|
Bronze Member Username: BuckeyeshinePost Number: 43 Registered: 01-2004 | What are the pros and cons between these two forms of media (if any)? If I'm not mistaken, both require the analog audio connections. Are both 5.1 or is SACD 7.1? I don't have any music media of either format yet but I have a Denon DVD-2200 and want to get some CD's because I have heard SACD is awesome. Since I haven't invested yet I just want to understand any advantages that would drive me one way or the other. Thanks. |
|
MichaelD Unregistered guest | JDG, Based on my research over the past couple of weeks it boils down basically to this. Sony developed SACD and it has a smaller number of manufacturers pushing it than DVD-A. I really can't find anything that puts one on top of the other than that. I have found several more DVD-A players available than the SACD. And SACD is awesome. This is mainly a format battle like several others that are going on. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanPost Number: 234 Registered: 12-2003 | You also should understand that SACD was originally a CD 2-channel format. They realized a couple of years ago thery needed to make it 5.1 surround like DVD-Audio. Now Sony has one huge marketting advantage and a big disadvantage. First the advantage: They are a record company besides being a hardware (dvd sacd machine manufacturer) and have a huge backlog of recordings and a lot of present and future recordings they can put on SACD and SACD surround. The downside: it is much cheaper for other record companies to license DVD-A rather than the higher price of Sony/Philips SACD. So outside of Sony Records and their subsidiaries it will be rare to find anyone paying them fees. Also, SACD has up till now done a worse job on bass management in their surround format. I hear they have changed it in the software and current hardware---I hope so. Record company paranoia about copying, just like movie/tv production company paranoia has mostly concentrated on making the audio output on DVD-A and SACD analogue to protect their copyrights and moneystreams, just as the movie/tv production companies have fought to have encryption to prevent HDTV programming and DVD's from being copied on a quality level. Obviously most people have honorable reasons of wanting a copy that have nothing to do with illegally selling on mass levels this media. So we suffer for the crimes of a few and the nervousness and greed of the corporations for their inability to have a better business model. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 246 Registered: 12-2003 | Several threads here have gone through the SACD vs DVD-A debate (see below). I've learned some things from Gregory - thanks - and his market analysis is correct, I think. Also the history. One feature that may be important in deciding which way things go is that many SACDs now are hybrids, with a CD track, while all DVD-As currently available are hybrids with DVD-V tracks (or sides). But you can't play a DVD-A on a CD player, and you can't play SACD on a DVD player. Personally I opt for DVD-A. Buy any DVD-A disc and you can still get excellent, high-resolution 5.1 surround sound from the DTS track, even on an conventional DVD player. On the other hand, buy an SACD disc and you can only get surround sound with an SACD player. You are then paying Sony to enable it to dominate and control the market for both players and discs. The chief advantage of SACD to the industry is expensive and uncrackable copy protection, and the format is owned for discs and players alike, by one company. They must have learned from Microsoft. What's the best dvd to test out my new system? SACD or DVD-A - which way will the industry go What does"DVD-audio" mean here? |