We talk a lot about the relative sonic qualities of SACD and DVD-A. My take on this is that either one can deliver good recording and mastering techniques, and neither can redeem inept work.
However, in addition to sonic quality, one should consider the development potential of the protocol, and here DVD-A excels. For example, DVD can be 196KHz stereo, or 96 KHz multichannel. European producers are releasing multichannel programs with different channel utilization and loudspeaker positioning (2+2+2 instead of 5.1). I think I heard of discs that allowed the user to select a "listener perspective" (back row, front row, onstage) via selection of mixdown coefficients on the disk. The limited video is really nice, for program notes (that are usually printed in a tiny unreadable font) and selection of cuts.
On the other hand I think that Sony has really tied the hands of users of their SACD protocol.
I always thought that audiophiles were chronic tweekers. DVD-A is made for tweeking, SACD is not.
However, in addition to sonic quality, one should consider the development potential of the protocol, and here DVD-A excels. For example, DVD can be 196KHz stereo, or 96 KHz multichannel. European producers are releasing multichannel programs with different channel utilization and loudspeaker positioning (2+2+2 instead of 5.1). I think I heard of discs that allowed the user to select a "listener perspective" (back row, front row, onstage) via selection of mixdown coefficients on the disk. The limited video is really nice, for program notes (that are usually printed in a tiny unreadable font) and selection of cuts.
On the other hand I think that Sony has really tied the hands of users of their SACD protocol.
I always thought that audiophiles were chronic tweekers. DVD-A is made for tweeking, SACD is not.