DVD Audio / SACD What's The Score?

[Bing Fung]

So which format is the prefered one to adopt at this time?

Last I looked into it, the SACD had much more software titles than the DVDA. Has one been edging out the other of late?

Is there any forseeable events that are going to pave the way for one of these formats, or are they both going to co-exsist like Beta and VHS did for the first few years.

Will the public determine which format even if it is the worse of the two, or are the dissimularites of the two formats insignificant?




Bing

[Buzz Goddard]

So which format is the prefered one to adopt at this time? Last I looked into it, the SACD had much more software titles than the DVDA. Has one been edging out the other of late?

The audiphile tide seems to be swinging towards SACD, with DVD-A a bit more of a sleeping giant.

Is there any forseeable events that are going to pave the way for one of these formats...

Perhaps when the first digital interfaces between decent DVD-A transports and high end pre/pros come out next year and people get to hear what DVD-A's can sound like the audiophile tide will feel another moon's pull.

.. or are they both going to co-exsist like Beta and VHS did for the first few years. Will the public determine which format even if it is the worse of the two, or are the dissimularites of the two formats insignificant?

Beta and VHS may be an appropriate analogy. One can argue the technical merits, but there are factors other then audio performance which disctate success or failure in the marketplace.




Buzz Goddard
<IMG SRC="http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com/icons/logo_inv.gif"

[Andrew Pratt]

I get the feeling that DVD-A will eventually win over to become the norm where SACD will remain a niche market. From what the forums all seem to say SACD is the better of the two but both will improve over time from both a software and hardware perspective

[JonMarsh]

Hey Bing,

There are a lot of interesting factors at work here- and of course, lot's of folks want to wait this out until a "winner" is announced. But it might be misleading to draw too many parallels with video formats- particularly since "Beta" isn't dead, actually, but is a widely used Pro format. (Though I've owned a lot of Sony gear in my time, and still do, I never had a Beta home deck).

I expected a lot more to be released in DVD-A by this time. I didn't expect it to be delayed so long by legal wrangles, watermarking issues, and just plain old foot dragging. So, while I was definitely an early adopter for CD, LD, and DVD-V, I'm still scratching my head regarding whether to jump in to DVD-A.

SACD is another matter. I'd like there to be more software out than there is, but it was easy to justify my SCD777ES purchase, given that it's the best CD player I've ever heard under $2K, and competitive with many costing much more than that. I've got a good sized selection of disks; but what is still erie to me is how good some "ordinary" recordings sound in SACD- things like the "Titanic" soundtrack, Kenny Loggins "Yesterday and Today", old albums like Santanna "Abraxas", or Miles Davis "Kind of Blue". They have a freshness, liquidity, and detail that I've only heard on wide, fast open reel tape. (say, 15 - 30 ips half track tapes).

Yes, to get the most out of this format you willl appreciate it on a good system, but the charms are well evident on middle range systems and a decent $100 set of headphones. (Yeah, Bose Lifestyle owners may want to consider an upgrade or two...)

So, my advice would be not to worry about whether one is going to "win" or not. If you value above average music reproduction in your home, in my opinion it doesn't take a lot of disks or music to make the investment worthwhile. Consider what music is out there, and which formats you like best (stereo, multi-channel), and given the dropping prices for SACD and DVD-A, invest in what is a worthwhile return for you NOW.

If the CD rig that you have now makes you happy, then just buy more CD's. If you like the smoothness and aliveness that a good SACD player brings to even redbood CD (my sony SCD777ES converts PCIM to DSD, with five different image filter options- this is a clear advantage over my XA7ES player, which is no slouch at an orignal MSRP of $3K), listen to what's available and coming out this year at various price points ($300 and up), and see if something out there grabs your fancy, or some other part of your anatomy (ears would be reasonable, I guess).

I know I want another player for the bedroom; it's just a question of figuring out which one- if the tech business were doing better, I'd be panting for the XA777ES multi-channel rig, and consigning my stereo SCD777ES to the bedroom).

When I started buying DVD's, it wasn't anything like the sure thing (as a format) that it is now- but I figured with the announced and pending releases, it would be worthwhile. It may be harder to make that arguement right now for SACD or DVD-A, but then, these players work with the older formats, too, and often do a superior job of it. I'm not as keen on DVD players for audio, because the compromises made in the past on many regarding their clock designs resulted in high levels of jitter. But, a DVD player done right (Websters: See Ayre DVD-1) is a marvelous piece.

What I wouldn't buy at this time is a new player that only does conventional CD. Think about it. That's guaranteed obsolescent.


Regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[rlabarge]

I know of several equipment manufacturers who are planning on releasing models that will support both SACD and DVDA. Thus I dont think this is an either-or situation. We could easily see both formats succeed, much as we have seen the rapid growth of DTS audio tracks on DVD-Video titles even though Dolby Digital is still used on most discs. I believe that Dolby Digital and DTS will peacefully coexist in the DVD-Video world for many years to come.

The lack of DVDA titles has more to do with the relatively poor state of DVD-Audio development systems than any other factor. Currently most DVD-Audio titles have to be developed at a handful of facilities using Beta authoring systems. We should see more titles by the end of the year when the authoring tools are finally released in their production versions.




Ralph LaBarge
Managing Partner, Alpha DVD
Author, "DVD Authoring & Production"
rlabarge@alphadvd.com

[Bing Fung]

One that would do both formats would be fantastic!

I'm asking as sometime in the not so distant future I would be wanting to buy a new DVD player. The question that I'm pondering is does a person jump into the Sony camp with the ES9000 SACD/DVD, or the many others that are proponents of the DVD/DVD-A?

I assume that the trickle down for DVD would easily be the DVD-A as an addition. This may become a standard practice as Component video connections has on the 2nd & 3rd gen DVD players.

It seems the DVD-A would be a natural progression for the DVD format, and may gain acceptance more easily if it is bundled with your standard DVD player. Then the highest percentage of common users wouldn't even have to add additional equipment to enjoy DVD-A's benefits.

SACD on the other hand would require the addition of another single unit, unless a person bought the Sony ES9K, and then he would also have to buy another unit to playback DVD-A. Unless of course the dual formats become a reality as Ralph has stated.

Ultimately it would seem who ever gets the most available titles to market could be the clear leader.

Maybe the best course of action at this point in time would be to buy a DVD/DVD-A and then the separate Sony SCDC-333ES SACD player? That's still a lot of money to spend to support both formats though...

I ponder for I do own a Sony, Beta HiFi, I paid about $1500 for it in 1984




Bing

[rlabarge]

If you can hold off buying a new player until the end of the year I think you will get what you want, a universal DVD-Video & DVD-Audio player with SACD support, progressive scan support and component video outputs. I am pretty sure there will be at least two vendors with units like this by Christmas 2001.




Ralph LaBarge
Managing Partner, Alpha DVD
Author, "DVD Authoring & Production"
rlabarge@alphadvd.com

[Bing Fung]

That's something to look forward to Ralph... and would be the ultimate solution.

Buzz, what is this digital interface you speak of and how does it differ from what is currently available?




Bing

[Bing Fung]

If SACD supports 0-100KHz frequencies, does this mean we will have to buy new super tweeter speakers, amplifiers and Pre/pros that support that broad band frequency range??

Sure most humans only hear to about 18khz, but there is a lot of reasearch that supports what we don't hear,affects what we do hear...




Bing

[Lex]

Looks like the score is SACD 14, DVD Audio 3. That's if it's football anyway. Audiophiles seem to be embracing SACD, maybe because DVD-A is more multichannel oriented. Audiophiles seem to be willing to put themselves out there seeking the holy grail of audio. That's just my take.

Lex




Cable Guy DVD Collection

[JonMarsh]

Hi Bing and Lex,


Re the frequency response, my feeling is that it isn't the 100 kHz HF capability per se that gives you the advantage with SACD, it the fact that the sampling rate and reconstruction is at such a high frequency that the digital filter can avoid being a quasi brick wall type, and the transient and phase response of the filter is much more natural. This concept is at the heart of what Wadia and Theta have done over the years with their oversampling and customized DSP and anlog filter combos's. It's also what selected SACD models can do with the optional filters for playback- BTW, my choice is the DF3 filter mode for CD playback.

Have you ever looked at the 1 KHz square wave output of a CD player? Or the magazine reports that used to include those waveforms, like Audio Mag? Because of the nature of the standard filters used, there is both pre-ringing and post ringing on the 1 KHz square wave, at rather high amplitudes with most players. If you had a power amp with characteristics like that, you'd throw it away! Combine that with the improved ability to extract low level detail (check out the Stereophile report on the measured response of the SCD-777ES).

Lex, you're pretty much on the money, I think, regarding the current market perceptions of SACD and it's "niche" with "audiophiles" is pretty accurate; but then, "audiophiles" are the ones most active in seeking out these improvements.

One last note; there are and will be universal players, but it may be worthwhile to see how the "universal" features are implmented. Some chipsets developed will convert PCM into DSD and use a DSD DAC (Sony, for example), whereas others will convert DSD into a form of PCM (Pioneer AX10). Whether this will have an impact on perceived performance is possibly secondary to the availability of universal players and the increased support for both formats.

Warning! Editorial Content Follows:
BTW, the majority of DVD-A releases do NOT support the "maximum fidelity mode" of 24/192; due to space limitations of the PCM data, even with Meridian Losses Packing, the multi-channel recordings are usually just made at 24/96. With a multi-channel DVD-A, if you want stereo, you have to settle for the "mixdown" done in the DVD player; there's no room for a seperate stero hi rez track. Also, for compatibility reasons, DVD-A disks normally include a Dolby Digital mix so they'll play on std. DVD-V players. Last, which bugs me, the menu system used pretty much requires you to have a video monitor connected and powered up to navigate menus- not something I want to mess with for audio playback.

Sony, OTOH, is able to pack a multi-channel DSD recording and a full, seperate stereo mix on the same disk. And the enhanced menus and text information are played on the built in display of the SACD player. For disks with backwards compatibility, a seperate CD layer is used. The first SACD's are only single layer from Sony, but new SACD's from them, and all that I've seen from other labels have been hybrid, with both CD and SACD layers, and play on my CD player. For me, these are significant ergonomic issues. DVD-A has too much carry over from DVD-V for my taste, as an audio format.

Best regards, and happy listening to all.


Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Buzz Goddard]

A digital interface between the transport and the processor will allow you to use the high quality DACs and analog section in your processor as well as time alignement, bass management and level control.
When Dolby Digital first started out, many manufacturers introduced players with built in decoders and 6 analog outputs. And SAT receivers with decoders built in and 6 analog outputs.
The decoders were mediocre, the DAC's mediocre, the analog sections miserable, the wiring a morass and Monster Cable got richer.
Eventually the DVD-A players will offer digital outputs as well. and people will get to hear what the format can sound like.




Buzz Goddard
<IMG SRC="http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com/icons/logo_inv.gif"

[John Kotches]

Jon,

A couple of points to make in your "editorial comments" section.

Here we go....
quote

BTW, the majority of DVD-A releases do NOT support the "maximum fidelity mode" of 24/192; due to space limitations of the PCM data, even with Meridian Losses Packing, the multi-channel recordings are usually just made at 24/96.

The specification out of WG-4 dicatates the maximum encoding rate for six channels of DVD-A is 24bit/96KHz. This comes out to an aggregate of about 14Mb/sec.

WG-4 spec for stereo dictates a maximum encoding rate for two channels of DVD-A is 24bit/192KHz. This equates to about 9.2Mb/sec.

The limit of content off the spindle in DVD-A is 9.6Mb/sec after overhead is accounted for. It would be impossible with current implementation to deliver 6 channels at 24bit/192KHz, as the required bandwidth of ~28Mb/sec exceeds the maximum allowable bandwidth by so much that even with MLP the datastream could not be compressed sufficiently to fit within the existing data off the spindle requirements.

The ability to deliver > 9.6Mb/sec off the spindle and still keep everything working is accomplished by some very intelligent buffering of the content.

6 channels of 24bit/192KHz will also require more storage capacity on the disc than currently available.

With a multi-channel DVD-A, if you want stereo, you have to settle for the "mixdown" done in the DVD player; there's no room for a seperate stero hi rez track. Also, for compatibility reasons, DVD-A disks normally include a Dolby Digital mix so they'll play on std. DVD-V players.

The latest WB titles include dedicated Stereo and Multi-channel mixes. Examples include, but are not limited to: Joni Mitchell Both Sides Now, Steely Dan Two Against Nature, The Doors LA Woman and Fleetwood Mac Rumours

Fold down mixes have sounded, for lack of a better word, weird. Also not every 5.1 disc has included fold down instructions, making the discs impossible to play back on less than 5.1 systems... Examples include Silverline Titles Aaron Neville Devotion, Big Phat Band Swinging for the Fences.

The inclusion of Dolby Digital and/or DTS discs is so that a person mistakingly buying a DVD-A disc can still play that disc on their DVD-V player at some resolution.

Last, which bugs me, the menu system used pretty much requires you to have a video monitor connected and powered up to navigate menus- not something I want to mess with for audio playback.

This appears to be a function of the titles. Every disc I've had eventually (30-45 seconds) begins playing with or without a monitor.

A couple of titles fire off within 5-10 seconds of insertion, these examples include: Glen Phillips Abulum and an import from Germany's Audio Net of a Jazz recordings in a variety of channels, bit rates and encoding schemes (PCM and Dolby Digital in other words).

So this appears to be in the hands of the content providers, as the above examples demonstrate.

This is not to discount your comments, which are somewhat near the mark...

I've been playing with DVD-A for 7 or 8 months now (I forget the exact day the first player made it in here).... So I've seen a fair amount of the available content.

BTW, 24bit/192KHz is very close to SACD. Until I hear the same mic feed with both DSD and 24/192KHz encoding played back, I'm not sure which is better -- it's that close.

Regards,




---
Editor, PC/Home Theater
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
My Home Theater
NEC LT-150 specific page.

[JonMarsh]

Hi John,

I agree with all your remarks; I only have a few DVD-A titles, which to date have been used to listen to players in stores.

I agree that 12/192 can probably match SACD on playback quality, its just unfortunate that so few DVD-A recordings use that mode. The benefits are obvious; while 24/96 is a clear step up from 16/44, 24/192 is where it's at for PCM.

I wouldn't really describe myself as a surround fan, either, but the first multi-channel SACD's do have me intrigued to a degree- I wish DVD-A would do the higher sampling rates in mult-channel mode.

How many DVD-A disks have you tried of those available for surround or stereo? How many stereo disks do you have recorded at 24/192? The inputs I've had so far are that they're relatively few and far between, but if you're fairly active with DVD-A, you may have more up to date knowledge than my other acquaintences.

I've been fairly selective about my purchases of SACD disks, but I am closing in on 100 disks. For me, along with some other system changes, it's re-vitalized my interest in music listening.

Regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[John Kotches]

I think there are a couple of factors limiting the release of 24/192K stereo material:

1) DVD-As selling point seems to be the multi-channel angle. Not right or wrong, it just is. The idea is to gain mindshare, and from mindshare they intend to get marketshare.

Given that that DVD-A had a quicker descent to real world pricing and SACD is just now getting to real world pricing levels, it's clear that DVD-A was targeted for mass acceptance ASAP.

Kind of the "I have a 5.1 system and I damn well better be using it" mentality if you will.

2) As pointed out by Ralph Labarge, the mastering tools aren't readily available. And 24/192K tools are rarer still.

I have about 25 or so DVD-A discs in the house presently. About 20 SACD discs, but I'm between SACD players presently. The actual existence of 24/192KHz material publically is minimal. I have the Audionet disc out of Germany. The sad part of the Audionet disc, is it's thisclose to being a great comparison tool. They've got 24/192K stereo, 24/96K stereo, 24/96K surround, 24/48K surround, 16/44.1K stereo and Dolby Digital surround. But instead of encoding the same "session" with all these different encoders, they recorded a discrete take for each recording.

Still the clarity on the 24/192K is stunning.

There's another one from Germany, on Hodie I think, but the performance is so sadly lacking that I haven't begged to get the title in. Beethoven at half tempo doesn't cut it for me :-(

I also have a test disc from Japan that Stacey Spears has loaned to me until he gets a DVD-A player with 24/192K on it.

So not exactly tons o' 24/192K out there.

SACD has a definite advantage in using identical resolution for stereo and surround.

Hope this helped.

Regards,




---
Editor, PC/Home Theater
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
My Home Theater
NEC LT-150 specific page.

[JonMarsh]

Thanks, John.

Unfortunately, your comments reflect the other inputs I've gotten from various folks, even a friend who's the designer of a high end DVD-V/CD player (Ayre D1) and is on the fence about producing a 24/192 DVD-A module for it, due to lack of software and demand. Given how well the Ayre D1 works on CD and 24/96 material, (fairly outrageous power supply and discrete analog desgn with zero loop feedback, and proprietary patented I/V converters) he has an opportunity to make a true reference grade DVD-A player. Whether that will happen? Who knows? He hasn't decided yet.

If you come across any reference quality 24/192 disks in the future, it would be very nice if you could bring them to our attention.

BTW, I slipped the 8008X3B into the upper section of my mains last night to check it out, with balanced inputs, and the results were *very* satisfactory. Truthfully, apart from the power, it would be a tough call to distinguish it sonically from my Palladiums. But that's true even of my 8002.

Thanks for your inputs.

Best regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[John Kotches]

Jon,

Nothing against your friend, but as much as they charge for the D1, they should seriously consider what their competitors will be offering.... ie DVD-A for stuff like the Meridian 596/598, EAD Theater Vision Ultra et al.

Hopefully with the new player they'll design around a video section that doesn't exhibit the chroma bug, like the Pioneer they are currently using does.

I'm sorry I had to sell off the Aragon, but I need to get back to a single amplifier chassis, and (probably) a small sonic compromise to do so. Happy to hear that it's working for you as well as it did for me -- good gear deserves a good home!

The BAT behemoth (oops guess I gave away what the review amp is that I have in) is too heavy and expensive for me to keep.

Regards,




---
Editor, PC/Home Theater
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
My Home Theater
NEC LT-150 specific page.

[Lex]

If that don't bat all.

Lex




Cable Guy DVD Collection

[JonMarsh]

John,

Well, the BAT *is* beautiful, but it would require quite a commitment in more ways than one! The X3B is a welcome addition- I haven't decided where in the system it will ultimately wind up (maybe where it is for now, since I'm working on a full range (no electronic crossover) design speaker, and tweaking up the Palladiums, so I'm quite happy using it primarily as a two channel, and will shift center channel to the third when the the new one is finished.

I understand your comments about Charlie's gear, even with the accomodations he'll give me, it's a bit too rich for my blood; part of the price of small volume manufacturing in the US, combined with high build quality and parts intensive unusual (but effective) circuit techniques- like inductor input power supplies. I've designed and built solid state amps for a few years (when I have the time) with choke input supplies; there are some real advanatage, particularly for low or zero feedback designs. Not to many commerical outfits have used this approach; only Cello, Ayare, and Music Fidelity come to mind.

Was the version you folks tested with the standard video module or the progressive video module? I don't recall seeing the Ayre in the progressive scan portion of the DVD comparison article. The progressive module is quite different in design, and is one of the most pleasing unscaled DVD player's I've seen on a CRT setup. But it was a relatively quick demo, and I wasn't looking for the common chroma bug. My own setup uses an ATI Radeon card, which though rather less than ideal with film source or poorly flagged material, is quite decent for most DVD's, scaled to 1280X720.

Best regards,

Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[John Kotches]

Jon,

They pulled it from the June benchmark. It's based on a Pioneer unit, which uses MPEG decoders exhibiting the Chroma defect.

The new unit your friend is working on is supposed to be based on an MPEG decoder without the chroma defect.


Regards,




---
Editor, PC/Home Theater
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
My Home Theater
NEC LT-150 specific page.

[Bing Fung]

Thanks for all your enlightenment Guys, I certainly have learned more than what my initial question was intended for.

So is the current transmission od SACD & DVD-A only passed through analog interconnects?

Is SACD only Stereophonic?

This is what I have gleaned from the conversation, let me know if I'm assuming correctly, SACD passes 24/192 stereo, and DVD-A is limited to 12/192 multi channel (5.1...etc).

I think my question has been answered by the statement that SACD is the niche market of HI-FI, that I can live with. What will really dissapoint me is if the marketing of DVD-A causes the death of SACD drawing parallels with Beta Vs VHS.

Maybe sitting on my hands and wallet is not a bad option at time....




Bing

[Kevin P]

So is the current transmission of SACD & DVD-A only passed through analog interconnects?

At present, this is correct.

Is SACD only Stereophonic?

SACD supports multi-channel audio as well, and multi-channel players are just starting to come out. Sony has a 5-disc changer (not ES) for $400 that's available for pre-order now. Typically a multi-channel SACD will also have a separate 2-channel mix for those who prefer it or lack multi-channel equipment.

This is what I have gleaned from the conversation, let me know if I'm assuming correctly, SACD passes 24/192 stereo, and DVD-A is limited to 12/192 multi channel (5.1...etc).

SACD doesn't use PCM, so the 24/192 designation doesn't really apply to SACD, but its DSD resolution is "pretty close" to 24/192. Both DVD-A and SACD can do 2-channel or multi-channel (2-channel having potential higher resolution per channel).

I think my question has been answered by the statement that SACD is the niche market of HI-FI, that I can live with. What will really dissapoint me is if the marketing of DVD-A causes the death of SACD drawing parallels with Beta Vs VHS.

I hope not. SACD has real potential, if Sony markets it correctly. DSD encoding comes closer to analog sound than PCM ever will, and the hybrid CD/SACD discs allows for backward compatibility with the gazillion or so CD players already out there. Plus, I have a SACD player.

Advantages of SACD:[*]Hybrid discs play in standard CD players[*]Watermarking scheme is not audible (AFAIK), unlike some of DVD-A's watermarking schemes[*]Simpler DAC design makes inexpensive SACD players (e.g. boomboxes, Discmans) likely down the road[*]No video display needed to navigate menus[*]DSD encoding lacks drawbacks of PCM encoding[*]More titles available (now), though that could change.

Advantages of DVD-A:[*]The "DVD" name gives it a marketing advantage[*]Most discs are compatible with existing DVD-Video players, with DD or DTS tracks[*]Video and interactive menu capability[*]PCM technology makes a future digital output more likely than with SACD.

One other random thought: SACD is basically an extension of CD technology, while DVD-A is an extension of DVD technology. As such, it's possible that people with home theaters will tend to gravitate toward DVD-Audio (since the players also play DVD-Video), while audio nuts will tend to gravitate toward SACD, since they'll be seeking an audio-only solution.

KJP




Official Computer Geek and Techno-Wiz Guru of HTGuide - Visit Tower of Power
My HT Site

[Bing Fung]

Thanks Kevin!

it certainly would be nice if both formats could co-exisist. I walk away learning that Both formats are nice to have, but if I was to have only one right now, I think I would choose SACD just because of what I have read.




Bing

[JonMarsh]

Hi Bing,

I'll get in one more comment, just to be the "snake in the grass" - go listen. Pick up a disk or two in genre's you favor, and give it a spin.

"Ain't nothin' like the real thing..."


-Jon




Earth First!
_______________________________
We'll screw up the other planets later....

[Bing Fung]

Most excellent Idea Jon!

Owning a couple of titles in each would be justification to buy

Where can SACD and DVD-A be purchased on line from?




Bing

[John Kotches]

Bing,

For DVD-A titles, I recommend DVD Planet.

For SACD, HMV out of canada.

Regards,



Regards,




---
Editor, PC/Home Theater
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
My Home Theater
NEC LT-150 specific page.

[John Kotches]

Kevin P had much to say, to which I'll reply out of sequence, I'm going to quote only as necessary:

One other random thought: SACD is basically an extension of CD technology, while DVD-A is an extension of DVD technology. As such, it's possible that people with home theaters will tend to gravitate toward DVD-Audio (since the players also play DVD-Video), while audio nuts will tend to gravitate toward SACD, since they'll be seeking an audio-only solution.

From a technical perspective, DVD-A is the same fundamental technology as CD, applied at higher bit depths and sampling rates, analogous to increasing the DPI (sampling rate) and color bits (depth) on a scanner.

DSD is not at all related to CD other than with the formats name, and the optional conclusion


One thing about SACD/DSD:
While DSD encoding has simpler execution than PCM, it too has inherent flaws which you've neglected to mention. It's noisier than PCM, although they're comparable to about 8KHz. From 8KHz on up, the noise floor rises dramatically, while the PCM noise floor is constant.

Both DVD-A and SACD will have digital output capability -- and the DAC infrastructure is laid out, with Crystal Semiconductor, Analog Devices, Burr Brown and Asahi-Kasei able to decode both formats.

Cost for 24bit/192KHz PCM DACs is almost identical to 16bit/44.1KHz DACs so cost argument is largely irrelevant. In another year when the DAC vendors are all shipping "universal decoders" that can handle PCM up to 24bit/192K and DSD it will truly be a non-factor.

The startup time on most DVD-A discs is way too long -- if you're patient, it will start up by itself (40 seconds seems to be the norm). I've got a few examples where the startup time on the disc is only marginally longer than a CD. One is Glen Philips' Abulum. This indicates that the slow startup is an authoring issue, not a format limitation.

Holy cow, it's about 3:00am, I need to get some sleep.

More later today.

Regards,




---
Editor, PC/Home Theater
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
My Home Theater
NEC LT-150 specific page.