Vote

I am for SA-CD 2.

When I decided to purchase a multichannel high-resolution player, I was faced with the option of SACD only, DVD-A or a universal. Early in the game, I learned that the first universal players didn't do justice to SACD (converting DSD to PCM) and since SACD had a lot more recordings I was interested in, I went with SACD-only and have foregone DVD-A. At this stage, SACD software availability continues to move ahead of DVD-A, there seem to be many user issues with DVD-A, etc, and at this stage I'm not willing to pay the freight for a universal player that doesn't degrade SACD, such as the Linn or the Bel Canto. If I could find a universal player at, say the $3k mark, that played SACD without degradation, did a good job on CDs and even had a HDCD circuit, I'd spring in a heartbeat and start acquiring a few DVD-A titles. For now, I am an SACD-only guy.

I waited and waited, while I watched the SACD camp market and develop their product. I wanted to compare. However, I just got tired of waiting on DVD-A, purchased the Sony SCD-1, and just don't have any more money to try any more formats! I certainly don't have enough money to purchase three different formats. I have never been one for a dual format machine. What really worries me is the fate of all discs, and I, for one, will hate to see downloads taking over the music market.

This format will not fly.

i dont have a dvdaudio player but i buy the dvdaudio software because for a few dollars more you get remastered stereo, five channel digital or dts, plus the hi rez stuff as a bonus for the future if i ever do get a player. On the ones i own there are sonic improvements over the remastered cds alone played on my dvd player

I prefer the SACD 5.1, the mix seems better balanced. The DVD-A seems to "gimiky" it draws too much attention to the rears as if they were in competition with the fronts. Just too busy to relax and enjoy.

Neither of the audio dealers here in Minneapolis have done anything with DVD-A. I don't know anyone outside of the audiophile community with any real awareness of DVD-A or SACD, even with the Stones and Dylan reissues. I just don't see either format being much of a force in the market outside of the audiophile niche. The general public just doesn't care.

Neither of the audio dealers here in Minneapolis have done anything with DVD-A. I don't know anyone outside of the audiophile community with any real awareness of DVD-A or SACD, even with the Stones and Dylan reissues. I just don't see either format being much of a force in the market outside of the audiophile niche. The general public just doesn't care.

Well, last week's question was about SACD, but I'm going to lump DVD-A and SACD into the same category. I like the sound of both formats and I do notice a big difference compared to CDs. As I stated last week, my biggest gripe is how the parties involved have forced roundabout solutions on the consumer. From the onset, I wanted digital output and ease of use. Nope. Pricewise? Expensive. Selection? Not great at all. I do have several DVD-As and SACDs, but I've decided to hold off on further purchases for now. Though standard CD is inferior to both of the high-resolution formats, I feel that CD is the only option right now. If only everything could be released as XRCD.

What sound? DVD-A (and SACD for that matter) have no sound. They are both as good or as bad as the recording, mixing and mastering. My only real gripe with either format is that too many producers are leaning too hard on the back channels, and under-utilizing the center channel. Keep the band in front, please!

Have not listened at all. And will not make an effort to get to hear it. Sorry.

So far, on my player, better than SACD.

It

I haven't been able to demo DVD-A in my home for a full evaluation. I'm currently in the market for a universal player to solve such a problem.

I found the sound very good, but the system is cumbersome and I can only play it at home. I'll stick to hybrid SACD, thanks.

I don't hear a big enough improvement in sound to justify the outrageous price for a player. The average listener, who outnumber audiophiles by a large margin, has no use for this technology. It will never fly.

Multi-channel DVD-Audio and SACD is a totally new and enjoyable experience. I would strongly reccomend it. I am not as impressed with 2 channel releases.

A substantial improvement over redbook across the **entire** audible bandwidth. No compromize on high frequencies here! For multichannel enjoyment critical time delay functions and **decent** bass management are becoming more and more available in players. And with a $99 software package I can now archive my vinyl collection to hires DVD Audio discs.

I purchased an upper-end universal player over a year ago. As yet, I have only purchased SACDs. I have avoided buying DVD-As becasue I keep reading about the graphic interface problems getting the things to start. After a long day at work, I just want to put a disc in the machine and press play. I don't feel like navigating.

Instruments more distinct than CD, no glaring, harsh highs like CD, more natural and flowing

The quality of the sound is totally dependenta of the quality of recording

Still trying to extract the most out of my extensive Redbook collection before I go throwing money down the drain on some new and improved format when I already have 700+ "Perfect Sound Forever" pieces!I can not believe we have had the CD format for over 20 years now and they are just now making players that extract the full potential out of the Redbook CD! If american audio manufacturers were like the Japanese they would have perfected Redbook players 10 to 12 years ago and then started a new format, sorta like the Japanese have with cars. They always seem to take someone's good idea and then perfect it and sell the snot out of them! Any you high end gear builders listening?

Either high resolution format in multichannel agrees with my Teac Esoteric DV-50.

I've seen some live DVD video concerts on a friend's big screen, with decent sound. If the format will develop to give hi-fi sound quality with life-like concert video, then I think we are really on to something new. If it is just an alternate audio format, it will be a tough sell, even if superior. Remember the 8 track, and Beta!

DVD-A and SACD both improve upon Redbook CDs. However, I wish someone would invent a better system for storing an analog signal rather than keep pursuing this digital demon. Vinyl is seriously challenged, but can with good equipment provide glorious, natural, sound. Large format tape, my old reel-to-reel for example, is as good if not better. Both are inconvenient and prone to wear. I would love analog storage with resolution approaching studio master tapes and with the convenience of the CD form factor. Alas, with the rapid convergence of computers and home entertainment such research will likely never be performed or even if it was such a product would never enter the market.

It's better than CD, but not as good as SACD. It's better than cassette, but not better than Elcassette. It's better than VHS-HiFi, but not better than BETA-HiFi. It' better than 8-track, but not better than reel-to-reel. Oh, how I love comparing one old dead format to a new dead format! It's better than 78 rpm, but not better than LP—and so on.

Where would one have listened to it? Around here, no one seems interested in demoing it, although a number of places will sell the players. Buy it first and then see if it's worth the cost? I think not.

The only time I have heard DVD-Audio is with DVDs. I can not evaluate the sound since it has been mostly sound effects. Since most of my software purchases are online I have not been to a brick-and-mortar to see how much music is available in the two formats. I have yet to visit a hardware shop that has suggested I must hear these formats

I have never heard a DVD-A.

Too often with DVD-A (unlike SACD), a poor-sounding two-channel mix has been used, which sounds no better than it does on CD.