1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 1053114671

SACD and DVD-A: Apples and Oranges?

It seems to me that SACD and DVD-A are going for different markets. Comparing them, especially the question on "Which will survive?" seems fruitless. Both could survive, or neither.

SACD is aimed at correcting the problems we've had all along with CD sound. SACD provides a quality 2-channel digital source at a reasonable price. I wager that the typical $250 SACD player playing SACD's sounds as good or better than a typical $1000 CD player playing CD's. Hybrid disks provide backward compatibility. Multi-channel capability is there if desired. By reducing the entry price of a decent sounding player, SACD can bring hi-fi to the masses.

DVD-A is aimed at the thousands (or millions) of average Joe's who already have a 5.1 DVD setup. These guys are wondering why movies come in Surround Sound but music CD's are still 2-channel. The DVD music section in th local music store is growing every day. DVD-A provides a way to hear Metallica or whatever in 5.1 sound. DVD-A is off to a slow start for several reasons. The biggest problem, in my mind, is that the single-wire digital interface doesn't exist. It still takes 6 I.C.'s to hook up DVD-A to a receiver.

Seen this way, both SACD and DVD-A are good things but SACD is aimed more at the 2 channel audiophile market.

Agree?
pmi_guy
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
I quickly determined that you need both SACD and DVD-A to get access to a reasonable catalog of discs, and at least one relatively inexpensive universal player is available (Pioneer DV45A). Both formats can yield excellent results.

I expect that DVD will get a big boost from auto sound systems, where speakers in the rear have long been standard, and the acoustic environment is very well controlled.

As to speaker spacing, I don't think there is a problem. Even inexpensive players make provision to introduce different amounts of time delay in the different channels so as to compensate for non-equal speaker distances. It's part of the setup procedure, along with volume matching.
hifiho
50 posts
 
I've got both, and my biggest hassle so far is having to reconnect sources to the SINGLE 5.1 input on my preamp/ processor. I saw an outboard switching device online recently, but for the life of me can't find it again. Any advice?

Both formats have their strong and weak points. Pink Floyd's (multichannel) Dark Side of the Moon release convinced me to purchase a SACD player. Although I've found more music to my liking on DVD-A. I've only purchased 3 SACD's vs. about 20 DVD-A titles.

Happy trails.
David
tonyp54
130 posts
 
I agree they are trying to attract different segments of the market, but the DVD-A segment (HT and casual music listening) is huge compared to the SACD segment. I think that gives DVD-A the long term advantage. Sony/Phillips are going to have to carve a niche for SACD that I'm not sure can be sustained. I can't imagine Sony settling for the audiophile market and leaving the rest to their competition. If they decide to support both formats going forward, then we all win. That will depend on the sales numbers, pure and simple. SACD could survive the fate of Betamax if enough people continue to but them as DVD-A matures.

Of course it would be better still if the industry would just settle on a single format and make all of our lives simpler, but that's another story.
izsakmixer
39 posts
 
After two multi players (Denon 2900 and Marantz 8400) and about 100 sacd and dvda titles, DVD has no chance in my view. The fact that you MUST have a screen on to operate 90% of the disks to get the right "audio menu" playing is nuts! There is just no excuse for that.
At the same time, I can't even compare the experience.
SACD is like an LP except a LOT better.
DVDA is like a better CD.
There are some fundimental flaws in PCM that are now all too obvious.

A<.
ben_campbell
1,164 posts
 
Izsakmixer care to tell us what SACD's you consider a LOT better than LP's?
More to discover