[thuway]

With the brand new ERT Tweeter - I have decided to purchase a SACD - DVD-A player to see what the fuss is all about.


Some artists, such as NIN and Pink Floyd have released both SACD and DVD-A.... my problem lies with the sole fact that - which one is better?

So my question to you zealots of audio perfection would be......

I'm trying to be as cheap as POSSIBLE..... is there a good universal player out there I can purchase? Or is it a better idea for me to go a route of SINGLE DISC SACD or SINGLE DISC DVDA player... (my cdp sucks too btw a JVC television with a DVD player built in...)


Would an item like Squeezebox be workable into the equation? The less wires and clutter I have lying around the better.


I am after pure surround music even though my surrounds suck too (in walls heh) , but one thing at a time, so yeah.




One more thing, any reccomendations on some craaaaazy good discs?

[rmihai0]

1. DVD-A 24/192 - in stereo mode
2. SACD
3. DVD-A and DVD-V in 24/96

[SWG255]

From your post it seems you're primarily interested in rock. If this is the case, I think you'll find DVD-A more to your liking. I'm a SACD lover myself, but i find that most of the recordings I like on SACD are classical or jazz. There's also been a shortage of new rock/pop releases in SACD in the last year, so I don't think it's going to be the medium for that kind of music in the future.

As for sound quality, I'd say the mastering and production values employed in a given recording are usually more important than the format, I've heard great sounding music from both SACD and DVD-A, and bad sounding discs from both.

As for universal players, if you are on a budget, look at the Pioneer universal models, I think they offer the best bang for the buck.

[konut]

I used to have the Pioneer 578. I have since sold it and purchased a Toshiba SD6980 universal. Its available at Onecall in the $180 range. Since Onecall is local to me, I went to the showroom and they set up the 588 and 6980 for me to A/B. I thought the 6980 was ever so slightly more refined in the highs. They were very close. As for software see  http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/index.php?  for extensive discussions of the titles pro or con of SACD and DVD-A

[Dan Driscoll]

In theory, DVD-Audio has the best potential sound quality. But in reality it comes down to the process, how well the music was recorded, mastered and authored. In some cases the DVD-A version sounds best, in others the SACD sounds better.

One advantage SACD does have over DVD-Audio is that it does not require a video component, as the DVD-Audio does specification. However, here are variations that get around this, such as the Digital Audio Disk and High Defintion Audio Disk formats. DAD is 24 bit/96KHz, HDAD is 24 bit/192KHz and both are 2 track stereo formats. DAD's can be played on regular DVD players, HDADs have to be played on a DVD-Audio player.

Another difference is that the SACD specification requires a 2 channel stereo layer, while the DVD-Audio spec is multi-channel only. A lot of DVD-Audio disks do have a stereo track, but it is often 24 bit/48KHz, rather than 24/96. And because it is not required in the spec, some DVD-A's don't have any stereo track at all.

[Tbadder1]

Just to reiterate what's already been said.  SCAD seems superior to me, and partcularly suited toward Jazz and Classical, although any live material regardless of genre is generally exciting.  DVD-A seems to be more rocking, but I have to admit I find multichannel DVD-A (which represents 99% of DVD-A) really annoying (personal prejudice, it just never rings true to me, sounds like a special effects demo lp).  That said, I've heard tremendous DVD-A stuff that surpasses SACD.  I just don't find it as consistent.  I know this, I like both better than redbook, so it's extra sad that titles seem to be slowing down and that both will remain forever a niche market.