Tireguy,
I'll admit that you've caught me on a point that can be argued a number of ways. As we all know, audio equipment with the best technical specifications isn't always the gear that sounds the best. I was stating that DVDa was better based on a technical stanpoint and may not legitimately be the best sounding format in many personal situations. I'll agree that comparing formats can be ambiguous when left to the imperfect science of determining "listening pleasure" and just give you a rundown of the technical specs that I found during some of my own searches.
Check out http://www.techtronics.com/uk/shop/600-dvd-audio-vs-sacd.html for some technical information. The posts below the tech-specs also seem to show that listening pleasure doesn't necesarily equate to specs. There seems to be quite a war starting about these formats. May be the newest VHS - Beta war!
I'll just chart the data here as well.
Bits: CD = 16 (typically), SACD = 20? DVDa = 16-24; basically a wash here.
Playback Frequency range (kHz): CD = 20, SACD = 100, DVDa = 48 in 6 channel, 96 in 2; again a wash... after 20kHz, who cares (except maybe our dogs). I doubt I can hear well above 12kHz as an ex-rock musician.
Now it gets interesting:
S/N (dB): CD = 96, SACD = 120, DVDa = 144.
Data Rate (Mb/s): CD = 1.41, SACD = 2.8, DVDa = 9.6
Storage Capacity (Gb): CD = 0.65, SACD = 4.7 (single layer), DVDa = 4.7 (single), 8.5 (Dual)
I hope this helps... I STRONGLY recommend auditioning both formats if you are torn rather than going with specs. Of course the number of available titles will probably dictate the winner, as I said in an earlier post.