[john53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by West726 /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those of you who do hear the difference (for whatever reason) between SACD and Redbook generally, are there specific CDs on which you can't? Several for me, but Peter Gabriel's Passion and Marvin Gaye's remastered What's Going On (and lots of other mofi's) certainly fit in that category.

I have some sacd's-for example simply minds best of and Mike oldfield tubural bells that i find a bit hard to say that they are better than the cd layer.I can notice that there is slight better air between the instruments,a bit better highs and slight more natural timbre but the difference is not that big as i expected it to be.
The difference is more prominent with a Diana Krall sacd,the sound has better clarity and Dianas voice is more life like with the sacd layer.When you change to the cd layer the sound quality is still good but you feel that something was lost,although it's not huge difference.(If i do a blind test i may not find easily which is sacd and wich is cd layer on the same album.)
I am looking forward to buy my first sacd with excellent recorded classical music to see what's going on with this technology.
I have an album by J.M.Jarre(24/96 cd)for example and it sounds magical so i suppose that cd's can also reach on a very high level of sound performance.
But i think that if a recording company do it's best to deliver the most of the sacd quality then the result will be amazing.Some older recordings that come out at sacd format may be not too good quality as you expect compared to the cd versions.

 

[TwoTrack]

The mastering matters as much as the format so make sure you have both before you do a comparo.

 

[Zubiriman]

I agree with Bunnyears, and several other posts.  The quality of SACDs may well originate in the recording itself (at least as much as in the format).  The "LSO Live" series of recordings is especially good.  Try their Mahler First for a great SACD demo disk.  But I also found out more or less accidentally something else along the lines that Bunnyears suggests.  With my Denon receiver I one day put it into "7 channel stereo" mode, which directs 2-channel stereo input to all 7 speakers, with a mix going to the center channel, and L going to L surround, R to R surround, etc.  This made an amazing difference in the overall sound--much fuller, more detailed, more in-room presence.   So even without multi-channel recordings, this technique simulates what Bunnyears talks about.

 

[kay bee]

pls read this wonderful article...
 
 
http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html

 

[Lord Raven]

I think I am late to the discussion, already piled up a huge SACD DSD library...

 

[RockStar2005]

Can anyone here answer this question please? Thank you in advance if you can!!

 

[wink]

....sigh, another necro bump.....    

 

[Zennheiser]

There was a paper published in September 2007 in the Journal of the AES, showing that in properly level matched double blind tests, there are no audible differences between a SACD's stereo mix and the Redbook version.

Exactly. And I have a dedicated Denon SACD player as well as the well-regarded Oppo 105 and 205. It has way more to do with what goes on before it hits their respective encoders.

 

[dailysmoker]

You cannot master a DSD file it cannot be messed with at all so the source is where the quality comes from. And some are converted from PCM but a true DSD file is so much better then cd. Hard to explain the difference but it is just presented better in the whole spectrum. And like with the OST of backdraft with the track . Hans Zimmer - Show Me Your Firetruck i can hear the drums very clearly and with the regular 16 bit Flac i can hardly hear those drums and very weak in the background and with the DSD it just slams.