SACD X DVD-A

[Alécio Costa - Brazil]

Hi!
Just wanted to know from friends, which format is gaining more popularity in the USA..
Seems that just now will be released the first Brazilian DVD-A, from a top hit band called Capital Inicial.
with the popularity of the DVD video, wouldn´t it be easier to make it catch?
will the mass buy into the idea of more dynamics and more headroom? Seems most are semi-deaf and already happy with crappy mp3´s!!!
Down here one shall be able to buy a reasonable DVD player under $200, getting popular faster than the CD players at the end of the 80´s/early 90´s.
Bill has reported some disservice among some stuff he listened at the SACD format...

today I was on a store and was able to buy a DVD, SHOW OF HANDS, from Rush for just U$3, almost the price of a pirate CD audio!! They also had Jimmy Hendrix, Deep Purple and an awful release from early 70´s with Rick wakeman, which I laughed a lot when I watched it. The guy will get ashamed if he knows that that crap is still being sold down hre in Brazil..

Hope to hear :w: from you!
Nice friday!

 

[Michael Fossenkemper]

well as you know, there is a battle going on between the 2 formats. Sony of coarse is supporting SACD, and Universal just signed on to the SACD format which is a huge label now. I have yet to see a player that will play both formats at hi resolution. So I made a compromise and bought a SACD player that supported DVD-V. Now DVD-A caught on to the player issue and they release most of the titles with dolby digital or DTS streams so they will play on standard DVD-V players. This uses lossy compression but i think it still sounds pretty good and it's multichannel. So in my opinion, DVD-A is playing the game a little wiser by authoring the discs that will play in standard DVD-V players which most people have.

 

[Alécio Costa - Brazil]

Thanks Michael!
Bill, Joe.. what are your opinions?

 

[audiowkstation]

Please excuse the typos and not hold it against my wisdom or weaknesses

The battle of formats actually depends, if you want to hear all the works as they are being done (good and bad) then have both!.. DVD-A which is PCM based mulitchannels mixdown. DVD-A has no 2 channel foldback. If you want to listen to a DVD-A in stereo and it was authored in multichannel (most if not close to all are) then 2 channel playback will be fold back summed and you lose the actual 2 mix. It was never there.

Some DVD-A machines require a video monitor to navagate the root sequence for play and setup.

That means using it in multimedia home theater system which is actually based on different realums than high fidelity music reproduction!!

On the other hand, SACD is avaliable in Multi channel single layer, multichannel dual layer or 2-bus dual or single layer or actually all 4.

SACD makes for listening to 2 mix, high rez or standard redbook (regular CD) from the same disc without foldbacking the multimix. It is separate 2 mix on the disc. SACD's will play (if multilayer) on a regular cd machine..(with possible enhanced quality).

No single layer SACD will play back in anything but a sacd player. Disc is rejected otherwise. RPM, Data, all different from CD format/ redbook, white book /orange book or the elusive blue book (lol porn video I guess)..will not work.

DVD-A is getting the titles I want to hear. Like Fleetwod Mac and Clapton. DVD-A is PCM based media in either 24 bit 88.1K, 24 bit 96K or 24 bit 192K. All DVD-A discs are in 24 bit word.

Now for the kicker, it is all about how the finished product hits the machine..and that is our job to take advantage of either or all of these formats...if we could only be asked to do it. So far the open communications we enjoy with studio work with the ultra expensive systems we have and 1000's of hrs of talent to realize the precision that it all can afford. It is not being directed openly to those that could save them money and do a better job.

No brag. Just fact. Proven time and time again.

I can do better work in SACD than the presentation that is getting to press. I would follow it through to the end as part of my package.

As far a DVD-A goes, it is consistanly..more consistant in terms of good sound and good mix..but the foldback to 2 mix is not good done by machine and the variables of all the formats are NOT consumer friendly at all. Plus the aggravation of buying the music again from another format.

I feel that the problem is greed..like beta sony, and jvc vhs. It is who ever wins and the consumers end up loosing in the long run. Sonys' track record is not good. Elcassette Dead. Beta for consumers. dead. Beta SP for pro? Good! DAT for consumers . Dead. Dat for pro..dying slow but is still good. Memory stick technology? Dying slowly..who wants to pay 300 quid for a damned 256K stick when you can have Nomad? (6 gig same price)

I bought an SACD player and it is a very nice machine. It plays regular CDs as well as SACDs and I admit..My regular CD's in this machine sound great..ones I make etc.. It is a fine redbook playback with dig out.

My DVD player does not have the confusion of the format and it will not do DVD-A (standard)quality, but they play sometimes. (the DVD-A disc as regular DVD's) My DVD will play MP3 CD..and it is great at that and even upstremes the MP3 to 24/96, Wild! IT is a wild old experimental bird.

No one can guess which group will make it big but I gurantee you that if you have fantastic sound, you have a better chance in whatever forms be it:

...SACD: Single layer 2 ch
SACD: Dual layer 2 ch
SACD Single layer Multichanel with 2 mix channels
SACD Dual layer with Multi and 2 mix capabilities (either or)

Or DVD-A

Rendering not consistant with final master.
Computer breakdown (between seat and monitor errors in authoring.(Thanks Michael...I see that as well)

It is confusing at best. A consumer would not have a clue and I actually as not complete in the SACD/DVD-A variables either. Too many confusing schemes, all wanting to be stadard.

DVD-A

I have not a machine yet and I reserve the voice to say that I have heard of a few DVD-A'S That are good on multi channel and sucks on 2 mix. This could be fixed I am sure and DVD-A discs will play in a standard DVD machine at 24 bit but will not access the higher definition authored on DVD-A...and Some DVD-A disc have verance system of watermarking the media for copy protection that many using the disc and the actual engineers say is audible distortion, induced from the water mark.

The problem is greed.

Most consumers are ok with MP3.
These higher bandwidth/higher clock and higher freqency reponse formats are being butchered by an industry that has only one thing in Mind. Get the moneies and forget what actually working engineers feel is best, due to Arts Sake/

Wooo........ Cannot do that for a while..too many emotions..rather get them from fine music not this format equipment battle $*^t.

Good ones, not beiling left out ones and hearing mistakes that I can fix.

I think thr single sub realum for Home theater is the worst of these repects. the cone cannot move 2 dirrections at the same time. Stereo subs or no subs at all is my motto.

 

[Michael Fossenkemper]

another observation between these two formats.

I went out and bought a consumer SACD player and a mid fi harmon-kardon surround amp. Now SACD will not output a digital stream (neither will DVD-A hi res) so one must use the players D/A converters. now these 24/192 converters in the consumer players suck, and you then run them into a A/D converter going into the amp, sucks also. by the time it gets to the speakers, it's gone through 3 really bad conversions. I spent around $1500 for the system which is probably more than the average listener will spend.

Now with DVD-A, most titles are also encoded with a dolby digital stream or a DTS stream. Although it is a lossy compression, it avoids 2 really bad conversions and the difference is big. I can select between my player outputing the DTS stream through the players D/A converters or a digital stream. going back and forth is like listening to different mixes. Listening to a DTS stream from a DVD-A disc sounds tons better than listening to a hi res SACD out of the same player. This is kind of screwed up being that most consumer systems are below this. I've also noticed that several SACD titles are not true multichannel mixes, they are doctored 2 channel mixes processed to emulate multichannel. To top it off, i've been told that sony has to author all SACD's where as DVD-A can be authored by the mastering house. I'm not talking about mastering, just authoring. And as Bill stated, the selection of SACD titles has much to be desired. Plus it won't output any video and DVD-A at least gives you some video output. I've also found that the 2 channel red book audio on a SACD doesn't sound as good coming out of a SACD player as it does coming out of a regular CD player, why I don't know.

DVD-A has a problem finding a copy protection scheme that can't be cracked so labels are reluctant to gravitate towards this. This is all very frustrating to me because i would like to move into one of these formats but can't decide which one.

Now pyramix which is selling a DSD editor converts the DSD stream to PCM to do any processing, then converts it back to DSD. So it's really not DSD but PCM. Philips supports this... huh? I thought they said DSD was so much better than PCM yet they endorse a company that converts the DSD stream to PCM and then back again.

Now the problem with processing. Most mastering houses have tons of money invested in PCM processing gear. What happens if DSD becomes the format, do we throw away all of this expensive gear and buy new DSD gear? gives me the willies. I'm leaning towards DVD-A but hedging my bets with DSD in that I'm looking at 2 systems that will do both.

If anyone else has any insight into this, I would love to hear it.

 

[Gold]

Originally posted by Michael Fossenkemper:
Now pyramix which is selling a DSD editor converts the DSD stream to PCM to do any processing, then converts it back to DSD. So it's really not DSD but PCM. Philips supports this... huh? I thought they said DSD was so much better than PCM yet they endorse a company that converts the DSD stream to PCM and then back again.
[/QB]

I don't think it is as cut and dried as this. There was a lengthty discussion about this on the MWB if anyone is interested. It's under DSD Discussions - HiFs PCM. It gets into some technical and esoteric stuff. From what I gathered there is some debate over whether there is anything wrong with converting a single bit 2.82 Mhz word to a multibit 382khz word. You would gain some things and lose others. I bet it depends on the skill of the designer.

 

[audiowkstation]

Today Circuit city had the Rolling stones SACD/CD hybrids on sale for 9.99 each. I must say Bob Ludwig did a good job on these. I also hear where he had a slight rise at 4K (less than a dB) and could have added 1.5dB more to the 45hZ range but overall this is very good quality.

Remember, his system does color and his perception is another thing entirely. He has a signature and blindfolded lately I can hear it. Centered around mega buck speakers with a lot of 45 and a dip at 3 to 5 K.

Exception. Let it bleed, He nailed it. Perfect. Best I have ever heard. It is laying so close to the pocket, I would sware he did it here.

Get let it bleed Michael and do track 5. It is really good.

It is as close to the master tapes as we will ever get.

Remember, taste in riaa and what we were always use to on these tunes have a lot to do with it but a little birdy in my mine says "I am hearing Ludwigs system some" and yes..My system is more accurate thank you so don't go there....(snide arrogant remark)

Go get some and enjoy if you have a SACD player.