Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A (Read 14073 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

I'm sure this undying question has been asked before, but which is better? SACD or DVD-A? I've heard more people say that DVD-A will win the war, yet it looks like SACD has a better chance. First of all, most releases are hybrids which have CD and SACD layers. Secondly, SACD seems to have more titles that people are interested in (Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon). Thirdly, Mobile Fidelity is backing the SACD with their releases. I've seen hybrid SACD/DVD-A players, yet those tend to command a higher price tag. So, in your opinion, which is a better investment for high-res audio? SACD or DVD-A?

p.s. Is it even worth it to look into HDCD?

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #1 –
Both formats are dead.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #2 –
As already said neither format is ever going to replace CD so if you really want them just get a universal player that will do both, Pioneer do some cheap ones now.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #3 –
From a purely technological standpoint, SACD is clearly a mistake. It is, in fact, a very inefficient format for encoding audio data.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Chjmu on
I'm sure this undying question has been asked before, but which is better? SACD or DVD-A? I've heard more people say that DVD-A will win the war, yet it looks like SACD has a better chance. First of all, most releases are hybrids which have CD and SACD layers. Secondly, SACD seems to have more titles that people are interested in (Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon). Thirdly, Mobile Fidelity is backing the SACD with their releases. I've seen hybrid SACD/DVD-A players, yet those tend to command a higher price tag. So, in your opinion, which is a better investment for high-res audio? SACD or DVD-A?

p.s. Is it even worth it to look into HDCD?



Did this post travel through time from 2002?   


HDCD and DVD-A are dead, SACD is dead in the USA and on life support elsewhere (I hear it's big in Japan).  They're all good 'investments' in that if you own such discs you can often charge outrageous prices for them to 'audiophiles' on the used market. 

If you want to explore all of them, just get an Oppo DVD player.  They're relatively inexpensive and they play all three of those formats.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #6 –
Quote from: pdq on
From a purely technological standpoint, SACD is clearly a mistake. It is, in fact, a very inefficient format for encoding audio data.

Well, even if the SACD is less efficient, it seems to have more labels backing it up. I too don't think it will become mainstream over CDs. Yet, one of the two formats will likely become the mainstream for audiophile releases.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Chjmu on
Yet, one of the two formats will likely become the mainstream for audiophile releases.
I can't see the situation ever becoming "better" than it is now. You'll see more concerts on BluRay with decent soundtracks than you'll see new SACDs in the future (just my guess).

Cheers,
David.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Chjmu on
Yet, one of the two formats will likely become the mainstream for audiophile releases.


Audiophile label Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs seems to have dropped SACD in favour of CD.

There has been almost no SACD or DVD-A releases the past two years.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Chjmu on
Well, even if the SACD is less efficient, it seems to have more labels backing it up.


Could this be to do with the fact that SACD is more difficult to copy?
Dan

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #11 –
This alone makes SACD a very bad investment unless your budget is big enough to include an advanced digital audio extraction upgrade.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #12 –
Wow people have really written these formats off.

Neither format was designed to be mainstream in the first place. They're audiophile formats - digital vinyl in essence. They can only be appreciated on decent equipment, so why would they ever become mainstream? Likewise goes for ripping/portability. You just don't rip these formats - it's pointless.

However, in my opinion, SACD is the better option. There are several labels making new releases in SACD, in Europe at any rate, but they're not mainstream. SACD's have found a niche in the jazz and classical markets, and this is where the new releases are coming from. Saying that, there are a few remastered rock releases, and the Genesis box-sets are being released on SACD in Europe.

The advantage of SACD, in my opinion, is the ripping capability. All the SACD's I've bought are hybrids, and usually the high-fidelity DSD stereo mix is converted to PCM for the CD layer, so you still get a well mastered record but it can be ripped. For a while I wondered about ripping the DSD (or the PCM from DVD-Audio), but is there really any point? What would you play it on?

So basically, if you're interested in well-mastered classical and jazz albums, go with SACD. If not, don't bother at all - DVD-Audio is dead, and there are very limited releases on these formats for other genres.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #13 –
Quote from: smiler on
Neither format was designed to be mainstream in the first place. They're audiophile formats - digital vinyl in essence. They can only be appreciated on decent equipment

Here we go again. 

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #14 –
Quote
Here we go again.

I'm happy with that argument and it makes sense to me. If someone wants to flame me, fine, but I won't respond. I'm just trying to help the OP.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #15 –
Quote from: smiler on
Neither format was designed to be mainstream in the first place.


Not sure i believe that, weren't Sony supposed to be trying to release all their catalogue on hybrid CD/SACDs?

Both formats are dead, with zero advantage over a decent Blu-Ray setup. This isn't helped by being strangled to death by ridiculous copy protection.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #16 –
Quote from: smiler on
I'm just trying to help the OP.

You aren't helping anyone by making subjective claims about sound quality without providing proof.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....974#entry149481

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #17 –
Quote
You aren't helping anyone by making subjective claims about sound quality without providing proof.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....974#entry149481

I suppose that line was subjective, and is certainly hard to prove. That raises an interesting point though - has SACD/DVD-Audio ever been subjected to ABX testing?

The majority of my post was factual/provable, regarding releases in these formats and ease of ripping, and I thought this was probably of more use to the OP. Is it not fair to assume that they already have their own opinion of these formats' capabilities and thus advise around them? I certainly made no remarks about which format may be better sonically.

Also, I would define 'decent equipment' as that which is capable of reproducing the extended frequencies these formats claim to record. This would be provable by lab testing, assuming such equipment exists.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #18 –
Quote from: smiler on
The advantage of SACD, in my opinion, is the ripping capability. All the SACD's I've bought are hybrids, and usually the high-fidelity DSD stereo mix is converted to PCM for the CD layer, so you still get a well mastered record but it can be ripped. For a while I wondered about ripping the DSD (or the PCM from DVD-Audio), but is there really any point? What would you play it on?


So the advantage is that you can get a CD version of the disk?  Why even have a new format if CD is good enough?

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: smiler on

The advantage of SACD, in my opinion, is the ripping capability. All the SACD's I've bought are hybrids, and usually the high-fidelity DSD stereo mix is converted to PCM for the CD layer, so you still get a well mastered record but it can be ripped. For a while I wondered about ripping the DSD (or the PCM from DVD-Audio), but is there really any point? What would you play it on?


So the advantage is that you can get a CD version of the disk?  Why even have a new format if CD is good enough?
It's well known that sometimes the CD layer doesn't even remotely match the SACD layer in terms of quality. So that argument also falls flat.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #20 –
But if SACDs cost the same amount as a standard CD, then why not have all music be released as a hybrid SACD?

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Chjmu on
But if SACDs cost the same amount as a standard CD, then why not have all music be released as a hybrid SACD?


That would be a lovely solution from a consumer's standpoint, although from the label side it involves a much heavier investment of time to prepare a DSD master. In a few occasions when the label tried to take a shortcut - such as on the SACD of Norah Jones' first album, when they mastered the DSD layer directly from the SACD layer! - it only served to undermine the perceived quality of the format.

DVD-A is still an interesting format, especially if you happen to do needle-drops from high-quality vinyl sources. There is free software available for authoring DVD-A discs, and these days it isn't too difficult to find a player that supports DVD-Audio.

    - M.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #23 –
Arguably, SACD from the beginning was aimed more at the audiophile market than DVD-A.  Then again, at the VERY beginning, DSD wasn't meant as a consumer format at all -- it was meant as an archiving format that could be easily and transparently downcoverted to 44.1/16-bit for CD release.  Somewhere along the line...maybe as it became clear how easy it would be to 'rip' CDs....a consumer DSD format was born (SACD).

And  the idea that the CD layer of an SACD hybrid is merely a straight transcode, is not always true in practice.  Sometimes, the CD layer is just the 'loudness wars' alter ego of the 'audiophile' DSD mastering. Famous case in point: Dark Side of the Moon.

Which is a better investment? SACD or DVD-A

Reply #24 –
Quote from: M on
In a few occasions when the label tried to take a shortcut - such as on the SACD of Norah Jones' first album, when they mastered the DSD layer directly from the SACD layer! - it only served to undermine the perceived quality of the format.
What do you mean by DSD layer?

Do you really mean CD layer, and if so, wouldn't that be the preferred method for the customer?  It would certainly be the most honest one when making claims about the superiority of the SACD layer.


Quote from: M on
DVD-A is still an interesting format, especially if you happen to do needle-drops from high-quality vinyl sources.
I'd say it's an interesting format to provide raw recordings for alternative editing.  For high-quality vinyl sources I think previous discussions have substantially demonstrated that 16/44.1 is more than adequate as a delivery format.