[omedon]

DualDisc also doesn't meet redbook CD specs and therefore can't carry the compact disc label. It is too big to fit in some cd-players. I am pretty sure it doesn't fit DVD standards either.

There is always plenty of debate over DualDisc, SACD & DVD-A over at the Hi-Rez Highway & DVD-Audiobahn portions of audioasylum.com

There always seems to be one or more threads on their front page proclaiming the death of one format or the other at any given time, though suspicously they are absent at the moment.

 

[omedon]

Looks like wellywu beat me to the punch

anyways

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davey does anyone know what the sample rate is on the Modest Mouse dual disc? I assume that since it's from Sony that it's only 48K?

according to this thread, pitchforkmedia.com says it will.

Didn't have time to read through the whole thing, feel free to check it out.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omedon Quote: Originally Posted by Davey does anyone know what the sample rate is on the Modest Mouse dual disc? I assume that since it's from Sony that it's only 48K? according to this, pitchforkmedia.com says it will.

Yea, thanks, but all that says is "enhanced LPCM stereo". I was just wondering if anyone here had it yet. Can't imagine it would be more than 48K though from Sony, but might be worth it if it wasn't severely compressed and clipped like the CD. Probably too much to hope for though since it's targeted at pretty much the same audience.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl But you claim you *did* hear differences, which you choose to chalk up to mastering. If you compare the layers of hybrid CDs or CDs and SACDs of the same vintage with same mastering engineer, the differences should be a lot clearer.

I did that with a Pentatone CD. The only way to hear them next to each other without two copies of the disc was to rip the CD layer and burn it to a CD-R. I compared the rip on a regular CD player to the SACD layer on my Philips, and I couldn't detect any difference at all.

But the difference between some of the songs and the previous release of the same album was often strikingly different... different EQ, different reverbs and different mixes. None of that is due to the format. It's due to the mixing and mastering.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

After doing some CDP comparisons, I'm suddenly unsure whether SACDs are actually superior to Redbook CDs; i.e., whether there is really an audible difference between the SACD format, and the regular (i.e., Redbook) CD format.

It appears possible that the reported audible differences between SACD, and Redbook, are mostly the consequence of significant differences in the ability of CDPs to play these formats. In the three cases that I've examined, I found that CDPs that played one format exceptionally well, were inferior when playing the other format. Conclusions regarding audible differences in quality between SACD and Redbook formats, when evaluated on individual CDPs, may be incorrect. The reported audible differences may be mostly due to the ability of the CDP to play the format, rather than actual audible differences between the formats.

I describe this in more detail in my post #342, at the following thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...65#post2942165

 

[robm321]

Really simple -

SACD clearly above redbook

HDCD very slightly above redbook

 

[BANGPOD]

pink floyd's dark side of the moon, miles davis' kind of blue, and holst's the planets (naxos) are, in my opinion, more superior as sacd's than cd's.

there are others, by those are the ones that you hear about the most.

 

[mikeg]

When using my eXemplar modded Denon 2900 to compare SACDs with regular CDs, I can't really hear a difference. But, when I use the Esoteric SA-10 to play the two formats, SACDs sound much better. So, if I were using only the eXemplar, I would conclude that one format is as good as the other, but when using the Esoteric, I would conclude that the SACD format is better. Clearly, conclusions regarding the best format are really dependant on the CDP used; i.e., the quality of CDP playback determines the conclusion regarding which format is best, and IMO this makes many of the posted conclusions suspect. BTW, for now I'll use the eXemplar modded Denon 2900 solely for playing Redbook CDs, and the Esoteric SA-10 solely for playing SACDs. This'll give me the best of all worlds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Really simple - SACD clearly above redbook HDCD very slightly above redbook

 

[mikeg]

When people rave abut these SACDs, as compared to their Redbook versions, I consider their conclusions suspect; i.e., unless their CDPs have been proven to obtain the best sound quality from each of these formats. And, I'll bet that such evidence was never obtained, or furnished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BANGPOD /img/forum/go_quote.gif pink floyd's dark side of the moon, miles davis' kind of blue, and holst's the planets (naxos) are, in my opinion, more superior as sacd's than cd's. there are others, by those are the ones that you hear about the most.

 

[bigshot]

It really isn't rocket science for a CD player to play a CD properly.

See ya
Steve

 

[ozz]

i have sacd's and dvd-a that are mastered very good and some
that are worse than the cd now after saying that the dsotm by pink floyd
on sacd is probably my best sounding recording.

 

[Jubei]

I read a post some years ago (I think in these forums actually) that claims that for hybrid SACDS, the mastering for the CD and the SACD layers are not the same. The CD layer would be the "hot" layer, but the SACD would be less compressed. If this is the case, then the SACD layer would naturally sound better on a decent system.

Personally, despite not being a true audiophile, I have given DVD-A and SACD a shot on consumer grade equipment (i.e. not stuff like Esoteric players) - this being a entry level Pioneer multi-format DVD player, capable of handling both formats, via another Pioneer AV amp. I definitely heard a difference with both formats. Don't know how much of this is placebo though

 

[mikeg]

When I compared the sound of a Marantz CD5000, when playing regular (i.e., Redbook) CDs, to that of a Marantz SA8260, the 8260 sounded clearly better. Then, when I compared the sound of the 8260 to that of an eXemplar modded Denon 2900, the eXemplar was clearly better. And, when I compared the sound of regular CDs played by an Esoteric SA-10, to that of the eXemplar modded Denon, the sound of the eXemplar was considerably better. So, while playing CDs is clearly not rocket science (i.e., all of these players could certainly play regular CDs), there were substantial differences in the quality of their performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It really isn't rocket science for a CD player to play a CD properly. See ya Steve

 

[cherepashka]

HDCD's are gimmicky and crap.

 

[Stephen_Ri]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherepashka /img/forum/go_quote.gif HDCD's are gimmicky and crap.

HDCDs have been ripped and their WAVforms examined to show that, conclusively, there is a 4 bit increase. HDCDs are often mastered with HDCD in mind, and sound slightly different when converted to redbook (not my observation...I believe it was a mastering engineer at Steve Hoffman's forum). The question is whether one can hear the difference of 4 bits, not whether they're there or not. I've listened to 192@24 material on the system in my sig, which I think is fairly revealing, and 44.1@16 material, but can hardly tell the difference. If my (sensitive, I think) ears can hardly tell the difference, it is no wonder 4 bits of HDCD is hardly perceptible. But there's no reason to think it's not there.