AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was wondering if someone could help me understand those different formats ..


If I buy Diana Krall DVD which encompasses 5.1 sound -- is that as good as having SACD or DVD-A. (in addition to getting something of a concert).


Are all three formats producing sound quality at the same level?


What is the major difference in SACD and DVD-A -- ? Why 2 formats, other than 2 companies with competing brands and an effort to corner a market. Is there an appreciable difference in those formats?


Just alot of new things out there -- and sometimes cornfusing to understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,222 Posts
In the world of discs read by lasers...


CD has PCM stereo tracks, which when done carefully can yield good results.


DVD Video can have many different formats. It can have stereo sound at CD quality resolution with PCM encoding. Or it could have 5.1 presentation using either Dolby Digital or DTS. I would gather that DTS is prefered over its musical transparency. However, 5.1 presentation on DVD Video is done through lossy compression - meaning that frequencies that humans can't hear are discarded to be able to cram all that compressed data onto a limited bandwith signal.


SACD and DVD-A are similar animals. They deliver the best multi-channel audio presentation in the market currently. Both are using lossless compression - all frequencies in the original material are preserved. Therefore, they are better than the sound quality you'd get from DVD Video.



fuad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
DVD 5.1 is dolby digital or dts. Both compress the original soundtrack and discard certain sonic info. Both say that you cannot hear what is discarded, but most people believe this is not true.


SACD and DVD-A use lossless (no sonic info dropped) compression and produce sound that many believe to be comparable the master recording. The difference between SACD and DVD-A is the way it is encoded to the disc. DVD-A uses 24bit (sample size)/96khz (sample rate) or 24bit/192khz PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) -- just for reference, a cd is 16bit/44khz PCM. SACD uses DSD (Direct Stream Digital) instead of PCM which is single bit (very small sample size) but the sample rate is much higher to compensate, 2,833khz.


I believe that most DD and DTS recordings are compressed from 16bit/44khz PCM. Though 24bit/96khz DTS recordings are available, there are very few 24/96 DTS DVDs out in the makret place. My knowledge is somewhat limited here and if there are any corrections from those more knowledgeable than I am, please post.


Naturally, there is a big fight over which is better and each person has his or her own opinions. But everyone believes that both are superior (and a large majority believe quite substantially so) to DD and DTS now.


edit: As far as which is better SACD or DVD-A, it is really difficult to say because I do not believe there is any content in both formats -- record companies chose one over the other. Also this took forever to post -- I did not mean to repeat the info in the post above...


The reason why neither dvd-a nor sacd or something like it are part of movie tracks or concert videos is because it would take up too much space on a disc and there are no widely available solutions for digital outs for audiophiles yet. Hopefully, all this will change in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,378 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by LJCullen


If I buy Diana Krall DVD which encompasses 5.1 sound -- is that as good as having SACD or DVD-A. (in addition to getting something of a concert).

Just to clarify this...


NO.


A DVD 5.1 disc such as the Diana Krall sounds fine, but does not compare with the audio quality of a DVD-Audio disc.


Think of it as a comparison of a movie on DVD or the same movie on HDTV.

The HDTV version is demonstrably better.


DVD-Audio is HDTV for your ears.


Hope this clears things up a little...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,460 Posts
Your DVD 5.1 sound on diana Krall is close to cd quality but thru 5 speakers.


Both DVD-A and SACD are 5 speaker sound but much higher quality


(Depending on how expensive your system is will determine how much of a difference you can tell but even on cheap systems you can tell a difference)


Both DVD-A and SACD are about the same quality.. different people argue which is better but no difinitive answer has been shown yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
DVD-A players output the the audio (for a DVD-A disk) over analog cables. This results in less D/A conversions and should result in better quality.


~ Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
LJCullen:

Just a note to say that the Diana Krall "Live in Paris" is a great DVD even if the sound is not as good as a DVD-A or SACD version. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jw_Wood
DVD-A players output the the audio (for a DVD-A disk) over analog cables. This results in less D/A conversions and should result in better quality.


~ Jay
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ThomC
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Could you be a little more specific?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jw_Wood
Could you be a little more specific?
I will be more pacific.:D In two words, bass management, or lack there of, or that just doesn't seem to work as advertised. That would be the ruin of a great many analog outputs. Analog outputs have led to nothing but frustration to average DVD-A users, like me. The "big five" are to blame for forcing analog outputs on a digital market. That's massively hurt DVD-A and SACD M/C music. All those bleeding cables and adjustments are a mass market no-no anyway... Will that do?:) ThomC may have another angle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Rachael

I must admit, I have only one DVD-A disk, Queen, Night At The Opera.

Do you really think forcing analog outputs on the masses is a bad thing? God, I wish all audio was in analog! Analog outputs have led to nothing but frustration to average DVD-A users, like me. Rachael, I think analog output is what makes DVD-A work. The "big five" are to blame for forcing analog outputs on a digital market. once again, what's wrong with analog?

Knoxville, capital of de Republica Polezannia: I get Knoxville, could you please explain the rest ; )


~ Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
I like SACD over DVD-A. I feel SACD has a more "natural" sound. DVD-A sounds great but I have to give the edge to SACD. just my 2 cents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jw_Wood
Could you be a little more specific?
I'll try to be even more specific:


When the dvd-a player outputs the audio via the analogue outputs, it does the D/A conversion internally.

If it were to output the audio digitally, the only D/A conversion would've been in the receiver/processor.

No matter which way, there would've been exactly one D/A conversion.

So if our receiver/processor already has DACs and BM, why should we pay double and use the DACs in the player?



If you want analogue audio, go LP. I'm not being a cinic here, I'm serious - DVD-A is a digital format.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
Jw, analog outputs work just fine for DVD-A if you have all large speakers and don't have to use the bass management with the average player. The majority of head units out there don't have bass management for their 5.1 inputs. So, if one's small speakers need bass managment you need an outboard bass manager and a dozen cables, six in and six out to the 5.1 input. Enough cable mess is enough, when we all Know one will do. Audio-vidiots will tolerate silly cabling, average people, not! For the mass market it has to be so easy that you don't even have to think. That's means, like, one digital cable instead of six. Civilians can't relate or won't tolerate cable mania... :) Best wishes!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,372 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by tpigeon2003
Both say that you cannot hear what is discarded, but most people believe this is not true.


Naturally, there is a big fight over which is better and each person has his or her own opinions. But everyone believes that both are superior (and a large majority believe quite substantially so) to DD and DTS now.
There was a lot of good technical info in this post, but I've got issues with these two statements. If we limit the universe to audio-geeks, I might agree. But if we are talking about "people" I strongly disagree.


Most people believe what they are told/want to hear. Most people believe that mp3's have CD-quality sound. If they have any opinion on the subject, they believe that 5.1 sound is inherrently better than stereo sound, regardless of how they are encoded. They average guy can't hear a difference between DVD-A and 5.1 DD/DTS on their setups.


Until these issues are addressed, demand will remain slow for these formats and they won't take off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jw_Wood


Quote:
Originally posted by ThomC

Someone should do some more reading up

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Could you be a little more specific?
First let me apologize for being so rude in my reply earlier. :(


Now, to partially quote Roman T:
Quote:
When the dvd-a player outputs the audio via the analogue outputs, it does the D/A conversion internally.

If it were to output the audio digitally, the only D/A conversion would've been in the receiver/processor.
This assumes that the pre/pro is running in analog direct mode, (no bass management or other DSP is going on). This being fairly uncommon, there will be an additional A to D conversion, followed by the processing and then back to analog to output to the speaker.


Not only that, but many people don't know that the switching and volume control on many of the less expensive receivers is also done in the digital domain (I don't remember which ones, sorry). This makes the conversions unavoidable even in analog direct mode.


But.....


Even taking into account Rachael's points about the bass management issues, this is not so much a fidelity issue as a simplicity issue. One extra A/D - D/A conversion is unlikely to have negative ramifications that 99 percent of the world will hear, (including many of you golden earred folks out there). People who know how to properly set up a surround system will have no problem with the cabling or inserting bass management into their system. But, those who are put off by the cabling probably won't have the knowledge or patience to deal with these or any of the rest of the issues, such as speaker placement and calibration.


On a related note, I am blown away by how far out-of-cal most Home-Theater-In-A-Box Systems are, (such as, but not limited to, the Sony Dream Systems), when you open the box. It makes it nearly impossible to think that 5.1 music will have any chance, given that the people who buy these systems are the least likely to have a test disk and SPL meter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
A good example of why analog output will cause people to not buy into these formats:


I want the best of both worlds, DVD-A and SACD. Can someone point me to a highly rated DVD-A and SACD player? I've not found one so I'm planning on buying two players. But wait! My Pre-Amp only has one multi-channel input. Looks like I'll be swapping cables all the time or upgrading the pre-amp.


I do have a few digital connections available through.


About multi-channel. I've not found a multi-channel audio track I've liked yet. Not that I've listened to much stuff but when I'm sitting down actually listening to music I find it very distracting.


So my next point. I'm interested in these formats because of the better sound quality, not the fact they can do multi-channel.


Which brings me to my next point. It's obvious the mass market could give a *@&^ about sound quality when MP3s are now used as much, if not more, then CDs.


I don't think the higher end audio formats will be very popular any time real soon. This makes me sad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ipandmusic
I want the best of both worlds, DVD-A and SACD. Can someone point me to a highly rated DVD-A and SACD player? I've not found one so I'm planning on buying two players. But wait! My Pre-Amp only has one multi-channel input. Looks like I'll be swapping cables all the time or upgrading the pre-amp.
As I understand it, Yamaha is making a player that'll do SACD, DVD-A, CD, AND outputs a nice progressive DVD picture...and I suppose anything else you want to throw in it. All for under a grand. Give it another six months and it'll probably be under $600.

I'm buying a few SACD titles now, once I hit about 50 titles I will buy a player strictly for SACD...and DVD-A, I hope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,460 Posts
Well in a month or 2 Pioneer will have a universal player that does progressive scan CD, DVD-A and SACD with bass management all for $299 ( or cheaper)
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top