SACD / DVD-Audio Players

The SCD777ES is a reference piece for 2 channel SACD and CD playback. The XA777ES is the same thing for multi-channel and comes with the same high performance rating. Please note that both of these players are reference pieces and have a neutral sonic signature.

Richard Fisher

If there

I play my DVD-Audio discs on a Mitsubishi D8020. When I first bought it I was only interested in the fact that it was progressive DVD player (they were out of D6020s so I paid the extra), once I got it home curiosity got the best of me and I went out and bought Eagles Hotel California just to check it out. Needless to say I have been hooked since.

My question is how much difference in quality is there? Are there DVD-Audio only players or are they all video/audio combo players? If there are dedicated audio players do they produce noticeably better sound quality?

Chuck G

One of the biggest problems with DVD-Audio has been the lack of any type of "statement" product that presents the format at it's best. For SACD there has always been a number of "statement" products available form the beginning hence it's perception for having better audio quality. There is something to be said on that level since SACD does not support video content which allows the designer better control of circuit noise and contamination within the product but...

Back to square one - no statement DVD-Audio product. about a year ago Pioneer released a $5K multi format player that did receive rave reviews for the DVD-Audio but the SACD was outperformed by many of the SACD only players on the market. This was due to the fact that the same D/A conversion was used for both formats but they are really two completely different animals requiring 2 different circuits. So I guess after 2 years we finally have something for DVD-Audio but the price is way to high for most audiophiles.

The implementation and marketing of the DVD-Audio format is based in home theater and video. It is a very difficult if not impossible product to use without a display of some sort and another reason many audiophiles have gone to the SACD instead. Therefore all DVD-Audio players are also DVD-Video players. The best ones will allow you to turn the front panel display and video circuits off while listening.

There is an arguement that DVD-Audio is superior to SACD because it uses multibit conversion rather than single bit conversion. The discussion of this would be very lengthy and not really meant for this Forum. In my own listening I have heard some clues that point to this conclusion but I like many others are still waiting for that "statement" product and a couple of SACD and DVD-Audio disc using different genres of music of the same content recorded and mastered in the original native format for a scientific and conclusive comparison.

I have checked out 4 DVD-Audio players ranging from $500 to $1200 over the last 2 years and was disappointed with the overall performance. In many cases the same content played back over my Sony via CD actually sounded better in many areas. There have been a couple of new ones over the last 6 months which I have not checked but have received positive reviews. At this time I am using a Sony SCD777ES for SACD 2 channel only and a modified JVC XLV721 for DVD-Audio 2 channel only (removing the multichannel capability was part of the mod).

Richard Fisher

I have checked out 4 DVD-Audio players ranging from $500 to $1200 over the last 2 years and was disappointed with the overall performance. In many cases the same content played back over my Sony via CD actually sounded better in many areas. There have been a couple of new ones over the last 6 months which I have not checked but have received positive reviews. At this time I am using a Sony SCD777ES for SACD 2 channel only and a modified JVC XLV721 for DVD-Audio 2 channel only (removing the multichannel capability was part of the mod)

First, let me thank you Richard for including this "sound" debate into the forum. I listen on a $700 Pioneer Elite 47ai combo player.

Ahh, purists! Audiophiles can be very snobish when anything threatens their precious 2 channel world, and make no mistake about it, multi-channel does take the focus off the prissy little world of $20,000 turntables or DAC/CD players, and $30,000 mono blocs or tube amps, in trade shows, magazines, and showroom floors.

I don't know where you sit Richard, but the fact that you would defeat your DVDA's multi-channel capabilities, gives me a pretty good idea.

Does DVDA have problems? Sure, take the Neil Young "Harvest" disc. It's poorly produced,and it's not the only one. But then you have some that sound fabulous, like the Grateful Dead's "American Beauty" and "Workingman's Dead." I've been listening to those two recordings for thirty years and, besides hearing way more detail, there are things there that I NEVER heard before.

Right now sacd sounds better to many because it's a higher rez version of what we had before. But is it better then DVDA? Totally subjective, and I would never dismiss it out of hand so early in its development, but I'll tell you one thing, DVDA is very exciting the way the music comes alive and envelopes you with the multi-channel sound, much the same way a movie did when you first discovered 5.1 surround sound. It's a rough comparison, but how come you don't seek to modify the soundtracks to movies so that they are only in 2 channel?

Tombanjo

Tom,

Interestingly enough, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the Tips List recently about this same subject and most chiming in offer support for Richard's point of view in that they feel that music generally is written and performed with an understanding that the listener is out in the audience. Most of us expressed belief that sitting on stage with the musicians was not really the best vantage point even though many multichannel mixes might try to suggest otherwise.

Now, movies are a different matter. The whole idea of a movie is to draw you into the action, and what better way to do it than to try and make the viewers point of view seem to be in the middle of all the action.

Mark

dont think any of us are really shooting for the sound of a concert hall, which tends to be sub-par even in the best conditions. I mean ,we could all go out and buy Marshall amps and try to duplicate it, but do we want to?

I think what most of us shoot for is accuracy and the ability to hear as much possible detail as is on the recording. I would think a well produced DVDA would give us more flexibility to achieve this, then a 2 channel system, but I guess it depends on the source and the production ...

JohnRIn_LA

Tombanjo,

I would never state, when everything is done correctly, that 2 channel is superior to multi-channel. That would be very ignorant.

Now for that qualifier - when everything is done correctly. The reason so many 2 channel people do not use multi-channel is due to the fact that it is very difficult and expensive to do - 5 sonically matching full range channels in a room. Home theater setup while close does not use the same placement for speakers and suffers from similar issues. This is very difficult to do on a reference level. My home theater is similar to most others - very compromised. My 2 channel is studio reference.

The second part of "everything done correctly" lies in the software. The majority of what has been released started life as a 2 channel product and has been played back on various formats for the last number of decades in 2 channel. I have no interest in hearing these in multi-channel. I am very interested in hearing these in high resolution 2 channel for direct comparison to the vinyl and CD versions. I have listened to these albums for the last 30 years in stereo and therefore expect stereo. This is no different than a discussion of OAR for film. All I want is the original presentation of the art. If the original presentation is multi-channel and enough titles are released using muti-channel properly I may just have to bite the bullet and get it all figured out sooner rather than later. There are a couple of discs at this time but that does not justify thousands of dollars to be spent at this time. There are also problems at this time with consistency since some labels are now mixing using the center and LFE channel for other surround effects requiring speakers in places not used by any other format. At this point all professionals agree that multichannel is like a box of chocolates - never know what you're gonna get. I have it covered with 2 channel and am very happy.


At this time I am very disappointed in what is available for multi-channel, specifically preamps. The only one I know of is from Sony. While receiving positive reviews I have yet to find any objective test data on the product. Another option is to build one myself which I have come very close to but the purist in me is stuck on a specific circuit that is required and this will require significant research and development on my part. Even if I can get the preamp part licked only Sony is offering a reference product for multi-channel and that is the kind of customer I am - reference. We need a reference "statement" product for DVD-Audio in the $2-3K range but that has not happened yet. To take this even further what I am waiting for is a reference combo player. Then I need to find a lot of money so I can duplicate one of my 2 channels 3 more times. While I am at it I will need to figure out if I should have 2 rooms or one. The center channel speaker sitting in front of the TV isn't going to cut it. As you can see this all gets quite complicated if accuracy is your goal. This is why we 2 channel audiophiles have had one simple request - give us a seperate 2 channel track along with the multi-channel while we get this figured out and slowly build Rome.

The reason I removed the mult-channel from the JVC is because even in stereo mode the multi-channel can't touch the 2 channel. Why even waste my time at this point? So I can hear 5 sonically degraded channels instead of 2 sonically accurate channels? That doesn't make any sense at all. There is your answer and it has nothing to do with 2 channel snobbery or elitism.

Richard F. Fisher

The truth of the matter is that neither format is doing all that great yet. For either format to succeed, it will have to be developed for mobile use. The main reason that cassette tapes and CD's reached the level of success that they did is that they adapted to mobility, and in doing so they were bought by young listeners. Without the support of young buyers both formats will disappear.

Mark

John,

I can't speak for every audiophile in the world, but the vast majority listen to their HiFi systems hoping to come as close as possible to reproducing live sound. Whether it be from a concert hall (talking about concert halls here John, not basketball courts where concerts are held) or the intimate setting of a nightclub. We want that singer/band/orchestra to be in our living room.


Mark

it will have to be developed for mobile use.

That is where SACD has the upper hand with the hybrid discs that can be used on any CD player.

This is where Sony has also really dropped the ball. Many of the releases are SACD only.

Right You are Richard,

In fact one of the big selling points when Sony introduced this format was that they could produce hybrid discs. With a few notable exceptions (like the early Stones catalog released by Abcko) most discs are not hybrid.

Unfortunately much of the general public is focusing on downloadable music these days. While I'll be the first to admit that it is great to have access to all those tunes, I'll also point out that the quality is terrible...but then again, most of the public really doesn't care.

Mark

The post about DVD-A or SACD being mobile reminded me that my Toshiba portable DVD player is DVD Audio compatible (2 channel only according to the manual).

It's not really walkman portable, but portable nonetheless. It would work for in the car, plane or outdoors at the park, etc.

I have yet to listen to it yet but now that I have read this thread I'm going to go get my Eagles disc and try it out.

Chuck G

Thanks, Richard, for initiating this topic. I'm sure it will elicite differing opinions, which I find informative and interesting, as long as people stay civil.

Question: I don't know what you mean when you say, regarding DVD-A:

It is a very difficult if not impossible product to use without a display of some sort

I've never had my TV on while listening to any DVD-A disk. They play the same way CDs do. A display is not needed at all.

still waiting for...a couple of SACD and DVD-Audio disc using different genres of music of the same content recorded and mastered in the original native format for a scientific and conclusive comparison.

I believe "Swing Live" is available in both SACD and DVD-A. It's the only one, that I know of. That doesn't meet all your wishes, but it's a start.

In many cases the same content played back over my Sony via CD actually sounded better in many areas.

I don't dispute there are many poor multi-channel mixes, but your example above may not be a valid comparison. It's hard to compare multi-channel with two-channel and claim one is inherently better, since you are dealing with different mixes.

removing the multichannel capability

That sounds totally artificial to me. You can't make any valid evaluation of a disc if you've changed the original format it was produced for. To me, that is like taking a stereo disk and playing it in mono.

sitting on stage with the musicians was not really the best vantage point even though many multichannel mixes might try to suggest otherwise.

I generally agree, though that could depend on many factors. Imagine if "Dark Side of the Moon" were originally recorded with multi-channel in mind, putting the listener in the middle of the mix! Anyway, muli-channel can provide sonic benefits by placing the listener in the audience, too.

The majority of what has been released started life as a 2 channel product

I completely agree that retrofitting older recordings to multi-channel is not the best use of the format. At the same time, most of that music was recorded on multiple tracks, so it isn't a matter of taking two tracks and making them multi-channel. So there is some hope there, though I agree that newer music recorded with multi-channel in mind should be superior, once the recording engineers learn how to deal with the new format.

I have listened to these albums for the last 30 years in stereo and therefore expect stereo

This shows the inherent prejudice many of us will have when first encountering multi-channel music. I believe this prejudice affects how we listen to new music, too. Have to be careful not to let that affect one's response to multi-channel music.

For either format to succeed, it will have to be developed for mobile use

I don't think this is what you were referring to, but I have heard that some high-end automotive sound systems are beginning to incorporate SACD and/or DVD-A.

Unfortunately much of the general public is focusing on downloadable music these days

This, to me, is the biggest hurdle facing DVD-A and SACD, as well as high-end stereo. A public that is satified with the sound of MP3 is not going to care about high-resolution formats.

Stosh

RF>It is a very difficult if not impossible product to use without a display of some sort

ST>I've never had my TV on while listening to any DVD-A disk. They play the same way CDs do. A display is not needed at all.

Yes you are correct for multichannel but not for stereo.

RF>In many cases the same content played back over my Sony via CD actually sounded better in many areas.

ST>I don't dispute there are many poor multi-channel mixes, but your example above may not be a valid comparison. It's hard to compare multi-channel with two-channel and claim one is inherently better, since you are dealing with different mixes.

Your point is correct but that is not what I said nor meant. We also have OAR for audio which means if it was produced for stereo then it should be played back in stereo and that is what my comment was based on. What can I say I am a purist. Technically there is no other way to perform this sort of test as you have pointed out.

RF>removing the multichannel capability

ST>That sounds totally artificial to me. You can't make any valid evaluation of a disc if you've changed the original format it was produced for. To me, that is like taking a stereo disk and playing it in mono.

But that is exactly what you are doing when you listen to an original stereo production in multi-channel.

RF>The majority of what has been released started life as a 2 channel product

ST>I completely agree that retrofitting older recordings to multi-channel is not the best use of the format. At the same time, most of that music was recorded on multiple tracks, so it isn't a matter of taking two tracks and making them multi-channel. So there is some hope there, though I agree that newer music recorded with multi-channel in mind should be superior, once the recording engineers learn how to deal with the new format.

So we agree.

RF>I have listened to these albums for the last
>30 years in stereo and therefore expect stereo

ST>This shows the inherent prejudice many of us will have when first encountering multi-channel music. I believe this prejudice affects how we listen to new music, too. Have to be careful not to let that affect one's response to multi-channel music.

Good point but keep in mind OAR. I do not have an issue with multi-channel. I look forward to hearing Beethovens 9th in a reference multi-channel system. I have heard it on my compromised system and I am intrigued but there are not enough multi-channel titles that put me in the acoustical environment to justify the expenditure. If I do it then I want 5 reference quality channels and no compromise.

Richard Fisher

The Toshiba SD9200 did receive a class-A rating for DVD-Audio. I had this piece and it do fairly well in testing at it's price point but I did have some reservations with the sound quality. The video was great to. I ultimately did not get it, wanted to, because at the time DVD-Audio titles were limited in availability and I also did not fully understand how DVD-Audio worked for stereo applications - I was in good company at the time.

One of the guys on the TIPS List has it and he loves it.

Richard F. Fisher

I agree with a few of the other folks here, that mobile applications will help with the expansion of either format, however I can't find anybody with a true drop-in player for either. I have been looking online and I have a friend who was at the CES that I'm waiting to hear back from. The only way I can do DVD-audio in my car is to get the Panasonic portable player, which I assume has a 12 volt power adapter, and the Alpine sound processor with a 5.1 amp. (Yes, I plan to add a center channel.)

I can't even find a SACD for mobile application.

*Has any body found an automotive DVDa or SACD in dash player???*

Grumpy Bob

A bit of a rant. It would appear that the DVD-Audio camp is lagging behind big time.

We have seen the Rolling Stones, Peter Gabriel and the Police catalogs released on SACD this quarter. Just between those we have 20 new titles and that doesn't include the other stuff released. Lest I forget, Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon was also just released and that can only mean the other albums are just around the corner. New DVD-Audio titles have been very few. Yes - Close to the Edge was supposed to be released a number of months ago - still no word. The most popular releases for this quarter, Fleetwood Mac - Say You Will, The Band - Music From the Big Pink, REM - Document. Three - that's it! While one could argue there were other notables none were of original albums nor mastered for 2 channel - the Silverline label (think cheese). We also are seeing DAD releases at 24/96 - another dumbing down of the DVD format. If anybody here has heard the handful of 24/192 stereo DVD-A out there this is not a good sign - love that 24/192!

Further, I just received the new Stereophile and on the cover is the new SACD player from Musical Fidelity using tubes. There are now about 8 statement SACD players on the market and about 2-3 for DVD-Audio.

DVD-Audio seems to slowly be progressing into "cheese" land with cheapo multichannel players while SACD continues to make real headway in the audiophile and general consumer market. I find this frustrating only because we have yet to hear the full potential of DVD-Audio and at this rate we may never. Certainly a bad situation for a format that claims sonic superiority over SACD.

It appears that DVD-A has taken the marketing course of the "lowest common denominator" with the cheesy players and cheesy Silverline releases. Keep it up boys and it will be dead! This also happens to lead into HDTV and the battle being fought by Dale Cripps to prevent this same cheesy thinking from getting a foothold in our new HiDef video world.

Richard F. Fisher

Richard thanks for your thoughts here on these two formats. DVD-Audio seems to have really slowed to a crawl but I also think there is so little coming SACD's way too. What has anyone heard as far as new SACD releases upcoming? I have heard of nothing of real interest. Besides the Stones and Pink FLoyd (not a police fan) there has been nothing exciting with SACD either. It seems that maybe 1 in every 1000 new albums also come out with an SACD or DVD audio option to purchase. It was very refreshing to at least see Fleetwood Mac putting their new album out on DVD Audio. I think right now this is not a beta vs vhs as both formats are seriously failing to add much to their catalogs. I own somewhere in teh range of 50 and only because I like to hear all the good and bad that they put out on DVD audio and SACD. Let's hope soon that new albums come out in the hybrid format more often or offer DVD audio as an alternative to the CD as Fleetwood Mac did....

KeithMathews

I was thinking about getting a dvd audio player, but i saw that the new sound blaster audigy 2 sound card can play DVD audio. it is a 24 bit encoding system. i am wondering if anyone knows if i need a different type of dvd player in my computer than the standard one that comes with most computers. also will hte audio be as high of a resolution as i could get from a stand alone dvd audio player with ananlog interconnects.

George

PC's are well renowned for being excessively noisy environments for audiophiles. The solution is to use an out board D/A convertor. Unfortunately DVD-Audio is just now starting to support this concept using 1394 between a player and receiver. May be a while before you see this in the PC world.

Richard F. Fisher

ok thanks richard, i will probably just get a sperate dvd audio player soon.

George

The SCD777ES is a reference piece for 2 channel SACD and CD playback. The XA777ES is the same thing for multi-channel and comes with the same high performance rating. Please note that both of these players are reference pieces and have a neutral sonic signature.

I really, REALLY want the XA777ES, but I can't seem to figure out the connectivity issues. You obvioulsy have the multi-channel connections, but this unit also has a seperate stereo sacd connection that devotes three (!) dacs per channel! But my pre/pro only has the one set of 8ch sacd/dvda inputs. Is there any way to take advantage of both high rez outputs on the Sony unit without having to switch cables multi and 2ch (with three dacs per) sacd?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as one can not seem to get a straight answer from supposedly knowledgeable sales people.

Tombanjo

Hi Steve,
If i understand you correctly, you have 1 set of 8 analogue inputs on your processor.

I have the Sony dvp650 which is connected to my Denon reciever.

If the sacd disc has the option of mlti ch and stereo, youreally don't have todo anything with cables.

You just choose the 2 ch option on the Sony remote (mine is the same button) and the player will cancel out the other inputs internally.

If you wish to play a regular cd (redbook) you should have l/r outputs from your player. Iwould suggest you plug this into any unused (the best is supposed tobe the tapeloop) on your processor and handle it that way.
If i'm misunderstanding please clarify.

Peter m.

George,

One thing that i use the computer for is playing HDCD discs, which will be decoded by Windows mltimed plr 8 or 9 if you have an optical or coax out of your snd card to your processor which will act as the dac.

Peter m.

I own and love this unit!! (XA777ES) I only use the 6 -channel outputs. You still get the 2 -channel performance with just the 6 hooked up. I play
traditional CD's and 2-channel SACD's all with using the 6-channel outputs.

Plus the Sony has "two front" channel (2 rights and 2 lefts) outputs if you want to run two of the fronts into traditional "stereo" inputs.

From the TIPS List

I own and love this unit!! I only use the 6 -channel outputs. You still
get the 2 -channel performance with just the 6 hooked up. I play
traditional CD's and 2-channel SACD's all with using the 6-channel outputs

Richard and Peter,

From what I gather Richard, you are not getting the full rez this machine has to offer when you are using the same six channel outputs for both multi and 2ch listening. The way I read the following Stereophile review of the XA777 is that you need an extra two cables to take advantage of the triple dac per channel feature this unit has to offer. Then again, I'm a novice in this area of sacd. Where exactly do those extra two plug in to? My Sunfire pre has an 8ch set of analog inputs but I just assumed the extra two are for side surrounds. The link for the whole article is below.

"In addition to the IEC power connector, the Sony's rear panel has coax and TosLink digital jacks, a pair of two-channel RCA-type analog audio output jacks, and another tier of six RCA jacks for multichannel analog output. The XA777ES has six discrete dual Super Audio DACs, each of which is allocated to one of the six channels for multichannel SACDs. Because they use the same set of DACs differently, the two-channel and six-channel jacks are not active simultaneously, and therefore must be connected to a preamp or receiver by eight interconnects. Gimme a break. Simply using the digital output for two channels is precluded by the absence of any digital output from SACDs, regardless of the number of channels. Oh well, more interconnects."

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?491

Tombanjo

From what I gather Richard, you are not getting the full rez this machine has to offer

That almost brings tears because I don't own one and would love to...

Anyway, I ran into this on the Toshiba SD9200 DVD-A player and as I recall it was NOT necessary to hookup the 2 channel to receive the full benefit of stereo mode. It was reviewed by Stereophile and they also were confused by this. Since I do not own the XA777ES, bummer, I cannot tell you absolutely what the situation is except I have a hard time believing based on design experience that in stereo mode you would have 2 different sonic signatures depending on which jacks you are using - anything is possible though.

Richard F. Fisher

As I give this more thought...

I cannot think of any reason why you would NEED an additional left right output. I can think of reasons why this could be of convenience for a non-audiophile application.

Richard Fisher