Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › From CD to SACD how much of difference
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From CD to SACD how much of difference - Page 7

post #91 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
There's no difference in audible sound quality between CD and SACD for two channel playback. ...

For 5:1, go SACD. For 2 channel, don't bother.
i don't understand this comment. i read through this thread and still did not see any clear reasoning for it. care to elaborate.
post #92 of 161
IMO I would rather invest in Vinyl than SACD if I was going to another format besides CD. At least the differences there are readily audible lol.

Anyways, last time I listened to a SACD release I was not very impressed in the improvements, but that's just my opinion.
post #93 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
......1. if the SACD disc is not derived from a DSD source but instead PCM, there will be no SACD benefit, other than remastering.
At least it would be a hi-rez to hi-rez transfer, and from what I have heard, the majority of SACD's that are mixed from multi-tracked sessions are edited and initially mastered at 24/96 PCM and then converted to DSD. There aren't many Sonoma multitrack DSD systems around, but virtually any studio has 24/96 PCM capability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
i don't understand this comment [bigshot's post suggesting that one stick with CD for 2 ch, SACD for surround] i read through this thread and still did not see any clear reasoning for it. care to elaborate.
I'm pretty sure that he meant if you want surround material rather than simple stereo, you need to get it from SACD rather than a CD (notwithstanding the existence of DVD-A, but who's counting?)
post #94 of 161
All of my best recorded sacd's sound better than the cd counterpart; regardless of whether the cd was remastered or original. I am sure the mastering etc... is important. But, the best recorded examples of the high resolution sacd format give you something extra; those sacd's sound quality transcends ANY of my cd's .... the sound is simply more real and alive. I wish there were more sacd's of music I like.
post #95 of 161
I'm a fan of both vinyl and SACD. I give vinyl a slight edge only because I'm nuts about the hardware and actually enjoy the associated rituals. Probably because CD didn't show up until I was 12.

I haven't tested or measured SACD, but I find them to be well mastered for the most part and they have the same "liquid" sound as vinyl. Part of me likes the track skipping and remote, too.

Another factor is that a great deal of new classical is offered on SACD, while rock and jazz tend towards vinyl. Have no idea why, but I'm not complaining because both sound great.

I've upgraded a few times, but I started out with a Sony SCD-CE595 and a Rega Planar 3/Grado Gold. I got both rigs for under $500. I think that is a small investment considering the sonic payoff.
post #96 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
i don't understand this comment. i read through this thread and still did not see any clear reasoning for it. care to elaborate.
The frrequency response benefits of high bitrate recording are beyond the range of human hearing, and at normal (read non deafening) listening levels the extension of dynamic range extends below the threshold of ambient noise in even the quietest homes. Given the same mastering on SACD and redbook and balanced levels in playback, they sound exactly the same. However 5:1 is a definite improvement in sound if you have a nice multichannel setup.

Hope this helps
Steve
post #97 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
The frrequency response benefits of high bitrate recording are beyond the range of human hearing, and at normal (read non deafening) listening levels the extension of dynamic range extends below the threshold of ambient noise in even the quietest homes. Given the same mastering on SACD and redbook and balanced levels in playback, they sound exactly the same. However 5:1 is a definite improvement in sound if you have a nice multichannel setup.

Hope this helps
Steve
Except with cheaper 1-bit DAC's that benefit greatly without having to internally oversample. Also, nearly all SACD's are mastered very well. So finding an identical SACD and Redbook master to discredit SACD isn't exactly easy.

Technically though, you're dead on (specifically after you move out of entry level gear). Realistically, SACD's are a great investment simply for the quality of mastering.
post #98 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
The frrequency response benefits of high bitrate recording are beyond the range of human hearing, and at normal (read non deafening) listening levels the extension of dynamic range extends below the threshold of ambient noise in even the quietest homes. Given the same mastering on SACD and redbook and balanced levels in playback, they sound exactly the same. However 5:1 is a definite improvement in sound if you have a nice multichannel setup.
this doesn't accord with what i have read on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redo View Post
. Also, nearly all SACD's are mastered very well. So finding an identical SACD and Redbook master to discredit SACD isn't exactly easy. ... Realistically, SACD's are a great investment simply for the quality of mastering.
at least from what i have read, it seems that the remastering of the SACD and redbook version of a hybrid disc are or should be the same. this is the reason why CD reviewers still recommend buying remastered SACDs even if you only own a redbook player.
post #99 of 161
In a way this reminds me of the WINDOWS versus MAC issue. As one friend put it: MAC might be the better computer, but WINDOWS more freely licensed theirs, so one remained comparatively isolated in development, while the arguably poored one flourished due to so many minds working to refine it. I realize this, like all analogies, only goes so far. Also, I understand this is still a heated debate to some. Since I own both, I am non-denominational.

So, with SACD, it may be superior, but CD has so many aftermarket DACs and an open system that allows more tweaking.

Currently, my system sounds best using CD, due to upsampling or Non-oversampling convertors.

There's an intersting thread over at Stevehoffman.tv under music that starts with Mr. Hoffman's observations under fairly controlled conditions at his studio, comparing master tape, SACD, CD and Vinyl maserings.
post #100 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sinnott View Post
MAC might be the better computer, but WINDOWS more freely licensed theirs
Think you mean the Mac's OS, as the hardware inside the Mac is rather crap.
post #101 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Think you mean the Mac's OS, as the hardware inside the Mac is rather crap.
I was generalizing about formats, not hardware. It might have been unwise. I didn't mean to distract from my point, that one system that's open, such as redbook CD, can actually surpass a theoretically superior system that is closed. Not always, perhaps, but I think it's the case, at least in my system.
post #102 of 161
I find the improvment from redbook to sacd to be well worth the investment . I find improvment across the frequency range when comparing the same CD on redbook only cds to the sacd counterpart.
Also found better sound when comparing redbook vs. sacd layers on the samed cds.
Of course some cds dont show as well as others. But on the average the sacd recordings have shown to be much better. This is based on listening to them over the last 4-5 years and owning several different players, and around 100 sacds. I have about 20 selections I have used for comparison that I have in redbook, sacd(hybred or sacd only) and vinyl. Some in both 33 and 45RPM vinyl.
EDIT: I have also found the redbook layer (on average) of the hybred CDs to sound better than there redbook only counterparts.
post #103 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom hankins View Post
Also found better sound when comparing redbook vs. sacd layers on the same cds.
that's the key comparison, imo.

Quote:
This is based on listening to them over the last 4-5 years and owning several different players, and around 100 sacds.
what sacd player do you currently use. i was looking at the cary 306 sacd.

Quote:
I have also found the redbook layer (on average) of the hybrid CDs to sound better than there redbook only counterparts.
i have read this opinion quite often as well.
post #104 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
that's the key comparison, imo.



what sacd player do you currently use. i was looking at the cary 306 sacd.



i have read this opinion quite often as well.
Presently using the NAD M5. it replaced the SCD-1.
My first was an SCD-1, followed by Modwright 999es, Kern & Modwright modified Sony SCD-777es, another Modwright 999es with upgraded PSU, SCD-1 and Marantz SA11s1 at the same time. And now the M5. I have also had the Mcintosh MCD-201 and Ayre C-5xe here. My findings are based on home listening as well as getting together at friends with as many players as we can get, and matching the volume through the preamp. (ARC REF3) Its nice to have alot of music that are recorded on different formats. (redbook, remastered redbook, sacd/redbook hybred, vinyl) Some of them sound(sacd) like crap. The chances of forming a good opinion with one or two CDs is little to none.
I have not heard the Cary but have come close to buying one used and trying it out. One of my best redbook players I owned in the past was the 306/200. I read that most people think the redbook on the 306 sacd is quite a bit nicer than it.
I mainly listen to vinyl and tend to put most of my money that way nowadays. My favorite sacd player so far has been the EMM one box, followed by the Ayre, and Modwright Denon 3910 with tubed PSU. The Exemplar tubed Denon 2900 is very nice too. I like it more than my NAD. Purk had his Exemplar here for some comparisons about a week ago.
Good luck with Cary if you get it. I would like to hear your impressions.
post #105 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom hankins View Post
Also found better sound when comparing redbook vs. sacd layers on the samed cds.
I don't know about your SACD player, but on mine, switching from the redbook layer to the SACD layer was accompanied by a delay of about ten seconds. And the line level of the two outputs was totally different. This made direct comparison almost impossible.

The only way I found to do a direct comparison was to rip the CD layer and burn it to a CD-R, then compare with balanced level using a separate player. I also tried recapturing the output of the SACD layer and burning to CD. It was a LOT of work to do the comparisons, but it was revealing. I realized that there were often HUGE differences between the standard CD release and what was on the SACD. There was also sometimes a difference between the two layers on the same SACD. But the differences were always *mastering* differences.

The real test was when I compared a Pentatone SACD hybrid. This disc was the best sounding of the bunch, being a very well miked and mixed DSD high bitrate recording. The SACD layer was indistinguishable from a rip of the CD layer on three different systems.

Comparing legacy releases is pointless. Every release of 70s rock records sounds different. The only way to compare the format itself and not the mastering is to use a hybrid DSD recording like a Pentatone release.

Try it and you'll find out what I did. SACDs don't sound better because of the format. Unless you use the 5:1, you'd be better off buying SACD hybrids and playing them on a regular CD player.

See ya
Steve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › From CD to SACD how much of difference