Post by Michael April 9, 2004 (1 of 16)
|
|
If this has been hashed out previously I can't find it with a search. I have read a few articles on the web and they completely contradict each other on which technology is superior. I just read as article on International Audio Review and he ripped SACD up and down: http://www.iar-80.com/
Are there any objective arguments comparing the two formats? It seems most of the major publications don't want to upset the cart. Now that many new recordings are available in both formats, how should one go about choosing?
Please remember that many of us do not have a degree in physics.....
|
|
|
Post by nickc April 9, 2004 (2 of 16)
|
|
Michael said:
If this has been hashed out previously I can't find it with a search. I have read a few articles on the web and they completely contradict each other on which technology is superior. I just read as article on International Audio Review and he ripped SACD up and down: http://www.iar-80.com/
Are there any objective arguments comparing the two formats? It seems most of the major publications don't want to upset the cart. Now that many new recordings are available in both formats, how should one go about choosing?
Please remember that many of us do not have a degree in physics.....
I have listened to both and find that 96/24 pcm dvd-audio can be excellent (i'm thinking of a Tacet dvd-audio of French String Quartets and an Arts Shostakovich dvd-audio). I think the thing is that they both are a light year ahead of cd, the important diference for me is the true multi-channel aspect. Frankly it is harder to buy a player that does'nt play both formats than to buy one that only plays one of the two (except Sony). To me the most important thing is the skill of the recording team not the medium per se. I have an old Decca cd of the Planets with Cahrles Dutoit which still sounds fantastic (better than the Naxos sacd) and the same could be said of almost every Hyperion cd (though their sacds sound even better!). I'm sure with 50gb blu-ray dvds coming soon (I hope)there will be something even better in 5 years. Enjoy what we have now there are plenty of fantastic sacds; sacd seems to be winning the "format race" in classical at least.
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 9, 2004 (3 of 16)
|
|
Michael said:
Are there any objective arguments comparing the two formats?
Given something sourced at 24bit/96kHz PCM (where DVD-A multichannel maxes out) I'd venture to say that the number of people who can reliably tell the difference between this on DVD-A or resampled to DSD on a SACD carrier you could count on one hand ... assuming a competent player. Any such differences could well be explained away by differing priorities of implementation in the players or DACs themselves. From analogue sources, the quality of the tape machine and skill of the remastering engineer is probably far more important.
You'll find any number of pseudo-scientific papers on the net (the one you've referenced is probably the worst) that will tell you otherwise though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SACD will survive because *I* bought a player and now it must. : ) I didn't go DVD-A because of the dearth of titles, (yes, no EMI and Simon Rattle, but I can live without both very easily), and because I don't mix my cheapy surround system for playing DVD's with my *serious* 2-channel system for playing CDs, and now SACDs. (How many out there won't listen to DVD-A/SACD surround because their *good* system is 2 channel?) Anyway, while the DVD-A people might think it logical that people will just slip a DVD-A player into their current surround system, I wonder if they realized that "those-who-care-about-sound" would never do any serious listening through their surround system. That leaves popping an SACD player into the 2 channel system as the most logical.
Doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 9, 2004 (5 of 16)
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
That leaves popping an SACD player into the 2 channel system as the most logical.
Smart move, deflecting the argument from SACD vs DVD-A to Stereo vs Multichannel :-).
|
|
|
Post by nickc April 9, 2004 (6 of 16)
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
SACD will survive because *I* bought a player and now it must. : ) I didn't go DVD-A because of the dearth of titles, (yes, no EMI and Simon Rattle, but I can live without both very easily), and because I don't mix my cheapy surround system for playing DVD's with my *serious* 2-channel system for playing CDs, and now SACDs. (How many out there won't listen to DVD-A/SACD surround because their *good* system is 2 channel?) Anyway, while the DVD-A people might think it logical that people will just slip a DVD-A player into their current surround system, I wonder if they realized that "those-who-care-about-sound" would never do any serious listening through their surround system. That leaves popping an SACD player into the 2 channel system as the most logical.
Doesn't it?
I would suggest you listen to a good MC sacd as you will be amazed. Two channel can be great but MC is the difference between just listening and living it! You don't need great rear speakers as it is mainly ambience from the rears but even with modest rears you will struggle ever to go back to plain stereo again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
Smart move, deflecting the argument from SACD vs DVD-A to Stereo vs Multichannel :-).
I like multi-channel, in fact I was amazed by it. However, it was SACD's abiltity to tame harsh strings in 2 channel that sold me on the new format. What I'm suggesting is that SACD seems to be a more perfect fit (perhaps psychologically) for *both* the surround crowd and the two-channel crowd, which means of course, *two* groups opening their wallet for SACD. Is there anyone out there who would buy DVD-A to upgrade the sound of their 2-channel system? I wouldn't: I would feel very strange hooking up a DVD-A player to my 2-channel audio-only system. Do I unplug it and move it to watch movies? Um, no. "A switch box," you say.... I think not! Do I mix my systems? Heck no! Two DVD players? Redundant!
What does the rest of the 2-channel crowd think? I could just be weird.
|
|
|
Post by nickc April 10, 2004 (8 of 16)
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
I like multi-channel, in fact I was amazed by it. However, it was SACD's abiltity to tame harsh strings in 2 channel that sold me on the new format. What I'm suggesting is that SACD seems to be a more perfect fit (perhaps psychologically) for *both* the surround crowd and the two-channel crowd, which means of course, *two* groups opening their wallet for SACD. Is there anyone out there who would buy DVD-A to upgrade the sound of their 2-channel system? I wouldn't: I would feel very strange hooking up a DVD-A player to my 2-channel audio-only system. Do I unplug it and move it to watch movies? Um, no. "A switch box," you say.... I think not! Do I mix my systems? Heck no! Two DVD players? Redundant!
What does the rest of the 2-channel crowd think? I could just be weird.
I have a universal player and as I have posted somewhere else on this site virtually all new players now made are universal. I am fairly low on the food chain equipment wise (though I always put my Lottery tickets in :) )and through my Pioneer I can't hear a huge difference between DVD-A and SACD, lucky me! I think the future of music lies in MC, I don't mind if it is DVD-A, SACD or Blu-Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
I like multi-channel, in fact I was amazed by it. However, it was SACD's abiltity to tame harsh strings in 2 channel that sold me on the new format. What I'm suggesting is that SACD seems to be a more perfect fit (perhaps psychologically) for *both* the surround crowd and the two-channel crowd, which means of course, *two* groups opening their wallet for SACD. Is there anyone out there who would buy DVD-A to upgrade the sound of their 2-channel system? I wouldn't: I would feel very strange hooking up a DVD-A player to my 2-channel audio-only system. Do I unplug it and move it to watch movies? Um, no. "A switch box," you say.... I think not! Do I mix my systems? Heck no! Two DVD players? Redundant!
What does the rest of the 2-channel crowd think? I could just be weird.
dear jd, - why not mix your systems? It can be done without compromising stereo quality (I use a stereo pre-amp and amps as well as a sep't SR for rears and centre) and you'd have the option of multi-channel using your fav. speakers. I ran my SACDs originally on stereo, but I don't think I could go back now. MC's got me! Also, why would you need two DVD players? Sell one or move it to the bedroom. Can't recommend M/C strongly enough, - the extra sense of involvement and drama is addictive. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael April 10, 2004 (10 of 16)
|
|
Thank you all for your posts. It appears that to most of you as long as it is MC it really does not matter the format, from my listening experience I cannot argue. I respect the folks that listen to 2-channel but I prefer the MC myself. Since my player plays both formats I have an option to choose, perhaps price of the recording should be the deciding issue.
|
|
