[markl]

With all due respect, I'm not sure I would use a $400 DVD player to determine the merits of hi-rez. It's like using a budget system to evaluate a $1200 pair of interconnects. How much can that system really tell you about their capabilities?

Other observations:

1. A well-mastered CD will sound better than a badly mastered SACD or DVD-A, but a well-mastered SACD/DVD-A will easily out-perform a well-mastered CD

2. Some universal players do not have true DSD capability, the signal is converted to PCM, thus eliminating a lot of the value of SACD. No idea if the Phillips does that or not.

 

[bozebuttons]

There is no doubt in my mind that SACD done right (which is always not the case & our loss) is superior to redbook.
A lot of players are not capable of pure DSD playback & convert the signal to PCM Even the Esoteric X01 down converts to pcm which I believe is a $13,000 player.

One listen to a pure DSD recording Like the Red Rose music sampler played back on the EMM labs gear will eliminate any doubt on which format is the better one,(the Emmlabs gear on redbook is also exceptional,It can also convert pcm to dsd)Anyone who listened to this combo at the recent NY meet will contest to this.
I also have 2 copies of Ray Charles genius loves company CD & Sacd
The Sacd is definately superior.
It is sad to say that SACD is the next evolution of redbook but the recording process & backing from the major recording labels seems to have come to a halt,Again our loss.
There is nothing wrong with Redbook as the playback gear & recording quality has greatly improved ,but SACD done right is better.
I never heard DVD audio so I can't comment on that.

 

[mikeg]

What I've learned from this discussion is that, while the SACD technology may perhaps be capable of achieving finer and better defined overtones and increased spatial depth, unfortunately most commercial SACDs don't possess or exhibit these benefits. Since I've no interest in gaining a detailed understanding of the technology, but am solely interested in the musical results that it provides, I see no point in searching for those rarely produced exceptional SACDs rather than selecting from the large stock of fine, and readily available, regular CDs. Since I'm so very much impressed with the fine sound quality of many of the widely available supply of Redbook CDs, there seems little point in chasing the proverbial "needle in a haystack"; i.e., the rare SACD that exhibits a negligible improvement in overtones and spatial depth, when compared to its regular CD counterpart.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl With all due respect, I'm not sure I would use a $400 DVD player to determine the merits of hi-rez. It's like using a budget system to evaluate a $1200 pair of interconnects. How much can that system really tell you about their capabilities?

With all due respect, that's the sort of response that audiophiles always use to avoid the truth that's staring them in the face. The Phillips deck is highly touted online among audiophiles as a good unit. It resolves the high bitrate sound flawlessly. $1,000 more on a price tag doesn't automatically make something sound better. I can tell you that from personal experience.

I went out of my way to test the Phillips SACD player on a system that most audiophiles would kill to have access to, and two sets of trained ears came up with the same results... All of the differences we detected were due to remastering, not the higher bitrate.

I would recommend that those with SACD players get a standard CD player to rack up alongside it for A/B comparisons and start really comparing those disks. I bet you'll find that the SACDs sound great, but so do many of the CDs. I think you'll also find that when the SACD sounds better, the mix on the SACD isn't at all the same as the mix on the standard CD.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg What I've learned from this discussion is that, while the SACD technology may perhaps be capable of achieving finer and better defined overtones and increased spatial depth, unfortunately most commercial SACDs don't possess or exhibit these benefits..

I haven't seen any evidence that SACDs are capable of any audible improvement over CDs. I have auditioned some great sounding SACDs. But there are CDs that sound just as good. I suspect the extended frequency response and dynamic range of the SACD format is wasted on human ears. But I want to compare a recording made in high resolution sound first.

See ya
Steve

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg What I've learned from this discussion is that, while the SACD technology may perhaps be capable of achieving finer and better defined overtones and increased spatial depth, unfortunately most commercial SACDs don't possess or exhibit these benefits. Since I've no interest in gaining a detailed understanding of the technology, but am solely interested in the musical results that it provides, I see no point in searching for those rarely produced exceptional SACDs rather than selecting from the large stock of fine, and readily available, regular CDs. Since I'm so very much impressed with the fine sound quality of many of the widely available supply of Redbook CDs, there seems little point in chasing the proverbial "needle in a haystack"; i.e., the rare SACD that exhibits a negligible improvement in overtones and spatial depth, when compared to its regular CD counterpart.

Not a bad idea Mike. And really, as I stated, blue laser discs are on the horizon and it seems the MPAA is all over this technology because of the High Definition capabilities. It will not be long before the RIAA and others follow suit and simply drop DVD-A and SACD for the blue laser disc of choice. At that stage, I don't think there will be much improvement in terms of sampling rate in the near future, the move will go to direct streams/downloads and/or to solid state chips that will be loaded to a player and/or to a nice solid state hard drive. I strongly believe this is the future.

 

[mikeg]

From my very limited experience, I come to the same conclusion. At one time, while still caught up in the then on-going SACD hype, I had the ridiculous idea of replacing most or all of my classical CDs with their SACD counterparts. Boy, am I glad that I didn't do that. I also wasted lots of time looking for recently recorded SACD versions of classical compositions of interest, while rejecting excellent sounding CD versions of these same compositions. After lots of fruitless searching, and after hearing lots of excellent sounding regular CDs, and also some poor sounding SACDs, I concluded that my pursuit was counterproductive. And now, after reading Steve's (i.e., bigshot's) postings regarding his numerous comparisons of SACDs and regular CDs, I finally realize that my single-minded pursuit of SACDs was indeed foolish.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I haven't seen any evidence that SACDs are capable of any audible improvement over CDs. I have auditioned some great sounding SACDs. But there are CDs that sound just as good. I suspect the extended frequency response and dynamic range of the SACD format is wasted on human ears. But I want to compare a recording made in high resolution sound first. See ya Steve

 

[markl]

Quote:

With all due respect, that's the sort of response that audiophiles always use to avoid the truth that's staring them in the face. The Phillips deck is highly touted online among audiophiles as a good unit.

It was embraced as what it was, a good entry-level player for the time. I don't know anyone who would say it compares to Levinsons and Wadias, or the Meitner or dcs stuff. I think they say, "hey for $400, it's pretty good." I don't doubt that it is. For $400, and considering it doubles as a DVD-player, really there's only so much you can do with build quality at that price point. Quote:

I would recommend that those with SACD players get a standard CD player to rack up alongside it for A/B comparisons and start really comparing those disks. I bet you'll find that the SACDs sound great, but so do many of the CDs. I think you'll also find that when the SACD sounds better, the mix on the SACD isn't at all the same as the mix on the standard CD.

I don't disagree there are many fine-sounding CDs and CD players (I have one

) I think you are mis-informed, though, if you think they re-mix the 2-channel masters when they transfer them to SACD. The only time they re-mix is (obviously) for the multi-channel mix, or if the 2-channel original master tape is missing and all they have are the multi-tracks. But then again, if that's the case, they would have to re-mix it for a standard Redbook CD remaster, too.

Quote:

What I've learned from this discussion is that, while the SACD technology may perhaps be capable of achieving finer and better defined overtones and increased spatial depth, unfortunately most commercial SACDs don't possess or exhibit these benefits.

Speaking as another data point, as an owner of 3000 or so CDs, and 150 or so SACDs and 25 or so DVD-As, in general, SACD and DVD-A do offer a worth-while improvement for me. Yes, there are some stinkers out there (everyone knows to avoid the Silverline DVD-As for example), but in general, you have a much better chance of getting a well-mastered SACD than you do of getting a well-mastered CD, that's been my experience. So, on top of the generally superior mastering engineers that do the hi-rez stuff, as well as the superior mastering principles employed on the Hi-Rez discs, you also get the Hi-Rez capability on top of it. For me, it's easy to hear the difference.

There are plenty of people who can't hear differences in sources, in masterings of the same material, in speakers, cables, headphones etc. Those are the lucky ones, they can make do with much less and be just as happy.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Yes, most SACD's sound better than most redbook CD's to me, most of the time, on most of the systems I listen to.

 

[mikeg]

But, many/most of the classical and jazz SACDs that I've seen and/or bought are old retreads (i.e., legacy titles), and their sound quality usually reflects their age. They have sonics that are inferior to those of fine, recently recorded, widely available, and lower cost regular CDs, while reviews, advertising, and discussions of these SACDs hype their glories, and lead to eventual disappointments of hoodwinked purchasers, such as me.

 

[markl]

Is it fair to expect a mono recording from the 1950s to magically sound like it was recorded yesterday? Your complaint seems to be with the marketing of hi-rez, not its performance. They chose to re-issue the recordings they felt most people would want. Those happen to be "legacy" titles. At least when you hear them, you know you are getting as close to the master tape as current technology allows. In terms of Jazz, all the great performers and performances are going to be "vintage" recordings.

OTOH, many modern recordings are digital, PCM, 16/44.1, 16/44.8, 24/96. Less resolution than an analogue tape and les resolution than SACD and DVD-A can now allow.

Personally, I would rather have an audio format that takes full advantage of the best technology available. If, in some cases, that technology surpasses the capability of certain original recordings with the limitations they had when they were made, I can live with that.

Do you want to be stuck forever with 16/44.1? Most modern studios are 24/96 digital now. Even those digital recordings get "dumbed-down" to 16/44.1 for CD. Data is lost, musical information is lost. I'd rather hear them in their full native resoltion, imperfect as that may still be (one day we'll laugh at 24/96). Eventually we'll have recordings made in 2 billion/80 squillion, and when that day comes, I would expect playback gear for my home to be similarly equipped. CD is now 25+ years old, the 16/44.1 format was derrived as a compromise, the easiest way to make D/A converters cheap enough for mass production, not because it was the be-all and end all of digital, despite Sony's marketing hyperbole of "perfect sound forever".

 

[Jon L]

SACD is dead in the water, and even SACD's inventor Sony seems to have given up on SACD.

Sure, well-recorded, well-engineered SACD's sound fabulous, but if the same amount of care is taken to produce the redbook version, it sounds fabulous also.

For comparably "average" production SACD's and redbook counterparts, they sound different but often I prefer the redbook standard, even with the worse digititus and less refined sound of redbook. SACD's that are not top-notch sound 'wrong' to me in the treble. Treble range is where SACD technically is not as accurate as even redbook (please search the web for reasons), subjectively leading to softer, less-focused treble to my ears.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L Treble range is where SACD technically is not as accurate as even redbook (please search the web for reasons), subjectively leading to softer, less-focused treble to my ears.

You have made the wrong deduction from the term «accurate». What's lacking is amplitude information, not time-based information. So there's no reason for a soft-focussed treble, whereas the CD format indeed lacks time-based information and typically suffers from filter-induced time-smearing effects. That's why the SACD's treble sounds clearly more focussed (to my ears).

 

[Welly Wu]

I invested a lot of money in a high end modified universal source component. I can say that Mikeg is onto something with Red Book CD sounding just fine...even better than SA-CD (but not DVD-AUDIO 192kHz/24bit). However, you have to take into consideration that modified source components, regardless of which formats they decode, tend to raise the performance bar across the board that making distinctions between formats may become a waste of time -- an impediment to enjoying the music. 44.1kHz/16bit sounds damn fine thank you very much! To a certain degree, I have come of the opinion that SA-CD and DVD-AUDIO represent more so higher quality music, recording, and mastering than CDs than any inherent sound quality superiority because of the format per se. Let's also be honest here: there are more abominable CDs than SA-CDs and DVD-AUDIO discs combined by virtue of the depth and breadth of the CD catalog. On the other hand, there are many more high quality CDs than SA-CDs and DVD-AUDIO titles as well.

For those who think that HD-DVD and SONY Blu-Ray will be promoted as both a high resolution video and audio format, and that a compromise will be made, I have to adjust your perception of reality: fat chance. Read up on the "audio blogs" that purport to be hard Hi-Fi news stories and a 5 year old child can come to the same conclusion that I am seeing on the horizon: HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be video formats first and foremost with absolutely no room for a compromised and unified high resolution video format. So, get ready to pick and choose. "The audiophile mission continues to be unfulfilled" according to John Atkinson of Stereophile. A high resolution video format can not become the Holy Grail of high resolution digital audio if no more than 2% of the American population will spend more than $500 USD for a Hi-Fi/stereo system. Convergence and convenience are where the money flows. Apple iPods, compressed (both lossless and lossy) digital audio files and downloads are up, and CD sales are recovering from the worst 4 year slump in the history of the American music business.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl I think they say, "hey for $400, it's pretty good." I don't doubt that it is.

There are three types of audiophiles... The first type judges sound quality by how much the equipment costs. The second type judges sound quality based on charts and diagrams and numbers expressed in bits, kilohertz and decibels. The third type judges sound by how it sounds to his own ears. The first type ends up with a very expensive system that he is convinced sounds great. The second type ends up with a very complicated system that he is convinced sounds great. The third type ends up with a system that sounds great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl I think you are mis-informed, though, if you think they re-mix the 2-channel masters when they transfer them to SACD. The only time they re-mix is (obviously) for the multi-channel mix, or if the 2-channel original master tape is missing and all they have are the multi-tracks. But then again, if that's the case, they would have to re-mix it for a standard Redbook CD remaster, too.

That isn't true. That may be true of albums like DSOTM or Gaucho which were well mixed in the first place, but it isn't true of all SACDS. With many reissues of classic rock albums, they aren't going back to the original master mixdown... they're going back to the original master element reel... the two inch 24 track tape where each layer of sound was laid down separately. They're taking each element and rebuilding the mix using modern digital techniques.

Have you heard Let It Be Naked? That is *nothing* like either Phil Spector's mix, or the mix that the Beatles left behind when they abandoned the album. It's a totally new mix, built using digital multitracking instead of four track mixdowns; digital reverbs instead of reverberation chambers, wire reverbs or tape slaps; and completely different EQ settings. The Beatles never would have come up with that mix in a million years. That CD doesn't even sound like a Beatles album.

Now listen to some of the late sixties Rolling Stones tracks on SACD and compare them to the original pre-SACD album cuts. They're different mixes. The SACD has an overall cleaner sound, but it's lacking the punch and texture of the original mix. Jaggers' vocals are EQ'ed different and the wire reverb sound is replaced by a much wimpier digital reverb. Anyone who grew up listening to Street Fighting Man or Honky Tonk Woman has every nuance of that mix inscribed on the inside of their skull. You put on that SACD and old timers willl notice the difference in a second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl in general, you have a much better chance of getting a well-mastered SACD than you do of getting a well-mastered CD, that's been my experience.

Bingo! I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that the SACD format sounds better. That just means that the recording is mixed and mastered better. If they put the same care into mixing and mastering a regular CD, it would sound just as good.

I'm not saying SACDs don't sound good... I'm saying they don't sound *better* than a regular CD with the exact same mastering. To human ears, the higher sampling rate makes absolutely no difference, at least with analogue recordings. (I'll soon find out if it makes a difference with 192/24 recordings.)

Also, to respond to other recent points from other posters... You would be hard pressed to find higher quality sound than the Living Stereo releases from the late fifties. These are the albums that serious vinyl collectors pay hundreds of dollars to buy to play on their $20,000+ vinyl rigs. "Newer" does not mean "better sound". When properly engineered, analogue was just as capable of producing true audiophile sound as current technology. In fact, in a lot of cases analogue sound is better, because engineers were constrained by the comparitive inflexibility of the medium to keep recording techniques simple and direct.

anlogue 30ips DBX encoded and decoded master = 44.1/16 = SACD

See ya
Steve