what is the difference here? i'm confused.
Quickly, before I am Jinxed:
DTS (Digital Theater System) is a digital 5.1 surround system (or 7.1 in DTS-ES) using 5 speaker channels and 1 LFE channel for cinemas and HT. It was debuted in 1993 on Jurassic Park (Spielberg was an early investor).
SACD (Super Audio Compact Disc) is a music-only format of 6 channels (the 5 standard channels plus subwoofer, LFE is not the correct nomenclature in this format). Currently only analog outputs are standardized, meaning a forest of cables between the SACD player and the receiver. A single-cable digital solution is in the works but has not been accepted as a standard yet. An SACD is a strange disc. It is technically a CD but holds 4.7GB of data, identical to a single-layer DVD. Pretty much a hybrid of the two. Currently there are only around 3K SACD titles released. Of course "only" is relative, 3k being about 10x my cd collection.
FYI DTS is analogous to and competes with Dolby Digital, which was developed around 4 years prior (per Wikipedia).
From Wikipedia, Google, and memory.
Is there an advantage to one format over the other (such as number of titles currently available or in the future)?
Any players that play both DVD-audio and SACD?
Will higher resolution discs have improved sound over standard CD even in two-channel listening?
If you love Pink Foyd - advantage SACD. But, if you like REM, big advantage to DVD-A. In 2006, you will see DVD-A give way to the Dual Disc format and it looks like Sony has stopped manufacturing SACDs
There are plenty of universal players ranging from $90 -$x,xxx. The non-Elite Pioneers are the cheapest. Yamaha also makes some decent universal players. Denon makes some solid ones also.
In my opinion, the sound from high-res music is leaps and bounds better than redbook CDs and music DVD's mixed in Dolby 5.1. It is a shame the formats didn't catch on. I have about 15 DVD-A's and they are all amazing.
>>FYI DTS is analogous to and competes with Dolby Digital, which was developed around 4 years prior (per Wikipedia).
It's not so simple any more. I'm seeing a number of music albums released in DTS audio-only, ie direct competition for SACD and DVD-A except you don't need a universal player and you don't need analog connections (or DenonLink) between the player and the receiver. I think that is what Jinx is asking about.
There is apparently a DTS 96/24 variant which has the same audio resolution as SACD and DVD-A -- I don't remember if the DTS audio disks I noticed were in 96/24 or not. Since I don't remember what the normal DTS resolution is either (I think it's higher than 44/16) perhaps someone else can chime in.
There are also a couple of albums out in DVD 5.1 audio format (not DVD-A) without video, but too few to be a big deal.
"In my opinion, the sound from high-res music is leaps and bounds better than redbook CDs and music DVD's mixed in Dolby 5.1. "
I would agree that SOME SACD's sound much better than regular CD's. I've learned from experience that just because something is produced in SACD format, doesn't guarantee that it will be a good recording. SACD's are hit and miss in terms of recording quality. Still the most important factor is the quality of the original recording. I'm sure you have experianced this as well.
Hi simboticus,
I would agree entirely. An important difference for Jinx to understand is that DVD-Audio and SACD are not "lossy" systems like Dolby Digital and dts. While dts runs at a higher date rate than Dolby Digital, it still is a lossy algorithm, which means it throws away tons of data based on perceptual masking in order to include 5.1 or more channels on a disc plus all the video.
DVD-A and SACD are "lossless" in that no data is discarded. That's why you can't have high-quality video plus DVD-A or SACD and Dolby Digital all on one disc. It takes up too much space.
You are correct--the use of a lossless algorithm does NOT guarantee better sound quality. It's the engineering of the album and the mix with the surrounds. Besides, many listeners who make these comparisons with Red Book CD are confusing the multichannel mix with 2-channel CD. In most cases a good multichannel mix in Dolby Digital or dts always sounds better than 2-channel stereo. On instant A/B comparisons, moving to a 2-channel mix from a multichannel mix often results in the room or "space" collapsing into a 2-channel soundstage which, while pleasant, lacks the realism and space delivered by an expert multichannel mix.
As I've pointed out previously in my articles on the intrinsic flaw of 2-channel (stereo) sound reproduction, those Bell Labs engineers in the 1930s were no fools when they declared that a minimum of 3 channels were necessary to convey a realistic reproduction of a live Philadelphia orchestra concert carried by 3 channels to a listening room in New Jersey.
The progress of sound reproduction realism has always moved to increasing numbers of channels to better mimic the way our ears and brain hear and process direct and reflected sounds.
Regards,
I agree with Alan.
I love my SACD's and DVD-A's, but I like them for the surround mixes more than the improvement in sound quality. I hate the gimicky mixes, but the ones that are done well provide an amazing spaciousness. I would love to see more hirez titles, but if not, I hope the multichannel music lives on in one form or another.
Definately agree there. My only experience is with DVD-A and I only have 1 recording (Led Zeppelin's How the West was Won) that sounds subpar compared to redbooks. I made a sweeping generalization, only because I have only had such a good experience with DVD-A. I mostly enjoy classic and modern rock and I have stayed away from The Door's "LA Woman" and Metallica's Black Album because of subpar mixes. The Who's "Tommy", though is a grand slam as well as the Warner Bros. REM DVD-A's. "You are the Everything" on the Green Album is just hauntingly beautiful.
Great info. Thanks everyone.