Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo SACD/DVD-A/CD/DTS/DD Utimate Challenge!

I had the opportunity this week to put my hands on 4 recordings that were done in the three formats + DTS and/or DD. My last day off and one afternoon were spent comparing those DVD-a, SACD and CDs.

For those who are interested (this is long!), here are the method used and results.

MusiC:
--------
Vivaldi: Sacred works (Naxos)

Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique with Colin Davis

Schubert: String Quintet and String Quartet 13 (Brandis Quartet)

Prokofiev: Transcriptions and others (movement for 4 bassoons, 2-piano version of his Classical Symphony, quintet for wind and strings and transcriptions for wind octet of Romeo et Juliet's ballet extracts).

Devices:
----------
Oppo 980 (DVD-Audio, SACD et CD PCM output on HDMI)
Onky 805
Epic-80/500

Method:
--------
2/3 of the tests were done with two people, one changing disks and the other "blindly" listening. The rest of the time, my ears had to ignore what my hands were doing!

Two sets of tests: 1) In 5.1 with direct multi-channel for DVD-Audio, SACD and DTS and with PLII for CDs. 2) In 7.1 with EVERYTHING using PLIIx (5.1=>7.1 and 2.0=>7.1)

Selected criteria were: Dynamics, instruments clarity (voice, strings and winds separate) and ambiance (surround).

Note: Apart from Prokofiev, I knew very well all these recordinds (CD), so some tests were done only on part of the material (where I thought it would be more relevant).


Results (in 5.1)
-------------------
Note: A+ indicates a big "WOW"!
Note: It is important to note that DVD-Audios are assuming a perfect circle of speakers while que PLIIx, SACD et DTS/DD are assuming a more "home theater" arrangement.

1) Vivaldi (voice and orchestra)
a) Dynamics: DVD-Audio (A), SACD (A), CD (C), DTS (B)
b) Clarity (voice, strings and winds): DVD-Audio (A,A,A), SACD (A,A,A), CD (B,B,B), DTS (A,B,B)
c) Surround: DVD-Audio (B), SACD (A), CD (B), DTS (A)

2) Berlioz (orhestra)
a) Dynamics: DVD-Audio (A++), SACD (A), CD (C), DTS (C)
b) Clarity (voice, strings and winds): DVD-Audio (-,A,A), SACD (-,B,A), CD (-,C,C), DTS (-,B,B)
c) Surround: DVD-Audio (A), SACD (A), CD (B), DTS (B)

3) Schubert (Chambre, cordes seulement)
a) Dynamics: DVD-Audio (A), SACD (A), CD (B), DD (A)
b) Clarity (voice, strings and winds): DVD-Audio (-,A+,-), SACD (-,A,-), CD (-,B,-), DD (-,B,-)
c) Surround: DVD-Audio (A), SACD (A), CD (B), DD (B)

4) Prokofiev (chambre, piano, cordes et vents)
a) Dynamics: DVD-Audio (B), SACD (B), CD (B), DTS (B)
b) Clarity (voice, strings and winds): DVD-Audio (-,A+,A), SACD (-,A,A), CD (-,C,B), DTS (-,B,B)
c) Surround: DVD-Audio (B), SACD (A), CD (C), DTS (C)

Summary: Keeping in mind that these tests are not scientific for one bit, here's a little "summary":

Dynamics: DVD-Audio is generally the winner, especially with very large orchestra. CD almost painful when played back-to-back, but still adequate with chamber music. DTS et DD seem to have a bit more dynamics than CDs.

Clarity: SACD et DVD-Audio are clearly better, with maybe a little plus in the strings for DVD-Audio. CD is adequate, as are DTS et DD, but the différence is noticeable.

Surround: Here, in "direct multi-channel", SACD sounds more natural than DVD-Audio and, on occasion, DTS and DD are also better than the latter. See 7.1. for more info.

Conclusion 5.1: DVD-Audio and SACD (all things considered) are pretty much equal.


Results (in 7.1)
-------------------
Actually, I will not reproduce all the details as above (not enough difference). The bottom line is as follows:

Conclusion 7.1: PLIIx helps DVD-Audio and actually ends up making it number one (not by a margin to go crazy, though!)

Peripheal advantages:
------------------------
DVD-Audio: Generally has one or two good "mixes" in DTS or DD that gives an excellent sounds on any Home Theater. Also, it frequently contains additional material such as biographies, old disks' extracts...

SACD: Generally has a CD layer playable in any stereo system. They are a lot, A LOT, easier to find!


Well, That's all!

Awesome; thanks for sharing the fruits of your labor. I'll have to dust off some DVD-As this weekend. I had always suspected that my DVD-As sounded better than my SACDs. I figured at least they had more potential to be better, more data and all.

Thanks again!

Very nice, thanks for sharing. I too like DVD-A the best but most of the music I like isn't available in the format.

I guess I should get some DVD-As!

I almost never listen to my SACDs--they're kind of a pain in that my changer can't randomize them, I can't rip them, and I don't actually like the music on them all that much. Well, one of them is great, but I've heard it a lot in CD/AAC formats.

Eric,

Great post. I have always wondered what the differences between the various formats are.

I sure hope nobody is taking this as a "definitive answer" on the subject. Just some fun tests!

Actually, there are a few more details that are worth mentionning.

1) I have DVD-As that are over 90 minutes long in all 4 formats (multi high-res, stereo hi-res, DTS, DD). SACDs seem to be limited to 75 minutes, but it could be just because of the CD layer. Actually, the Schubert pieces are presented in dual-sided in SACD.

2) Both SACD and DVD-A, either because of #bits, sampling rates or multi-channel, seem to make the receiver's life easier in bass management and the resulting merged output between M80 and EP-500 is noticeably better than CD and DTS/DD (all recordings are in 5.0 or 4.0, no LFE--which would be absurd for music!!)

Eric, enjoyed reading your impressions and your choice of music. Yes, certainly listening sessions can't give a definitive answer(likely there is no such thing)and has been pointed out previously, the mixing and mastering applied to the same recorded performance(even different tracks on the same disc)may be different and may be responsible for any perceived difference. This factor can submerge any theoretical advantage in the way of sampling frequency or bit depth and can determine the end result more than if the format happens to be CD, DVD-A or SACD(neglecting the multi-channel possibility).

Thanks for your comments. I slightly disagree with you comment about mixing dismissing tests. The things they have to do to fit/use each format IS what matters. For example, my initial tests were only to be about dynamic compression on CD (it is just pure luck that my brother had four exact same edition SACD (bought by accident) and then I turned it into something more) and man, recording sessions or not, for almost every single thing I have both in DVD/SACD/CD, they is significant compression on CD.

Same for DVD-a and SACD. Even with differences in mixes (which is WHAT matters in different format), statistics gets into the picture and, again just as an example, on 100 cases like mine, if 60% prefer SACD over DVD-a, it could just mean that sound engineers are just better equiped/prefer/better-trained on SACD, it would still be a reality and would still the only thing that matters as a result (i.e. regardless of capabilities, one format would end up "better" just because it is used better by the engineers)

Most of the posts I have read in this forum where differences in mixes were brought in ("pointed out previously") were for politeness reasons; a "let's agree to disagree and... BTW... here's a convenient excuse for why we could be both right".

The mixing factor DOES NOT submerge technique, the mixing factor IS the manifestation of sampling frequency and bit depth. Those are the tools used by the sound engineers. The question has never been which tool is perfect, but at some point if they needed new tools (still need) or not.

In summary, the above paragraphs are not a defensive stance. I just felt this was the appropriate moment for me to put my two cents on the fluidic mixing thingy.

Thanks all for your reading/posting.