I just purchased a new universal disc format player (dvd,dvd-a,sacd,mp3, etc.)and am wondering if anyone knows of some retailers where I can find DVD-A and SACD titles. Or even if someone knows of a website or two that lists titles available on either format.

And just for fun, has anyone had the chance to hear anything on DVD-A or SACD? What did you think?

Thanks.

B.

I expect there are other, your side of the pond, that have more insight than I, but Tower Records have a wide range of SACD titles (DVD audio I'm not so sure about). Be warned thought that the type (stereo/hybrid/multi) description can be a little misleading. Most hybrids appear to be multi-channel, but there are some that are just stereo (Human League's "Dare" being one).

You'll also need to be aware that some titles have been released in two versions, stereo and multi-channel (a couple of Billy Joel's being examples of that).

As for my thoughts on the sound. For me the jury's out on SACD stereo, but then my system isn't particulary high blown. Multi-channel, however, if done right is awesome.

P.S.
RE. SACD's, this might help for determining format.

Click "general" then "release list". You'll now have the option of viewing or downloading a reasonably up to date pdf of all the releases, which includes the type of format it is; i.e. SACD stereo, SACD surround, CD stereo.

This message was edited by djy on 05/21/03 05:28.

Best Buy.

Thanks DJY for the input and the link. Hopefully this will help me find some demo material and convince me that preparing for the "multi-channel revolution" was worth it.

And thanks Spiky for the Best Buy idea. I tried there once but maybe I didn't try searching for the right thing. Did you look for specific artists that you knew had SACDs available, or just search for SACDs?

Interesting aside; Sound & Vision had a great pair of interviews on the new Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" multi-channel SACD. One interview was with Arthur Guthrie (SACD Engineer) and the other with Alan Parsans (original quad engineer). Both went through song by song and and critiqued the mix. Parsans was a bit scathing at times, but I inferred a little bitterness in his interview due to his non-involvement in the SACD mix.

Thanks again.
B.

They had a separate section for SACD and DVD-A. Although the Blue Man Group DVD-A was actually in the video DVD section. I'm sure there are others mis-placed in either the video or CD sections.

Your BB may vary. As my universal player is due to show up at my house Tuesday, I've only had one trip to Best Buy for these discs, so I'm limited to knowledge of one large, fairly new BB store.

That's good info to know. I was just being lazy and searching through their Website. I have two brick 'n' mortors to choose from if I find a day where I can drive an hour to get there.

Out of curiosity, which universal did you get, Spiky?

B.

Their website sucks, it doesn't group them. I tried there first, too.

The Denon 2900. And I have Blue Man Group DVD-A, Telarc sample SACD and Metallica DVD-A waiting impatiently for it to show up! Stupid holiday is pushing it to next week.

These new formats are great for surround but don't waste your money on stereo discs. The human ear can't make out the 44,000 frames or the 65,000 steps of dynamic range in a standard cd so you won't be able to hear the increased frames and range in these new fomats. So why do some sacd discs sound better? Actually they don't, it's just a trick. Sony has a "data sheet" for mastering sacd disc's and it includes suggestions to do alot of boosting. Whats that mean? The EQ is cranked up a little more on a sacd, giving the illusion of better sound, which sells sacd players. Buy it for the surround (which is great) but don't bother with the stereo disc's.

Oh and don't think sony are bad guys, Dolby, DTS, and every other company that sells an audio format have there "data sheets" too.

Yes, "better" sound is definitely mostly dependant on the guy mixing the various media types for sale. But saying you can't hear a difference between SACD and CD is just silly. Try listening to cymbals in classical music and you will hear a difference in EVERY type of media. If your system is capable. (don't do this on computer speakers and then claim SACD isn't better than CD, for instance)

Well see that’s the problem. Listening is the wrong way to compare formats. Your ear is easily fooled. A true comparison can only be done on a computer, analyzing raw wave forms laid on top of one another. If you really want to do a comparison based on listening only, play someone a cd. Then without them knowing, play the same cd with the eq turned up a bit. Then ask them which they think is SACD, and you will hear "the second one" over and over. Better yet try putting a sacd in then see if anyone says "wow that can't be a regular cd, it just sounds so much better", they won't. It is easy to perceive something is better based on one factor when it's really something else that makes it more pleasing.

I listen to music premastered on flat frequency monitors almost everyday. When I burn that premaster to cd and listen to it on the same monitors I can hear very little difference. Most customers can hear no difference at all.

If you are listening for a difference you may find one, but will you notice this without looking for it? That’s the real issue, most people will find no more listening pleasure from a sacd than cd (I'm talking strictly 2 track here). Most people won't notice any difference based on format unless you point it out.

So there is a difference between the cd and sacd, but I think it's silly to say that the sound quality of a sacd is significantly better than that of a cd. The truly significant advance of these new formats is surround, not the increased bit a frame rates.

Another easy difference is that CD is fatiguing. I have yet to experience that from analog, SACD or DVD-A.

So you're denying that the difference matters, not that it is there. A J6P argument that saddens me. The whole point of being interested in the best sound and/or video from this hobby is in NOT being one of the masses. My system did not come in one box for $500, and the difference is obvious. I have had people who are simply aware that I like audio and video demonstrate their "system" to me trying to impress me. One friend turned his car stereo up so loud trying to get bass from a Delco factory setup that I thought the circuits were going to fry right there. I shouldn't even have to say that the sound was so inaccurate at that point it made me want to cry.



"Most" people do not care about the difference between CD and cassette, either. They have often never heard of SACD. I have friends who are techno-freaks on most anything electronic, I say I got a new SACD and they reply, "What?" Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about what MOST people think in the realm of audio or video. The fact that Sony can still sell their crappy, fall-apart products prove that MOST people are wrong on many levels.

Apparently I didn't quote your last comment, but to reply to it: if surround is the only improvement, SACD and DVD-A will die tomorrow. Because Dolby Pro Logic II is easily good enough for MOST people. And it's right there in receivers ranging from $200 to $5000.

I really didn't intend to say there was no difference between SACDs and CDs. I was talking real world as of today. A comparison of an album produced both on CD and SACD. Today you really only get the increased frame and bit rates as an advantage in the far majority of SACDs, and that alone is not enough to give a noticeably better listening experience. The fact is if you’re producing and mastering for 44/16 then simply remastering for SACD, your not truly taking advantage of the SACD format. And that is the reality of today.

Now there is no doubt that DSD is the future, anyone who truly understands digital audio will tell you that. The reality is it needs to become more widespread before we will get everything out of it. The production of the audio has to match the potential of the format. Right now that is rare at best, so the surround is the focus benefit. When a DSD format really takes hold and becomes the norm, all the benefits of DSD will be clear to every listener.

I think buying a format now, because it's the future, is not the smartest move. Not only will it become more readily available, and cheaper, it will also find even more performance increases in time. Along with the fact that future audio equipment will be designed with the capabilities of newer DSD formats in mind.

So in the end if someone asks me "should I spend the extra money to purchase the stereo SACD version of an album", the answer is no. A year from now the answer maybe yes, it depends on how quickly SACD can truly takes hold and become the format that is considered the end goal for producers and engineers.

As far as being part of the masses...

Actually i thought the whole point of this hobby was to create the best listening and viewing experience that’s within your means. If the masses are buying the best speakers on the market that are within your price range, is it your best choice to not buy them? Frankly "Not being part of the masses" sounds like a hobby for teenagers. Being or not being part of the masses is not the road to the best home theater system.

American Beauty(Reality?) Grateful Dead dvd audio,really,really good! check interview w/Micky Hart. just heard Rumors Fleetwood Mac,excellent upon first listen(dvd-a). be careful with SACD. got first Santana album, sounds great, but only 2 ch, didn't read label, too excited. sound is wonderful but wish it was 6ch. system:
LEXICON MC-12
LEXICON RT-10
LEXICON LX-7
PARADIGM REFERENCE 7.1(MC-12 can convert ana 5.1 to ana 7.1

In my opinion 6 channel audio opens a whole new door to musical artists. Albums can be expressed totaly different. I've listened to Eric Claptons "Reptile" and Alanis Morissett's "Under Rug Swept" a hundred times in stereo on many stereo systems. When I first played them on 6 channel, it was like listening to a whole new version of the songs I new. I heard instruments I never heard before, back up singers standing over my shoulder, bass so real I thought the guitarist was plugged into my potted plants.
I have to disagree with SACD stereo not being noticable. I, an audiophile, find a very big difference but beleive the average listener will not notice much. The improvement on accuracy and imageing has been worth me re-buying older cd's like Peter Gabriels "Security" or Harry Conick's "We are in love".
If you have a 6 channel capable preamp, go and buy your self the pioneer v45 combo sacd/dvd-a player now for 350. You'll thank me later.

Jonathan

You know, when I first heard somebody say that CDs are fatiguing (1981, I think) and they showed a physical test to determine this, a question occurred to me. I have never heard this question addressed:

When you compare different types of recordings and find that CDs are fatiguing while other types are not, has anyone gone to a live-versus-recorded event TO DETERMINE WHETHER LIVE MUSIC IS FATIGUING? What if "fatiguing" equals "accurate?"