SACD or DVD-A
06-17-2004, 07:36 PM
#1
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 189
I just picked up Floyds Dark Side of the Moon on SACD today and it sounds awsome but its not quite as distinct as the DVD-A's I have listened to. Now not sure if its my player(Pioneer DV-563A) or not. Anyone try both formats on their home system? If so which one did you find to be more distinct and sound better?
06-18-2004, 09:48 AM
#2
Most audiophiles I've talked to prefer DVD-A; however, most musicians prefer SACD (but what do they know -- they use Macs). I like both, but the DVD-As I have listened to seem to be mastered better -- remember, this is new technology -- it took Manufactors about 10 years to make CDs sound good (don't believe me? use a CD or player circa 1985). In five years we'll have "remastered" SACD and DVD-As and players that have much better DA converters.
06-18-2004, 09:38 PM
#3
0 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23
For what its worth I remember seeing an endorsement by Niel Young for DVD-A. Niel is the last person to get sucked into engorsing anything but as I recall he stated that DVD-A was the closest thing to the original master tape that he had ever heard. Saw this in a old Stereophile magazine regarding DVD-A vs SACD.
06-19-2004, 10:04 AM
#5
The audiophiles that I know and interact with tell me that sacd is the way to go because of it's 2-chan roots. With DVD-A and it's 5.1, it's like you're sitting in band, rather than sitting infront of them like the audience should. And from what I understand, the sampling rate of dvd-a is 96kHz vs the 192 that sacd is at. Does that actually make a difference? Some would say so... I prolly don't have the ears to judge though.
06-19-2004, 10:08 AM
#6
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 189
Well as I said the SACD is really good. The midbass is phenominal and much better than the DVD-A's I have but the top end just is lacking. I cant be sure if its a trait of SACD as I only have this one but the DVD-A's range from disc to disc so I figured I would ask to see what others have encountered
06-22-2004, 05:00 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Both technologies are far beyond the average humans ability to distinguish. All anomalies that you may be able to detect between an HDCD, SACD and DVD-A is primarily mastering (which gets a LOT more time on an SACD than a HDCD simply to justify it's cost) or processing anomalies in your player that are there to make the music sound better.
Anything that sounds like a tape isn't technology, it's mastering. I can make a CD sound like a record playing thru a tube amp if I felt like wasting money remastering it.
Anything that sounds like a tape isn't technology, it's mastering. I can make a CD sound like a record playing thru a tube amp if I felt like wasting money remastering it.
06-28-2004, 10:50 AM
#8
Very interesting read
http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
footnotes:
SACD isnt much better then curent CD technologie. DVD-a is vastely superior and has much more potential then SACD.
http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
footnotes:
SACD isnt much better then curent CD technologie. DVD-a is vastely superior and has much more potential then SACD.
06-28-2004, 02:06 PM
#9
^^^ interesting read -- I was having a conversation with someone the other day about "24 bit" D/A converters in car audio headunits and made the point that a "real" 24 bit processor costs alot more than the D/A converter you might find in a $500 headunit.
