SACD vs. HDCD vs. Regular CD?

I apologize if this had been covered in the past...was too lazy to check the forums
I dont know anything about these technologies (and any other cd formats for that matter).
Can someone shed some light on existing technologies and the differences b/w them?
Do these cd's warrant the extra cost?

Basics:

HDCD is just 4 extra bits (20 bits total) encoded on a regular CD that can also play in any CD player. It seems like they're sometimes not marked as HDCD. I have a CD called Butterfly Jones which was a total surprise to me when I got my HD-capable CD player. All regular CDs sound virtually the same on this player as they did on my other player, but the HD discs (I have 3 that I know of) are a nice step up when you've got revealing equipment.

SACD uses a different kind of technology, I've never heard it but I'm about to win an SACD/DVD-A player so we'll see. DVD-A is another high end format, it can do 24 bit (CDs are 16 bit), at 96KHz (CDs are 44KHz) and 6 discrete channels (CDs are 2 channel).

DVD-A is capable of doing up to 192Khz though 96Khz is the most common as this is what most albums are mastered at.

Some DVD-A's will have 88.2 Khz, 176.4 Khz, or 48 Khz.

88.2Khz or 176.4Khz are indicators that the CD will also have above average sound. Because the sampling rate is a multiple of 44.1 no aliasing will be present in the CD.

Quote:



Actually, the two dynamic range expanders avalable in HDCD filters are optional and I'm not really sure how many use it. Most would probably point to the discrete ladder A/D convertors they use (as opposed to the industry wide standard oversampling sigma delta (bitstream) A/D convertors almost everyone else uses) and the unique perceptual processing that selects from a variety of filter coefficients and encodes the selection so it can be matched at both ends of the conversion process as the true benefits of HDCD. But you could be right too. Really hard to say since it's a complete system and I've heard some decoded recordings that sound great and some that sound not so great at all. Also not sure if HDCD licensing requires the use of the "whole" system since I know some digital recordings that I don't think were done with the HDCD convertors but that are encoded.

DVD-A can be up to 192K sample rate at 24-bit for the 2-ch tracks (although still kind of rare), and 96/24 for MC. DVD-V supports up to 96/24 2-ch audio. In fact Classic Records does just that with their audiophile DVDs which are flipper discs with 24/192 on the DVD-A side and 24/96 on the DVD-V side.

Okey Dokey.
Lets try this again in English?

My turn:

1. Standard CD (often called "Redbook") has 16-bits and 44.1 KHz worth of resolution. This was not arrived at back in the early 80's because it was "perfect" (marketing hyperbole aside), but because that was the maximum rez that cheap digital converters could be produced at with the technology of the day. It was a compromise.

2. HDCD is a sort of "hack" that tacks on a few extra bits worth onto a Redbook CD. HDCDs will play on any CD player, but you need an HDCD compatible player to "hear" those extra bits. There is much debate over the merits of this technology.

3. DVD-Audio is a new technology that has to have a DVD-Audio player to play back (at full resolution), you can't just use any old DVD player (although many DVD-Audio discs also have Dolby Digital versions of the music on them, but that is NOT full-resolution DVD-Audio sound) or CD player. DVD Audio has 24 bits and up to 192 Khz worth of resolution. Like the Redbook and HDCD, it is based on Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) digital technology. DVD-Audio discs used to be sold separately from CDs, but recently a new format called Dual Disc has allowed for the release of CDs with CD on one side and DVD Audio on the other. Many machines have a lot of trouble playing back either side of these discs, however. DVD-Audio can be in standard two-channel or in many cases, multi-channel surround if you have a surround system.

4. SACD is a totally different way of doing digital, not based on PCM. It has its supporters and detractors. Supporters claim it has vastly superior resolution to standard CDs. Detractors note that the DSD technology behind it is somewhat flawed, requiring serious noise-shaping in the high frequencies to prevent distortion. Supporters reply this has been addressed and very little music occurs up in the ultra high frequencies anyway (mostly out of the audible range), so it's a worth-while sacrifice for the extra resolution you get where it counts. Proof is in the pudding, and listening to SACDs reveals indeed they have superior sound quality to the CD, although they have a unique signature that doesn't sound very digital at all. SACD has a very analog signature which can be very appealing. DVD-Audio can sound like a CD on steroids, maybe a little more clinical than SACD. SACD also comes in several flavors and you need an SACD compatible machine to play it back. There are two-channel SACDs, SACDs with 2-channel and multi-channel mixes, and there are "hybrid" SACDs that will play on all CD players, but you can still only play back the SACD layer on SACD machines.

5. A Redbook CD played back on a high-quality CD system will sound better than a DVD-A/SACD played back on a mediocre or budget system.

6. Just because an album is encoded in HDCD, SACD or DVD-A is no guarantee it will sound great. It depends on how well the material was recorded, and how well it was mastered for digital. It's possible (and does occur) that some hi-rez titles do not sound better than certain other Redbook CD editions. But, when done right (and most of them are), hi-rez on a good system can be absolute *heaven*.

See, it's all very simple!

Quote:



Ah, that makes sense. The Flaming Lips CD is quite good but I felt the change in the BFJ disc was dramatic. Haven't listened to the Brian Wilson disc enough to notice yet.

I got a good SACD player and did A/B tests with a plain vanilla Yamaha CD player. In every case, the only difference I could detect was differences in mastering. There was absolutely no difference between the formats.

See ya
Steve

Quote:



Just to add to your confusion, the CD layer/side of these hi-rez formats can also be HDCD-encoded. Examples include the DVD-A (and SACD) of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms", SACD of Vince Gill's "High Lonesome Sound", etc.

And providing idiot companies don't scam the end users by simply taking the CD, upsampling and converting it to DSD and re-releasing it as SACD. Can you say Norah Jones - come away with me (and don't bring that ****** excuse of an SACD with you)

Quote:



But you claim you *did* hear differences, which you choose to chalk up to mastering. If you compare the layers of hybrid CDs or CDs and SACDs of the same vintage with same mastering engineer, the differences should be a lot clearer. That's a better apples to apples comparison.

Does DualDisc support the same 24bit/192khz 2 channel output as DVD-A? I think I read somewhere that the DVD side of a DualDisc only supports 16bit/48Khz PCM. If this is the case is I am guessing the only real benefit of DualDisc is surround sound support.

Anyone care to clarify?

Quote:



Depends on the label. Sony doesn't support DVD-A so their dual disks don't include sample rates above 48K, but WB and Unversal and some others have 96/24. Not sure if any of them have any higher sample rates than 96K.

On a related note, does anyone know what the sample rate is on the Modest Mouse dual disc? I assume that since it's from Sony that it's only 48K?

Quote:



This is partly or wholly incorrect. Dual Discs are msotly plain single-layer video DVD on the DVD side, not DVD-A, though there is nothing to keep DVD-A ones from existing, so some may exist. Lite-Ons seem to rip them fine...but do any exist that are mastered well enough to bother? The new Springsteen one is hideous.

You also forgot to mention that DVD-As are intentially protected against fair use .

Some articles mention 192/24 (DVD Audio for Dual Disc, some 96/24 (DVD Video), and some 96/24 surround (DVD Audio), but none clearly stated DVD-A or DVD for the DVD side, and I know the only one's I've run into have been video DVD.

DualDisc has a Audio CD compatible side that does not conform to the Red Book CD 44.1kHz/16bit standard and it doubles as a platform for copy protection systems on both sides of the disc. The other side is 95% a DVD-Video disc -- single layer 4.7GB only -- and an extremely small number of DualDiscs, of which there are not a whole lot of due to its recent introduction to the marketplace, are true DVD-AUDIO discs at 96kHz/24bit. It is also a bit thicker and completely incompatible with slot loading, vertical loading, and pre-1990s CD players along with CD players found in most automobiles.

Stay away from it.

DVD-AUDIO is the true high fidelity digital medium. It reproduces the sound with absolute integrity so long as the recording and mastering process were not fouled up. It is of superior sound quality than Pure DSD SA-CDs even those produced on the new Sonoma DSD mastering machine. I know because I have compared my AIX Records DVD-AUDIO discs to a Pure DSD SA-CD produced on a recent Sonoma DSD mastering machine.

If you are going to hear the true audio spectrum and fidelity of any high resolution digital format, then you need the ancilliary equipment. That level of fidelity must not be compromised in any way shape or form throughout your entire reference system or else it is useless to invest in those formats. In essence, I knew that and I invested multi-thousands of dollars to preserve the pure signal flow with the equipment listed in my signature. Be prepared to pay a price premium for the high fidelity equipment and music! Forget even bothering to calculate ROI, TCO, etc.