Eryl B Davies wrote: > I saw an article recently stating that the only advantage of SACD over DVDA > was the compatability issue. i.e. they can make one disc which will play in a > CD player or an SACD player. The SACD system uses a technique known a DSD > (direct steam digital) which is different to the PCM (pulse code modulation) > used for CD and DVD. The players then use a technique called Super Bit Mapping > which they claim improves the transparency and musicality of the sound. A > counter claim is that in doing so it generates a lot of distortion. The claim > was that DVDA was a basically superior medium (but then so was Beta video). > The main problem at the moment is that no trully high quality DVDA players are > made at a price which most punters are likely to pay.
Not to mention 5 speakers and a sub ain't cheap, either. And a hefty 5 channel amp, and an acoustically decent room....I drift off... > (a complete Meridian > system is around the price of a car! but for a review check out > http://www.avguide.com/newsletter/2003.01/meridian.jsp) the audio section of > current DVD players is quite poor and the main reason they sound better than > CD is that the DVDA system carries much higher quality in the first place. > At the moment I have more pressing needs so surround will have to wait until > quality hardware becomes affordable. I'm skeptical about the idea of listening > to music whilst apparently being sat in the middle of the band. It brings back > memories of early HI FI nuts who listened to recordings of passing trains just > because it demonstrated stereo. Good points. I liked those "stereo demonstration" records, especially the ping-pong in stereo. RR
