does anyone have a feel who'll win in a new standards brawl:dvd-audio or sacd?thanks

IMHO,Format wars are started by companies who tout one format,against another,and hope you believe their spin on the advantages of their product
over the competition. That said,are you an audiophile,who just can stand the sound of MP3 or OGG,or WMA,and just have to have the most purest(in most cases,read:expensive) format money can buy. Then I guess the debate over the superior format,(which,incidentally is really
not that much better,which ever you choose) should be really staged to fight in an arena,while the whole world watches,but do you really care???? It's just a marketing scheme,anyway.......

Read my article (3MB zip file containing Word/StarOffice document) i made for CdFreaks.

I still think SACD will have a painful battle before worldwide aceptance.

I've not yet read the article (I'm at work ATM), but it is now clearer and clearer that none of them will win.

i just bought a new sony dvd player...the 905, which has sacd. I didn't buy a sacd yet, but i will soon, just to hear it. The sacd option on the dvd player is for me just a nice extra.

From what i heard, it seem to be pretty good.

Mr Belvedere, it is clear that your article promotes SACD, but there are several weak points in it. Not that it's not a good article, it sums up very well all the claimed advantages of SACD, it's just the advantages themselves, that are unfounded.

Page 15 : However , all this filtering costs quality ! Sadly enough PCM technology requires it

This filtering have been improved since 1980, and now doesn't cost quality anymore.
This german page presents a listening test showing that PCM can be completely transparent (perfect sound reproduction) since 48 kHz 24 bits : http://www.hfm-detmold.de/texts/de/h...en/seite1.html
Another example : in this blind test, the difference between a digital copy (an audio extraction) and an analog one (with all the filters of a consumer CD Player from 1991 involved) were inaudible to the majority of listeners. Two out of five managed to sort them out with difficulty : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ST&f=21&t=6651

Page 15 : Sometimes people (the audiophiles) complain about the “too much digital” sound of music cd’s.

This can have another causes. I myself complained about the terribly digital sound of some CD that I got, while I was used to the sound of them in vinyl version. I realized recently that it was only a metter of equalization : the CD had too much treble and hurt my ears. I equalized the CDs, and am now satisfied with their sound, compared to the vinyl. The CDs were This Mortal Coil - It Will End In Tears, and Depeche Mode - Some Great Reward. I've not yet equalized Cocteau Twins - Treasure yet, but it is obvious that it has an insane treble level compared to the vinyl. That's why I complained about the "harsh sound of CD". However, this is just my personal experience, and YMMV.

Then you explain that the timbre of instruments is defined by harmonics that are above the fundamental frequency, and that since SACD can reproduce more harmonics than CD, it reproduces better timbres. But above, you stated that the human ear could only hear frequencies below 22 kHz. This invalidates your argument on timbre : since harmonics can't be heard above 22 kHz, then SACD can't improve timbres. This has been demonstrated by David Griesinger, from Lexicon. in this document : http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

However, another study has showed on the contrary, that inaudible harmonics can change the perceived quality of music : http://www.yamashirogumi.gr.jp/kumigashira/jnp-hse.pdf

This point is still controversial, because the above study have not been reproduced yet by anyone else, the system used was better than both SACD and DVD-A, and they used experimental speakers capable of reproducing the harmonics above 22 kHz, that no consumer speakers are capable of anyway.

Your next sentence is very worrying : "This is mainly because if you use SACD to its fullest potential , you’d have six speakers for the sound. I have doubts you’d hear much difference when you use earphones on both setups."

This goes agains all that you've said before. You spent page 15 explaining the superiority of the higher definition sound, then you abruptly state that it doesn't make any difference, and that the only advantage is multichannel sound

Then you immediately come back to the superiority of high definiton sound : "There is this statement that says if you want people to hear a nice digitalized sound , you would need at least a sampling FOUR TIMES the frequency rate of that sound or some people might hear the difference."

This statement is pure marketing advertisement, and has no backup. The above experiments give contradictory results on the matter. It turned for example false in the german study linked above ( again : http://www.hfm-detmold.de/texts/de/h...en/seite1.html ).

The comparison with DVD is a bit like apple and oranges, because you're comparing SACD with DVD-Video (max sample rate of 96 kHz, needs a TV set for navigation). DVD-Audio solves these issues.

Page 19 : Of course it is a great medium for salespeople to quickly let you hear the difference between normal and super audio

Don't be fooled by such comparisons. I've not got a link for this one, but I've read that the german magazine Stereophile has analysed a hybrid SACD and came to the conclusion that the CD layer had been mastered from a different master than the SACD layer, because the standard layer had less dynamics, and that couldn't be explained by the extra definition of the SACD layer. We can't tell for sure, but it is maybe an intentional trick in order to make the SACD part sound artificially better than the CD part (it is not sure whether the trick is intentional or not, but it is sure that it makes the SACD layer sound better ! ).

In short, there is nothing really new since january 2002, when people already wondered what were the scientific advantages of SACD over CD, besides marketing nonsense : http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/u...c;f=3;t=002225

...exept a piece of evidence from Oohashi's experiment (linked above), but that sounds very strange compared to Griesinger's results.

You can find many veeery long discussions about the need of a digital quality superior to CD (SACD or DVD-A)
One of the longest : http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/cgi-...c;f=3;t=000822 ).
Here's a recent one, among many others : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...ic=13667&st=0&

i just can say..i like the sound of sacd.....just like i heard my first cd..afther years of tape and lp's.

but agree....perhaps it is not superior.....

how many people can tell, when listening, if they are listening to an sacd/dvd-audio recording, vs a cd? i can barely tell a cd vs an mp3, @ 128kbps encoding.

*orders a round of blind abx tests*

That's why I posted what I did above...all these marketing ideas are not going to change the way you hear......

i never heared a dvd-audio, but i can hear the difference between a cd and mp3-128kb.
The mp3 has much detail filtered out, it doesn't sound as "full" as the cd.

Try to encode your favorite song on different bitrates and listen to it......take time for it, because listening isn't as easy as it looks.

fullness really depends on the equipment you listen to it with. i cant tell some things @ 128kbps on my computer speakers, but i can tell @ 320 kbps, same thing, through my hifi.

mp3 encoding, and what gets filtered out, also can depend on what type of music you listen to. some music is much easier to recreate than others

Damian and Ckin,you guys got some great ears......

Hmm..perhaps

but i can hear it on my pc also (6 euro speakers)
I am at the point that I dislike 128 kb mp3's. The sound doesn't satisfy me. It misses something.

5-10 W pc speakers vs huge hifi. the lack of bass on the pc is made evident on the bigger system

That's why I have the Logitech z-680,5.1 Dolby Digital,nearly 200
watts on the subwoofer alone!! Bass everywhere you look!!! Damn,maybe that's why my ears aren't as good as you two......

What a kickass system it is!!!!

SACD and DVD-Audio are formats that are both clearly capable of surpassing the sound quality of the CD format and by extension of any of the mp3 or any other lossy compression scheme... BUT even though the format is superior doesn't mean that the playback equipment is always superior... there exists CD player setups that crush a DVD-Audio or SACD setup...just like a $100,000 turntable clearly outperforms a $100 CD player... remember although the CD format had great potential on release... the first few years of players SUCKED!

---> also note to whomever posted about EQ and listening to CDs.... when they master a CD especially the really early ones they were often too bright... part of this was engineers used to mastering for cassette and LP which tended to roll of highs... and if they gave it the same treatment it came out too extreme on CD...

---> there have been tests at Sony Music in NY where journalists were in control room listening to a microphone of a band in the studio thorugh speakers... one the live mike feed, the 2nd SACD equivalent digital processing, and the third CD level digitla processing (44.khz @ 16bit sound -->20bit resolution) and unanimously the live feed was SACD was closer to the live mic feed than the CD processed one...

--> also note none of the prices I use as examples are made up... $100,000 Cd players exist, $100,000 pair of speakers exist, etc...



part of the problem when reading any study or research done comparing the two that are not done by a high-end magazine such as "The Absolute Sound" or "Stereophile" Magazine is that the place doing the testing may not have reference quality products i.e. a two channel stereo system that costs somewhere between $50,000 - $100,000 dollars.... that's one problem...

also- the differences are not all in the scientific domain... there are differences in sound exist that humans can discern but that science or an equation cannot at the present time define/or describe accurately...

consider that sound is a very complex 3 dimensional beast ... and that the digital domain is all zeros and ones...

also it does require proper ear-training to hear some of the differences between formats...

there can be massive difference between a $200 CD player's sound and a $20,000 Cd player's sound.... if you've ever experienced this.... it is amazing...most people you know don't have separate mono-block power amps for each channel, a discrete preamp, etc....

the problem with the format war is that most people are pretty satisfied with mediocre sound systems... getting excited by adding a logitech 5.1 system or klipsch system to their PC.... or if someone installed a $5000 (excluding TV/monitor) price thinking that they have achieved the pinnacle of sound quality which is not true....

it's just easier for people.... i.e. they don't need to "learn" anything for most people to tell the see that the difference between 6 different LCD TVs, 6 different plasma TVs, and regular TV.... it's more natural for people to discern these visual differences...

people can easily see that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are superior in reproduction to DVD (although they are both still not perfect - but Meridian's Faroudja processing helps).... the same differences (analogous ones at least) exist in stereos, CD players, and also between the different formats...

one problem for people who do not hear the difference might be because their equipment including CD player, SACD player, DVD-Audio player, receiver, and speakers, and cables... HIDE the differences.... that is also possible.... that whatever they are listening on doing their own comparisons masks the differences... like looking at a picture through either slightly dirty panes of glass.... or having cheaper sunglasses that are not optically pure...

generally people are luckier when they cannot hear the differences or are satisfied easily because they save lots more $$....

there's nothing wrong with being satisfied with an imperfect musical reproduction... there's nothing wrong with not seeking perfection in music listening... just realize that just because you think it sounds great doesn't mean that is empirically so....

think about car audio... how many people do you know that think their car stereo "sounds awesome"? comparing it to a good home system... it won't....
the speakers generally aren't in proper enclosures... and really look at the prices... manufacturers don't give quality away for free... if something is better they generally will charge more... and home audios prices reflect this.... yes it is true some prices are overly steep due to brand premium...but that's often the case...

--also top notch equipments costs too much!

just because you think there's no difference or some limited study told you this... doesn't make it so....


btw i happen to have a slightly above mediocre sound system...I cannot afford a true hi-fi system unfortunately...
-Clarity1766

calling SACD v CD a marketing ploy? that's pretty limited...
Sony uses DSD to archive their collection,just like Apple actually uses a better AAC algorithm to encode then they include in ITUNES.... Sony wouldn't use DSD encoding if it weren't superior.. they did have their hand in creating CD and SACD... the false part is the DVD-Audio v. SACD war... the DVD consortium did not endorse SACD because they would get no royalites from it since it is related to CD technolgies and instead chose to vote against it..in favor of a format (DVD-Audio) that they would earn money from... similar to the Blu-Ray HD-DVD war... but anyhow... between SACD and DVD-Aud... no clarity as to which is better...BUT DVD-Aud is waning already....and SACD since they can be on the same disc (two layers) at no additioanl charge for some titles (although there are single layer SACDs without CD layer) is likely to be the victor... aside from Sony usually being #1 in DVD player sales adding it to their DVD players, and most of their CD players... it should stick...
since it is a backwards compatible format...

-- you incorrectly claim some contradictions....one example is the headphones/earphones thing... headphones even the most expensive ones, like car stereos aren't very accurate... or they do not give a complete sound staging...althogh binaural recordings through headphones are interesting.... blah blah... remember headphones--> less of the range of audible sound---> small speakers... small...lower quality.... etc etc etc .... all that all that....


SACD and DVD-Audio are formats that are both clearly capable of surpassing the sound quality of the CD format and by extension of any of the mp3 or any other lossy compression scheme... BUT even though the format is superior doesn't mean that the playback equipment is always superior... there exists CD player setups that crush a DVD-Audio or SACD setup...just like a $100,000 turntable clearly outperforms a $100 CD player... remember although the CD format had great potential on release... the first few years of players SUCKED!

---> also note to whomever posted about EQ and listening to CDs.... when they master a CD especially the really early ones they were often too bright... part of this was engineers used to mastering for cassette and LP which tended to roll of highs... and if they gave it the same treatment it came out too extreme on CD...

---> there have been tests at Sony Music in NY where journalists were in control room listening to a microphone of a band in the studio thorugh speakers... one the live mike feed, the 2nd SACD equivalent digital processing, and the third CD level digitla processing (44.khz @ 16bit sound -->20bit resolution) and unanimously the live feed was SACD was closer to the live mic feed than the CD processed one...

--> also note none of the prices I use as examples are made up... $100,000 Cd players exist, $100,000 pair of speakers exist, etc...



part of the problem when reading any study or research done comparing the two that are not done by a high-end magazine such as "The Absolute Sound" or "Stereophile" Magazine is that the place doing the testing may not have reference quality products i.e. a two channel stereo system that costs somewhere between $50,000 - $100,000 dollars.... that's one problem...

also- the differences are not all in the scientific domain... there are differences in sound exist that humans can discern but that science or an equation cannot at the present time define/or describe accurately...

consider that sound is a very complex 3 dimensional beast ... and that the digital domain is all zeros and ones...

also it does require proper ear-training to hear some of the differences between formats...

there can be massive difference between a $200 CD player's sound and a $20,000 Cd player's sound.... if you've ever experienced this.... it is amazing...most people you know don't have separate mono-block power amps for each channel, a discrete preamp, etc....

the problem with the format war is that most people are pretty satisfied with mediocre sound systems... getting excited by adding a logitech 5.1 system or klipsch system to their PC.... or if someone installed a $5000 (excluding TV/monitor) price thinking that they have achieved the pinnacle of sound quality which is not true....

it's just easier for people.... i.e. they don't need to "learn" anything for most people to tell the see that the difference between 6 different LCD TVs, 6 different plasma TVs, and regular TV.... it's more natural for people to discern these visual differences...

people can easily see that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are superior in reproduction to DVD (although they are both still not perfect - but Meridian's Faroudja processing helps).... the same differences (analogous ones at least) exist in stereos, CD players, and also between the different formats...

one problem for people who do not hear the difference might be because their equipment including CD player, SACD player, DVD-Audio player, receiver, and speakers, and cables... HIDE the differences.... that is also possible.... that whatever they are listening on doing their own comparisons masks the differences... like looking at a picture through either slightly dirty panes of glass.... or having cheaper sunglasses that are not optically pure...

generally people are luckier when they cannot hear the differences or are satisfied easily because they save lots more $$....

there's nothing wrong with being satisfied with an imperfect musical reproduction... there's nothing wrong with not seeking perfection in music listening... just realize that just because you think it sounds great doesn't mean that is empirically so....

think about car audio... how many people do you know that think their car stereo "sounds awesome"? comparing it to a good home system... it won't....
the speakers generally aren't in proper enclosures... and really look at the prices... manufacturers don't give quality away for free... if something is better they generally will charge more... and home audios prices reflect this.... yes it is true some prices are overly steep due to brand premium...but that's often the case...

--also top notch equipments costs too much!

just because you think there's no difference or some limited study told you this... doesn't make it so....


btw i happen to have a slightly above mediocre sound system...I cannot afford a true hi-fi system unfortunately...
-Clarity1766

I think the biggest mistake is thinking that a more expensive system is inherently better than a cheaper one.

Expensive system = always better Sound than cheaper system. When looking at the spec sheet sure. But sound quality is more of a individual thing. Some like to turn on the bass and some turn down the bass and turn up the treble on their equalizer. Some like JBL speakers and others like Tanoy. Some like the sound of a tube amplifier and some think tube is not good at all. Some like a Mark Levinson amplifier and others love their Mcintosh (I could go on for hours or pages) etc... The problem is that with audio the spec sheet is not everything. Sure the right equipment is a major factor in listening to audio and there is also equipment around where you do not hear the difference between mp3 @ 128 or CD or SACD (mostly PC speaker systems or all in one stereo systems or portable players). But there is also some marketing BS from the big companies. For example not many people know that the copper wires Monster Cables sells at a very high price actually is low grade. Copper cables for electric lines are much cheaper and of a better quality than Monster Cable...Did you know that cables for your telephone made out of copper are better than any audio cables which cost you 50$ or more per meter for your speakers? Well the problem is that most people seem to get the impression that if a cable costs more than 50$ per meter it must be better and then they think that the sound when using such cables must be better and then the placebo effect kicks in and they think that they hear a better sound.
Another problem is that some studios use heavy compression while mixing so that the sound is better on lower end equipment (this is because of the many low end systems around and the trend of rippping CDs to MP3 etc). With such recordings best thing to do is rip the CD normalize etc it and then reburn it. Also with such kind of recordings flooding the market today (even Sony and other big companies do this) the difference which can be heard between a low and high end system gets smaller and more difficult to tell.

I agree KOBA - more expensive to a certain point is normally better...but you do have to listen... even the audiophile magazines point out that a $5 radio shack cable can sound better than a $1000 cable because some companies especially in super high-end jsut charge a lot b/c they just get sales from a certain type of buyer only because of their name...and most audiophile mags pretty much reject monster cable product...

yes.. even the lower end CD players from a company like Sony, Pioneer, Denon, etc. have been greatly improved as far as DACs and other electronics are concerned...but they definitely have been cutting the corners as far as build quality/structural solidity....cheaper players used to be heftier... whereas now the only hefty players are much higher up in the line... like comparing the $500 SACD/DVD/CD player from sonys ES line which seems to be physically substantial to the $129 model...the $129 model is light and flimsy..especially when you compare it to older models from years ago.... one thing high-end A/V equipment is NOT lightweight... this has to do with them saving on materials and shipping costs....

anyhow...one thing I forgot to mention that is great about the SACD format is the possiblity of the hybrid disc which has both layers at no additional cost...i find the single SACD only titles irritating....it's nice to be able to get both the CD version that can be played anywhere and the superior recording that can be played back and enjoyed on an SACD system.... the problems with SACD is not the format itself, but like CD the playback...where it has taken years to perfect... it seems to be easier to encode in digital vs. bringing it back into analog... it seems from some articles that I have read is that CD as a format may not be "bad" as far as recording or storage of music...it just seems that it is harder to decode back analog well...whereas SACD...very early on in the life of its players is close to surpassing CD playback...where it doesn't in all cases...but...since there is more data there and it's A/D conversion is simpler it seems likely to fully surpass CD in a much shorter time-span (which is complicated by less push to improve the players since the format itself isn't flying off the shelves...) what we should ALL hope for is the hybrid CD/SACD becoming the standard on all new releases and remasters of older titles...so that as one grows their collection it works in all exisitn gCD players but then has the potential for superior playback in the future... that is a win-win situation for everyone...

One thing I don't see here in this discussion currently.
The fact that quite some of todays cd's are poorly mastered or produced. Were loud is better and compressed to hell is todays standard.

Now I haven't heard this disc myself.

But I keep hearing and reading that incase of Dark Side of the Moon 30th Anniversary Edition the cd stereo part was quite brutally mastered (loud is better aka compressed to hell ! ) and for that reason the SACD version alone is allready better. (The SACD version is supposed to sound very good.)
But when it comes to the stereo music that your better off with a different version.

dakhaas> Yes many Discs today are made with the loud is better and compressed to hell standard (some newer digitally remastered CDs of old releases are made like this too). Try to rip that disc, put it through normalization etc with soundforge or any other software and reburn. As I said in my previous post this loud is better and compressed to hell is done so that the music sounds good with portables and low end systems...