|
It is currently 13 May 2024, 08:57
|
View unsolved topics | View unanswered posts
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Chicago II - SACD vs DVD-Audio Posted: 12 Apr 2022, 17:48 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3425 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 152 times
|
Attachment:
Chicago_2.jpg [ 462.16 KiB | Viewed 3026 times ]
I bought the Mo-Fi SACD of Chicago II last year, and while casually browsing ebay a few weeks ago, I found the DVD-Audio version for a not ridiculous price and jumped on that. So finally, I can actually make a head to head comparison of SACD vs DVD-Audio of the same album. Of course this by no means casts a lasting judgment on the formats since both of these were engineered/mixed by different people on each format, but it's all we can do really. I played each disc in my Oppo UDP-203 hooked up via 8 channel analog to my Pioneer VSX-92TXH receiver, but rather than listen to them through my speaker setup, I instead used my Sony MDR-7506 Headphones and listened to the Stereo tracks only. So to my ears, I think the DVD-Audio version is superior. I heard more details in each instrument (like Terry Kath's fingers moving across the guitar strings in "25 Or 6 To 4") and each instrument and voice were more clearly heard over the SACD version. I still think the SACD sounds really amazing, but the DVD-Audio is just a bit better. I know that audio quality is super subjective, even moreso than video quality, but has anyone else had the chance to compare the same album on both formats and concluded a better version of the two?
|
|
|
|
|
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Re: Chicago II - SACD vs DVD-Audio Posted: 13 Apr 2022, 21:45 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3425 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 152 times
|
admin wrote: They seem to be 2 completely different remasters: https://www.discogs.com/release/2329722-Chicago-Chicago on DVD-A from 2003. https://www.discogs.com/release/7984823-Chicago-Chicago on MOFI SACD from 2015. Can't check the DR analysis as DRDB is relaunching! https://dr.loudness-war.info/Quote: Relaunch
This project will be relaunched soon. Stay tuned.
PS: Uploads will be enabled again. Julien It's odd that since the DVD-Audio is a much older master/mix (which I knew going into this since no new DVD-As have been made in years) but to me sounds better than the much newer SACD. I have found one review of this album, specifically the Mo-Fi SACD version, where they mention not only the DVD-Audio release, but a blu-ray audio release. The reviewer says the SACD is a cleaner presentation partly thanks to advances in noise reduction, but I don't agree when he says there's more definition to the instruments. I hear more definition in the DVD-Audio version. https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile ... -ii-again/
Last edited by elahrairrah on 15 Apr 2022, 04:42, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Re: Chicago II - SACD vs DVD-Audio Posted: 15 Apr 2022, 04:36 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3425 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 152 times
|
substance wrote: If the same masters are used, based on the fact that all DACs except some mega expensive boutique ones convert all signals to DSD, it probably makes more sense to use SACDs. According to the reviewer I linked to above, both the DVD-Audio and the SACD were taken from the original multi-track audio tapes, though engineered and remixed by different people.
|
|
|
|
|
signofzeta
|
Post subject: Re: Chicago II - SACD vs DVD-Audio Posted: 15 Apr 2022, 21:24 |
Jedi Knight |
|
|
Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44 Posts: 6010 Location: Ann Arbor Has thanked: 1307 times Been thanked: 1118 times
|
You’re so adversarial…
I didn’t mean the quality was impossibly better than anything else forever, I mean they are the only ones using a system anything like it. Decades later there still aren’t any other popular 1-bit music formats. There is nothing it can be compared to internally, digitally, technically. The only way of comparing it to anything is to actually listen to it being played…and obviously there’s nothing wrong with that. It wasn’t a good sales tactic (history has proven) but it did make for a long lived format. Now with quad rate DSD it’s still, essentially, the best, and still going.
_________________ All about LD care, inner sleeves, shrink wrap, etc.
https://youtu.be/b3O-vHpHRpM
|
|
|
|
|
sonicboom
|
Post subject: Re: Chicago II - SACD vs DVD-Audio Posted: 28 Apr 2022, 15:36 |
Serious fan |
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2014, 19:25 Posts: 236 Location: United States Has thanked: 65 times Been thanked: 92 times
|
I'll be totally adversarial and say PCM is better. Just because Sony keeps licensing SACD and putting out product doesn't make it the best HD format. That would be like saying LD is the best simply because Pioneer chose to keep producing it after other superior formats emerged. Why has Blu Ray Audio become so popular? It is a better format overall and does everything SACD does and more. Its DVD-A+. I studied under one of the main proponents of DVD-A so I'm totally biased. This paper was all the rage back then: https://timbreluces.com/assets/sacd.pdfMaybe this is an old argument and maybe Quad DSD or whatever has surpassed this or made this info obsolete but I doubt it. Food for thought: There is a thread here comparing the DACs found in LD players. At some point, due to costs, they went from multi-bit to single bit DACs. I understand they are not DSD but the principle is similar. Which ones are more sought after? Meh.
_________________ Kevin LD-S2|CLD-D704|CLD-D406|DVL-V888|LX-900U|Crystalio II|Yamaha APD-1|Sony XBR55X810C
|
|
|
|
|
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Re: Chicago II - SACD vs DVD-Audio Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 17:09 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3425 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 152 times
|
sonicboom wrote: I'll be totally adversarial and say PCM is better. Just because Sony keeps licensing SACD and putting out product doesn't make it the best HD format. That would be like saying LD is the best simply because Pioneer chose to keep producing it after other superior formats emerged. Why has Blu Ray Audio become so popular? It is a better format overall and does everything SACD does and more. Its DVD-A+. I studied under one of the main proponents of DVD-A so I'm totally biased. This paper was all the rage back then: https://timbreluces.com/assets/sacd.pdfMaybe this is an old argument and maybe Quad DSD or whatever has surpassed this or made this info obsolete but I doubt it. Food for thought: There is a thread here comparing the DACs found in LD players. At some point, due to costs, they went from multi-bit to single bit DACs. I understand they are not DSD but the principle is similar. Which ones are more sought after? Meh. DSD, at least DSD64 which is utilized in SACD, is definitely not the be-all, end-all for audio seeing as how they've upgraded DSD to DSD128, DSD256 and DSD512 now--using 5-bit and 8-bt Delta-Sigma encoding rather than 1-bit. And it's been estimated that DSD64/SACD is only as good as 24-bit/88.1khz LPCM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|