Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: SACD or DVD-A?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Prattville, Alabama
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Curtis, I'm getting the Police greatest hits SACD and the Alice Cooper "Welcome to My Nightmare" dvd-a for Christmas. I'm considering the R.E.M. greatest hits dvd-a and maybe the Norah Jones SACD. The 25th can't get here too soon! []

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,191

    Default

    I am going to have to go get the REM Greatest Hits DVD-A.

    -curtis

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    464

    Default

    I wonder how much of an improvement DVD-A/SACD is over DPLII - Music mode. I dont have a DVD-A/SACD player yet but DPLII - Music seems to do a good job of distributing the sound to all the speakers. I know DVD-A/SACD is higher quality, but as i understand it, a DVD-A CD will play in DD 5.1 anyway.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,191

    Default

    azanon,

    DVD-A and SACD are much different than DPLII. DPLII for music is a processing mode, and interprets a two channel source into surround mode. DVD-A and SACD offers higher resolution and has actually been recorded in to discrete multi-channel format.

    Most DVD-A's also have a DD5.1 track, but remember, this is not hi-resolution.

    -curtis

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Prattville, Alabama
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Curtis is right, DPLII creates synthetic surround channels to simulate true discrete multi-channel audio. It does a great job doing what it was designed for, but it isn't Hi-Rez.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Well i'm wanting to get a player (looking at the multipurpose pioneer 563a), but what makes me hesistate is that ive read that in some cases, the dvd-a/sacd can sound worse than the 2-channel variant. For example, i read a review recently on the new Faith Hill DVD-A (sorry, forgot where) and the reviewer said the 2-channel version sounded best and that her voice sounded distored on the 5.1 HD version.

    Also, i'll have to admit its hard for me to think of dolby digital as being "low-definition" even though i do understand the bitrate or whathaveyou is higher on DVD-A/SACD.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,191

    Default

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by azanon

    ......but what makes me hesistate is that ive read that in some cases, the dvd-a/sacd can sound worse than the 2-channel variant. For example, i read a review recently on the new Faith Hill DVD-A (sorry, forgot where) and the reviewer said the 2-channel version sounded best and that her voice sounded distored on the 5.1 HD version.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Most definitely. Just like a 2-channel mix can be recorded and mixed badly. Just think how much more difficult it would be to mix a 5-channel recording.

    -curtis

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Well i can understand that, but I cant say that ive ever heard a bad Dolby Digital movie where i thought to myself - you know, that would sound much better in stereo. I've also have yet to see a true HDTV program where i though to myself, wish i could see that in single definition! I
    guess what i'm getting at is if 5 channel sound is causing a significant amount of foulups in recordings, why bother. I really dont know if that Faith Hill SACD was an anomoly, or if bad recordings are happening a lot in these early years of DVD-A/SACD. Besides, DVD-A's will get you DD 5.1 output anyway on a regular DVD player, and the only thing one is lacking is the higher resolution output. So i guess i havent decided if there is compelling evidence to dive into it, or is it just a mild tweak that sometimes results in even worse sound.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,191

    Default

    Movie is much different than music. For movies, you have specific places you want the sound to be. For music, how do you define what sound/instrument should come out of what channel and at what level? It is much more of an art form.

    Checking out DVD-A and SACD is exactly why I got the 563a....inexpensive, and works fine as a CD/DVD player. Both formats are still in infancy. Not a lot of titles out there.

    And remember...a DVD-A disc does not always have a DD5.1 track.

    -curtis

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    149

    Default

    I was looking at a review of a couple DVD-A titles yesterday, the first time I've every read a review of that format. It was Aerosmiths 'Toys in the Attic' and a Led Zeppelin one too ('How the West was Won', I think).

    In both cases, the reviewer said there were hits and misses on each disc. For example, he described imbalances where the vocal (Steven Tyler of Aersosmith) on one channel was dwarfed by the instrumentation coming from the others.

    I guess there is an art to it, and it's not a cut and dried easy process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •