Mike Leghorn:

>Also, I read a review in an audio magazine about a year ago, where SACD
>was compared to DVDA.  Several people participated, and unanimously
>favored DVDA.  Two channel was used for both formats.

But then, there was the short text in Stereoplay (or was it Audio?) about
the new Kaplan recording of Mahler 2, stating that it had been recorded
simultaneously in DSD (SACD-native) and high-resolution PCM (DVD-A).
And, the DG engineers as well as Kaplan throroughly examined both
recordings and couldn't make out a difference.  Just a different view,
perhaps, but then, how else could you compare the two media?  I believe
there is no way of writing SACDs "at home", thus you always have to rely
on bought products.  That means that there's been some kind of engineering
between the master and the disc.  Who guarantees (or even claims!) that
the DVD-A and SACD were made to sound the same?  Perhaps they were
mastered by different people or on different equipment?

Lastly, DVD-A is dying rather quickly (at least in Europe) while more
and more items are added to the SACD-catalog.  Were I to buy a player,
I wouldn't see much advantage in DVD-A, simply because there's only
preciously little music available on it.  Whereas SACD - support by
Chandos, hyperion and BIS alone is worth a lot! And then there's Telarc,
the MTT Mahler cycle, Universal and Sony going at it too.

Jan