Future of Audio Production: DVD-A or SACD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BoGuitar
  • Start date Start date

What is the future of audio production?

  • DVD-A

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • SACD

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • other (please specify)

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
B

BoGuitar

New member
Which one is going to come after the CD? The DVD-A or SACD?
Both are superior in terms of quality compared to teh CD. I think the days of CDs are numbered.
 
I think some form of DSD (direct stream digital) will be the successor. It's a one bit sine drawing at like 40 mhz I think (someone correct me). But It should be easy in the future of digital audio to get an analog like sine representation.
 
I certainly hope it's DVD-A because it's an openly licensable format. You can bet your ass that the evil Sony/Philips empire will take whatever monopolistic advantages they can if SACD wins.

barefoot
 
Hey Bo, do you know what DVDA really stands for? :D

But seriously, I agree with barefoot, at least for our end of things. :D
 
Barometer said:
Hey Bo, do you know what DVDA really stands for? :D

Click to expand...
Is this some kind of sick perverted joke that I'm not really getting?
 
In my limited readings I have heard some producers and engineers say that the SACD sounded noticably superior to DVD audio but with the high number of DVD units already sold and in use and the higher cost of SACD players that SACD would be a tough sell to the general consumer.
 
Scooter B said:
.....I have heard some producers and engineers say that the SACD sounded noticably superior to DVD audio....
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe the ones who are on Sony's payroll.:rolleyes: Anyone who says there is any significant audible difference between these two formats is talking out of their ass. The theoretical potential of both DVD-A and SACD presents major challenge to the performance of every component in the system, and the hardware will be much more of a limitation than the particular software format.

Theoretically I like DVD-A better because it uses a lossless compression method. But, in practice the most important distinctions are ones of economics, fair use, and other social considerations.

barefoot
 
Yeah, maybe the ones who are on Sony's payroll. Anyone who says there is any significant audible difference between these two formats is talking out of their ass. The theoretical potential of both DVD-A and SACD presents major challenge to the performance of every component in the system, and the hardware will be much more of a limitation than the particular software format.
Click to expand...

This is definitely not my area of expertise but one of the articles I was refering to (I believe came from Tape Op but maybe not) was not on anyones payroll that I know of.

He was a respected musican and producer who was discussing the Analogue versus Digital debate and the 16 bit limitation of CD's. I may have to search thier website to find the direct reference but the gist of HIS perception was DVD audio was a definite but limited improvement from CD but SACD's he had heard just floored him.

He did not want the industry to settle for a watered down solution (as in the 16 bit CD compromises and 44.1 rate) again when we move up to a new and better medium. He swore the SACDs he heard just blew him away like nothing else he had heard.

But I don't know if any of these were true A/B comparisons...he may have been listening on completely different monitoring systems and to different levels of production quality.

He just seemed to feel that the SACD was the first digital format that reproduced what he heard in the high end studios and live on a home type stereo system.

This was just one man's opinion and I wish I could remember the exact article and the mans identity specifically but all I remember was after reading this article that I was very anxious to hear one and I was hoping the industry did not settle for a watered down compromise.

I can not attest to the technical validity of his impressions. If DVD audio is just as good or better for less investment from the consumer than SACD then I am all for it.

Hopefully we can get some more input and even possibly a consensus (could that ever happen?) regarding this. I won't be buying either any year soon so I will just wait and see what the industry does and watch the debate.
 
BoGuitar said:

Is this some kind of sick perverted joke that I'm not really getting?
Click to expand...

yeah of course. Did you ever see Orgazmo? FUNNY FLICK. It stand for double_double_ :eek:

But that's off the subject. I tend to agree that the fact that DVD is already such a widespread format would force the issue in that direction. But that's just my opinion :cool:
 
Barometer said:


yeah of course. Did you ever see Orgazmo? FUNNY FLICK. It stand for double_double_ :eek:

But that's off the subject. I tend to agree that the fact that DVD is already such a widespread format would force the issue in that direction. But that's just my opinion :cool:
Click to expand...
Hehe :D
 
Well, there is just not much point going the SACD route. Simply because whenever you have to do any form of signal processing it will have to be converted from DSD to PCM, processed and then converted back to DSD. So whatever -- IMHO dubious -- advantages you want to ascribe to SACD, it will necessarily get all the disadvantages of ordinary PCM with the bargain. That is unless you are planning on going purist, and start recording straight from mic to disc.
(I actually have one such recording (Not SACD of course) in my CD collection, and it sounds fantastic. But I'm uncertain whether it will be on MTV any time soon.)
 
So whatever -- IMHO dubious -- advantages you want to ascribe to SACD, it will necessarily get all the disadvantages of ordinary PCM with the bargain. That is unless you are planning on going purist, and start recording straight from mic to disc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for you input but I am not personally ascribing anything to DVD audio or SACD but simply sharing something I read from someone that seemed to be regarded as knowledgeable, was known for good ears and to my knowledge was unbiased financially.

I personally don't know that my ears could tell the difference and I don't have a clue what PCM, DSD and the conversion of the two are or what they do to the sound.

Believe me I don't want to need to buy a DVD player and a seperate SACD player. I would love to buy a DVD player in the next year that would have me ready for the next generation of audio all in one package!

I just have not read anything on DVD audio and only read the one article on SACD.
 
ScooBee, ;)

Like I said, from the consumer perspective I think there is no audible difference. From the professional perspective of recording, storing, and retrieving tracks DVD-A has the obvious advantage because it is a lossless compression scheme. In other words DVD-A is like storing your track in a zip file where you get back the exact same information bit for bit when you re-open it. SACD is more like mp3 compression (only much, much better) where you don't get back exactly what you put in. So saving, opening, then resaving an audio file several time in SACD would degrade the sound whereas DVD-A would not.

barefoot
 
Thank you my barefoot friend that makes sense to me in laguage I understand.

Just say NO to music degredation!:D
 
Scooter B said:


Thanks for you input but I am not personally ascribing anything to DVD audio or SACD...
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was not directed to you personally, but more a general comment.
Peace!
/BasPer
 
BasPer,

No problems. I was just clarifying my thoughts.

Peacex2

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top