CD Redbook versus DVD Audio


Being an 'insider' in the industry keeps one busy enough not to read some of the(even though basic) information, which one should read.
Recently a friend brought over the Chris Botti album, recorded on both sides--one CD the other DVD Audio.
Well, after extolling the virtues of CD Redbook, in recent years, with the newer players, I would have to admit freely that (even though I own the Exemplar DVD which plays, I think, all platforms available including DVD Audio) I had never 'gone over to the dark side.'
Good Lord, this is better in virtually every way possible.
What struck me (about this limited experience)was the way that the staging improved,with blackness within the soundstage, taking it to an almost holgraphic experience--- with BASS just rolling, very naturally, out of the speakers like never before!!
This bordered, to me, on the same level of experience that I had when I first discovered Tubes,(not the Bass, but Staging part) at the dawn of civilization. Really, it was that kind of 'new found experince' and yes,was that good.
The bass took on an almost surreal quality, with tonality I had not experienced, except with the great tonearms, and Koetsu cartridgess, from waaaay back in the days of those round black things....the one's that have ticks and pops but sound great if done correctly.
This is as close as I have been to that kind of, and level of, both musical experience and what I perceive to be, accuracy of sound.
Anybody else out there with similar kind of experience with DVD Audio? I know, given the breadth of 'terrible recordings' that some must sound horrible, as usual, but when done close to right, wow.
If more are good than bad, and assuming that when done correctly that it excels, which it may not, given this caveat--why is this platform not more popular?. I know the arguments about too many choices, and too few audiophiles, but this is 'remarkably better' in my limited, and more important, IMHO.
Larry
lrsky
I've owned a Panasonic DVD S47 for about 6-7 months now and just recently bought a Jack Bruce DVDA recording done at 24/96. The S47 sounds pretty decent on redbook (I've damped the chassis pretty extensively, upgraded the power cord and run it through a pretty good line conditioner, which, in my opinion really notches the performance of these cheaper DVD players to another level), but I, too, was shocked at how much better DVD audio sounds. What really struck me about it was an almost analog-like sense of ease that seems to be sorely missing from redbook. It is beyond me why 24/96 or beyond is not in use on anything that is being recorded these days, and my feeling is that you don't really need megabuck digital front ends to get very high quality sound if it's recorded well at the higher sampling rate(s) that DVD audio allows. It's simply ridiculous that the clearly affordable technology of this software medium is not made more readily available to the consumer.
Check out the Grateful Dead's American Baeuty on DVD-A. It's almost like hearing it for the first time.
Competing format's and unnecesary complexity (for the averge consumer) is what has killed (or put it on life support) the format. A shame.
Chris Botti has a DVD video called "Night Sessions" which is also a very good recording for sound and picture. It was recorded in a small club setting. It's a reference disc for me.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that DVDA, with 24 bit 96KHz sampling, outperforms the marginal 16 bit 41KHz CD, although DVDA, like any media, is at the mercy of the recording engineers. I have found DVDA and SACD to be equally capable of sonic excellence, but the DVDA protocol is far more flexible than SACD and offers many "extra" features that SACD can't match. As I have mentioned before, try a DVDA from the AIX label to see what can be done.

It's a shame that audiophiles were taken in by Sony hype about DSD, and felt obligated to criticise DVDA without really listening. SACD is OK, but DVDA offers so much more.