CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-A

SLCentral

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2003
3,542
0
71
My neighbor has a pretty impressive A/V setup, and because they really love music, I'm thinking of shelling out for a SACD or DVD-A player for them. They're using:

Fujitsu 63" plasma
Denon AVR-2807 receiver
(2) Definitive Technology Mythos One Fronts
(1) Definitive Technology Mythos Three Center
(2) Definitive Technology Mythos Gems Surround
(1) Definitive Technology SuperCube II Sub

Right now, they have no audio player connected there, but there is a DVD player which of course can be used for CD's. Now, this is in the basement, so this wouldn't be a primary listening room...they have Sonos upstairs for regular listening (they throw a lot of parties, so they love the Sonos all around the first floor).

However, the owner of the house loves turning up his favorite classical symphonies really loud and getting absorbed by the music. Right now, their top floor has surround Bose (yeah, I know :(), speakers, which he actually likes for his music, but I'm sure that the Def Techs that he has set up in the basement would blow them away. He used to have a Bose Lifestyle connected to the plasma, but we just set him up with his new speakers, and he was floored. I'm sure that with the right source, he'll forget about his room upstairs with the Bose speakers, and come downstairs to listen to his classical music and get "absorbed."

Anyways, which is better, SACD or DVD-A? I've heard that SACD has a bigger selection, but that it's very proprietary. I'm not really sure how that effects these guys, as they def. wouldn't be copying music or anything, just plain listening. Any difference in sound quality? Selection? We're talking mainly classical music here, but world/international music would be nice too.

Do we want to use Analog 5.1 or optical/coaxial? I'm thinking Analog 5.1, because AFAIK SACD won't do 5.1 through optical, but I could be wrong. Either way, I heard analog is the way to go, but I'm just double-checking.

Any suggestions would be welcomed :).
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Don't bother, neither are worth it IMO unless they're going to enjoy buying most of their audio online since most local shops don't carry much SACD and DVD-A media. How about a turntable?

When you say analog is the way to go, why do you say that? SACD's are a digital media and so the fact is that it's simply digital, using an analog cable alone won't make it any better. To get the best sound, you'll want to use whichever has a better internal DAC.

Long story short, as long as 5.1 can be done through optical for an SACD, use that, and let the receiver handle the digital to analog conversion.

I personally wouldn't bother with either SACD or DVD-A. If he really likes them that much, they should think about it more carefully and know what they're getting into. If they still feel it's worth it, then sure, by all means, go ahead. MusicDirect.com is a good online store for things like this, I get most of my vinyl's from there if they have them.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
I would never purchase a DVD-A or SACD player for someone as a gift. However, if you're adamant about it, just pick up an OPPO DV970HD for them. It'll play both formats for around $150.

Both DVD-A and SACD need to be passed out of the player as analog or as unpacked/decoded PCM via HDMI 1.1 or higher. DVD-A or SACD cannot be passed by S/PDIF via fiber or coaxial cable. So, they'll need to have a free set of 5.1 analog inputs on their A/V receiver or a free HDMI 1.1 or higher input.
 

SLCentral

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2003
3,542
0
71
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Don't bother, neither are worth it IMO unless they're going to enjoy buying most of their audio online since most local shops don't carry much SACD and DVD-A media. How about a turntable?

When you say analog is the way to go, why do you say that? SACD's are a digital media and so the fact is that it's simply digital, using an analog cable alone won't make it any better. To get the best sound, you'll want to use whichever has a better internal DAC.

Long story short, as long as 5.1 can be done through optical for an SACD, use that, and let the receiver handle the digital to analog conversion.

I personally wouldn't bother with either SACD or DVD-A. If he really likes them that much, they should think about it more carefully and know what they're getting into. If they still feel it's worth it, then sure, by all means, go ahead. MusicDirect.com is a good online store for things like this, I get most of my vinyl's from there if they have them.

Thing is that I was thinking it to be more of a surprise gift, since they've done a lot for me in terms of letting me use their house all their time to use their TV, hang out with friends, etc. Since he's such a music lover, I thought he'd might like it, but you're right, I can see it being something they never use.

I'll think about it. Anyone else have any info?
 

SLCentral

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2003
3,542
0
71
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I would never purchase a DVD-A or SACD player for someone as a gift. However, if you're adamant about it, just pick up an OPPO DV970HD for them. It'll play both formats for around $150.

Both DVD-A and SACD need to be passed out of the player as analog or as unpacked/decoded PCM via HDMI 1.1 or higher. DVD-A or SACD cannot be passed by S/PDIF via fiber or coaxial cable. So, they'll need to have a free set of 5.1 analog inputs on their A/V receiver or a free HDMI 1.1 or higher input.

Any reason why not?

Thanks for the player recommendation!
 

Pepsi90919

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,162
1
81
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I would never purchase a DVD-A or SACD player for someone as a gift. However, if you're adamant about it, just pick up an OPPO DV970HD for them. It'll play both formats for around $150.

Both DVD-A and SACD need to be passed out of the player as analog or as unpacked/decoded PCM via HDMI 1.1 or higher. DVD-A or SACD cannot be passed by S/PDIF via fiber or coaxial cable. So, they'll need to have a free set of 5.1 analog inputs on their A/V receiver or a free HDMI 1.1 or higher input.
since when was SACD PCM?
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
SACD is reverse compatable with older legacy cd players. When It's an option, I usualy buy SACD material over regular cd's; I see almost no reason not to.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

I have not thought about that. Give me a minute and I will try to rip some audio from my SACD via my Plextor Premieum CD-RW drive.


Be back in a few.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I would never purchase a DVD-A or SACD player for someone as a gift. However, if you're adamant about it, just pick up an OPPO DV970HD for them. It'll play both formats for around $150.

Both DVD-A and SACD need to be passed out of the player as analog or as unpacked/decoded PCM via HDMI 1.1 or higher. DVD-A or SACD cannot be passed by S/PDIF via fiber or coaxial cable. So, they'll need to have a free set of 5.1 analog inputs on their A/V receiver or a free HDMI 1.1 or higher input.

since when was SACD PCM?

When it gets transcoded from DSD to PCM for transmittal over a secure medium; HDMI 1.1 or higher.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: Googer
SACD is reverse compatable with older legacy cd players. When It's an option, I usualy buy SACD material over regular cd's; I see almost no reason not to.

SACD is not, by itself, reverse compatible. However, the hybrid SACD discs have a redbook CD layer that can be read and played on a CD player.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

I have not thought about that. Give me a minute and I will try to rip some audio from my SACD via my Plextor Premieum CD-RW drive.


Be back in a few.

It's not going to work, doofus. If it does, it's because you're ripping the redbook CD layer.
 

Pepsi90919

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,162
1
81
Originally posted by: Googer
SACD is reverse compatable with older legacy cd players. When It's an option, I usualy buy SACD material over regular cd's; I see almost no reason not to.

only hybrid SACDs are backwards compatible. and the reason not to would be you are paying less for the disc if you don't utilize the SACD portion.
 

Pepsi90919

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,162
1
81
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I would never purchase a DVD-A or SACD player for someone as a gift. However, if you're adamant about it, just pick up an OPPO DV970HD for them. It'll play both formats for around $150.

Both DVD-A and SACD need to be passed out of the player as analog or as unpacked/decoded PCM via HDMI 1.1 or higher. DVD-A or SACD cannot be passed by S/PDIF via fiber or coaxial cable. So, they'll need to have a free set of 5.1 analog inputs on their A/V receiver or a free HDMI 1.1 or higher input.

since when was SACD PCM?

When it gets transcoded from DSD to PCM for transmittal over a secure medium; HDMI 1.1 or higher.
k

i know nothing about HDMI
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: Googer
SACD is reverse compatable with older legacy cd players. When It's an option, I usualy buy SACD material over regular cd's; I see almost no reason not to.

only hybrid SACDs are backwards compatible. and the reason not to would be you are paying less for the disc if you don't utilize the SACD portion.

It works on this disc via L.A.M.E.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: Googer
SACD is reverse compatable with older legacy cd players. When It's an option, I usualy buy SACD material over regular cd's; I see almost no reason not to.

only hybrid SACDs are backwards compatible. and the reason not to would be you are paying less for the disc if you don't utilize the SACD portion.

It works on this disc via L.A.M.E.

Of course it does. That disc is a hybrid SACD disc. You ripped the redbook CD layer. The same low-resolution, 16 bit version that the regular CD contains.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: Googer
SACD is reverse compatable with older legacy cd players. When It's an option, I usualy buy SACD material over regular cd's; I see almost no reason not to.

only hybrid SACDs are backwards compatible. and the reason not to would be you are paying less for the disc if you don't utilize the SACD portion.

It works on this disc via L.A.M.E.

Of course it does. That disc is a hybrid SACD disc. You ripped the redbook CD layer. The same low-resolution, 16 bit version that the regular CD contains.

I wasn't too surprised.
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
You shouldn't be surprised AT ALL!

You seem to have a general interest in audio, but don't quite understand how it all works. You throw around buzzwords and name brands, but I hardly read much else from your posts.

EDIT: goog, just want to add that I wasn't being mean. It may read that way, but it isn't meant to be. You just have some learning to do before you start giving out advice.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.


no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
You shouldn't be surprised AT ALL!

You seem to have a general interest in audio, but don't quite understand how it all works. You throw around buzzwords and name brands, but I hardly read much else from your posts.


I do understand how 90% of it works. I just don't spend a lot of money on it. I have known since it's introduction that SACD would have the option of being reverse compatable with a regular cd player, I just never thought or tried to copy it to MP3 or another cd. It's been a while since I purchased anything and I have been semi-happy with the setup that I had for a while. Granted I am not a regular Stereophile reader, but I do keep abreast on the latest trends and technology. I spend more time listening to my material than I do monkeying with my equipment.

If a teacher were to grade my stereo equipment knowledge, I suspect that I would get a B.

What really matters more than your knowledge of equipment is your understanding of music, because ulitimately that is what being a "StereoPhile" is all about.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.


no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

Your theory doesn't make any sense, because the vast majority of music listeners find CDs to be the pinnacle of audio quality as it is. In fact, most people can't discern a 128 Kbps MP3 from a CD track, at least not enough to care one way or the other.

SACD and DVD-A are audiophile formats that require sophisticated equipment and a sophisticated listener in order to reap their benefits. If studios wanted them to go mainstream, there would be a lot more pop titles released.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.


no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

Your theory doesn't make any sense, because the vast majority of music listeners find CDs to be the pinnacle of audio quality as it is. In fact, most people can't discern a 128 Kbps MP3 from a CD track, at least not enough to care one way or the other.

SACD and DVD-A are audiophile formats that require sophisticated equipment and a sophisticated listener in order to reap their benefits. If studios wanted them to go mainstream, there would be a lot more pop titles released.



:thumbsup:
 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.


no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

SACD was Sony's archival format. It was for their own use for long-term storage and never meant to be sold to the public. Critical listeners and audiophiles heard about it and made enough requests for Sony to begin releasing and selling the discs to the public. It's not a replacement. If it was, then you'd see a larger push by Sony for manufacturers to build hardware.

I don't know if you've adopted to any of the two formats, but my SACD/DVD-A collection is VASTLY different from my CD collection. I have about 400 CDs, but only 24 SACD/DVD-As. I think I only have 3 high resolution discs that I had already have a CD for. I don't own any CD counterparts for the rest of the collection.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.


no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

Your theory doesn't make any sense, because the vast majority of music listeners find CDs to be the pinnacle of audio quality as it is. In fact, most people can't discern a 128 Kbps MP3 from a CD track, at least not enough to care one way or the other.

SACD and DVD-A are audiophile formats that require sophisticated equipment and a sophisticated listener in order to reap their benefits. If studios wanted them to go mainstream, there would be a lot more pop titles released.

as i said, overkill, but giving the consumer the option to rip/downsample etc would have helped either of those products launch and perhaps win status as default music format. you can't build a format based on a single very limited use of being able to play it in your home theater room:p but they had opened it up and given it the usefulness of cd, it would have had a much higher chance of success. it doesn't matter if your car cd player can't take advantage of the full quality of cd for instance, as many older/cheaper cars players certainly cannot, all it has to do is be compatible.

as for the "audiophile" arguement. 2 decades ago cd was "audiophile" too, but atleast it wasn't crippled by drm. sure they didn't know what was to come, but was a fortunate outcome for all. with these new formats the door has been slammed do you understand that? you may buy hybrid discs all you want but ripping cd from it years even years down the line when you may have benifited from being able to rip the full format just kills the value. do you think anyone thought you could rip full music collections into a device the size of a pack of cards back when cd's first came out? of course not. but the door was not slammed on such potential use, and thats what matters.

and why do they not release more pop titles? you have it backwards, they killed their market into the niche one it has become and they sell to that because of their failure. not because they consciously decided to marginalize their new format:p don't be silly