Assuming I keep my new SACD/DVDA player (see other thread I posted for details), I was wondering if anyone has tried both and if one seems to be any better then the other. Is DVD-A also hybrid, so it plays in a normal CD player? Does it depend on the disc in the case of either format?

Pros and cons of each?

I'm mainly interested because of the NIN album coming out in both formats in about two weeks.

DVD-A will play in a dvd player, but not a cd player.

I prefer SACD only because I don't like the video menu's with the DVD-A's. Sometimes with some DVD-A's (not all) you need to navigate through the on-screen menu to play what you want. I prefer the ease of throwing in a disc and hitting play.

In reply to:

---

DVD-A will play in a dvd player, but not a cd player.

---

Is this true for ALL DVD-Audio discs? I'm not sure... I thought that som were DVD-Video player-capable and some were not?

Remember that for the ones that DO play in a "standard, video DVD player" it won't be with the higher-resolution tracks. Those discs have more than one set of tracks encoded and you have to play the disc in a DVD-Audio capable player to hear the highest resolution tracks.

I agree with Spiffnme that some of the DVD-Audio openings and menus are a P.I.A. Many will just default to "play" after several seconds of hearing logos swish around, etc... but some require a TV to be on to select something in a menu. It's like they were authored by "DVD" people instead of "audio" people who assumed that you'll want to turn on your monitor when playing a music disc.

I haven't heard any differences between the two to have a preference in that regard. It seems to me that DVD-A has more "pop" recordings in general and SACD has a slightly "deeper" catalog of music types. In general, I've chosen discs based upon musician, not format.

Be aware that some discs sound hugely better than their original releases (such as Yes' "Fragile", an amazing quality rerelease), others only marginally so . Some are simply stereo, others use the surround format. Some are worth replacing a CD you currently own, some probably not. Unfortunately, I haven't found a definitive website that offers reviews of the hi-rez releases ("yes, this one sounds so much better after being remastered for SACD"), but rather only reviews of the "album" itself.


A good online source of discs is http://store.acousticsounds.com/

I'm not positive, but I think DVD-A's will play in a dvd player. But like you said, the high rez audio would not be in play unless it's an actual DVD-A player. (I could be wrong)

BTW....http://www.sa-cd.net is a nice place to go and read user reviews of SACD discs. It'll give you a good idea of which SACD's are better than others. I use the site quite often before making a SACD purchase.

Jason, because of my general lack of enthusiasm for DVD-A/SACD, which I've explained before, I wasn't going to add anything here. Nevertheless, no, as Craig said a DVD-A isn't hybrid so that it plays in a CD player(there are some new DVD "DualDiscs" which have a CD on the opposite side). All DVD-As however have a DD and/or DTS track which plays in a regular DVD player since those are the sound tracks which are used on DVD-Video. If an SACD is hybrid, of course that means that it also has a regular CD layer.

As to whether one of the new formats is inherently audibly better(or better than CD, for that matter), it's highly unlikely(disregarding the multi-channel factor, if present). The original recording techniques and the mixing and mastering applied determine the sound quality, not whether itwinds up on CD, DVD-A or SACD. One of the versions of that new album may turn out to be only about 8.9"N, but if so it'll be due to slightly different mixing/mastering, not any difference inherent in the formats.

I see the 5.1 for SACD as a benefit more then a superior sound quality to standard DVD. Is the sound quality supposed to be better as well? I assume even if the answer is yes, this is open for debate since you don't sound like you are convinced that it is.

Yes, Jason, multi-channel as compared to stereo is clearly different and generally better. Where, as almost always is the case in classical music which I listen to, the surround channels in DVD-A/SACD contain ambience rather than placing specific performers there, the steering of ambience from stereo material by processes such as DPLII or Logic7 can give a very similar effect.

Sure, the sound quality apart from spatial effects is supposed to be better and often is, but this may be entirely due to the recording/mixing/mastering, as mentioned above, rather than any "hi rez" factor. If you're interested, search my cites here to "soundhound"(now Hal 9000)who makes the point clearly that with identical material 16 bits/44.1KHz is audibly identical to higher bits/sampling rates.

Wouldn't using DPLII equate to watching a movie in DPLII and SACD equate to watching that movie in Dolby Digital? You get some sound in DPLII for movies, but DD is the superior format.

I agree that it may vary from disc to disc, however I would be suprised to hear a lot of what I heard on the Dark Side of the Moon SACD in standard CD with DPLII turned on. Then again, with classical music that is likely not created the same way this disc was for SACD (DSOTM in SACD seems to be designed to use the surrounds, where I can see classical just using them as ambience) I can see where it would not matter as much.