[ssportclay]

It really doesn't matter weather SACD's superior sound is due to it's technical superiority or it's better mastering,(probably some of both). If it sounds better, it is better. Most equipment would have a hard time distinguishing the difference though. I would much rather have a very good CD player than a low level SACD player but better is better and SACD is better than CD.

 

[rogue]

IMO, SACD's don't offer much, if any, benefit when used with a 2-channel rig. Granted, I've only heard them out of my old Philips 963SA before it kicked the bucket. On the other hand, well-done 5.1 SACD's (DSOTM, A Kind of Blue come to mind here) can sound phenomenal and really present you with a different sonic experience than what you typically get with stereo.

 

[Spareribs]

I wish SACD format was mainstream though. I love the softer tones that it offers. It's a nice compromise between digital and analog. SACD rocks! Even though it is much better than standard CD, I still enjoy CD though but sometimes miss that softer tone.

 

[yashicaman]

Hybrid SACD's are nice for the superb mastering job. Hybrids tend to sound better in my regular cd player. SACD's sound fine, but the limited quantity and limited genres supported by this format, render SACD's to the margins of reproduced music. My CD player is a top model and sounds better than my top model SACD player with most discs. If you have really good gear, you really don't need SACD, but it is nice and does sound less digital and more lifelike.

SACD's are cool, but if you have really good gear, regular CD's are just fine and will sound good as well (maybe not as good as SACD, but close).

Cheers!

 

[stvn758]

What about DVD Audio, anyone heard that. The write up suggests it's way above SACD quality wise.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stvn758 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about DVD Audio, anyone heard that. The write up suggests it's way above SACD quality wise.

Both PCM and DSD camps have a robust agitprop campaign ongoing and both can provide sound (sorry) technical reasons why each is superior to the other, however.........

DVD-Audio versus SACD
Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats
Listening Comparison Test between DSD and High Resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz)
by
Dominik Blech and Min-Chi Yang (2004)


Suggests that few if any experienced, critical and skilled listeners can actually tell them apart...

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilgiljongiljing /img/forum/go_quote.gif you cant really get any significant benefits on headphones, ofcourse I have not heard any super high end equipment, but just my opinion anyways.

of course you can hear the difference, and I don't have anything hi-end, I'm using Pioneer PD-D6 SACD player, Victor EX-A10 amplifier and Victor HP-DX1000 headphones, SACD's sound truly amazing...

 

[nnotis]

I hear a very noticeable difference when listening to the CD layer vs the 2 channel SACD layer, even though both play at 44.1 kHz through my PS3. The cause is either improved dynamic range from the SACD format, or a different mastering job on the different layers.

To further test this, I bounced some of my own mixes in 24 and 16 bits. The improvements I hear in the 24 bit files over the 16 bit ones are very similar to those between the SACD and CD layers. I realize that DSD isn't a 24 bit format. But it supposedly has greater dynamic range than what humans can hear. If this is so, then it should sound as good to our ears as 24 bit.

There is also the issue of sample rate. No DAC is currently able to convert a 44.1 kHz file without rolling off some of the upper reaches of the audible spectrum. Using the Lavry DA10 DAC, I do hear a very small increase in high frequency resolution when comparing 44.1 to 96 kHz sampling rates. But as DACs continue to improve, this should be even less of an issue. Eventually, I expect it will be a non issue.

The bottom line is that the differences between CD audio and the higher rez formats are real and audible if your listening equipment is up to the task. Eventually, I’ll get around to posting small samples of my test mixes with everything but the bit depth identical. Then people can listen for themselves.

 

[bigshot]

When you bounce down to 16, keep an eye on the dither settings you are using. They can dramatically affect your output. I'm betting you'll find that they're responsible for the difference you are hearing in 24 vs 16, and I bet that the layers on the SACD you are comparing are not the same mix.

See ya
Steve

 

[Spareribs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stvn758 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about DVD Audio, anyone heard that. The write up suggests it's way above SACD quality wise.

IMO, SACD easily surpasses DVD Audio. It's much smoother and less digital sounding brotha.

 

[nnotis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you bounce down to 16, keep an eye on the dither settings you are using. They can dramatically affect your output. I'm betting you'll find that they're responsible for the difference you are hearing in 24 vs 16, and I bet that the layers on the SACD you are comparing are not the same mix.

Good point about the dithering. It would be very disturbing if Logic Audio does such a poor job with 16 bit bounces. But I'll have to investigate that possibility. As far as the SACD I was refering too, I compared the two layers using my Peachtree Audio Decco. It has a 16 bit DAC. I couldn't tell the difference between the two layers. With the DA10, the differences were obvious. It would be nice if I could flip a switch and make the DA10 16 bit. Then I could really isolate the variable of dynamics. But my listening session with the Decco does suggest that the added dynamic range of the SACD layer is audible, so long as the DAC is up to the task.

 

[jpelg]

[size=xx-small]???[/size]
Quote:

Originally Posted by nnotis /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as the SACD I was refering too, I compared the two layers using my Peachtree Audio Decco. It has a 16 bit DAC. I couldn't tell the difference between the two layers. With the DA10, the differences were obvious. It would be nice if I could flip a switch and make the DA10 16 bit. Then I could really isolate the variable of dynamics. But my listening session with the Decco does suggest that the added dynamic range of the SACD layer is audible, so long as the DAC is up to the task.

How are your DAC's receiving & processing the DSD digital signal?

 

[xenithon]

Yes, I am also a little confused. If you were hooking up an SACD player to the DA10 (or other non-DSD decoding DAC) e.g., via Toslink/coax, then it was being fed digital data read off the redbook CD layer.

For example, the only way I could compare CD vs. SACD with my Marantz SA7001 was to bypass the DAC and hook up via its analog outs to an amp, and swap between CD layer and SACD layer via the player itself.

 

[greggf]

Gotta agree with bigshot and others here.

I've had three topnotch SACD players. I can't remember the model numbers, so I'll shoot out the $$ cost of the players: a $3000 Sony (the original top-loader), a $4000 Esoteric, and a $4000 Marantz. The latter two I had within the last calendar year.

I listened. Carefully. Via all kinds of headphones and headphone amps, plus various speaker-based systems.

SACD, for 2 channel anyway, is not inherently "better" than CD. If the SACD mastering is better, then, of course, the SACD sounds better. And, as some have said, if you can find lots of well-mastered SACDs that you love, then, by all means, support SACD.

But me? I have two Onkyo DX-7555 CD players now.

My SACD illusions - delusions?? - are hopefully over.

There is absolutely no way to say that "SACD is smoother" or whatever. There are way too many variables, including the most important one: the mastering job. And comparing the CD layer of a hybrid disc to its SACD is useless, since you'll never, ever know what special sauce was used to master the respective layers.

 

[shamu144]

Well, I very much agree with the last comment.

Difference between PCM layer and DSD layer can vary significantly, depending basically on the mastering work.

Indeed, to get the best out of SACD/DSD, it is natural to look for pieces recorded on DSD consoles - of course property of Sony or Philips - (some Tesla label work and many others), or original analog masters with as little human intervention as possible (mastering).

You then get the best sound available.

All other CD/SACD production will mostly depend on the agility of the mastering engineer to swap between PCM and DSD flows, but will consistently deviate you from the "perfection".

To my eyes, CDA and SACD are not in competition against each other, but rather complement each others. You can not live with SACD only, but it would be a mistake to me to ignore SACD offer.