[mikeg]

After buying SACD and Universal players I've finally realized that the SACD and DVD-Audio high res. formats are not inherently superior to the regular CD format for headphone (i.e., 2-channel) listening. I have regular CDs that sound much better than SACDs, and I've also observed that most currently marketed SACDs are "legacy" recordings, and that they sound the part. Such inferior sounding SACD recordings hardly merit being played on very high quality (and therefore high cost) headphone equipment. So, IMO obtaining the best sounding program material in no way depends on whether it's available in high res. (i.e., as SACD or DVD-Audio), or as regular CDs. I now believe that regular CDs can sound fully as good as these high res. formats, when listened to on 2-channel systems. A really valuable, and more detailed, discussion of this topic appears at the following thread (see especially posting #20):
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...3&page=1&pp=20

 

[terrymx]

i tried sacd and wasnt really impressed. i realize that you need to spend more amount of money for a sacd setup to justify it superior to cd. also it depends on the mastering techniques of the sacd. some of them is done poorly and ended up sounding worse than cd.

who say you cant record it? i'll just connect it analog out to my sound card line it. haha.

 

[mikeg]

The thing that the link to the thread that I provide above indicates is that no matter how good your headphone or 2-way speaker setup is, well mastered CDs and SACDs will probably sound the same. The tests done by the thread originator indicates that human hearing can't realistically hear the difference, and that what one gets for the additional cost of SACDs and DVD-Audio is pure fiction. My own experience suggests that this point of view is correct.


Quote:

Originally Posted by terrymx i tried sacd and wasnt really impressed. i realize that you need to spend more amount of money for a sacd setup to justify it superior to cd. also it depends on the mastering techniques of the sacd. some of them is done poorly and ended up sounding worse than cd. who say you cant record it? i'll just connect it analog out to my sound card line it. haha.

 

[kaxixi]

The main benefit of SACD is that it is encoded in DSD and not PCM. That may not matter much theoretically, but as I understand it, it is much easier to build DAC's that decode DSD than it is to build DAC's that decode PCM. Perhaps someone else with a better understanding of the matter can elaborate (or correct me).

In short, it looks like it might be cheaper to build a great sounding SACD player than it is to build a great sounding CD player.

 

[bigshot]

I compared the output of a top line Phillips 963SA SACD player upsampling a standard 44.1/16 audio cd up to 96/16 (read: VERY high quality CD playback) to the regular old line output of a five year old $150 Yamaha CD player... the outputs sounded identical.

I'm not in the market for a CD player right now, so I'm not able to do testing on this... but I suspect that the differences you're talking about fall into the same category as the theoretical sound quality differences between the SACD and CD formats... "The technical facts and figures sound good, but the sound sounds the same"

But even if it is cheaper to make SACD players, PCM technology has saturated the market to such a degree that the savings from PCM electronic components being manufactured by the carload would more than offset the lower manufacturing cost of SACD components, at least until SACD players achieve the same level of market saturation as CD players.

See ya
Steve

 

[sacd lover]

A well recorded sacd is easily superior to its cd counterpart... example Cosmos Factory/ Creedence Clearwater Revival. That said, there arent nearly enough good sacd releases by popular artists and poor masters compound the problem. As much as I like the better sacd's I listen mainly to cd's.

 

[Zanth]

I have had similar experience to you Mike. Basically, I was never thrilled with the sound at all, and really in almost all cases, SACD's are actually made from the CD master tapes

That's right folks! Just a CD signal cut to an SACD!

Now if a signal were to be maximized so that it could be recorded to SACD, then I'm sure it may sound marginally better than one, in the same fashion, were to be recorded to Redbook. Marginally at best.

But at this stage, I don't have any experience with anything of the sort, I have even read that some places they sabotage the Redbook layer so that that SACD sounds better. If this is true, sure sucks to be the Redbook playback layer

Anyway, I think the SACD and DVD-A was more a scheme at this point because Redbook licensing rights were terminating. That is not to say I think Redbook is the be all and end all, far from it, I just think SACD and DVD-A, for two channel, isn't that much of an advantage (if any) over a well recorded CD at this stage of the game. My eyes are focused on solid state media, with 8 Gb cards available now...it won't be long until something is released where we can just drop this stuff to a solid state hard drive and load up a nice massive juke box, stream to a quality DAC and we will be good to go for years (literally depending on how much one owns).

That said, I also just jumped head first into vinyl. It sounds good too

 

[Ferbose]

First of all, if the source material is not of very high quality, it is probably not worth to release it on SACD. To me, there is no point in releasing SACDs using mediocre analog recordings or 44.1/16 digital masters. However, when the source material is good (well recorded analog or hi-res digital) and when the mastering is done properly, SACD readily displays its improvement over CD, especially in the high frequency. Redbook through my DAC1 is no match for SACD output of my DVD player. Although the differences are small, but the improvement really removes some of the digital weirdness in CD format. For violins this is extremely important. If CD's digital weirdness bothers you, you should give SACD a chance. But currently I think SACD's niche market is mainly for classical lovers.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose First of all, if the source material is not of very high quality, it is probably not worth to release it on SACD. To me, there is no point in releasing SACDs using mediocre analog recordings or 44.1/16 digital masters. However, when the source material is good (well recorded analog or hi-res digital) and when the mastering is done properly, SACD readily displays its improvement over CD, especially in the high frequency. Redbook through my DAC1 is no match for SACD output of my DVD player. Although the differences are small, but the improvement really removes some of the digital weirdness in CD format. For violins this is extremely important. If CD's digital weirdness bothers you, you should give SACD a chance. But currently I think SACD's niche market is mainly for classical lovers.

Agreed, particularly with the violin comment. Regarding your last sentence, with rumors that Sony themselves are abandoning the format, I think it would be more prudent to hold off investing and "wait" for the next format to hit, which will be blue-ray based and will arguably stick around for some time.

 

[soundboy]

SACD, as a format, provides the potential of a superior medium to CD, IMO. However, a lot of things has to happen to fulfill that potential....good mastering, good source material, good recording, etc....all this can be said of any music-carrying medium.

While there are many mediocre sounding SACDs, I found most of my 200+ SACDs (80% rock/pop) to be improvements over their CD counterparts. Sometimes the difference is slight, as was the case with Air Supply's "The Definitive Collection". But there are also others that makes a nigh-and-day difference, like Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" (an early full digital recording).

Can CD sound extremely good....oh yes. Matching the quality of a high quality SACD....not quite.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose However, when the source material is good (well recorded analog or hi-res digital) and when the mastering is done properly, SACD readily displays its improvement over CD, especially in the high frequency. Redbook through my DAC1 is no match for SACD output of my DVD player. Although the differences are small, but the improvement really removes some of the digital weirdness in CD format. For violins this is extremely important. If CD's digital weirdness bothers you, you should give SACD a chance. But currently I think SACD's niche market is mainly for classical lovers.

I am a classical music listener, and I produce classical CDs. I tested the SACD layer of a pile of SACDs, including the Living Stereo releases of Fiedler's Gaiete Parisienne and Reiner's Pictures At An Exhibition, against the CD layer. We monitored the playback using pro equipment, and neither I nor the sound engineer who I conducted the test with could hear any difference at all. The violin tone, transparency and high frequencies were all exactly the same. If you'd like more info on how I conducted my tests, see the link above.

I do have a few questions for you... On your SACD player, can you switch back and forth from SACD to CD layer on the fly, or do you need to stop and restart? Also, are the volume levels of the two layers identical or is the SACD layer louder? Is the improvement in sound that you detect constant, or does it come and go with the sound of the music?

Thanks
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy Can CD sound extremely good....oh yes. Matching the quality of a high quality SACD....not quite.

I'm speaking about 2 channel playback here... not surround...

I have yet to find a SACD of a legacy title that's an improvement because of increased audio fidelity. I've found several that sounded different, but close listening revealed that the music had been totally remixed using digital reverbs and equalization to replace the original analogue effects. I bet if you rack up the Dire Straits SACD with a a CD player playing the regular CD release of the same title, you'll find in A/B sampling that they aren't the same mix. There's no way to say one format sounds better when it's not even the same mix.

The best sounding SACDs that I heard... the RCA Living Stereo titles... were identical in the SACD and CD layers.

I've ordered a copy of an SACD that was recorded, mixed and mastered in 192/24. If it's possible to discern a difference between formats, this is the CD that will reveal it. I'll let you know what I find out.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

SACD and CD layer never sound identical to my ears (low-rez PCM and DSD playback sound significantly different from the beginning with both the 963SA and the UDP-1), but not always does the SACD layer sound better. Nevertheless, with focus on SACDs and DVD-As with hi-rez mastering, throughout my music collection there's a distinct advantage in favor of the hi-rez formats. The higher resolution finally pays off -- in the form of finer, better defined overtones and increased spatial depth.

No, you can't make A/B tests between SACD and CD layer; you have to stop playback for switching between the layers. And depending on the player and the disc you have to regulate the volume level between the formats. That's not an issue to me and certainly doesn't invalidate listening comparisons. And although you can never be sure if CD (layer) and SACD (layer) have identical sonic balance, over time you can gain a valid impression of the sonic properties of the formats.

 

[kaxixi]

If you're interested in test CDs, you might try Sonoma Records' Music for Organ and Brass. It was recorded for SACD by an all-star crew (musicians and engineers alike). Mine is on the way, so I can comment fully later.

 

[acs236]

My experience, ovreall, has been positive. Comparing the latest remaster of Brain Salad Surgery to the DVD-A is a joke, the DVD-A blows it away. If the source of the DVD/SACD is high-quality analog tape, I don't see a problem. When you say CD master tape, are you referring to analog? If so, I think you could still have an improvement compared to the digitized redbook audio.