"Dimiter Petsev" wrote in message
news:CHLRb.169152$I06.1679875@attbi_s01...
As demonstrated, this is hogwash. DSD and DVD-A have nothing in common,
except the physical size of their consumer media... Oh, and DVD-A is a
dysmal failure, while DSD is doing quite well as a high end format.
The thing is that apart from the emotions that usually go with the DVD-A
vs
SACD argument I have not seen a single one that is in favor of SACD and is
really scientifically based. On the contrary there are a number of
convicning articles out there claimign that DVD-A is better and DSD is
flawed as Stewart Pinkerton claims. I posted a link sometime ago to one
http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
and here is another
http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/pdfs/...le%20paper.pdf
The authors are quite reputable in my opinion. Now before spending money
on
some top of the line SACD or DVD-A player I would like to collect as much
information as possible and I have not found anything yet to make me buy a
SACD player. If threre is some I will be happy to learn more, honestly.
Dimiter
You've just heard some here. Peruse the threads. And the final arbiter is
in the listening.
In all honesty, SACD in my system simply sounds more natural. I can suspend
belief and listen to an orchestral recording like I am at a concert. I've
recorded classical, jazz, and folk all my life, and I can tell you that SACD
gets you closer to the sound of acoustic instruments in acoustic space.
Their is more "depth" to the sound, less "edge", and subtler dynamics. Why,
exactly, I can't tell you. But as far as I am concerned noise in the
ultrasonic range
has no real relevance to music.
Some of the biggest difference is in the bass, which only indirectly has to
do with high frequencies. Accoustic bass instruments simply sound far more
natural in SACD..more dynamic, and with more realistic transients and
seemingly coming from a deeper silence. That is certainly true vs.
conventional cd, and based on the DVD-A's I have/the playing equipment (not
top line) the only difference I hear between CD and DVD-A is a smoother top
end. I am trying to stay open on DVD-A given my less than optimal
equipment, but what SONY gets out of its least expensive ES SACD players is
very impressive vs what I've heard so far from comparably priced DVD-A
players. And most recently even a very expensive DVD-A player.
So if you must have specs to feel comfortable, keep searching. But I'd
suggest you also listen. Here's a starter. The Columbia Bruno Walter
Beethoven 5th SACD (SS 6506) vs. the CD version (MK 40221). And if you can,
get the original vinyl version that the SACD duplicates.
What you will find is that the SACD sounds "realer", more like the "vinyl"
but with none of that medium's high or low frequency limitations. I had the
vinyl in the '60's when it first came out, and it wasn't until the '70's
that I had a turntable/cartridge combo that could play this recording
without mistracking/screeching high frequencies. The CD solved that
problem, and gave deeper bass as well so it was added to my collection. Now
the SACD. The performance/mix is identical on all three. Compared to the
CD the SACD has more depth, it is much easier to follow the plucked strings
in the basses and cellos, the strings are sweeter and sound like strings
(the CD has an "edge" or glare to the strings even though it is not a
dynamic flaw like on the vinyl).
Now, listen to any DVD-A you want. What you should be listening for is this
same sense of "naturalness" in the bass and in the strings...there should be
no edge, no "etch", no flatness to the sound. So far I haven't heard it.
When I compare two identical recordings (Sing Live, Jazz, and 2 Doors Away
from the Sun, Rock) I hear the same differences.
Are these perfect comparisons? No. Do others hear similar things. Yes,
very many do, and that is why they end up being SACD advocates. The people
who prefer DVD-A tend to be folk raised on rock and cd....so if you are one
of them you may prefer it. But for sound, to this point my ears tell me it
is SACD.