[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed

I think that record labels like Alia Vox, Analogue Productions, Pentatone, Harmonia Mundi, Chesky, MFSL etc treat low resolution PCM and high resolution SACD layers with the same care, only that DSD is of course better sounding because the format is better than 16/44,1kHz redbook cd.

 

[martini1]

Well I finally pulled the trigger on a proper sacd player (Marantz) this time. Out of the box I hooked it up with my tube amp and the SACDs sound so much better than the ipod line out, and even regular CDs of the the same title (not just different layers). The only thing that come close is doing the CD in upsampling. I could still hear a little bit of different there compared to sacd playback. I haven't try comparing it to the computer + V-DAC yet.

Anyway, the conclusion could be... with the right equipment, SACDs do perform better than standard CDs. Using mass market products on SACD is kind of a waste.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that record labels like Alia Vox, Analogue Productions, Pentatone, Harmonia Mundi, Chesky, MFSL etc treat low resolution PCM and high resolution SACD layers with the same care, only that DSD is of course better sounding because the format is better than 16/44,1kHz redbook cd.

Of course you have proof that SACD is better than 16/44.1 and that the record labels do treat the 16bit layer with the same care. Just because it has more data stored on the disk does not make it better:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/2...ploded-415361/

If it's just purely about data, then 16/44.1 should be better, as it is initially sampled at higher data rates than SACD!

G

 

[dparrish]

I don't have all of my facts in front of me, as it's been a while since I did all of the research into the technology of SACD recording. Suffice it to say that some of the early SACDs were recorded/sampled at a higher rate than normal CDs, but the mastering process had not caught up with the potential. I think that has now changed. Having said that, however, general mastering of CDs has improved quite a bit, too (since the introduction of the format).

I can tell you that, when playing on my Sony 777ES, there is an audible difference on EVERY SACD/CD hybrid between the dual layers. My guess is that the difference will be MOST audible to Classical/Jazz lovers, but it is very evident with vocals as well. While most EVERY CD I have purchased in the last 5 years or so sounds MUCH better than most CDs from the 80s (the digital harshness is mainly gone), an SACD of the same recording ALWAYS sounds a bit better in my setup.

Although the basic "meat" of the sound is very good on both versions, the main difference seems to lie in the air around the sounds and the longer decay. This is very evident while listening to classical music, as one can hear the natural hall ambience more clearly. This is a kin to the audible differences between a CD ripped at, say, 320, versus ripping it in lossless format, only on a bigger scale.

Please don't flame me for saying the following---I like pop/rock music as well-- but in general, I think classical/jazz fans are a bit more fanatical about getting beauty of sound; hence, I think that there is often more painstaking detail paid toward getting the proper mikes, mike placement, mastering, etc. than the average pop record gets. Since a lot of pop music isn't so nuanced, why bother?

I really think this is the bottom line for why SACD hasn't really made it into the pop market, but has become a niche favorite of classical/jazz fans: because the nuances of the music makes the small but audible difference the format offers worth it to them (and to me). In fact, it is a shame that the fruition of this format didn't come a generation earlier, when many of the great classical/jazz performers were alive and at the top of their game. Hopefully, more of these older recordings (like the Mercury Living Presence) will be released in SACD over time. If not, I guess I'll have to invest in a good vinyl setup!

 

[robm321]

There is definitely a difference. My well recorded SACDs sound more detailed and the picture is just more clear. It's not night and day. It's slight but also obvious with the many different recordings.

I don't think it's just the mastering. It's the technology which clearly gives more 1s and 0s.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I also hear a difference with the majority of SACDs I own. However, I usually have to use my most sensitive headphones (K-1000, HD-800, DT48, SA5000) to really pull out the difference in resolution. It is worth it, especially for jazz and classical recordings. For rock, I like a little fuzzed-out good feeling from Grados. With those, it doesn't much matter, but it really shows up when you're listening critically.

 

[robm321]

^ Not only that but rock recordings are somewhat limited in SACD format compared to classical and jazz. Anyone considering getting into SACD should be aware of that.

 

[TwoTrack]

I prefer SACD but there are some very good CDs.

 

[wavoman]

Some patients get better with placebo drugs. Really better -- physically. Because the mind and body are not separate. You can worry yourself sick. And that reaction goes in both directions -- you can (sometimes) be made happy enough to cure yourself. That is the placebo effect.

It matters not to me that I would fail a blind test comparing SACDs to redbook CDs. Whenever I listen A/B style to the same recording on redbook vs SACD at home in my system, I prefer the SACD, like many posters here.

So if this is a consequence of mastering and not the format of the bitstream ... who cares? -- a point made by many other posters. The experiment asking us to make a redbook layer from the SACD is just pointless -- we're not going to listen to that, so why bother.

If someone I trust auditions a redbook version and an SACD version of a recording and tells me they sound the same -- maybe because they were mastered identically and the format differences are in fact inaudible as some here claim (and I take no position on) -- then sure, I'll save a few bucks and not buy the SACD. But absent that information (and I am always absent it) I will use Bayesian inference and buy the SACD -- I have strong a-priori belief that the SACD will sound better so I make a justified economic decision.

 

[LFF]

Be it whatever format you choose - it's all in the mastering.

All things being the same (mastering, music, resolution, etc) I would stick to SACD or CD.

I have read various tests where a high resolution master was run through at full resolution and dithered to 16/44.1 and the results have been that people cannot hear a difference - not audiophiles, sound engineers, normal people, etc. The results always come out as good as chance.

EDIT: The reason most SACD's sound better than their CD counterparts is because they are mastered differently.

Steve Hoffman did a test with all the formats and he said a vinyl lacquer sounded most like the master tape followed by the CD.

 

[rocker]

I think it's too bad that a hi-rez format didn't take off and spawn a new era of great production and studio engineering - the frequency range of SACD has greater extension and should allow a lot less compression of the original recordings that is needed to master them for cd's. Some of the greatest records made were created with the knowledge that stereo playback was getting better and better...now a days, unfortunately because of the sonic backstep taken with compressed audio formats a lot of record companies are producing fairly low-fi stuff. I have considered going for an SACD player but the selection isn't that great.

 

[TwoTrack]

A suggestion...compare two well mastered versions of an acoustic audiophile recording on CD and SACD. The SACD should have better soundstage and instrument tonality.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some patients get better with placebo drugs. Really better -- physically. Because the mind and body are not separate. You can worry yourself sick. And that reaction goes in both directions -- you can (sometimes) be made happy enough to cure yourself. That is the placebo effect. It matters not to me that I would fail a blind test comparing SACDs to redbook CDs. Whenever I listen A/B style to the same recording on redbook vs SACD at home in my system, I prefer the SACD, like many posters here. So if this is a consequence of mastering and not the format of the bitstream ... who cares? -- a point made by many other posters. The experiment asking us to make a redbook layer from the SACD is just pointless -- we're not going to listen to that, so why bother. If someone I trust auditions a redbook version and an SACD version of a recording and tells me they sound the same -- maybe because they were mastered identically and the format differences are in fact inaudible as some here claim (and I take no position on) -- then sure, I'll save a few bucks and not buy the SACD. But absent that information (and I am always absent it) I will use Bayesian inference and buy the SACD -- I have strong a-priori belief that the SACD will sound better so I make a justified economic decision.

I don't think SACD is entirely placebo. The difference might be below the threshold of human audibility, but there are real, measurable and scientifically proven differences between Red Book and SACD.

I distinguish SACD from the typical snakeoil junk because the snakeoil folks insist that there's no way to measure the difference and that all tests are invalid. However, they do want you to give them $300 for $10 of materials. Anyone who buys that gets what they deserve.

I think it is a good idea to use the best possible medium for the best possible recordings. When civil engineers build a bridge, they don't build it so it is just barely enough to get by. They overbuild it. I think the same philosophy should be applied to recordings. Even if the differences might fall to the inaudible level, we should be using the best possible medium. For recordings, that is SACD.

I know vinyl has a strong following (including myself) but I think that new digital releases should be SACD. Why? SACD has less expensive equipment than vinyl and it requires a whole lot less fuss to run. It is a high end format accessible to someone who doesn't want to mess with a protractor, cleaning records or flipping a disc every 20 minutes.

Even with all the talk about SACD dying, I think the music industry could use it to get back on track. I'd go with a business model that has cheap MP3 quality downloads - where you can get tracks you want for $1 or less. That would satisfy the vast majority of the consumer market. Everyone has iPods, etc. and, these days, is used to downloading music. I'd price it cheap and make everything available.

If you want a physical disc, it should be SACD. That would prevent copying (SACD encryption still hasn't been broken) and SACD writers aren't available. Music geeks could then get the hi-rez versions (preferably with a download coupon) they want. Further, if quality audio were promoted, it might boost sales across the board.

Wishful thinking, for sure, but I'd love to see the industry try some new things.

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think SACD is entirely placebo....I'd love to see the industry try some new things.

What a great post! If only the industry would listen to you!

Well written!

BTW, You can get LPCM 88.2 bitstreams off SACDs (with some CDPs, and some mods), so to some extent the copy protection has been broken, a little anyway.

I save these 88.2's to hard disk to make playlists and party lists on my server, and they are really good. Most DACs handle 88.2 just fine.

Listening critically I can't usually tell them apart from the SACD, but I bet others could. Anyway it matters not since I retain and play the physical SACD when I am serious about the music.

 

[West726]

For those of you who do hear the difference (for whatever reason) between SACD and Redbook generally, are there specific CDs on which you can't? Several for me, but Peter Gabriel's Passion and Marvin Gaye's remastered What's Going On (and lots of other mofi's) certainly fit in that category.