How does SACD work?

[bellbrass]

I just ordered a new NAD C525BEE, and I think it will decode hybrid CD formats, but not HDCD.
I have never listened to SACD, Hybrids, etc....what are the differences? I know that some of these CDs basically just have Surround 5.1 mixes, as well as a CD stereo layer? I'm confused, but I think I may want to try out the world of SACD / Hybrid, if the improvement can be had on headphones (my main source of music listening).
Please help out an SACD newbie...

 

[soundboy]

Wikipedia provide a good overview of SACD.

There are 2 types of SACDs....single-layer and hybrid. Early SACDs were single-layer discs, but almost all SACD released within the last 3 years have been hybrids. Hybrid SACD has a second CD layer that makes the discs compatible with almost all CD players. This CD layer, like a regular CD, can be encoded with HDCD. Obviously, in order to gain access to the SACD layer, you would need a SACD-capable player.

Regardless of whether it is a single-layer or hybrid SACD, a dedicated 2 channel stereo (or simply mono) mix is mandated by Sony/Philips. There're some SACD titles that don't adhere to this standard though. Otherwise, the multi-channel (or surround) mix is completely optional. Keep in mind that when "multi-channel" is mentioned, it doesn't necessarily means surround sound. Some "multi-channel" SACDs add only a center channel.

I play my SACDs on 2 channel systems, both with headphones or speakers. I found that on a well-produced SACD, everything seems "more real" when compared to CD. SACD is only a format and the sound quality of a disc depends on the effort put into it.

 

[infinitesymphony]

The NAD C525BEE (like all of the other BEEs) does not decode SACD. It only plays back redbook audio. If you bought a hybrid SACD, you could only play back the redbook layer, which is the same as a normal CD.

 

[bellbrass]

I thought the C525BEE decoded hybrid CDs...which includes an SACD layer?
So I cannot listen to any sort of high-fidelity super-anything with the C525BEE?

 

[infinitesymphony]

I'm assuming you're referring to this line from NAD's website:

Quote:

NAD’s engineers also have fine tuned the circuit that reads and tracks the CD to improve performance with the latest copy-protected and hybrid CDs.

Some CDs do not adhere to the redbook standard, for example copy-protected CDs and "enhanced" CDs (CDs with content that's readable on a computer). Basically, they're saying that the 525BEE will have no trouble reading the audio tracks of those discs.

So no, the 525BEE doesn't do anything more than redbook playback, but I'd imagine it does that pretty well. The C542 adds HDCD support and some internal upgrades. The only NAD CD player capable of playing back a high-res format is the M5. Many of their universal DVD players also play back SACD.

 

[proglife]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellbrass /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought the C525BEE decoded hybrid CDs...which includes an SACD layer? So I cannot listen to any sort of high-fidelity super-anything with the C525BEE?

don't feel like you're missing out. SACD is possibly on it's way out. you've made a fine purchase

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellbrass /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought the C525BEE decoded hybrid CDs...which includes an SACD layer? So I cannot listen to any sort of high-fidelity super-anything with the C525BEE?

You can listen to a hybrid, but you can't listen to a pure SACD. Many SACDs are hybrids...ie they have a CD layer on them. Your CD player will just read them as CDs....it won't read the higher resolution stereo or multichannel tracks. I have a good quality stereo SACD for my headphone rig. I also have a cheapy Sony SCD-CE595 for my speakers (it does multichannel). It seems the soundstage is crisper, more alive with SACD. I wouldn't say the differences are as dramatic as going from regular TV to HDTV. Probably more like going from regular DVD to HDTV

 

[bellbrass]

OK, thanks for the input and answers from everyone...but, I guess I'm still left with a few questions.
I'm looking for improvement in sound, and I've read that SACD offers that. Shouldn't I return the NAD 525BBEE and get an SACD player? Or is SACD really on its way out? Sony / Phillips introduced it in 1999....did it flop? Why do the audiophile types like it so much?

Maybe this will turn into an SACD thread, but I am looking for high-quality sound. Will the C525BEE sound better than my Harmon / Kardon DVD player?
The SACD critics say that it can't really improve older recordings, which are limited by the source tapes / masters.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellbrass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe this will turn into an SACD thread, but I am looking for high-quality sound. Will the C525BEE sound better than my Harmon / Kardon DVD player? The SACD critics say that it can't really improve older recordings, which are limited by the source tapes / masters.

Well I think SACD will stay a niche market because of mp3.....mp3 and the ipod have killed off high end audio for most regular people. However, if you check out classical recordings, many are being produced on SACD. Compressed rock....well it'll stay CD at best. I would say hold on to your NAD player if you're not willing to throw at least $1k at a SACD player. Since CD outnumbers SACD, IMO, you should have a good quality redbook as well as SACD playback with a SACD player. Denon, Marantz, and Music Hall make good SACD players to check out.

SACD is very revealing of source....so if its an older recording that has been mastered well, it will sound good on SACD. The Living Stereo hybrids is a good example of why old recordings can sound great on SACD.

 

[Awk.Pine]

Not knowing what you have, I'd guess that the biggest improvement in sound quality won't come from CD versus SACD, but from improving your headphones. Transducer quality varies far more than source quality these days.

And, likewise, the quality of the recording--not the potential of the medium--is critical, and widely variable.

My understanding is that the biggest improvement offered by SACD and DVD-A over CD is wiggle room. Where CDs have enough, but just barely enough, range and resolution to encompass the breadth of human hearing, these higher definition formats more than exceed what we might be able to discern, allowing for recording faults (avoidable or not) or bad engineering without harming the end result much. Oh, and my guess is that most master recordings for at least the past decade have been made well in excess of the 16 bit, 44.1 kHz quality of CD, allowing for meaningful remastering to a higher-definition standard such as SACD.

Audiophiles love the over-engineering allowed by these formats, don't ya know.

Multi-channel advocates seem to have much weight in their corner--SACD and DVD-A allow the extra bandwidth to go to either absurdly high-quality stereo or very high quality multi-channel--but I don't know how that affects us headphonophiles.

But maybe I'm just downplaying the improvement because anything beyond CD is still beyond my budget.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awk.Pine /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and my guess is that most master recordings for at least the past decade have been made well in excess of the 16 bit, 44.1 kHz quality of CD, allowing for meaningful remastering to a higher-definition standard such as SACD.

Actually, that's a problem with digital recording: once it's 24/48, it's 24/48 or lower forever. SACD relies on translation from an analog medium, since the DSD process itself is designed to be near-analog. You're right that most albums are recorded at 24-bits (or higher), but since systems like ProTools (and almost everything else) require A/D conversion that results in PCM-based files, there won't be a lossless way to convert them to SACD. I imagine that's one reason that the only new albums coming out on SACD either were recorded to tape (ex. Beck's Sea Change) or implemented DSD during the recording process.

I'm curious as to what happened with the Police album Synchronicity, since it was recorded with a primitive digital system (PCM-based). Technically, wouldn't it sound more accurate on a regular CD than translated to SACD?

 

[Uncle Erik]

SACD will probably never catch on with the masses, but that's not to say it is a failure. It'll hang on for high-quality recordings. It's taken over the position (more or less) that reel-to-reel used to fulfill. Reel was never popular with the everyman, but it hung on for years as (arguably) the best format for the serious listener. It's still good today, too. A small segment will pay for good sound, which is why vinyl has hung around and is making something of a comeback. Only difference is that vinyl was a popular format for many years, and there's a ton of it around.

I'd recommend getting into SACD only if you're a serious classical fan. The majority of releases are classical, and most are excellent. The extra resolution pays off. The jazz catalog is decent, as well. You can get most of the classic recordings on SACD these days. Don't buy a player expecting a lot of rock, or other genres. Well, unless you're seriously into Dylan or the Stones. They have a lot, as does Bowie and all the Genesis albums are set to come out. It's pretty thin otherwise, and don't expect much of anything in other genres. I'm a country fan, too, and I think there are only about 20 titles. If you'd like to see what is available, here's the best resource: http://www.sa-cd.net.

My listening is split between SACD and vinyl, both of which I love. I still listen to Red Book, though, and am planning to pick up a reel-to-reel this summer.

 

[bordins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif The extra resolution pays off. My listening is split between SACD and vinyl, both of which I love.

I wonder what higher resolution of SACD really is. Can I make an analogy as the following ? Ringside seats let you get closer to the band or the musical instruments, so you can hear fine details of timbres (easily). This is SACD playback. While quality & affordable seats still offer you enjoyable listening in the music hall. This is what the CD offers you.

I hear some sounds in the SACD that I never hear on the CD title. I think it is the the ambience of the venue captured on the SACD disc ? This is very hard to reproduce in our listening room. Are these results of higer resolution too ?

I believe typical concert fans would say they are more than happy with the seats they get IF AND ONLY IF they like the concert. If this is true, we don't need the "ringside" playback at home.

Is my thinking broken ?

PS The reason why musicians prefer SACDs to CDs is that they hear detailed music at all time ?

 

[bellbrass]

I listen to rock almost exclusively.
I have decent equipment otherwise: a PPA amp built by Tangent, a Little Dot II ++ tube amp, and new Ultrasone Proline 750 headphones, along with Audioquest Diamondback cables.
It sounds like SACD may not offer that much more for me, unless I get into classical music. Maybe I should keep and enjoy my NAD player for awhile?
Maybe the improvement from CD / Redbook to SACD would be slight rather than significant...plus, many of the rock SACD reviews I've read have not been that flattering....it seems that a number of rock music afficianados prefer certain CD masters over others, and some of the preferred ones are not the newest & latest versions.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm curious as to what happened with the Police album Synchronicity, since it was recorded with a primitive digital system (PCM-based). Technically, wouldn't it sound more accurate on a regular CD than translated to SACD?

I don't have the Synchronicity SACD, but I've got a best of SACD (Every Breath You Take). Honestly, I can't hear much of a difference with it and the Message in a Box, complete box set. Worst case scenario is that it would sound the same on SACD vs CD IMO. Don't think PCM to DSD conversion losses anything in the way of audio data.....since DSD is not a lossless format. I'm not technically savvy with audio formats, but at least with graphics a file will still stay faithful to the original if it's converted to another format.

But it is true that there's no real reason to have SACD unless the recording was done on tape or DSD. IMO, since it's more faithful to the old analogue recordings, it would be a great archiving medium.

@ bellbrass: Just wait for your NAD and enjoy it

It should be a great redbook player for its price range