Let's assume all conditions are equal. In other words...you know you have the equipment (amp. speakers, etc) that are right for you. A piece of music is recorded utilizing the best musicians and recording equipment. Now, this engineer (who is the best in the business) publishes this music in all formats: SACD, DVD-A, CD, 180 gram LP, cassette tape, Uncompressed PCM (ie, blu ray or HD-DVD). I always find it interesting to read how some folks prefer redbook CD or LPs as their format of choice.

Which format would you choose?

I have several DVD-A recordings and I must admit I don't care for them. I have been building my SACD library and have generally been quite impressed. The new video/audio format Uncompressed PCM sounds like an alternative but I have not made up my mind yet. I am sure within a decade some new format will be invested...But I am interested in what's available now.

So...right now...today...which format would you choose? My answer is SACD. I read the big fight going on over on SA-CD.net about the technical aspects of each format. But, what really matters is the sound. Is one of these CURRENTLTY AVAILABLE formats giving you the experience you want from music played on your home system?

Technical jargon aside, I am presently voting with my wallet towards SACD.

marcus

DVD-Audio (96kHz/24 bit 5.1 or 192 kHz/24 bit 2.0) is definitively my first choice by far, since there are a lot of very excellent PCM DACs out there and PCM is *much* easier to process than DSD.

My second choice is SACD - it works for me, but I wish they had set the sampling frequency *much* higher - at least > 5MHz.

LP 180g is my next choice.

I do not care at all for BD or HDDVD, since I (i) do not want to invest in yet another format that does not bring any significant advantage over DVD-A and (ii) think that both formats have a good chance of dying.

I prefer DVD-Audio due to the extras that come on the disc: dts/ac3 mix for playback on other equipment, videos, photos, lyrics, interviews, etc.
I own many sacd's as well. They sound as good as the dvd-audio discs, no extras.
I own HD DVD and have NIN and Heart concerts. The sound is awesome. Dolby TrueHD really can sound as good as dvd-audio/sacd.

So, going forward: I hope the music industry will release some surround on the HD formats. You can have Dolby TrueHD (mlp) with sound equal to dvd-audio discs, and have video to go along with it without having to go into the video_ts folder like you do with dvd-audio. Imagine music in surround with lossless audio with HD video to go along with it........the best of both worlds.

I prefer DVD-Audio due to the extras that come on the disc: dts/ac3 mix for playback on other equipment, videos, photos, lyrics, interviews, etc.
I own many sacd's as well. They sound as good as the dvd-audio discs, no extras.
I own HD DVD and have NIN and Heart concerts. The sound is awesome. Dolby TrueHD really can sound as good as dvd-audio/sacd.

So, going forward: I hope the music industry will release some surround on the HD formats. You can have Dolby TrueHD (mlp) with sound equal to dvd-audio discs, and have video to go along with it without having to go into the video_ts folder like you do with dvd-audio. Imagine music in surround with lossless audio with HD video to go along with it........the best of both worlds.

The solution is here: Uncommon Bach HD DVD.
You not necessary need Concert Footage to Enjoy Surround Music. Complement of HD visuals in the form of slide show works perfect.

DVD-A because of the extras.

i do find sacds to sound more bright and pure. dvd-a sounds more analog.

both are great in 5.1!

I find that the SACDs in my collection sound best, but DVD-A is close second. I do like the fact the DVD-A has extras through...

Mark

I have a lot of both SACDs and DVD-As. I prefer the sound of my DVD-As on my system over my SACDs. The "extras" although nice to have, do not figure into my preference. Comparatively, I think SACDs sound a bit "raw" (as in a freshly scraped knee) with my speakers. DVD-As sound as smooth as silk. Except for pinkrudy's impression that SACDs sound better, I have a similar opinion to his in that I think SACDs sound too sterile and digital, whereas DVD-As, to me, have a richer analog sound.

At the moment I am buying more DVD-A discs than SACD and have been for awhile but as far as sound quality goes it all depends on the the quality of the origional master recording. Both formats sound great with good masters but I tend to like the sound of the newer stuff that was done right from the start in SACD or DVD-A rather than a remaster of an old analog tape.

I like both SACD and DVD-A and don't have a preference over either one, I rarely look at the extras on DVD-A except the ones from AIX, I really like the studio video. Sound wise though I think both sound really good all things being equal.

SACD, only because it's music only. no menu, no video, no nonsense. I consider them both equally good for SQ however, so I collect both.

They sound "equally good" to me (how can you comment on SQ on one format vs the other with different material???).

I prefer SACD for two reasons:
1) I put the disc in, it plays the multi or stereo SACD track without me having to do anything. Some of my DVD-As are a real PITA to get playing.
2) Most SACDs have a CD layer that I can take in the car.

I do enjoy a few of the extras on my DVD-As (lyrics and such), but I could live without them too.

I'd have to go with DVD-A, at the moment. I can play them on my computer, which as far as I know isn't possible with SACD. I can also rip them, even if that's something of an ordeal and not really considered a feature. If I decided to replace my DVD player with something that doesn't support DVD-A, I can still get some use out of the discs (if they have a DTS mix or something similar), too.

They sound equally good to me (though I only have two SACDs), so it's really just that I have more options with DVD-A currently.

They sound "equally good" to me (how can you comment on SQ on one format vs the other with different material???).



:rolleyes:


Did you read the title of the thread? It asks for preference, I have none regarding SQ because of the obvious reasons you just cited so my preference reside with other reasons. UFB

I prefer SACD, but really, I'm happy when anything I want comes out :D.

I prefer 24/96 PCM stereo. I only have a few DVD-As, and the PCM tracks on my AIX disks are my favorites. It doesn't help that my DVD-A player is also my up-converting video hdmi player and it resides with my bedroom hi-def tv. All my audio gear is in another room on another floor. My modded Toshiba 3960 does a good job on the PCM though. I'm really not a fan of surround music in any case. It still sounds artificial to me.

And 24/96 sounds so much better than redbook. I go to the NY Audio Rave get-togethers and they're all agog over this CD or that, this player or that, and I think that my AIX on my Toshiba have it all beat, for a lot less money.

My first choice would be Blu-ray because you can even do 8 channel high resolution and you can put an entire opera on one disc, or possibly a complete symphony cycle on a 50 GB disc if it's just audio.

Second would be SA-CD because the sound quality is good (especially pure DSD) and you have a much easier user interface just like a regular CD. For instance, you can just hit RANDOM if you want and get shuffle play, unlike the extra steps with most DVD-Audio players.

DVD-Audio comes in third because of watermarking, which can affect sound quality, and the clunky user interface of having to go through a video menu. Not as "one-button" easy as SA-CD.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. This request for preferences went better than I thought (lol...no bitterness).

Anyway...I'm totally with Dan about BluRay for Opera. I am looking forward to it and I suspect opera companies will begin using this medium because they are using Sdvd format now.

SACD is my choice of course ... but I am suspicious that UNCOMPRESSED PCM will provide me an equal quality musical choice. But the format seems completed devoted to hollywood films right now. ...and yet another set of connections and complications. Not ready for prime time yet.

I suspect technology will continue to improve...so who knows what format (or encoding scheme) is next. But (giving away my age here)...what I can listen to using SACD is so fantastics compared to my earliest turntable (complete with 45rpm single or so called HIGH FIDELITY LPs and 3 inch stereo speakers).

have a great weekend!

marcus

Since most SACD players are also capable of playing back DVD-A discs, I don't think the surround music formats matters as much compare to the actual performance or sonics of the recording.

That being said, I like SACD better. No nonsense extras.

I like Both as long as it is a MC mix but Prefer DVD-A over SACD just sounds Better to me. And I do Prefer the Extras also that SACD doesn't have. ;)

For me I prefer the sound of SACD. I hate to use the term but they sound more analog to me. I don't know if it is the dithering noise that is "outside" of the audible spectrum or something else but I prefer them to DVD-A.

Next would be DVD-A then CD.

If it was a perfect world, if there was no noise issue with vinyl I would put it pretty equal to SACD and DVD-A. I love the way they sound but any small scratch or dirt on the disc and the listening experience sucks.

:rolleyes:


Did you read the title of the thread? It asks for preference, I have none regarding SQ because of the obvious reasons you just cited so my preference reside with other reasons. UFB

You misunderstood my post....I was in complete agreement with you. :) My question was to the other posters in this thread that claim one format sounds better than the other.

I have mostly have SACD- My 1st player only played SACD so i stayed with that formate. My current player will play either. However, i just started purchasing Aix records- DVD-A only. the best Cd sounds i have ever heard.. I will not be purchasing any 2-ch Cds for a while.
db

I prefer SACD it's not as sharp as my second choice DVD-A.

I never utilize the options on DVD-A.

I seem to have more SACD than DVD-A, but I'll take what ever they release a specific title first!

DJOel

Prefer dvd-a mostly but some sacd are very good.Additionally i like alot of the dts cd's.

Awesome responses. Seems like...if all conditions are equal...format is not so important. So...a follow up question. If PCM is equal to SACD/DVD-A then what type of PCM? Sample rate?

marcus

Awesome responses. Seems like...if all conditions are equal...format is not so important. So...a follow up question. If PCM is equal to SACD/DVD-A then what type of PCM? Sample rate?

marcus

Awesome responses. Seems like...if all conditions are equal...format is not so important. So...a follow up question. If PCM is equal to SACD/DVD-A then what type of PCM? Sample rate?

marcus

DVD-A for me.

I love my multi-channel SACD disks the best. Easy to play just about anywhere. DVD-A sounds fine but is a pain to play at home and in the car because of the need to navigate a menu system that varies from disk to disk.

Richard

Awesome responses. Seems like...if all conditions are equal...format is not so important. So...a follow up question. If PCM is equal to SACD/DVD-A then what type of PCM? Sample rate?

marcus


DVD-A is PCM. MLP is just a "tool" to losslessly compress the original PCM track to fit on the disc, much like Dolby True HD.

Sample rate and bit depth is only important of the original recording, going beyond that [upsampling] will not gonna yield more real resolution. Much like upscaled DVD won't be equal to Hi def formats.

I prefer SACD for two reasons:
1) I put the disc in, it plays the multi or stereo SACD track without me having to do anything. Some of my DVD-As are a real PITA to get playing.
2) Most SACDs have a CD layer that I can take in the car.

Same here. I actually got rid of my DVD-As because of that reason, except for the Elvis one which plays just like a SACD does. :)