2. digital
  3. 1053114671

SACD and DVD-A: Apples and Oranges?

It seems to me that SACD and DVD-A are going for different markets. Comparing them, especially the question on "Which will survive?" seems fruitless. Both could survive, or neither.

SACD is aimed at correcting the problems we've had all along with CD sound. SACD provides a quality 2-channel digital source at a reasonable price. I wager that the typical $250 SACD player playing SACD's sounds as good or better than a typical $1000 CD player playing CD's. Hybrid disks provide backward compatibility. Multi-channel capability is there if desired. By reducing the entry price of a decent sounding player, SACD can bring hi-fi to the masses.

DVD-A is aimed at the thousands (or millions) of average Joe's who already have a 5.1 DVD setup. These guys are wondering why movies come in Surround Sound but music CD's are still 2-channel. The DVD music section in th local music store is growing every day. DVD-A provides a way to hear Metallica or whatever in 5.1 sound. DVD-A is off to a slow start for several reasons. The biggest problem, in my mind, is that the single-wire digital interface doesn't exist. It still takes 6 I.C.'s to hook up DVD-A to a receiver.

Seen this way, both SACD and DVD-A are good things but SACD is aimed more at the 2 channel audiophile market.

Agree?
pmi_guy
thedautch
329 posts
 
I completely see it your way, but I extend the process a couple steps further. Ideally, I would be able to expand my 2-channel SACD system (please click on my system link if curiosity gets the best of you) into a 5-channel SACD setup. When I do so, I would consider a universal player so I could listen to DVD-A, since I'd already have 5 speakers anyhow.

There are problems, though. Right now, even high-end universal players are reported to have serious shortcomings. Some of them struggle badly with bass management. For others, time alignment is the issue, and the system will only sound right if the rear speakers are *precisely* as far from the listening position as the front speakers. (This can be a real rarity, unless your room size is truly generous. Living in a city where space is pricey, I will probably never have a really large listening room.) Besides, I'd have to put a bulky center channel on top of my TV, which only has about a 3-inch shelf before it drops off on top, making a center almost impossible to balance.

Bottom line? Basically, it's a hell of a good thing that I like the material that's available on SACD a lot more than the DVD-A's that have hit the marketplace, because my 2-channel, trouble-free setup basically coerces me into having SACD anyway.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
I quickly determined that you need both SACD and DVD-A to get access to a reasonable catalog of discs, and at least one relatively inexpensive universal player is available (Pioneer DV45A). Both formats can yield excellent results.

I expect that DVD will get a big boost from auto sound systems, where speakers in the rear have long been standard, and the acoustic environment is very well controlled.

As to speaker spacing, I don't think there is a problem. Even inexpensive players make provision to introduce different amounts of time delay in the different channels so as to compensate for non-equal speaker distances. It's part of the setup procedure, along with volume matching.
hifiho
50 posts
 
I've got both, and my biggest hassle so far is having to reconnect sources to the SINGLE 5.1 input on my preamp/ processor. I saw an outboard switching device online recently, but for the life of me can't find it again. Any advice?

Both formats have their strong and weak points. Pink Floyd's (multichannel) Dark Side of the Moon release convinced me to purchase a SACD player. Although I've found more music to my liking on DVD-A. I've only purchased 3 SACD's vs. about 20 DVD-A titles.

Happy trails.
David
More to discover