nicholtl Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 ---------------- On 10/3/2004 9:05:08 AM thebes wrote: Yup Gary, there should be some sort of law requiring anybody who is serious about music to have some Eva Cassidy on hand at all times. Bose fans exempted. ---------------- LOL! Well I did a lot of flying around on different sites, and wow, acoustic sounds is probably the best stocked site there is, for both SACD and DVD-A. I also like how they include details, album cover pictures, and even specify if the discs are single layer, hybrid, stereo-hybrid, etc. Funny how sites like Amazon or Tower have less selection than some of these online stores, huh? Does anybody know if multilayer SACD's are worse than single-layer? Or are these all just different formats, but the sound quality is the same? I would think single layer is the superior/ideal format, as it has the most space for digital information (not sharing it's second side for regular CD encoding)? I mean, after all, single-layer SACD's are the most expensive, it seems. And wow, I had no idea hi-res music cost $15-$20 a disc. That's almost like buying a straight up DVD movie!!! Geez! No wonder people only have a dozen or so discs! And is it just me, or is SACD handily stomping DVD-A? I mean just look at the number of released titles under each format. SACD outnumbers DVD-A about 5 or 10 to 1! It's outrageous! Oh, finally, I was wondering if DVD-A discs come in DVD movie style boxes, or if they come in standard CD jewel cases? What about SACD's? Standard CD jewel cases also? PS - anybody tried having their player modified by Modwright? Through reviews and word-of-mouth, it seems they are pretty solid. However, their mods are pricey and I'm wondering if they are truly everything people crack them up to be? Supposedly they expand the soundstage, produce a warmer tube-like sound, and some even contend they make hi-res music almost sound like vinyl. I even read one particular review where the reviewer literally gushed over their mods, and how a modified Sony NS999ES by Modwright was the BEST PLAYER ON EARTH, hands down. Sounds a little like a fanboy reviewer to me. Or the little brother of whoever owns Modwright. Or a Home Theater Mag reviewer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 As everybody whose ever followed my technical advice on this forum knows, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm sure others will help out with the technical differences between formats and disc types and, of course, player mods. That leaves me with only one reply,and that's cost. DVD-A's and SACD's basically cost the same as as plain old cd's. Don't believe me, walk into Tower Records etc. and you'll see. Best Buy, Target etc. will sell them for $3 to $4 bucks less but they have very limited selections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I've never been able to tell the difference between a hybrid SACD and a single layer. Then again, I've never been able to compare a hybrid and single layer of the same disc. Some of the best recordings I have are hybrids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strabo Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 ---------------- On 10/3/2004 2:40:25 PM nicholtl wrote: Does anybody know if multilayer SACD's are worse than single-layer? Or are these all just different formats, but the sound quality is the same? I would think single layer is the superior/ideal format, as it has the most space for digital information (not sharing it's second side for regular CD encoding)? I mean, after all, single-layer SACD's are the most expensive, it seems. Oh, finally, I was wondering if DVD-A discs come in DVD movie style boxes, or if they come in standard CD jewel cases? What about SACD's? Standard CD jewel cases also? ---------------- Single layer, multi-layer, and multi-channel SACDs all have the same resolution so there shouldn't be any difference in the sound quality. Unlike DVDa which cannot fit the highest resolution on a multi channel discs, only stereo discs. DVDa generally comes in a larger jewel case that is not quite as big as a DVD case, but there are a few DVDa's in a standard cd jewel case. SACDs are mostly in a standard cd jewel case or a digi-pack with the exception of the recent Henry Mancini and Ray Charles releases which are in a DVDa style case just to confuse things even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hahaha. So ok, basically what I'm gathering from all this info is that SACD is the superior format. It sounds better, comes in smaller cases, is cheaper, and has tons more selection than DVD-A. Sounds like a winner is emerging... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOOTERDOG Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 nicholtl Hold on there now. You would be doing yourself a diservice to think that SACD is Better sounding then DVD A, its not. Second I have discs that have the folowing playback options: 24/96 Multi-channel, 24/192 stereo, plus DTS or DD on the disc. So don't get confused. Most experts aggree that DVDA is the better format. Unlike SACD, 99.9% of all DVDA is recorded in surround where as a vast majority of SACD's are stereo. It cost much more to remix a surround recording then to just take the stereo masters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 Ahh, excellent advice, Scooterdog. I guess I was too hasty in jumping to conclusions. I haven't bought any SACD or DVD-A discs yet (and so I haven't any listening experience to formulate my opinions on just yet), but from scouring various online sites, it seems like they thankfully list the type of SACD format it is that they're selling, eg. hybrid stereo, multichannel sacd, stereo hybrid, and so forth. Those formats of DVD-A you listed...could you explain what they all mean? Are they different bit-rate encodings, or something else? Ok...so I guess SACD isn't the emerging format yet then. Better to try both and see how they compare. Good thing there aren't a lot of duplicate releases on both formats, otherwise that would only make choosing which album to buy a frightful horror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strabo Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I wouldn't say one is better than the other, there are just different options. If you want rock titles then DVDa wins since they seem to have more releases. If you want jazz and classical then SACD wins with the release count. In total, SACD has more releases. I chose SACD for it's portability and a cheap entry level player. If either/both format(s) die then I still have the CD layer which will play anywhere as a fall back. Multi-channel means very little to me and SACD requires a hi-rez two channel track on all SACDs, not so with DVDa, although most titles do include a two channel. As already mentioned, DVDa has more MC offers. Now that I've collected 60+ SACDs it's time to get a more serious player and I'm lost again because I don't want to spend big bucks on a good universal knowing that it will be replaced in five years(?) for blue ray. I want the sound quality of the big buck players (McCormack/Denon 5910/Krell) but at entry level pricing because of it's short lifespan. For now I'm thinking either settling for a cheaper universal player, or a better SACD only player. What to do, what to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.