SACD
Oct 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM Post #2 of 128
I toyed with the idea of SACD and then gave up.
Struck me that we buy kit to listen to music we want to listen to, not a rather limited list (at least when compared to the total number of CDs available).
The implications being that if you buy into it, your spending money optimising a limited selection of music, and thus you're NOT spending it on making the best of the music you've bought and loved for years.
 
Oct 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM Post #3 of 128
Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies.

In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), two veteran audio journalists who aren’t professional engineers, E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran, present a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor. That means there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD.

Please note that this is not just a disagreement with the cloud-cuckoo-land audiophiles but also with the highest engineering authorities, such as the formidable J. Robert Stuart of England’s Meridian Audio and others with similar credentials. That the Meyer-Moran tests leave no room for continued disagreements is an occasion for the most delicious Schadenfreude on the part of electronic soundalike advocates like yours truly. I stated my suspicions that SACD was no improvement over CD seven years ago, in my review of the first Sony SACD player, the SCD-1, in Issue No. 26 of The Audio Critic (downloadable from this website). I could hear no difference between the CD and SACD layers of the same disc when stopping the player and switching over, instant toggling between the two layers being impossible.

Now, Meyer and Moran are careful to point out that the new hi-rez formats generally sound better than standard CDs, but not because the processing technology is superior. The hi-rez discs are aimed at a more sophisticated market, and therefore the recording sessions and production techniques tend to be more sophisticated, more puristic, in terms of microphoning, compression, editing, etc. The use of a standard 16-bit/44.1-kHz processor as a “bottleneck” in the Meyer-Moran tests eliminated this concern. Comparing the CD and SACD layers of the same disc also eliminates it.

It should also be pointed out that more bits and a higher sampling rate in recording are still a good thing because they permit a little bit of unavoidable sloppiness, so that you can still comfortably end up with 16-bit dynamics and 20 kHz bandwidth. Meyer and Moran do not say that 14 or 15 bits in a truncated CD are just as good as 20. What they say is that spot-on 16-bit/44.1-kHz processing is as good as it gets, audibly.

Finally, let’s not confuse the Meyer-Moran tests with stereo vs. surround sound comparisons. All of the above has to do with the two channels, left and right, of stereo recordings, nothing else. The musical value of additional surround channels is something I have been wondering about lately, but that’s an altogether different subject.

—Peter Aczel

from http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index...Id=41&blogId=1

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA

from AES E-Library: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback by Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
and
BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

FYI.
 
Oct 3, 2008 at 6:39 PM Post #5 of 128
Quote:

Originally Posted by bordins /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies.

In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), two veteran audio journalists who aren’t professional engineers, E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran, present a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor. That means there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD.

Please note that this is not just a disagreement with the cloud-cuckoo-land audiophiles but also with the highest engineering authorities, such as the formidable J. Robert Stuart of England’s Meridian Audio and others with similar credentials. That the Meyer-Moran tests leave no room for continued disagreements is an occasion for the most delicious Schadenfreude on the part of electronic soundalike advocates like yours truly. I stated my suspicions that SACD was no improvement over CD seven years ago, in my review of the first Sony SACD player, the SCD-1, in Issue No. 26 of The Audio Critic (downloadable from this website). I could hear no difference between the CD and SACD layers of the same disc when stopping the player and switching over, instant toggling between the two layers being impossible.

Now, Meyer and Moran are careful to point out that the new hi-rez formats generally sound better than standard CDs, but not because the processing technology is superior. The hi-rez discs are aimed at a more sophisticated market, and therefore the recording sessions and production techniques tend to be more sophisticated, more puristic, in terms of microphoning, compression, editing, etc. The use of a standard 16-bit/44.1-kHz processor as a “bottleneck” in the Meyer-Moran tests eliminated this concern. Comparing the CD and SACD layers of the same disc also eliminates it.

It should also be pointed out that more bits and a higher sampling rate in recording are still a good thing because they permit a little bit of unavoidable sloppiness, so that you can still comfortably end up with 16-bit dynamics and 20 kHz bandwidth. Meyer and Moran do not say that 14 or 15 bits in a truncated CD are just as good as 20. What they say is that spot-on 16-bit/44.1-kHz processing is as good as it gets, audibly.

Finally, let’s not confuse the Meyer-Moran tests with stereo vs. surround sound comparisons. All of the above has to do with the two channels, left and right, of stereo recordings, nothing else. The musical value of additional surround channels is something I have been wondering about lately, but that’s an altogether different subject.

—Peter Aczel

from http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index...Id=41&blogId=1

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA

from AES E-Library: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback by Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
and
BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

FYI.




How I love this kind of test, another bunch of people trying to prove a point that most of us don't care about.

Have to say that when I tried SACD that my own opinion was that the player in question was roughly on par with a CD player of roughly twice the cost.
 
Oct 3, 2008 at 6:55 PM Post #6 of 128
I love SACD!
On a bunch of titles the difference is slight, but on others its a huge improvement. And SACD are pretty cheap to buy. But in the end we are at the mercy of the engineer and co, if they do an average job you get an average sound, be that on lp, cd or sacd!
 
Oct 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM Post #8 of 128
There are quite a few good SACD's around. I would definitely say its worth the investment, but its not gonna make redbooks obsolete or make you lose interest in them, there are several redbooks that are recorded and mastered significantly better than a lot of sacd's.

IMHO though, sacd is only worth the entry price on a speaker rig (some of the surround sound sacds are really good) and you cant really get any significant benefits on headphones, ofcourse I have not heard any super high end equipment, but just my opinion anyways.
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 1:00 AM Post #9 of 128
SACD is great. I love it. Sad that it's not mainstream. However, if you have a high quality CD player and great amp, standard CD can sound great too especially if it's well recorded brotha.

chewie0ol.gif
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 2:58 AM Post #10 of 128
The reason I suddenly got thinking about SACD was because of the Quad CDP-2 which plays them while the Cambridge Audio 840c doesn't.

I would be using it mostly as a DAC for my two 300 disc players and with the Quad I could buy some SACD discs and not feel like I'd wasted money having a great CD player sat there doing nothing.

You can hear the benefits of SACD through headphones can't you, someone above says not.
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 5:49 AM Post #11 of 128
The CDP-2 is not an SACD player, sorry. What it will do though, is player the Redbook CD layer (which almost all SACD's have) but it won't play the SACD/DSD layer. You'll resultantly just be listening to the CD.
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 6:08 AM Post #12 of 128
Quote:

Originally Posted by xenithon /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The CDP-2 is not an SACD player, sorry. What it will do though, is player the Redbook CD layer (which almost all SACD's have) but it won't play the SACD/DSD layer. You'll resultantly just be listening to the CD.


You're right, misread an advert.
frown.gif



Saved me some money at least.
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 5:10 PM Post #13 of 128
I did a direct A/B comparison between CD and SACD a year or two ago and found out that there was no audible difference. Since then, I have bought a couple of hybrid SACDs, but most of the time I play them in my CD player. The SACD player is in the closet now.

See ya
Steve
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 5:33 PM Post #14 of 128
There's no innate advantage to the format, as shown by tests, but many SACDs are better mastered than available CD releases, so they still have their place.

It would of course be better if they abandoned the format and simply started mastering redbook CDs as well.
 
Oct 4, 2008 at 5:42 PM Post #15 of 128
I've got a few hundred SACDs and still buy them. The engineering and mastering tends to be better done, and many of the classical and jazz titles I enjoy are on SACD. I do pay for music and I don't mind paying a couple extra dollars for hi-rez. Eventually, I'll dedicate a listening room and put together a 5-channel rig.

If anyone wonders about the titles available, you can find them here:

The Super Audio CD | SA-CD | SACD Reference
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top