[SACD-Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have directly compared the layers of a SACD hybrid that was recorded and mixed DSD. It sounded wonderful, but there was absolutely no difference between the layers. They both sounded great. Great engineering makes for great recordings, not formats. See ya Steve

SO resolution means nothing?? How are you finalizing your opinion on the diff. between layers?

 

[greggf]

SACD-Man,

Please (please, please, please) understand that any extra "resolution" or whatever that you're hearing is just your opinion, as is your enjoyment of the SACD format in general.

There are very few absolutes in audio, and "SACD is superior" is not one of them.

If a gun were pointed at my head, I'd actually prefer CD to SACD/DSD more often than not. There's something annoying and artificially smooth about SACD - to me!

That's just my opinion. I may not be right. But you aren't right either!!

 

[jsaliga]

If a gun were pointed to my head, I would prefer recordings that sounded better.

I could care less about what format it is on, be it LP, CD, SACD, or DVD-A. I used to go through phases where at first I thought CDs were fine, then vinyl was the sound quality king, and after that I was on a SACD kick for a while. I have come to the conclusion, like Steve, that formats are far less important than engineering and mastering. Get that wrong and the rest of it doesn't matter. It's better to pay attention to the music than the format.

I buy them all these days, but I only buy SACD on the promise of better mastering, and typically if the title is only available on Hybrid SACD...not because I think SACD is inherently superior to CD. I don't own a multichannel setup so that is of no interest to me.

--Jerome

 

[greggf]

"If a gun were pointed to my head, I would prefer recordings that sounded better."

 

[jsaliga]

Sometimes I have to remind myself about how truly great CDs properly done can sound...when the recording and mastering are equal to the task. I also understand that people will differ in their perception of what qualifies as a great sounding recording.

But right now I am listening to budget this EMI CD of Bruckner's 9th Symphony (Eugen Jochum conducting) and the sound quality is magnificent to my ears.

Would the same recording and mastering transfered to a high resolution format be an audible improvement? Perhaps, but from this listener's perspective I just don't see how. The few times I have noticed a difference between CDs and SACDs of the same recording it has all come down to differences in the mastering.

--Jerome

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SACD-Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif SO resolution means nothing?? How are you finalizing your opinion on the diff. between layers?

of course it means a lot, in digital world it means that the analogue signal is more properly represented in bits, high resolution is better for movies (blu-ray >>> dvd) and audio (SACD >>> CD) you can't deny it.

and as you can say that CDs can still sound good, or very good you should look for even more positive adjectives when listening to SACD...

 

[audioholik]

...currently listening to Ella and Louis (Verve Japan SACD)

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SACD-Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif SO resolution means nothing?? How are you finalizing your opinion on the diff. between layers?

Direct line level matched A/B comparison on several systems. I've also worked extensively with ProTools and have compared 16 to 24 bit bounces and found no difference in normal playback.

High bitrate is great for recording because it gives you a wide latitude for mixing. But for normal playback it is no different than redbook.

See ya
Steve

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif High bitrate is great for recording because it gives you a wide latitude for mixing. But for normal playback it is no different than redbook. See ya Steve

that's simply NOT true.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif of course it means a lot, in digital world it means that the analogue signal is more properly represented in bits, high resolution is better for movies (blu-ray >>> dvd) and audio (SACD >>> CD) you can't deny it.

With screens smaller than 40 inches, there is absolutely no benefit to blueray. At volumes lower than the threshold of pain, there is no benefit to SACD. Frequencies above the range of human hearing are by definition inaudible. More info isn't better unless all that extra info can be perceived.

The best human ears hear 20Hz to 20kHz. The average listening range for music is about 40 dB. LP, CD and SACD are all capable of reproducing that range perfectly. Format just doesn't matter.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's simply NOT true.

Proven to be true.

See ya
Steve

 

[Robonaut]

My experience is that SACDs do sound better.

Whether it is due to different mastering or due to some inherent superiority of the SACD format, that I cannot say.

What I do know is that, when the Depeche Mode SACD remasters came out, I had four of my friends over to listen to Speak and Spell. We compared the SACD layer to the CD layer and to the Swedish CD release. Everyone concluded that the SACD layer sounded best. Now, this was not a double-blind test, but none of my friends had any vested interest in favoring SACD and God knows that they're not reluctant to tell me their true opinions, so I can only conclude that they did, in fact, believe that the SACD layer sounded better.

I have done this with several other SACDs where I also own the CD (such as Boa's Best of Soul) and I've always preferred the SACD (though the difference is not always huge).

Finally, I believe that all of the absolutely best sounding recordings I own are SACD.

So, for me, I have no regrets about starting a SACD collection. For me, it's worth it just to be able to have Depeche Mode's and Dead Can Dance's catalogue in their very best presentation. For most people, though, it may not be worth it unless they listen to a lot of classical (which I also do) since classical seems to make up the bulk of the releases.

 

[Golden Monkey]

Depeche Mode and Dead Can Dance...wow, that just took me back to junior year in high school, lol...

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif With screens smaller than 40 inches, there is absolutely no benefit to blueray. At volumes lower than the threshold of pain, there is no benefit to SACD. Frequencies above the range of human hearing are by definition inaudible. More info isn't better unless all that extra info can be perceived. The best human ears hear 20Hz to 20kHz. The average listening range for music is about 40 dB. LP, CD and SACD are all capable of reproducing that range perfectly. Format just doesn't matter. See ya Steve

that also is not true, human ears can hear 120dB (dynamic range) and even 24kHz, but SACD gives you more accurate sound in the whole spectrum not only high frequencies, low are also better in SACD.

Blu-ray and SACD >>> DVD and CD

 

[bigshot]

When you compared the layers of the SACD hybrid, how did you do that? Was there a long pause switching layers? Were the levels matched? When I did my comparison, I had a difficult time getting to the point where I could directly compare layers. My player takes nearly ten seconds to switch over (way too long for auditory memory for subtle differences), and the CD layer always played quieter than the SACD layer (which has been shown to skew comparisons even with identical signals).

See ya
Steve