[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.

[ncpl]

Maybe HD sound will take over from SACD and DVDA see

Of course it will...that's why both formats have effectively been dropped by all but a few titles.

Look at the BD vs HD-DVD debate/war and you'll see hi-res music is part of the spec. Obviously, without filling a large capacity disc with hi-res movie footage, the hi-res MLP and PCM stereo and MC tracks will not take up much of the room. However, at least we stand a chance of having a player that plays at least one standard if not both (should they not converge).

Apparantly Dolby confirm that HD players will down-mix to current DD specs so they are compatible with current spec processors http://www.dolby.com/consumer/techno...HD_avrs_1.html

Not sure if SACD's DSD spec even made it on to BD's spec though. Maybe someone will be able to confirm.

FWIW, I find that good DVD-A's are amazing and much better than the best CD's. However, mediocre DVD-A (mostly those that are not actually hi-res) are not necessarily better than the best CD's. The CD format in general, when played on good kit with well recorded and mastered materials, can still raise the hairs on the back of your neck.

[FeisalK]

Originally Posted by PJTX100

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.

this is offtopic, but... well, hard disk space is cheap(er) than it used to be and dropping daily, so there may be no need for compression at all, or FLAC


anyone have any of the Frank Zappa DVD-A releases?

[Kenny Glasgow]

I have Halloween and Quadiophiliac and can recommend both to you

[overkill]

Originally Posted by ncpl

Of course it will...that's why both formats have effectively been dropped by all but a few titles.

Look at the BD vs HD-DVD debate/war and you'll see hi-res music is part of the spec. Obviously, without filling a large capacity disc with hi-res movie footage, the hi-res MLP and PCM stereo and MC tracks will not take up much of the room. However, at least we stand a chance of having a player that plays at least one standard if not both (should they not converge).

Apparantly Dolby confirm that HD players will down-mix to current DD specs so they are compatible with current spec processors http://www.dolby.com/consumer/techno...HD_avrs_1.html

Not sure if SACD's DSD spec even made it on to BD's spec though. Maybe someone will be able to confirm.

FWIW, I find that good DVD-A's are amazing and much better than the best CD's. However, mediocre DVD-A (mostly those that are not actually hi-res) are not necessarily better than the best CD's. The CD format in general, when played on good kit with well recorded and mastered materials, can still raise the hairs on the back of your neck.

I would agree, but the only problem for those of us after quality, is lack of demand will lead to low manufacturer interest. While HD will take off as a visual medium, it's cost thus far indicates and an intitialy modest market share. Although the US model shows that costs might fall fairly quickly, the demand there is higher due that other factor, greater disposable income.

Look at how DAB has pretty much flopped, the poor response to HDCD, and current Hi-res and it indicates that people, unlike their desire for quality visuals, just don't give a flying one about quality audio. CD won people over due to it's convenience, it's hype, and it's ease of use. As a final reminder of how low peoples audio demands are, when it finally became the number one selling medium it replaced cassette tapes not vinyl. That medium had lost the top spot over a decade before.

On the DVD-A bit I would also concure there. True hi-res DVD-A is awesome, but the 48 bit versions are no more than 'big capacity' CD's.

[per-Sony-fied]

Originally Posted by overkill

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.

Hey I just wanted a more clear concise reason. You've now done that. Everybody as you say has their own views and are entitled to say what they feel from their own experiences. Your opinion on SACD is yours from your own ears and that is what you have felt about the medium. Likewise mine is mine. Discussions are better and have more meaning when it is easier to clarify peoples references.

I certainly made no inferences to your equipment whatsoever if that is what you are implying as I had no idea what you have. It would be foolish of me to do so especially in the light of not owning a SACD player.

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.

Arrh yes CD being predominantly a digital/electronic medium using *stock* chips and mostly recommended manufacturer circuit design/layout it is not surprising that there becomes a limit to how wonderful CD can ultimately sound. It is not therefore surprising that you can come across some relatively *inexpensive* units that sound remarkably close, or dare I say better? to more so called upper market designs.

Actually my kit is pretty expensive, and I still prefer DVD-A.

I think we agree on the same thing, possibly why SACD in recent years has gone multi-channel to try and grasp more of the market.

[BazMan]

Originally Posted by Parmenion62

Are these formats dead?

Does that mean they'll come down in price?

[ncpl]

I would agree, but the only problem for those of us after quality, is lack of demand will lead to low manufacturer interest. While HD will take off as a visual medium, it's cost thus far indicates and an intitialy modest market share

I agree to a point. However, hi-res for music was slow because of mp3's, ipod's, downloads etc (as well marketing and corporate incompetence).

If HD TV and DVD's have more of an impact in the home (as opposed to the mobile device type market like ipod's were), then you'd expect that a good chunk of the population will sooner or later get an HD-DVD player to match their "HD-Ready" screen and maybe by the their HD SKY viewing.

If so, then quite a few manufacturers will produce units to meet this demand. For some of those manufactures who also specialise in hi-end hi-fi manufacturing, we will see hi-res disc players that play movie and music.
This is of course much like we have today with CD&DVD players, but whereas hi-def/surround music alone wasn't enough .....hi-def music and movies should be enough.

That of course isn't the whole story as the lack of dual format players or lack of format convergence (corporate incompetence again) will seriously affect the speed and likelihood of adopting any new format.

[CJROSS]

Ive got a quite a few SACDs but not a SACD player, but I do enjoy the excellent redbook CD layers on them.

DVD-A, well I got a superlative player that plays the format - Im only intersted in stereo, and the 9500 has XLR outputs for stereo, so I duly purchased some 96khz & 192 Khz stereo mixes, quite literally stuuning is what they sound like, very reminiscent of good vinyl but more direct. Not interested at all in the 5.1 side (where these formats have died IMHO). I also experimented ebfore with DAD 24/96 and pure 24/96 PCM transfer from DVD transport to DAC, well listening to one of these discs these days on the Toshiba is hair of the neck stuff. Which brings me to 3 others digital formats that have also blown my socks off in the same way DVD-A stereo has :

Good ole redbook can sound truly stunning.

HDCD also can sound as good as my ears get.

But the biggest surprise and best digital discs I own, is actually a DVD-V with a 24 Bit 48Khz stereo mix. (some of you will know the one Im referrring too).

Forget Dualdisc, why on earth cant we get hi-res stereo (24/48 PCM) from DVD-V, Ive heard on my system, its simple to do, most music lovers have stereo systems rather than 5.1, yet still we are marched down a 5.1 hi-res route. Waste of bloody time.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by ncpl

I agree to a point. However, hi-res for music was slow because of mp3's, ipod's, downloads etc (as well marketing and corporate incompetence).

If HD TV and DVD's have more of an impact in the home (as opposed to the mobile device type market like ipod's were), then you'd expect that a good chunk of the population will sooner or later get an HD-DVD player to match their "HD-Ready" screen and maybe by the their HD SKY viewing.

If so, then quite a few manufacturers will produce units to meet this demand. For some of those manufactures who also specialise in hi-end hi-fi manufacturing, we will see hi-res disc players that play movie and music.
This is of course much like we have today with CD&DVD players, but whereas hi-def/surround music alone wasn't enough .....hi-def music and movies should be enough.

That of course isn't the whole story as the lack of dual format players or lack of format convergence (corporate incompetence again) will seriously affect the speed and likelihood of adopting any new format.

Again, I would agree to a point. The main problem is, that the vast majority of people just aren't interested in high quality music replay. So, as far as the manufacturers and designers are concerned, why bother? It's money down the drain.

I think, and I might well be wrong, the reason why many marques have gone for only really high end SACD or DVD-A players is because they recognise the market limitations. As such the cheaper hi-res machines tend to be multi format, and at least CD capable (as the high end machines are). This shows the manufacturers are hedging, and while happy to flex their innovative muscles, they are not willing to bet on a hi-res only machine. If there is one (here comes CJ! ) I've not seen it or it's beyond human means (price wise).

I agree 100% that HD should take off, as people are more willing to invest in quality visuals in this country (and elsewhere) than in quality audio. The sales of AV systems in recent years is the proof of that. I'm not sure though, given our, statistics backed, lack of interest in high quality audio, that manufacturers will be so keen to push the audio side. Downloading poor quality MP3's for indoor use is now commonplace as well as for mobile. It astounds me when I listen to friends MP3 players they've just lashed out a fortune on, at how depressing the quality is - yet they love it. This is what the hi-res, high quality, audio world is up against. This however, is just my somewhat cynical view!

CJ, agree with the majority of that. Personally I can't really compare DVD-A or SACD with Vinyl as the two formats (as we've discussed before) present music in very different ways. I still don't think though, even hi-res comes near vinyl yet. But again, that's just my 'ears' view.

[CJROSS]

Originally Posted by overkill

CJ, agree with the majority of that. Personally I can't really compare DVD-A or SACD with Vinyl as the two formats (as we've discussed before) present music in very different ways. I still don't think though, even hi-res comes near vinyl yet. But again, that's just my 'ears' view.

One of the things that was “intended” with SACD/DVDA was that it would make cheaper AV equipment sound better when playing those formats (IMHO), thus when many people listen to lower end AV kit and CD they think its sounds crap (rightly) now if those same users had heard a decent stereo & CD/TT on those systems, they would wonder why on earth they need “Hi-res” no argument they sound good, but so then does CD & Vinyl (both with differing presentation as we’ve discussed before) on decent stereo equipment.

What Im driving at is that 5.1 is never going to be adopted with the stereo or audiophile crowd (whom own very large CD – Vinyl stereo collections) yet still Dualdisc (OK everyone knows its not a hi-res format) plows the 5.1 48Khz route. Why not just give 2 channels of “best as they can supply” audio. Actually drives me potty the waste of a format that DVD-V currently equate to. If we even take the DVD-v players that are plugged into TVs all over the land, how many are actually attached to nothing more than TV speakers, this is a point that has been missed by the 5.1 crowd.

PS I think vinyl is great too OVK, but hearing DVD-A @ 24-192 has a lot of what vinyl offers IMHO, ie the visceral bass impact and shimmering top end, the lushness of sound that Vinyl exploits in stereo is there with DVD-A stereo and through a dedicated stereo system I think they are reasonably close, still cant help but mention that 24 Bit 48 Khz stereo LPCM mix by D.Gilmour Esq on DVD-V, probably one of the best digital recording I own - even over the DVD-A 24/192 stereos discs I have amassed.

[ncpl]

CJ,

IIRC my Gilmour DVD-V is 24/96 LPCM. I'll check. Regardless though it sounds mighty fine!!

OVK,

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. The only key point which I may not be making well enough, is that if HD video does take off, then at least the HD Music side will piggy-back on it. There will be the usual low-end to hi-end machines to buy, and I think the hi-end brands will care about the audio side of things too....much as they (albeit few) do today.

The folks that just plug into the TV speakers etc will never understand what we are on about just the same as the audio-luddites never understood why we tweaked the alignment of a cartridge or bought a new interconnect. New formats will never cure that particular ailment

The issue of "wasted format" is well made though. No point having great format capability if the content providers don't step up to the plate.

Just imagine.....HD music takes off and the ipod generation complain cos they can't rip it !!!!

[ncpl]

I was wrong....it is in fact 48....my processor was upsampling it...so I saw 96.

School boy error !!

[CJROSS]

ncpl – if it was a 24/96 DVD-V it would have been called a DAD disc but it’s a good ole vanilla DVD-V also with a surround mix on it too. DAD was the forerunner to DVD-A and good ole stereo only (Chesky championed the format), but the industry never pushed them, quite stunning sounding too FWIW. The Gilmour DVD-V is the only ever DVD-V I have come into contact with that is 24 Bit 48khz stereo PCM, ie usually they are 16 Bit – 48khz. Ie its a very rare piece of software.

If anyone is interested here is the Gilmour disc, if you don’t own it. Well your life is incomplete (IMHO).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...610434-5107618

[overkill]

Originally Posted by ncpl

CJ,

IIRC my Gilmour DVD-V is 24/96 LPCM. I'll check. Regardless though it sounds mighty fine!!

OVK,

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. The only key point which I may not be making well enough, is that if HD video does take off, then at least the HD Music side will piggy-back on it. There will be the usual low-end to hi-end machines to buy, and I think the hi-end brands will care about the audio side of things too....much as they (albeit few) do today.

The folks that just plug into the TV speakers etc will never understand what we are on about just the same as the audio-luddites never understood why we tweaked the alignment of a cartridge or bought a new interconnect. New formats will never cure that particular ailment

The issue of "wasted format" is well made though. No point having great format capability if the content providers don't step up to the plate.

Just imagine.....HD music takes off and the ipod generation complain cos they can't rip it !!!!

Agreed. The latter point, while funny, has a worryingly large basis in reality................

CJ, on your comments, that is why I rate DVD-A so highly. For me (and obviously for you to) it gets that bit closer to what I expect from a high quality source. If it survives, one day it might move up those final steps. Coming right back to the point of the thread, that's the problem. In the age of the download, will it survive, and probably just as important, will there be the will (investment) to progress?

[per-Sony-fied]

Originally Posted by CJROSS

PS I think vinyl is great too OVK, but hearing DVD-A @ 24-192 has a lot of what vinyl offers IMHO, ie the visceral bass impact and shimmering top end, the lushness of sound that Vinyl exploits in stereo is there with DVD-A stereo and through a dedicated stereo system I think they are reasonably close, still cant help but mention that 24 Bit 48 Khz stereo LPCM mix by D.Gilmour Esq on DVD-V, probably one of the best digital recording I own - even over the DVD-A 24/192 stereos discs I have amassed.

Apart from what you mention here which I'm now very tempted to get (gosh yea don't have it ) what DVD-A discs have a 192khz stereo mix?