SACD / DVD-Audio Players

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:31 am

February 21 2003

If you are going to spend over $2k for one of these players I recommend you consider seperates. If you are in the under $1k range then combo players have much to offer.

Richard Fisher

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:31 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:32 am

If there

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:32 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:33 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:34 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:34 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:35 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:35 am

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

HDTV Forum · Post by **HDTV Forum** » Sun May 23, 2004 8:36 am

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