DVD-A vs. SACD? Who freaking cares anymore! (Warning: Serious Rant)

aaharvel · September 2005

Let's rewind abit guys. Remember 1999? The year of SACD and DVD-A. Remember the hype? Remember the gorgeous $5,000 SCD-1? Is there anybody here that didn't lust after that piece? Remember all the arguments we had over which format was better? Remember the one thing that was more important than the arguments was the enthusiasm we all shared for "The Next Big Thing"? The next big evolution in Home Audio and Hi-Fi?

Well that was then muchachos.

Now, DVD-Audio is dead. Shown the door long ago by retailers due to the fact that the creative geniuses in DVD-Audioland woke up one morning and decided they wanted their new play toy to have zero compatability with the millions of CD-Players worldwide, despite the fact they both share the same 23year old recording technology. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

On the **** Alert System, a scale of 1 to DIVX, I'd give that brainfart a DIVX.

SACD- not much better. While not quite DOA like the PCMking, it's definitely being handed it's hat. Telarc and a few other loyalists to the format are releasing as many Jazz and Classical discs as they can but sad to say they're only slowing it's own demise. In order to survive, SACD needs mainstream exposure with the record labels and pop culture musical genres supplying the ammunition. Period.

Speaking of utterly and completely retarded- Someone should have told the SACD Suits that it's an utter waste of time to stuff a tiny little brochure inside a (still)cheap Jewel case- informing the SACD buyer about how much SACD kicks ****. ATTENTION MARKETING DUMBASSES: WE ALREADY KNOW SACD RULES! THAT'S WHY WE PURCHASED THE FREAKING DISC! :rolleyes:

Adding insult to injury, SACD creators Sony & Phillips are now in bed with DVDaudio's LOWER-Fi heir apparent, Dualshitdisc for god knows what and god knows why. When all is said and done- you've got to hand it to Sony. They didn't create "the successor to the CD"- but did one better: They created "the successor to fuckups like D.A.T. and BetaMax." Again. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

This post brought to you by a very disappointed and pissed off SACD fan. :mad:

F1nut · September 2005

I hear ya, bro.

MacLeod · September 2005

I think the problem is that most people dont listen to music for long periods of time so 5.1 music would be worthless to most consumers.

I admit Im guilty of this as well. I dont listen to music that much when Im at home. Sure I like to occasionally sit down, sip some gin and listen to a few choice selections but 85% of the time my speakers and receiver are faithfully reproducing either Law and Order re-runs or Max Payne!

jrausch · September 2005

Sacd,dvd Audio=demise/lawyers+triple Royalties.

madmax · September 2005

I think the main problem is the mainstream buyer of today doesn't really care if it is mp3 quality or SACD quality. Given most popular music I can see why.
madmax

jdhdiggs · September 2005

MM- Absofreakinlutely...

Most people wouldn't know good sound if it kicked them in the crotch, so why spend more money on SACD when you can rip the MP3 for free (or nearly that)

TroyD · September 2005

The fact of the matter is, the 'common man' has no real interest in higher resolution. Period end of story. Therefore, as a mainstream product, both were doomed from jump street. Peer to peer filesharing is the way of the future, that is what the masses are going for.

Any inroads to be made will be done via hybrid discs, but again, mark my words...any sort of hard copy media is already a dinosaur.

DVD-A is all but dead, SACD will continue to exist as a niche market, and for me, that's perfectly acceptable. I could really care less in a high resolution copy of Britney Spears. As hifi enthusiasts, we aren't mainstream and as lower resolution media becomes more the norm, we will get farther from it.

BDT

heiney9 · September 2005

I have to say I never got too excited about SACD or DVD-A. Most mastering and production standards today sound like complete shite! Why would I want 5.1 channels of the same 2-ch shite. Take the millions of $$$ spent on marketing these 2 formats and send the engineers back to school to learn how to properly mix and master a disc that actually sounds good on a high resolution system like most of us have that participate in this forum. Damn that's a long sentence. The fact is we are still at the mercy of the recording engineer no mater what format we use. Said engineer can make or break the sound. I'm sure there are fabulous sounding SACD's and DVD-A's just as there are fabulous sounding Redbook cd's. But just stop trying to sell us on the fact that these formats, just by their very nature, automatically sound better than the equivalent Redbook cd. That's what has turned me completely off about these 2 formats. I'm not sure every SACD or DVD-A always sounds better than its Redbook counterpart.

H9

aaharvel · September 2005

i've never seen a SACD yet that DOESN'T sound better than it's Redbook counterpart- the closest one being Norah Jones' C.A.W.M. and even the DSD watered down version of that sounded better (at least to my ears) than the cd pcm version.

Sound quality isn't the problem. Marketing, the lack of adopting ONE standard, and the stupid 6 cables you have to use to play the track. The new digital SACD cables and jacks came about 6years too late if you ask me.

Danny Tse · September 2005

I think it's the whole culture of iPod/downloading that limited the success of SACD/DVD-A. The typical mass consumer doesn't care about the ultimate in sound quality; it's always convenience that will win out. On top of that, the lure of music via "free" downloading also help to drive, not only hi-rez, the music industry's decline. Think of hi-rez as a Porsche....not everyone will know how to appreciate it.

BTW, SACD just became HDMI V1.2 compatible. And the SACD of Sheryl Crow's "Globe Session" is now available at yourmusic.com for $5.99.

heiney9 · September 2005

aaharvel wrote:

i've never seen a SACD yet that DOESN'T sound better than it's Redbook counterpart- the closest one being Norah Jones' C.A.W.M. and even the DSD watered down version of that sounded better (at least to my ears) than the cd pcm version.

Sound quality isn't the problem. Marketing, the lack of adopting ONE standard, and the stupid 6 cables you have to use to play the track. The new digital SACD cables and jacks came about 6years too late if you ask me.

I admit I'm not into multi-channel listening at all, maybe that's why no interest in these formats. But you can't honestly say that if a Redbook cd is mix/mastered poorly that when they do the 5.1 mix it's always better. Yes, there are more channels/processing to fool with. Maybe some of the glaring deficiencies are glazed over when more channels are invloved but somehow I doubt it sounds better....different but maybe not better everytime.

I'm just not sure how one would go about assembling a true high end 5.1 system. I know I'd have seperate amps for each channel. The best speaks for each channel. The best cabling for each channel. Now here's where it gets sticky for me. I'm a big believer in outbaord Dac's...so I'd have to have a seperate Dac for each channel and a processor that's capable of adding no color to the sound what so-ever. I'm not sure this is realistically feasable and if it is, I wouldn't want to see the $$$ tag on it. Yeah I know you can get the Dac's built into the processor etc....but that doesn't cut it. How can one reasonaly assume a $300-500 Sony SACD player is going to give true high resolution sound? I have 3 times that wrapped up in my cdplayer and outboard Dac...and it sounds damn good, but there are better out there to be had. The general opinion of the public is more channels = better sound. That's not nec true for every situation.

Just my POV on why I won't accept SACD or DVD-A as being the better alternative to Redbook sound. I'm older...set in my ways and have yet to be convinced multi-channel audio is the way to go.

shack · September 2005

SACD is not about multi-channel - Most of the early (and some of the best) SACD titles are "stereo only". SACD was a true Hi Rez effort. The MC stuff came about as a mechanism to take the technology mainstream and piggyback on the HT phenomenon. DVD-A was always aimed at being a MC format. I have numerous SACD discs (stereo, MC/stereo, hybrid/MC/stereo) and there is only one that I listen to in MC: The Dark Side of the Moon. I will occasionally listen to the MC track of a new CD but I always go back to the 2 channel. SACD may survive as a niche format because it started out as THAT niche format and tried to branch out which didn't work. The premise of a Hi Rez digital is viable for that niche so it should have a chance to survive, albeit in a limited way

madmax · September 2005

Redbook CD's sound glorious on the right equipment, far better than SACD or DVD-A on average consumer level components. I just had to throw that in.
madmax

PolknPepsi · September 2005

What an enjoyable rant to read.....

......and you are right, someone needs to settle on a single format.

heiney9 · September 2005

shack wrote:

SACD is not about multi-channel - Most of the early (and some of the best) SACD titles are "stereo only". SACD was a true Hi Rez effort. The MC stuff came about as a mechanism to take the technology mainstream and piggyback on the HT phenomenon. DVD-A was always aimed at being a MC format. I have numerous SACD discs (stereo, MC/stereo, hybrid/MC/stereo) and there is only one that I listen to in MC: The Dark Side of the Moon. I will occasionally listen to the MC track of a new CD but I always go back to the 2 channel. SACD may survive as a niche format because it started out as THAT niche format and tried to branch out which didn't work. The premise of a Hi Rez digital is viable for that niche so it should have a chance to survive, albeit in a limited way

Thanks for pointing that out....that shows how little I remember when I read about it when first introduced. I'd be curious to hear DSOTM on Sacd because I have the original redbook release and it just doesn't strike me as a great sounding cd. Lifeless is a word that comes to mind. Maybe the redbook remaster is better...who knows. The thing I find with my personal system is it tends to really make the marginal recordings sound like dog s**t. Any little defeciency in the recording is very obvious. But on the flip side a well recorded disc sounds incredible. I guess it's really a matter of personal preference sometimes

H9

heiney9 · September 2005

madmax wrote:

Redbook CD's sound glorious on the right equipment, far better than SACD or DVD-A on average consumer level components. I just had to throw that in.
madmax

You summed it up in one easy to comprehend sentence. I would take a high end redbook set-up over an average level SACD or DVD-A system any day. That's what I've been trying to say only I used about thousand more words...and still wasn't as eloquent as you MM :cool:

H9

polkatese · September 2005

I heard this modded Denon 3910 in action, and redbook CDs played on this player sounded a whole lot better than any SACD players within the same price point. (http://www.aplhifi.com/DENON.html) Chuck really knows what he's talking about

Danny Tse · September 2005

shack wrote:

SACD is not about multi-channel - Most of the early (and some of the best) SACD titles are "stereo only". SACD was a true Hi Rez effort. The MC stuff came about as a mechanism to take the technology mainstream and piggyback on the HT phenomenon.

I listen to SACDs with my headphones (Grado SR60 w/ Sennheiser 414 pads). There seems to be a misconception that SACD requires having a multi-channel setup....that just isn't true. A good sounding SACD sounds extremely good, even on my budget-priced Sony DVP-NS500V.

RuSsMaN · September 2005

Redbooks, Vinyl. All I could ever want, or need for that matter.

shack · September 2005

madmax wrote:

Redbook CD's sound glorious on the right equipment, far better than SACD or DVD-A on average consumer level components. I just had to throw that in.
madmax

Apples and oranges. You can use that analogy on just about anything.
Spend the same amount of money on similar quality gear and the SACD is better IMO.

reeltrouble1 · September 2005

shack wrote:

Apples and oranges. You can use that analogy on just about anything.
Spend the same amount of money on similar quality gear and the SACD is better IMO.

Expecially two channel which both SACD and DVD-A discs have.

So now I read where the younger ones 30-40 have notable hearing loss as a result of plugging buds into their ear and cranking the volume, well of course you have to crank it to fool yourself into saying how it sounds any good at all. They were not talking standard stero headphones but the IPOD MP-3 and cell phones. The 10-30 crowd will catch and surpass them as far as early hearing loss but it takes a while.

Like gas I expect to be paying more dollars eventually for hi-rez, but I really dont care. I definetly prefer it over redbook but as I improve my redbook components they are getting closer, of course I have not upgraded my SACD player. Maybe the techno's will continue to find a way to improve redbook, but lets face it, the rock genre is lacking right now for old birds like me, so yea give me old bands on SACD. Remember the better band the less the recording has to work. As long as its 2 ch I dont care, I would do vinyl but until I have the dough to drop on a TT setup that can match SACD sound its high rez for me then redbook.

RT1

aaharvel · September 2005

shack wrote:

Apples and oranges. You can use that analogy on just about anything.
Spend the same amount of money on similar quality gear and the SACD is better IMO.

right on.
IF it's only available on redbook, I almost always burn the music. I know it's wrong- but jimmy crack corn & I don't care. If I CAN get it on SACD- I ALWAYS throw down the cash for it; and it's always worth it.

F1nut · September 2005

I love SACD 2 channel, far better than redbook in almost all cases.

ND13 · September 2005

F1nut wrote:

I love SACD 2 channel, far better than redbook in almost all cases.

Never knew you could do sacd on 2 channel. Is there a setting for that on the player?

Or would I just hook up the L & R channels only??

F1nut · September 2005

Well, my SACD player was designed for 2 channel playback only, so I would say that if you were to only use the left and right interconnects on yours that you would get 2 channel only by default.

ND13 · September 2005

I guess I answered my own ?, huh?

Can't wait to get to meet ya in person Jesse. See ya Friday

You gonna bring over any gear to sell?

Danny Tse · September 2005

ND13 wrote:

Never knew you could do sacd on 2 channel. Is there a setting for that on the player?

Or would I just hook up the L & R channels only??

ND13,

Almost all SACDs contain a distinct 2 channel stereo hi-rez mix, which is located on the same layer as the hi-rez multi-channel mix (if there's one). There's no downmixing from multi-channel to 2 channel stereo with SACD.

However, just hooking up the L & R channels only may not get you the appropriate hi-rez mix if all you want is 2 channel stereo hi-rez. My Sony SCD-CE595 SACD/CD changer plays, by default, the hi-rez multi-channel mix (if there's one). If I load a multi-channel SACD into this player, and with only the L & R channels hooked up, I only hear the L & R channels of the multi-channel mix. So check your player's manual, there should be some way to set your preference as to what gets played first.

F1nut · September 2005

Hmmm....good point Danny, I have heard that some player do that.

Noel, ditto and I have no plans to sell anything at this time.

ND13 · September 2005

Just trying to find a tube amp that can pair up with the ELP to drive my 1Bs, that should be here by Monday, I hope. Going to retire the 2Bs to the bench for now.

danger boy · September 2005

I have up on SACD and DVD-a at the beginning of this year.. the releases on DVD-a stunk. SACD had better releases.. but still.. i had to buy a player to listen to them on.

I find like others..that Redbook still reigns supreme.

2DualsNotEnough · September 2005

Ive owned both dvd-a and sacd players,and Id have to say it all comes down to the production quality of the individual title.My DVD-A multi channel versions of Fleetwood Mac-Rumours,and espescially,Steely Dan-Everything Must Go are far superior to the redbook versions.More detail,much,much better imaging,IMHO.I bought most of the SACD reissues of the vintage Dylan releases on the same day in a mad impulse buying spree,and I was seriously bummed.My vinyl kicked its ****.Like any format,its hit and miss,since mastering and production quality varies so much from release to release.I mean,how many more modern releases really sound as good as a lot of those Mercury Living prescence titles from the 60's?And it seems that every format that comes down,one of the first things that gets released is Brubecks Time Out.So much for "modern recording is ALWAYS better,huh?
Jimmy

DVD-A vs. SACD? Who freaking cares anymore! (Warning: Serious Rant)

Comments