SACD / DVD-A?

[jsplice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once when I was doing an ABX on 24/96 vs 16/44.1 I was able to detect a difference 13/15 times, this surprised me somewhat. Examining the waveforms the 24/96 had a low level distortion artifact at the start of the track which the 16/44.1 did not have.

This is interesting news, considering the argument we had in another thread about this (regarding details such as sampling theory, etc.).

I, for one, can hear a difference. But I've always considered myself to have very good ears.

 

[dannie01]

SACD IMO, my dream machine is still the Sony SCD-1. I'll get one sooner or later in the local 2nd hand market.

 

[audioholik]

BTW here's an interesting comparison of different hi-rez formats, sacd, dvd-a, and studio master flac.

http://www.cirlinca.com/include/ster...7report-en.pdf

In this situation I assume the only thing that could top SACDs are DSD master files, hope they will soon be available

 

[Lornecherry]

I have owned many SACD players, including a fully modded SCD-1, that was the de-facto standard back in 2002, and now a modded XA777ES. At the same time a bought the then top-of-the-line Pioneer DVD 38A for multichannel DVD-A.

You may find it shocking that I prefer DVD-A as being a little better on the low end ... When output in digital to my Chord (which accepts up to 192), stereo and multichannel DVD-A is stunning, sweet with absolutely no fatigue. This through a Pioneer 38-A, which was their reference player back in 2001 but can be had for $300 or so now.

It's a pity there's not more material on DVD-A, but what I do have is certainly wonderful. I hope the format does not die.

SACD SQ seems to spawn the gamut, from so-so quality (eg. the Boston SACD, some of my Moody Blues SACDs) to stunning (Blues in Orbit, Chesky and Reference Recordings).

Throw in XRCD (and HDtrax) into the mix and picture becomes even more of a morass. I now pay particular attention to who the recording engineer is ... as I find a vast difference in quality and personal preference depending on how the source material was handled. Just my two cents ...er two ears.

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lornecherry /img/forum/go_quote.gif Throw in XRCD into the mix and picture becomes even more of a morass.

xrcd is normal, remastered CD, puresuperaudio.blogspot.com: Hi-rez demystified: Are there high resolution red book CDs? ..and I heard many RCA Living Stereo titles transferred into 16bit/44kHz CD (XRCD) and none of them sounded as good as the same recordings transferred into DSD (RCA Living Stereo SACD)

 

[Lornecherry]

Quote:

xrcd is normal, remastered CD, puresuperaudio.blogspot.com: Hi-rez demystified: Are there high resolution red book CDs? ..and I heard many RCA Living Stereo titles transferred into 16bit/44kHz CD (XRCD) and none of them sounded as good as the same recordings transferred into DSD (RCA Living Stereo SACD)

On your gear.

I find a high-end DAC can often make DVD-A or XRCD equal or even surpass the same SACD recording. Also the recording process/mastering is much different on XRCD then on a normal run-of-th-mill CD. And since it all starts with the recording; there is a significant improvement in SQ on XRCDs.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lornecherry /img/forum/go_quote.gif there is a significant improvement in SQ on XRCDs.

Not in my experience.