Originally posted by Cygnus X1 I probably won't purchase the SACD/DVD-A format unless there is a proven difference (statistically significant) in subjective quality in a laboratory, and a meaningful one at that.
Originally posted by rc55 I hate having more non compliant CD formats (assuming its some sub-channel kludge).
Originally posted by rc55 That's quite interesting. If only there were some open tools to make HDCD...
I have talked to a lot of manufacturers about this, and many of them say that there will be no benefit to higher sampling frequencies with their boxes. This includes Lexicon amongst many others. Many manufacturers say that the only benefit is the potential audible ability of us to hear above 20kHz. While they say that THEY can't hear a difference, they make the boxes for those who claim they can.
Originally posted by DarkAvenger I say we don't need DVD-A/SACD, as current solutions offer good enough audio.
Originally posted by Pio2001 Exept if they manage in the future to built DVDA or SACD players that sounds as well as 3000 € CD players, but for 200 € only. That would be interesting In my opinion, it's the only relevant question about audiophile (=not talking about multichannel, I mean) possibility of these new media.
Originally posted by cmokruhl I have heard SACD, HDCD and DVD-A. I own two SACD players (Sony NS500V... 0!). SACD is the superior format IMHO. The difference between CD and DVD-A is always described as "subtle". The difference between CD and SACD is definitely noticable. My parents (truly non-audiophiles) heard the Sony demonstration at Hi-Fi '99 in Chicago with me and both commented on how much better SACD sounded.
Originally posted by Annuka It is not hard to produce desired test results. Just do a sloppy job when mastering the CD and an excellent job when mastering the SACD. How many CD<>SACD comparisons have you done and can you list the titles?
Originally posted by cmokruhl Joe Satriani "Engines of Creation" -> recent recording so the "old ADC" argument doesn't work.Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" -> compared against recent SBM remasterSantana "Abraxas" -> compared against originalStevie Ray Vaughan "Texas Flood" -> compared against recent SBM remasterIn all cases, the highs sounded much purer and more natural. Being a guitarist, I know the sound of a guitar and there's a much more natural attack and purity of tone in the SACDs. Even good sounding CDs sound "digital" when compared to the SACD.
Originally posted by Ruse Black magic and witcvhcraft.Where's your proof - double blind listening tests or other validated test methodology.
Originally posted by cmokruhl Even good sounding CDs sound "digital" when compared to the SACD.
Originally posted by DigitalMan So, there you have it, SACD and DVD-Audio crippleware. On top of it all, SACDs and DVD-Audio discs cost more than CDs ( US +). Tough to see a mass market for these as much as they are technically impressive. Remember that 24bits gives you a dynamic range of 144dB - not many audio systems have that kind of accuracy, and it really become pointless in a car/airplane or even a home with an air conditioner.
Originally posted by bryant I would go further and say that there is no chance of either of these formats having any kind of mass market. However, their development was not driven by customer's desires for multi-channel remixes of their favorite CDs (or their disgust with that wretched 16/44 sound). Their development was driven by the major label's demands for a secure format and their inability to make unrippable CDs. And I suspect that as soon as most new CD players will handle SACD and/or most DVD players will do DVD-Audio, then the phase-out of the CD will begin....assuming that the market puts up with that...