SACD vs DVD-A

[porcy62]

As vinyl's lover I follow the format's war of Hi Rez from a absent-minded point of view, but recently I noted a thing.

An italian audiophile label made an experiment: they recorded a Listz piano sonata and feeded the signal directly in two state of art systems: a SACD and DVD-A. All the reviewers of an Hi-End journal had to admint that DVD was a slightly better sounding than SACD, the very same opposite of their previous opinions.

Considering that SACD is winning the race, boosted by major labels and gear's producers, I am asking myself: could it be that the main reasons for that is that SACD is more difficult to copy?

For instance I could burn a disc from an hybrid Stones only in my old cdrom unit. The new cd/dvd unit didn't recognised the disc.

[Claude]

Given the probable demise of both hi-rez formats in the near future (SACD could survive on the classical market though). it doesn't rellay matter which one is better. Both sound better than CD, and most hifi fans will be happy with any of the hi-rez formats.

A big advantage for the user is indeed that DVD-As can be made on a home computer.

But what many people don't like with DVD-A (apart the evident lack of titles) is the fact that one needs to navigate on the TV screen before listening to music. SACD works just like a CD in this respect. Put the disc into the player and push Play.

[porcy62]

In my opinion the new formats came too late and have some user unfriendly problems for fighting a war with on-line music; they already started to test high resolution downloading, it's a matter of time. One of these days we will be able to download SACD quality music on Ipodlike gear.

Sure SACD and DVD could survive as niche like vinyl.

Edited August 31, 2005 by porcy62