[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not surprised. I did an a/b on two titles - Kind of blue, and Getz/Gilberto...The miles SACD is in multi channel. Other than that the sound quality is too close to tell. The Getz cd may have a treble but I am not sure if this is just different mastering.

I suggest going back and relistening to the Miles SACD. There is a distinct and audible distortion of the first trumpet blares in "So What" that's been there in every single redbook CD I've ever heard (and I've had at least 6 of them over the years, including the most recent Legacy Edition). It's not there on the SACD version I have. I can't believe that the mastering folks don't know it's there, so what are we to make of this?

Maybe Steve can provide some insight into this, but I understand that there are certain tones that are difficult to do right with PCM 16/44.1, and that trumpets sometimes fall into that range of difficulty. If so, this might explain a few things...dunno.

I've got a library of about 250 hi rez recordings, between DVD-A and SACD formats. I'm a big believer in these formats. I suspect that a lot of it is greater care that's taken in mastering, but it's hard for me to believe that there isn't more going on than superior mastering. I've had the opportunity to listen to some of my MoFi SACD Hybrids on some very nice universal players, and frankly the higher up-market you go, the harder it gets to tell the difference. Having said that, my Denon 2910 with an SACD layer simply lays waste to the same Redbook layer...it's not even close.

I've got some SACD's that frankly I can do without. One of my favorite Stones albums, Let it Bleed, is painful for me to listen to on SACD. It's almost like they did TOO good a job revealing the source limitations. Then there's Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory...I just don't know what the point of that exercise was. Overly hot, ultra distorted tracks pretty much sound the same whether it's SACD or Redbook. There aren't a lot that come to mind where it's a bad choice to pick the hi-rez version.

That's my $0.02 worth...

 

[audioholik]

true difference

 

[Signal2Noise]

And what about Sony's new Blu-spec CD?

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Signal2Noise /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what about Sony's new Blu-spec CD?

Blu-spec CD is low resolution CD (16/44) just like SHM-CD, please read here puresuperaudio.blogspot.com: Hi-rez demystified: "I've just ordered SHM-CDs from online music store, I'm hoping they are remastered with care and they are even better than SACDs"

the only difference is blu-spec cd has bits burned with blue laser, and shm-cd has bits burned with red laser but on clearer plastic, both shm-cd and blu-spec cd are not newly remastered CDs

 

[mechtech]

I personally can't tell the difference from 16 bit and 24 bit audio.

 

[martini1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif I suggest going back and relistening to the Miles SACD. There is a distinct and audible distortion of the first trumpet blares in "So What" that's been there in every single redbook CD I've ever heard (and I've had at least 6 of them over the years, including the most recent Legacy Edition). It's not there on the SACD version I have. I can't believe that the mastering folks don't know it's there, so what are we to make of this? Maybe Steve can provide some insight into this, but I understand that there are certain tones that are difficult to do right with PCM 16/44.1, and that trumpets sometimes fall into that range of difficulty. If so, this might explain a few things...dunno. I've got a library of about 250 hi rez recordings, between DVD-A and SACD formats. I'm a big believer in these formats. I suspect that a lot of it is greater care that's taken in mastering, but it's hard for me to believe that there isn't more going on than superior mastering. I've had the opportunity to listen to some of my MoFi SACD Hybrids on some very nice universal players, and frankly the higher up-market you go, the harder it gets to tell the difference. Having said that, my Denon 2910 with an SACD layer simply lays waste to the same Redbook layer...it's not even close. I've got some SACD's that frankly I can do without. One of my favorite Stones albums, Let it Bleed, is painful for me to listen to on SACD. It's almost like they did TOO good a job revealing the source limitations. Then there's Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory...I just don't know what the point of that exercise was. Overly hot, ultra distorted tracks pretty much sound the same whether it's SACD or Redbook. There aren't a lot that come to mind where it's a bad choice to pick the hi-rez version. That's my $0.02 worth...

Very interesting comment there. Unfortunately I don't have the AV setup anymore. Sold everything when I moved

But I didn't believe my old system was good enough to showcase anything anyway...

I also got several version of Kind of Blue. I almost pulled the trigger on the Blu Spec one too, but since I may go to Japan end of the month I will wait. Do u know if the Legacy Ed comes from a different master than the 97 release or the sacd release?

Anyway, even I don't a multi channel set up I am seriously considering getting a $400 range SACD player (is it worth a shot? Or a DVD/SACD is good enough?). I think with my tube amp I may hear something there

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Conclusion: More care is taken in all aspects of the recording/production process when SACD technology is part of the chain.

Spot on. Remember, with a commercial recording you are listening to a product. There are limited number of consumers with SACD players and these people are usually conscious of sound quality. Therefore sound quality is a high priority with a product designed for SACD release, whereas the redbook layer may or may not have been given much care in it's creation. Also bare in mind that DSD technology (used on SACDs) is expensive, so it's generally just the top class studios which can produce SACDs. Top studios are top studios because of the very high quality equipment, monitoring systems/environments and the personel who work there. A CD on the other hand may be produced in a top studio or may have been produced in a bedroom studio!!

There is still an ongoing argument between professionals about whether SACD provides any real technical advantages. If there is much of a difference I doubt it could be perceivable using consumer equipment. There is no doubt that the vast amjority of SACDs sound better than the vast majority of CDs but this is because of better quality recording, production and mastering as mentioned above, rather than inherent technical advantages of one format over the other.

As someone mentioned that they prefer 24bit recordings to 16bit I thought I would mention that no one can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit. There are many reasons for this assertion but the main three are: 1. There are no DACs on the market capable of reproducing 24bit resolution and 2. Even if there were, there are no recordings on the market which use more than half the resolution of 24bit and 3. Even if there were recordings which used the full 24bits you would enjoy it tremendously for a few seconds and then if you were lucky you'd wake up three weeks later from the coma but you'd never hear anything ever again!!

G

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif But yet, for a number of reasons, on average, SACDs are better sounding. Be it because they are better produced or mastered or whatever, who really cares?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[mark_h]

Warning format overload! There are a lot of assumptions in this thread and very few facts.

 

[intoart]

Placebo.

 

[audioholik]

^it isn't a placebo...if you don't have any SACDs just listen to any 24bit/96kHz recording and compare it with 16bit/44kHz, take for example Chris Whitley - Dirt Floor album

BTW, DSD (SACD) is even better than PCM 24/96

 

[ozz]

For whatever the reason mastering or production IMO the sacd's i own sound better not
all but most.

 

[SiriuslyCold]

all things being equal, there is slightly more information in SACD compared to a CD

 

[denp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif One of my favorite Stones albums, Let it Bleed, is painful for me to listen to on SACD. It's almost like they did TOO good a job revealing the source limitations.

X 2!!!

I owned several SACD / Universal players - including MF KW SACD. Sold them. I was giving the benefit of a doubt to SACD format, though came to the conclusion that it's not worth it for 2 channel audio. Recent advancements in DAC & dedicated CD Player market seem to have resurrected good old Redbook format.

Have visited a retired HiFi designer a couple of days ago. He also happens to be a big Marantz fan. His super-modded 20 year-old MARANTZ CD-95 player outperformed equivalent DSD recording on his 2 channel Marantz SA 7S1 machine! CD reproduction had all the air, 3-D space etc!

He is keeping the Sony XA-5400ES for 5.1 recordings though!

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Conclusion: More care is taken in all aspects of the recording/production process when SACD technology is part of the chain.

Agreed