Has SACD and DVDA died a death?

[Parmenion62]

Is it just me or are there fewer new releases on DVDA and SACD these days? Are these formats dead? It would be a shame as I really enjoy these discs.

[graham.myers]

I hope they haven't I like my DVD-As. I've got a couple of SACD hybdrids but no compaitble player. I dont want to replace my denon-3800 DVD-a player and my amp only has one 6-channel input. ah well

For classical lovers, both formats are definitely alive and well - less so in the case of DVD-A, but SACD Hybrids are thriving. Naturally, they've still got a long way to go to beat conventional CDs.

On a personal note, I tried DVD-A and found it only moderately better than CD. This may be because my system is pretty low-end, but regular DVD-Video movies sound great through it, so I can't explain my disappointment with DVD-A. Haven't tried SACD yet, but when I do, I'll only be buying hybrids. Don't see the point in purchasing discs you can only use in one type of player.

[per-Sony-fied]

Originally Posted by shadowritten

On a personal note, I tried DVD-A and found it only moderately better than CD. This may be because my system is pretty low-end, but regular DVD-Video movies sound great through it, so I can't explain my disappointment with DVD-A.

Could that be because the player you are using doesn't actually have the High resolution capability for DVD-A discs? You need 24bit and 192khz.

When I was first introduced to the 2 media formats, both from the best sources available at the time (the SACD player being Sony's monster flagship SCD-1 which I still rate personally as a top runner today if not thee) they both gave an astonishing account of themselves and I must say I thought DVD-A narrowly edged in front.

Originally Posted by per-Sony-fied

Could that be because the player you are using doesn't actually have the High resolution capability for DVD-A discs? You need 24bit and 192khz.

Yeah, you're probably right. My system is pretty poor and low-end (oh for a windfall so I can audition some decent kit!). I'll hang on to the disc till I can afford to seriously upgrade my system.

[Parmenion62]

I must say that DVDA and SACD are a vast improvement to CD on my system (could be that I have not got a dedicated CD player for a fair comparison). I have played tubular bells in CD, DVDA and DVD format and DVDA won hands down - much more clarity and precision.

I just wish that more DVDA and SACD titles were available -unfortunately it doesnt look like these formats are going to take off - how many new titles (apart from classical) come out in this format? - Doesnt seem to be that many.

(Equipment: Denon 3802, Pioneer 575A, Toshiba XS30 HDD recorder, Hitachi LD7200)

[FeisalK]

they are onlife support no doubt

having said that, my best album of 2005 was Deadwing DVD-A, and this year it might just be this one.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by FeisalK

they are onlife support no doubt

having said that, my best album of 2005 was Deadwing DVD-A, and this year it might just be this one.

Agreed. The sales last year fell, and the combined sales of DVD-A and SACD didn't even reach those of the re-emerging Vinyl! Incredible in the digital age! Oh, and that Deadwing on DVD-A is excellent!

I have quite a few DVD-A's as they are a huge all round (bass and mid as well as top end detail and clarity) improvement on CD, and I had hoped (typical!) to replace as many CD's as possible with this format and SACD, although I find the latter to be a more modest improvement on the CD.

Sadly though, the average punter is not really interested in hi-res digital, as we are in the age of the 'download'. Quantity, mobility, & cheapness are the order of the day for the majority, not quality. As such, against my hopes, I doubt hi-res will ever be more than a 'niche product'. If they survive............

[per-Sony-fied]

Originally Posted by overkill

...... and I had hoped (typical!) to replace as many CD's as possible with this format and SACD,although I find the latter to be a more modest improvement on the CD.

Sometimes I can't help myself to make a reply as I wonder why some people say things they do. Sorry if I sound a bit anguished and annoyed but I'm not really it's just my inner self crying out for the answer to the reason why.

In this instance I wonder why you think SACD is not that much of an improvement over CD. Sure CD at it's best is/can be remarkably good.

SACD is no different to any other format in that it will only sound as good as the equipment feeding the disc. I have noticed many an inferior SACD player that does the medium no favours whatsoever. I myself have heard major improvements with SACD over standard CD, in particular much easier to hear peoples expressions in singing and mouth lipping. Cymbals just sound more like cymbals and much more detail to hear in complex mixes. The soundstage just opens up. SACD when partnered with appropriate equipment shows up CD quite significantly (which shouldn't be hard as it is only a sampled medium afterall).
Some *cheap* SACD players seem a waste of money, to my ears anyhow just in the same manner for CD players.

[Kenny Glasgow]

If anyone is into Jazz/Classical/Folk then they should check out what Kostas Metaxas can offer

http://www.metaxas.com/pages/masnewfiles/recordings.htm

Not really my type of music but the sound and vision quality is superb

[Floodedstatue]

Originally Posted by per-Sony-fied

Sometimes I can't help myself to make a reply as I wonder why some people say things they do. Sorry if I sound a bit anguished and annoyed but I'm not really it's just my inner self crying out for the answer to the reason why.

In this instance I wonder why you think SACD is not that much of an improvement over CD. Sure CD at it's best is/can be remarkably good.

SACD is no different to any other format in that it will only sound as good as the equipment feeding the disc. I have noticed many an inferior SACD player that does the medium no favours whatsoever. I myself have heard major improvements with SACD over standard CD, in particular much easier to hear peoples expressions in singing and mouth lipping. Cymbals just sound more like cymbals and much more detail to hear in complex mixes. The soundstage just opens up. SACD when partnered with appropriate equipment shows up CD quite significantly (which shouldn't be hard as it is only a sampled medium afterall).
Some *cheap* SACD players seem a waste of money, to my ears anyhow just in the same manner for CD players.

My understanding of what Overkill was suggesting is that DVD-A provides a more noticeable improvement to a CD than SACD. That's not to say that SACD is not good or an improvement, but on a low/medium-end system, DVD-A is most noticeably better sounding. If we use the Pio 565/575 as an example, then I think DVD-A is more punchy with a fuller sound, whereas SACD is more subtle and intricate. The SACD sound is impressive, but something like 'Deadwing' on DVD-A just blows me away! I don't deny that if we all had £1000+ to spend on a SACD player we would be wowed, but most of us (I imagine) just have something of the ilk of the Pioneer to base our judgements on.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by per-Sony-fied

Sometimes I can't help myself to make a reply as I wonder why some people say things they do. Sorry if I sound a bit anguished and annoyed but I'm not really it's just my inner self crying out for the answer to the reason why.

In this instance I wonder why you think SACD is not that much of an improvement over CD. Sure CD at it's best is/can be remarkably good.

SACD is no different to any other format in that it will only sound as good as the equipment feeding the disc. I have noticed many an inferior SACD player that does the medium no favours whatsoever. I myself have heard major improvements with SACD over standard CD, in particular much easier to hear peoples expressions in singing and mouth lipping. Cymbals just sound more like cymbals and much more detail to hear in complex mixes. The soundstage just opens up. SACD when partnered with appropriate equipment shows up CD quite significantly (which shouldn't be hard as it is only a sampled medium afterall).
Some *cheap* SACD players seem a waste of money, to my ears anyhow just in the same manner for CD players.

My SACD player cost just under a grand. It was given excellent reviews, and gives by anyones standards, a good replay thru a pretty good system (if I say so myself). That was my opinion on SACD, as the above is yours. I didn't say I didn't like them or that I wouldn't buy them. I hardly see any need to take offence, or make inferences about the 'limitations' of other peoples kit.

CD is capable of good results, but increasingly, as other more experienced members than I on here have commented, it's limitations are being shown up, as the law of diminishing returns is ruthlessly applied to that medium. I have bought in the past, some ludicrously expensive CD players, only to find limited improvements, hence I am back down to more sensible levels of spending and turning to Hi-Res.

Originally Posted by Floodedstatue

My understanding of what Overkill was suggesting is that DVD-A provides a more noticeable improvement to a CD than SACD. That's not to say that SACD is not good or an improvement, but on a low/medium-end system, DVD-A is most noticeably better sounding. If we use the Pio 565/575 as an example, then I think DVD-A is more punchy with a fuller sound, whereas SACD is more subtle and intricate. The SACD sound is impressive, but something like 'Deadwing' on DVD-A just blows me away! I don't deny that if we all had £1000+ to spend on a SACD player we would be wowed, but most of us (I imagine) just have something of the ilk of the Pioneer to base our judgements on.

Actually my kit is pretty expensive, and I still prefer DVD-A. I would agree though, that is what I was saying, as far as I was concerned anyway. While SACD is good, and for me a noticable improvement over CD, it doesn't sound as fully rounded an improvement as DVD-A. One of the reasons I sold my Pioneer 757 and upgraded, was I expected more from SACD. I didn't get it. Again though, that's my opinion. Each to his own.

However, that's not the issue, that is, that I would agree both medium are superior to CD and sadly the biz' and the public aren't liable to keep them going as anything more than niche products.

Going off topic again, Flooded, have you got 'in absentia' on DVD-A?

[Parmenion62]

Maybe HD sound will take over from SACD and DVDA see:

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-...ws.php?id=8447

[Floodedstatue]

Originally Posted by overkill

Going off topic again, Flooded, have you got 'in absentia' on DVD-A?

Absolutely...it is essential!

I can't wait for the next Porcupine Tree DVD-A

[PJTX100]

Originally Posted by overkill

Sadly though, the average punter is not really interested in hi-res digital, as we are in the age of the 'download'. Quantity, mobility, & cheapness are the order of the day for the majority, not quality. As such, against my hopes, I doubt hi-res will ever be more than a 'niche product'. If they survive............

I think this is a very good point.

To be honest, I'm grappling with this conundrum myself at present. With a CD collection of over 2000 discs and little time to listen to them "properly" I'm looking for a convenient way to get better access to them - but I realise this may lead to the inevitable compromise of compression. So after years of striving for better quality, SACD/DVD-A being part of that, I may end up going in the other direction.