are those with your DVD-Audio? I always thought direct radiating was more ideal for that type of media. Do you have them set to "bipolar" or "dipole?"

danger boy

ChrisDurano,
Yes I do have the FX/300 with are run in bipolar setting. for those people who don't know. bipole diffuses the sound of the speakers. there is also a dipole pattern.. does the same thing.. only in a different sound pattern. bipole the speakers are usually place behind your sweet spot. while in dipolar they are usually place to the side of you.

Chris you are correct. In a DVD-audio set up... you would have 4 same speakers, and a subwoofer... no center is needed. Since my system also doubles for DVD movies. and two channel audio. it's the best I could do. The only problem with the small size of the FX/300 is their small drivers don't match the drivers in the fronts, 1000i's and 800i's.

hope that answered your question.

geekmedic

I know the Soundblaster Audigy 2 supports DVD-Audio. Do any of you know if it supports SACD as well? (For all of us Home Theatre PC buffs.)