Newer means that better equipment and technology is available. It does not mean that such was used or that it was used intelligently.
Things aren't RECORDED in DTS or DD. Those are compression/expansion systems designed for PLAYBACK, just as Dolby-B and -C are 'compansion' systems for analog tape. Most motion pictures are recorded in CD resolution, 44.1KHz/16bit, and DTS and DD do indeed use '44/16' for playback.
The originals are/were recorded with whatever is/was current and available. The Al Dimeola probably wasn't recorded in 2-track; I expect a MANY-track recorder was used. The quality of the current 6-channel audio track is related DIRECTLY to the quality of the masters AND the attitudes and skills of the rerelease producer--some stink, some don't. This is true for 2- and multitrack DVD-As, too. SOME of the best I have were recorded in 4- or 5-track analog 30 to almost-50 years ago. I also have some GREAT-sounding DVD-As recorded recently in 96/24.
One thing I continue to be disappointed in regarding multitrack music is the high noise levels of SACDs, and those that were mastered in DSD are some of the noisiest. That's why I prefer DVD-As, and I'm VERY glad both of the hi-def-DVD formats will be using PCM encoding and not DSD.
BTW the only significant difference between DTS and DD is the amount of compression each uses. DD uses much more compression, with the maximum transfer rate of DTS about 5 times that of DD; that's one reason a DTS audio track almost always sounds better than a DD audio track.
Jeffreybehr...In my experience neither DVDA or SACD have audible noise, (other than recording hall ambience). Maybe your SACD playback hardware has a problem.
Multitrack master recordings became the norm several decades ago, so, although until recently these were mixed down to stereo, plenty of raw source material is available for a multichannel mix.
One thing I continue to be disappointed in regarding multitrack music is the high noise levels of SACDs
I hear no such thing in SACDs, and I have two very revealing systems, as well as excellent hearing (recently tested). I agree with Eldartford - perhaps something is wrong in your setup.
That's why I prefer DVD-As
If you are still using the Denon DVD-2900 listed in your system page, it is not surprising that you prefer DVD-As. The stock Denon performs better on DVD-As than it does on SACDs. This is not the fault of the format - it is endemic to the player.
Just FYI, "Absolute Sound" gave the 2900 a very negative review a few years back, noting that its sound quality was very poor compared to other players in its price range, and in the Denon product line.
I also take reviews with a grain of salt. I have never purchased based on someone's review, only on my own experiences. If I can't demo an item in my system prior to purchase, I won't buy it.
I can tell you that my personal experience with the Denon 2900 was similar to the TAS reviewer's though - I thought it had good video playback, and DVD-Audio was decent, but it was an awful SACD player.