akart
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Posts
- 139
- Likes
- 13
Yes, this thread about the same point. There is no doubt that SACD stores more information about the recording than the CD does - so, yes, no doubt the SACD is superior. There is no doubt in my mind about this. The reason why I started this thread is because I was thinking about getting the Music Hall 35.2 CD/HDCD player, and I started doing a bunch of research on HDCD. I think consensus seems to be that even though the differences are not audible (if mastered exactly the same way), HDCD/SACD is better because they are mastered better - which is a very fair point.
PS: I did not know you could not rip SACD ... But I think you can rip HDCD (not sure though).
This is probably not a question for the sound science forum (?), but are more titles available in HDCD or SACD ? And are HDCDs mastered with better SQ or are SACDs (generally speaking) ?
Thank you very much,
akart
Quote:
PS: I did not know you could not rip SACD ... But I think you can rip HDCD (not sure though).
This is probably not a question for the sound science forum (?), but are more titles available in HDCD or SACD ? And are HDCDs mastered with better SQ or are SACDs (generally speaking) ?
Thank you very much,
akart
Quote:
akart, my understanding is that SACD really is superior to Red Book. The contentious part is whether or not a human can distinguish the two.
That doesn't bother me too much. For me, SACD is sort of a guarantee that the disc was mastered by someone who knows what they're doing and that the disc isn't brickwalled. I have a few that are a little hot, but nothing as bad as what is on a lot of CDs. If it costs me a few dollars extra to get a great disc, I'll pay up.
My biggest gripe is that we cannot (yet) rip the hi-rez layer. I'm planning a move to a music server for Red Book (too many discs), but will need to keep a rack out for SACD. I'd love to put all the discs in storage and be able to feed SACD to a DAC.