Bobbler said:
From everything I've heard, SACD is the superior format, so why should people want DVD-A? SACD was created by Sony/Philips as the upgrade to CD... so how is DVD-A the obvious choice?
I'm not sure who you've been listening to, but I can assure you they don't know much about the technical merits of SACD and/or DVD-A.
Without trying to write a dozen page technical paper, SACD has horrible midrange and high frequency SNR for the storage capacity on the disc (above 10kHz, it is arguably worse than decades old CD technology), so Sony shot themselves in the foot right there for a "high quality" audio format. Add to this the fact that the noise shaping used as a crutch for the high frequency noise problems causes intermodulation problems with some otherwise very nice and very expensive amplifiers. But the biggest problem, by far, is that the single bit coding format Sony chose to use (Direct Stream Digital) is essentially unprocessable. Want to do bass management, equalization including the extremely useful low frequency modal room correction, or surround processing of any sort (this short list, btw, encompasses pretty much everything a surround pre/pro or receiver of decent quality has been able to do for the last twenty years), or perhaps a bit more complex filtering like ambiance extraction (Lexicon, Meridian), or maybe effects processing for recording purposes? Well, with SACD in native format you are SOL. The workaround is to first convert SACD into good ol' PCM (what CD has used for decades, and interestingly what DVD-A also uses... wonder why?). Once the data has been converted to PCM, you can do all the nice digital filtering and processing you have been able to do with CD's/DAT's for ages.
But once DSD/SACD is converted to PCM/CDA/DVD-A format, all of the supposed "sonic advantages" (which amounts to low frequency resolution, pretty much, which isn't audible by any stretch) are lost. So what is the point of having DSD in the first place, if to hear it as recorded (that's another story entirely...) you have to use thirty+ year old playback techniques? Gah.
As for the recording side, many SACD recordings are actually mixed and mastered in PCM format, for the processability reasons cited above. After final mastering, conversion to DSD is done. Sony offered a compromise with DSD-"wide", which is essentially PCM using a lower resolution and higher bitrate (i.e., Sony admitting that their format sucks for pretty much everything). About the only things that SACD are good for is raising the frequency ceiling on aliasing noise (accomplished just as well with DVD-A), and masking high frequency content in noise, as does vinyl, which is why to many people the sound is "smoother." If you like that sound, just add noise to DVD-A and there you go.
As for the DVD-A side, it offers better theoretical and achieved SNR in the important frequency bands, a multitude of supported discrete multichannel formats, and selectable compression ratios starting with none. And for the clincher, it uses a data storage format that is easy to record with, and easy to manipulate for playback processing.
You're all over the place in regards to what things you hate (or the reasons, rather), but at least you're consistant in blaming Sony.
I'm consistent in blaming Sony because they are consistent in their actions. VHS came first, then Sony gives us betamax. DVD-A is announced by a conglomerate as a next generation high fidelity audio format, then Sony/Phillips gives us SACD. DVD-HD is discussed by a large multicorporation cooperative, with pleas for everyone to contribute early and avoid another format war... and then Sony gives us BR.
My beef isn't with the technical aspects per se. Betamax was in many ways superior, and while SACD is an offense BR looks to have a non-trivial technical advantage. My problem is that the same company has been behind every format war, and the consumer has been hurt in every case. It can be argued that the competition has brought down the prices more quickly, but there is always competition between brands that suffices to do the job. It can be argued that choice is better than no choice, but the real problem is that content providers are stuck, and either you don't get all media available on both formats, or the release of one or both formats is delayed significantly. Usually it is a mix of the two, with some things never making it to one or the other format and most others coming later than expected.
Last thing that comes to my mind when hearing about the external drive is "elegant". Apparently it is to be sandwiched between the HDD and the X360, and that won't look too pretty.
), be in the company of tens of millions of others, and wait for Universal to hop the fence