 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.107.14.162
I just don't get how so many people in this hobby insist that 'redbook' is as good as SACD. It must be something akin to mass hypnosis, where a few influential people are successful in leading others to believe something which is clearly not true. Although I wouldn't regard myself as a 'golden ear', it is very plain that SACD is not just better than redbook CD, it simply wipes the floor with it. I mean the delta is not small. I remember the first time I put on an SACD in my system at home. I was floored at the incredible sound coming from my speakers. It was just night and day. Even my wife, a person who is completely uninterested in my audio hobby knows SACD sounds WAY better. I've heard expensive CD players too. The other day I listened to a 17k rig for redbook, and I've also heard the amazing DCS rig (the best I've heard for normal CD playback). But I get home and put a well-recorded SACD on my moderately priced but exceptionally good Denon 3910 and it is so much better than even the most expensive redbook rig. SACD is so much less compressed, especially in the midrange. The highs are much much more realistic and the bass is better resolved. The soundstage is much larger/deeper and imaging is far superior. The best SACD recordings even give vinyl a run for the money whereas CD just doesn't compare at all. CD just does not posess the resolution and inner detail of SACD.I wanted to ask fellow inmates - Do you think that manufacturers are trying to persuade us that CD is on par with SACD and if so why? I've pretty much decided that any digital player I buy at this point forward has to support the clearly superior SACD format.
Follow Ups:
You probably ought to listen to one of the non-filtering, non-oversampling dacs before you sign off on redbook and on to SACD for good. In my experience, they are the most persuasive challenge to high rez. High rez can be interesting to listen to but so far in my house, redbook is truer and more truly engaging.
That RBCD is superior to SACD? Well, it isn't my experience, but then both sound adequately good to me on good recordings. Maybe it has to do with implementation in individual component models. What does sound silly though, is that lower resolution might be inherently superior to higher resolution.So to me the problem with RBCD is that it exists at all in these latter years when equipment capability and storage media make higher resolution totally practical. I suspect that DSD and PCM 24/96 - when properly implemented - are totally transparent to human hearing. The same might or might not be true for RBCD, but if true, I suspect that proper implementations is harder to achieve.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
"What does sound silly though, is that lower resolution might be inherently superior to higher resolution." If the alleged higher resolution comes with unseemly extra artefacts, maybe not so silly.
Yes, there are DACs that sound very good, and they are very expensive. Perhaps they do challenge the High Rez formats to some degree. But when you can get exceptional sound from a player in the 3,000 range it becomes more of a struggle to justify that 8k or more price tag. In playing redbook the higher-priced DAC will do a better job, but we have to think about which of the technologies - SACD/DVD-A/DTS or redbook CD - provide better sound. I think that the higher resolution intrinsic in the SACD DSD or DVD-A/DTS formats make for a better resolved and less compressed sound. Voices, Cymbals, Drums Woodwind intruments, guitar, piano anything really - they all just sound more like the real thing. A well-recorded multi-channel version is about the best sound digital can offer IMO (well-recorded being the key).
In my house, a $2000 transport and $2000 non-upsampling/non-filtering dac sounded more involving than a $5000 SACD player. I don't think it's the resolution that's the issue. It's what else happens to the data in an SACD player that seems to amount to a loss along with expected gains. I wish I knew enough about what's goes on in the SACD process to say something more enlightening here. All I can say, and it's just for consideration, is that the actual comparative listening experience with a decent non-upsampling/non-filtering front end and a SACD front end doesn't give the results most folks expect. There are very intelligent folks on both sides of this debate (Jared Sacks of Channel Classics and Peter Qvortrup to name two), so it's clearly not the old VHS vs Betamax argument.
I've heard the 47 labs gear and a wide range of Audionote dacs. These really do something quite special -- very natural and relaxed sounding without being sluggish or muffled. In particular, the Audionote DAC-5 signature is extremely good, but, it is really up there in price (would you believe I know three people who have the 47 Labs Pitracer/DAC-5 signature combinations?).
I have had a similar experience to O'Shag. In fact, it was listening to a friend's SCD-1 comparing redbook CD's to SACD's that got me back into this hobby after many years of listening to consumer equipment. Most SACD's are much better than the corresponding CD's. However, I have heard (and purchased, unfortunately) a number of SACD's that are not better than their redbook counterparts. Also, I have heard some redbook CD's (eg. Mapleshade releases) that are as good as any SACD's. But these are the exceptions. In general, SACD's provide a much more analog-like sound. Much LESS fatiguing than redbook, in my opinion. I am not surprised at all that SACD did not catch on as a replacement for redbook CD's. After all, most consumers cannot hear a difference between a 128kbps mp3 and the same song on a CD. What surprises me is that audiophiles, who are rightfully disdainful of mp3's, have not embraced SACD's. To my ears, the difference between a redbook CD and a similar recording on SACD is comparable to the difference between a 256kbps mp3 and a CD. My guess is that most "audiophiles" pay much more attention to what they read in the magazines than what they hear with their own ears. How else could you explain someone paying $1200 for an electrical power cord?
"What surprises me is that audiophiles, who are rightfully disdainful of mp3's, have not embraced SACD's."I think the tradeoff is resolution versus "digital fatigue".... MP3 lacks resolution, high-rez formats are too fatiguing.... The Redbook CD strikes a happy medium for me.
Although I also think the "ideal" digital source would have a sample rate of 50kHz and utilize a word length of 18 or 20 bits. I think this would be sufficient resolution to be virtually indistinguishable from high-rez (in short-term listening), yet a lot more listenable than high-rez.
I'm not sure that what's fatiguing in SACD is higher resoloution.
Tantra I agree that SACD software is not always great. And your right about SACD being less fatiguing. Todd, I think its not the additional resolution causing the fatigue. Take analogue for instance. With a very good table-arm-cartridge combo and importantly a good phono preamp, analogue can sound to be fully resolved (high resolution), ie live sounding. It is better at resolving three dimensional space and objects within that space than the digital formats(not including multi-channel). But SACD (or DVD-Audio) get a lot closer to the analogue sound than CD IMO. Many SACDs sound so relaxed and natural that it can come as a bit of a shock when the uninitiated first listen to the medium.If an SACD sounds mediocre its not because of the technology, but the master tape from which that SACD was recorded. SACD will more accurately reproduce what is on the master tape. I think that SACD as a technology is a positive evolutionary step forward of the digital medium. Unfortunately part of the audio community seem to be convincing us that we are 'at war with East Asia.'
"Todd, I think its not the additional resolution causing the fatigue. Take analogue for instance. With a very good table-arm-cartridge combo and importantly a good phono preamp, analogue can sound to be fully resolved (high resolution), ie live sounding. It is better at resolving three dimensional space and objects within that space than the digital formats(not including multi-channel)."It's not the resolution itself that's fatiguing, for I think vinyl is the least-fatiguing medium of all, due to the absence of RFI.
What makes hi-rez fatiguing to me is the intensive "number-crunching" going on, and the RFI by-product (generated by the high-time-density "bit switching" that occurs in digital devices- "0 to 1" and "1 to 0" for each bit, at a rate of the sample frequency- The switching "transition" contains components in the RF range) is what I think causes the fatigue. If this RFI can somehow be curbed or eliminated in future design, I'd definitely join the high-rez club. (I also think if this phenomenon is ever to be eliminated to a widespread degree, vinyl would truly become obsolete.)
Although there is still "number-crunching" going on with Redbook CD, I think the RFI generated in the best cases is low enough to be tolerable. I've yet to encounter such a case with high-rez playback.
Thats an interesting point. I wasn't aware of the higher RFI generated from the additional number crunching. I'll have to check into that further.Still, my ears tell me that SACD format is better than the regular CD format in terms of more realistic, less compressed and generally better resolved sound. I also find that with well-recorded discs the medium is less fatiguing to listen to. That said I do have discs that don't sound as good or aren't that much different than the regular CD version, or that do sound a little harsh, but most of the SACD discs I own are much better.
My experience with higher resolution seems to the opposite of yours! While listening to CDs & even some 96/24 DVD-As, I don't always listen to the complete disc from start to end but involuntarily jump tracks. On the other hand with DVD-A at 192/24 or good 96/24 I tend to listen to the whole disc without using the forward button. And often these CDs, HDCDs and 96/24 DVD-As sound very good to my ear as if it is real! But apparently my sub-concious can pick out the difference in sampling rate.Many weeks ago I was listening to a CD, got bored so moved up to a HDCD listened a while but I still was not satisfied so put in a 96/24 DVD-A. I still was not satisfied and so did not complete the entire disc. I decided to give up and read a book in the next room (as it had natural daylight) but before leaving I poped in a 192/24 DVD-A . The DVD-A was Mozart's Requiem KV626 (Hodie) and is in Latin (AFAIK) and I do not appreciate it much. But surprisingly, the music floating in from the next room captivated me so that I took my book back to my listening room and read using artificial light and listened to the whole disc!! It could not have been the music because I prefer the music in the previous discs better. It must have been the higher sampling rate which my body felt comfortable with.
Do you have an RF problem in your house? I use ferrite beads/rings on power cords of all electrical equipment in my house except the sound system. I think this helps. Earlier I used them instead on my sound equipment but the sound sucked!
... Is that they are effective only up to 1 GHz (or maybe lower). There is an awful lot of stuff today going on above the frequency, e.g. cell phones, wireless LAN, and wireless 'phones.That said, I use ferrite cores on all my digital equipment. Haven't heard that they make much difference, but at least they were cheap.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
Ferrite Beads on power cords - I'll have to try that. Where can I get ferrite beads?
I bought some Audioquest ones many years ago. They were pricey and do not seem to be sold anymore. Recently I found some in a local electronics shop for a few dollars each. Do search the internet, I found one UK link:
http://www.hificables.co.uk/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/11003/
More info on the topic (containing the picture of a Audioquest ferrite bead)
http://www.wonderquest.com/rf-stopper.htm
Until RFI/fatigue can be kept in check in digital playback, the best digital will have to offer for me is Redbook CD.... Anything of higher resolution I cannot listen to for longer than 15 minutes, before realizing there is something grossly wrong with the playback.... I stop enjoying the music, and start being overwhelmed by the digititis.But like anything else, if you like it, no problem.
nt
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
Hi Todd,To the contrary, I actually find SACD to sound less fatiguing. Like the real thing, the sound seems more natural to me, more relaxed yet dynamic at the same time. I can crank up the volume to realistic levels without compression setting in.
In my experience CD is more fatiguing unless played at lower levels. The exception to this is when I make a CD-R of a record, and this sounds good. But SACD sounds more like analogue. The top end is less compressed sounding.
I mean, when you assert, " In my experience CD is more fatiguing unless played at lower levels. The exception to this is when I make a CD-R of a record, and this sounds good. "? For a start, it demonstrates that CDs can sound good.And I once heard a TAS writer assert that when he wants best sound from a CD, he cuts an analog disc from it and listens to that - of course, not many of us have the equipment cut analog discs.
All this convinces me that analog record creations somehow filters the sound in a euphonic way, and that it does not record sound more accurately . I suspect the effect of tube amplification is analogous.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
I'm not sure what your point is really.On my own equipment, which is neither the best nor the worst, the best SACDs are definitely better to my ears than the best CDs.
However, the selection of music on SACD has always been extremely limited. And although you can blame any sort of conspiracy you want, the fact is, audio quality is not of much importance in the marketplace. It never has been.
So you still, as always, have to get the music you like in whatever form it happens to be available. For me, as for most people these days, that is the CD format for MOST music.
I would really be happy if the best music always came out with the best sound quality, formats aside. But this has never been the case and never will be.
And as far as your melodramatic "so much better than even the most expensive redbook rig." Have you heard the most expensive redbook? I doubt it.
Tunenut,I believe this is a forum to discuss topics concerning digital, which is what I am doing. I hope I did not offend anyone and it was certainly not my purpose. A couple of statements you make leave no doubt that you feel I'm wasting time and space with this topic or I don't have the experience required to voice an opinion or ask a question.
I don't believe I was being melodramatic in the premise that SACD is far superior to redbook in terms of sound quality. I felt compelled to start this thread because I feel strongly that SACD as a format has been swept neatly under the carpet and I was trying to get other peoples feelings on this. Sorry it bothers you so much. Perhaps you have invested in a very expensive CD player and it is painful to think that such an investment could be bested by a run of the mill $1,600 player?
Yes I have heard several very expensive CD players and Transport DAC combos (at least expensive in my estimation) some of which I thought to be excellent, and you could have ased me this before suggesting that I am making a statement when I don't know what I'm talking about - in other words you are misdirected in your attempt to make me look like a fool. Attempting ridicule as a form of debate is uncalled for.
The fact remains that the SACD format is superior to redbook CD in terms of sound quality. The question is why has SACD been labeled a 'dead' format and why have so many articles I've read in the audio press clearly attempted to paint a picture of a technology not worth investing in?
"The fact remains that the SACD format is superior to redbook CD in terms of sound quality."
You say "I believe this is a forum to discuss topics concerning digital, which is what I am doing...", but the statement above leaves no room for debate whatsoever.Myself and others with experience disagree with you, but what's the point arguing against 'fact' simply with our misguided opinions?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Chris I'm sorry about that. Didn't mean to sound overbearing. I do hear a very clear improvement from SACD, but I guess there are many who prefer the sound of redbook CD. Honestly, I can't see why but I've heard some interesting suppositions including the pervasiveness of RFI during intense number crunching and perhaps that is valid. But even considering this I still find high-rez formats to be superior, especially SACD. Example of a good player (CD and SACD) is the EMM DAC6e / CDSD transport, where CD reproduction is very good but SACD reproduction has been desribed as pre-conception-shattering.
While SACD and also DVD-A do ultimately have more 'resolution' which will show when the same player is used for demonstrating both the higher rez and CD playback, dedicated CD players/combinations have evolved and refined over the years to the point where the best provide digital replay that does not leave the listener wanting anything to do with SACD/DVD-A.Modern transports are detracting from the advances being made in DAC technology, and the belief that transport quality is now irrelevant due to jitter-correction or buffering post transport is proved to be be laughable to anyone who puts this to the test in a half decent system.
Apart from the TEAC VRDS NEO, where is there an 'audiophile' quality, 'over-engineered' SACD or DVD-A transport to stand against earlier TEACs or Philips CDM1 CD transports?
Resolution is not the be all and end all when it comes to sound reproduction - it's quality rather than quantity - and I for one have never heard any high-rez replay which came close to the best CD replay based on the parameters I judge to be most important.
Yes, SACD does do some things that CD can't, but what the best CD does is render SACD's slight edge in resolution irrelevent by doing the most important things better.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Or you just feel that CD on the APL modded player exceeds SACD? Or is your opinion that CD on another player exceeds the SACD on the APL player? Just curious, as I expected your tune to change once you got a good SACD player.
"Just curious, as I expected your tune to change once you got a good SACD player."
Are you sitting comfortably - I don't want you to fall off your chair, but I still haven't actually got any APL SACD player to make the comparison with. :0(On a more positive 'note' though, I do have an almost full Audio Note system which I'm reviewing which will be completed by the arrival of an AN DAC and transport combination soon. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Your patience is quite amazing. AP is lucky, assuming you are still waiting for delivery. Anyway, I will still be curious whenever you may get it, please post your impressions.
"Anyway, I will still be curious whenever you may get it, please post your impressions."I'm quite curious myself! :0)
Yes, of course I'll post my impressions and in fact I'll possibly be writing a full review for Dagogo.com although I'm not sure if I'll be ending up with an APL integrated player such as the APL Denon 3910, or the new APL DAC combined with a decent transport; a lot depends on rack space, but now I've put a second system in the bedroom there are various options I need to get my head around.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"Modern transports are detracting from the advances being made in DAC technology, and the belief that transport quality is now irrelevant due to jitter-correction or buffering post transport is proved to be be laughable to anyone who puts this to the test in a half decent system."
Here's what I have. A Sony SCD-1 that I've had for over 6 years. And no less than 1000 SACDs, although I don't keep count, I've bought many over the last 6 years.So in some sense, I do know about the sound of SACD.
I am nowhere near as sure as you are that it blows away the best of CD, for the simple reason that I have not heard the best of CD. I have heard the highly regarded Reimyo CD player, but only in rather poor show conditions, so I don't consider that to be a real data point.
At any rate, on my SCD-1, the best SACDs are better than the best CDs, but hardly in the hyperbolic terms that you use.
If SACD has been swept under the carpet, it is not my doing. If everyone had bought SACDs as I did, this would now be the dominant music format. But the fact is, they didn't. And as I said, I enjoy the music I like on whatever format it exists.
I use to have an SCD-1 too. I agree that on a direct comparison of that machine playing redbook and SACD the SACDs sound better, but not dramatically better in most instances. The difference is best heard on good classical recordings where the sound of the hall and the natural decay of reverberant energy is critical. A lot of rock music is so poorly recorded that SACD's superiority cannot really be appreciated.I replaced the SCD-1 with a redbook Naim CDS3. I MUCH prefer the sound of the Naim over the SCD-1, even when comparing the SACD layer to the redbook layer played on the Naim. I know this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, given that the SCD-1 is much less costly and is an early version of an SACD player. But, this does illustrate that the putative inherent superiority of SACD is not so great that it swamps other differences in quality of players. I have heard other comparisons where redbook players come out ahead: EML vs Audionote, Cary 306 vs. Naim CDX2, and modified SCD-1 vs. Audionote.
I too am waiting for a machine to arrive on the scene that is terrific with both SACD and redbook (I did not like the dcs stack I heard and the Esoteric X-01 I heard). In the mean time, I have purchased at least 50 classical dual layer discs even though I now have only a redbook player. In almost all instances, these are terrific sounding discs (to me, this shows that careful recording and mastering is more important than the format).
Larry,Thats not really a fair comparison. The Naim CDS3 (terrific player - I've heard it) has better power supplies, caps, so on and so on. It is 'pimped' as my 21 year old son might say (in fun of course) compared to the first generation SCD-1, which as you rightly point out is bested by the latest generation SACD players. But if you compare the Naim - as wonderful as it is - playing a redbook CD along side the DCS Delius/Verdi La Scala playing the same music in SACD (as long as it is from a well-recorded original source or native digital recording then the difference will become more significant. Plus the dCs can do multi-channel.
But I have heard the full DCS set up. I did like its SACD performance, but there was something missing for me in the redbook performance. I cannot say exactly what, but the music was not quite engaging and seemed a touch polite. This could easily be a matter of system integration, but it did not blow me away.No question that the SCD-1 and CDS3 comparison was not fair. I was merely pointing out that those who claim that SACD is so vastly superior that it blows away any implementation of redbook is wrong.
Right now, I have a friend's Naim 555 player in my system. It is a very subtle improvement over the CDS3 (boy, do you have to pay BIG bucks for marginal improvements). There is also no doubt in my mind that a good transport coupled to an Audionote DAC-5 signature would easily trump the CDS3. But, it took quite a while for redbook to reach this level of refinement and I am sure SACD has plenty of room for refinement too.
"I replaced the SCD-1 with a redbook Naim CDS3. I MUCH prefer the sound of the Naim over the SCD-1, even when comparing the SACD layer to the redbook layer played on the Naim. I know this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, given that the SCD-1 is much less costly and is an early version of an SACD player. But, this does illustrate that the putative inherent superiority of SACD is not so great that it swamps other differences in quality of players. I have heard other comparisons where redbook players come out ahead: EML vs Audionote, Cary 306 vs. Naim CDX2, and modified SCD-1 vs. Audionote."I think with SACD vs. redbook, this apples to apples thing can be overrated as a concern. I'm pretty sure I heard what SACD has to offer on the $5000 Audience modified Sony 999 and musically it came in a clear second to several different AN transport/dac combos. I would expect the same with 47 Labs gear. And you are the second guy to say that they preferred an AN dac to the EML. With the Sony and the Naim, I think you may have been listening to the differences in the marques as much as the differences in the technology. But then, SACD does have some of the characteristic Sony sound, which I have always found a bit unnaturally smooth, tending toward grey. A very nice grey, but grey nevertheless.
"A lot of rock music is so poorly recorded that SACD's superiority cannot really be appreciated"Except for a few scattered instances, I like rock music on SACD much more than CD. Dylan, Stones, Can- these are absolutely superb reissue sets. I was hoping for a golden age of such reissues, but it looks like that's about all we're getting.
For whatever reason, I still like vinyl LP- and in many cases, the rock music SACDs I have are reminiscent to my ears of good old LP sound and much more so than even my favorite CDs. Big Star, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Talk Talk, Richard Thompson - excellent SACD reissues. Unfortunately, rock and related music has always been extremely poorly represented on SACD.
Tunenut,I think my observation is correct, and not hyperbolic as you would have it.
If you don't mind me saying so, its revealing that you have chosen to invest so heavily in SACD software - at $15 (usally they're about $19-$22) a pop that would be about $15k according to your more than 1000 SACDs in your collection - yet you don't hear much of a difference especially given that SACD sofware is generally more expensive than CD. You are clearly a man of considerable means to afford $15k on software that does not particularly impress him over an alternative (CD) that would cost much less.
Incidentally the newest generation of SACD players are better than the first generation. Although the SCD-1 is built extremely well and is an excellent transport, my Denon 3910 sounds better. I have a friend I visit regularly who owns the SCD-1.
The Reimyo CD player you mention costs the price of a small car. As a CD player I have no doubt it sounds very good, but compared to SACD, I doubt it sounds better. Besides, my SACD player is $1,600. Perhaps you may feel that this is too low cost to meet the definition of an 'audiophile' class player?
First- "exceptionally good Denon 3910 and it is so much better than even the most expensive redbook rig."Second- " but compared to SACD, I doubt it (Reimyo) sounds better"
A note of uncertainty has replaced the dogmatic hyperbole of your first post. And this is quite rational.
Since you have not actally heard the Reimyo, you should keep an open mind rather than promulgating absolutes.
And the Reimyo is far from the most expensive CD player out there these days.
The reason SACD is dead is because of the lack of music available on SACD not because of sound quality. I think its pretty obvious to most listeners that a well recordered SACD sounds better than a well recordes CD, but the fact that i cant get any of my favorite music on SACD really means its useless in my book.
Yes Frank25 - you're right. But why is there a lack of software out there. Doesn't seem to make sense. Obviously many audio enthusiasts know that SACD is better and we are always looking to get closer to the 'real' sound. Knowing this, why are the folks who record music in the real world not cutting to SACD? Is it becuase the licensing costs are too high from Sony or Philips? I'd like to get some feedback on this.
"... it is very plain that SACD is not just better than redbook CD, it simply wipes the floor with it...."If you believe this you are probably not comparing apples to apples, and most likely the flaw in your "tests" is the loudness level. On a state of the art system, with loudness calibrated to less than 0.5 db the differences on a blind basis are subtle. In fact SACD can be identified blind by those who are trained to do it, but not by its overall superiority. There is a dry chirping in the very soft passages or silences that is not present on PCM and has to do with DSD noiseshaping.
CD has come a long way. In the last decade, jitter suppression, proper noiseshaping and good upsampling algorythms have done more for digital sound than has higher resolution. Since both things have taken place concurrently many confuse where the benefits have been coming from.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for high resolution, and although DSD is the product of a commercial strategy rather than straight-line technological innovation, there are great sounding SACDs out there. But good CDs come very close, and if you really think hi-rez " wipes the floor with" CD you are undoubtedly missing the big picture.
For example, Respighi's The Birds as well as some works of Messaien. Also I find it adds greatly to Weather Report's Birdland and to a rock album called Mr. Tambourine Man.
Don't forget the Pastoral Symphony.That's the spirit.
HowdyBoy that's a new one: "There is dry chirping in the very soft passages or silences that is not present on PCM and has to do with DSD noiseshaping."
What I hear in soft passages of SACD is room ambiance or extended decays that are missing from Redbook.
-Ted
Ted,I would agree. In my setup the noise floor of my system when playing SACD is very low. And your spot on about ambient information, its more pronounced with SACD than CD. By the way I've never experienced a chirping sound with DSD either???
O'Shag
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is...42
It is there.
HowdyWith all of the grief you've given me about the (documented) effects of ASRC I've got to ask you by what mechanism do you claim that DSD noiseshaping causes "dry chirping in the very soft passages or silences that is not present on PCM"?
How many systems have your heard this on? Who else has heard it? What documentation do you have? If you haven't heard it on a lot of systems what makes you think it's not just an artifact of a particular system? (There are a few systems which weren't designed for such a wide bandwidth signal (especially with a lot of hi-freq energy), but do quite well with 20KHz Redbook.)
With all of the SACD detractors who flooded this place in the past I don't remember anyone coming up with this one.
I've listened to too many SACD systems to count and looked at too many FFTs of DSD DACs to count and never heard nor seen what you are talking about.
You claim that the artifacts of ASRC are not really a problem, but yet they show up in a format where the noise floor is -96dB and you say that the effects you hear in DSD are noticeable where the noise floor is -120dB. This just doesn't make sense.
-Ted
'If you believe this you are probably not comparing apples to apples'.But thats just it Bertie, I'm not comparing apples to apples. The sound quality is so noticable that one doesn't have to sit and strain ones ears or worry about this or that cable. In fact if you brought over your expensive CD player and best possible cables to my house and I had my $1,600 SACD player on budget cables I'd bet the SACD would still sound much superior. Its like watching a 480i picture from a player built to a very high standard but without progressive scan capability - say the Denon DVD5000. Then looking at 480p from a budget Sony. Sadly that one minor technological difference renders the beautifully built Denon DVD5000 obsolete. But then, an even more appropriate comparison would be to 1080i because SACD is very noticably better at delivering an accurate rendition of the original performance. So you see apples to apples comparison is just not necessary.
The same thing can be said of 96/24 DVD-audio or HDCD for that matter, where Redbook CD is just not able to deliver the same level of performance to either of these PCM based formats. No matter how much one manipulates the base technology - better power supplies, caps, wiring, isolation etc. - the higher resolution SACD technology is inherently superior from the outset for the simple reason that it can read and rationalize digital information at the far higher sampling rate of 2,822,400 samples per second. CD frequency response extends to 20KHz whereas DSD theoretically goes as high as 100MHz. CD has a dynamic range of 96DB or thereabouts however DSD recording can acheive 120db across the entire audible range.
The problem of sofware availability is true, but then this misses the point. It doesn't change the fact that SACD is a superior technology. I think people who refuse to accept this are deluding themselves. Perhaps its because a budget SACD player for $1,600 can eclipse an $6000 CD player in performance without any fussing about. Yes the the CD player may use the very best components and yes it may sound less edgy and more agreeable to some tastes but it won't sound as REAL.
As far as the big picture goes, I have been building and tweaking my audio system for more that 25 years. I've owned and listened to some very fine components, and I've heard many different types of systems. I also read industry periodicals and peruse forums quite regularly. With all due respect, I think I do see the big picture - all too well...
Apples to apples means the test conditions are a level playing field. Sorry you wasted time writing a post before you understood this.
SACd has lower dynamic range than CD above 10khz due to noise shaping, it is nowhere near 120db across the audible range.Cheers
HowdyIt's 120dB till after 20K then it rises. There is a lot of confusion based on outright misinformation and also on misinterpretation of the 1/3 octave averaging used in Stereophile's noise floor tests.
Here's a good post by Dave Kingsland which talks about this issue:
-Ted
Thanks for the linkCheers
If I am technically wrong then Sony (the inventor of CD) is technically wrong, because Sony states plainly that DSD recording can achieve 120db across the entire audible range. Is Sony lying to us? Please advise...
My experience is that until you get to a very hi-end RBCD player,a good SACD player will be noticably superior on well produced SACD's. I have a Marantz SA-11s1 and it is clearly better than the two $3000 RBCD players I auditioned. In fact, my old SA 8260 was also superior. Of course YMMV.
For the high end rb player,what are you talking 1000,2000, 3000,name some numbers.
The two auditioned were an Ayre CX 7e and an Electrocompaniat EMC 1. I struggled to hear the differnence on RBCD between them and my Marantz SA 8260. Putting the SACD versions of a few discs on the Marantz then confirmed the clear superiority of the SACD. Interestingly, when I auditioned the SA 11S1, there was no struggle -the SA 11s1 RBCD was far superior, not too mention the SACD. I realize I may not have the ears of a true audiophile, which in my case saves me some dollars. My wife did feel the Ayre had a better top end, but that was in a comparison of redbook between the Ayre and SA 8260. I believe the Marantz players, and the SA11 s1 in particular, are outstanding values and take you 90-95% of the way to audio nirvana. They just don't have the cache of the more popular units on this board.
Thanks that was a good explanation.it does seem that Marantz does have decent price and performance.
Its important not to write off the technology based on a poor disc. Even vinyl can sound awful with many records because of poor recording techniques, and it can sound absolutely stunning with good recordings. The same holds true for SACD. Yes 96/24 DVD-Audio is excellent but that is a high-res format and not 'redbook' CD. I think that SACD does have the edge over DVD-Audio in sound quality though. The SACD disc spins much faster and retrieves more information at at higher sampling rate ergo higher resolution and more micro and macro detail.Some hybrid SACDs don't have full resolution for their two-channel mixes but many do. In many cases listening in multi-channel is not neccessary to hear the superiority of SACD.
FYI here are some SACDs that have great sound quality in two-channel: BB King - Reflections, Oscar Petersen - Exclusively for my friends, Diana Krall - When I look in Your Eyes and The Look of Love, The Conga Kings - Jazz Descargas, Jamie Cullum - Twenty Something, San Fran Symphony Orchestra/ Michael Tilson Thomas - Mahler Symphony #6.
You put any of the above on a reasonably good DSD SACD player even in two channel the sound should eclipse anything CD can do. If it doesn't then there might be something wrong in your system.
I agree about multi-channel mixes. Some of them are mixed too heavy in the rear. But the ones that are not, with a really good multi-channel processor/amp, multi-channel can produce sound quality that redbook CD can only dream of.
O'Shag
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is...42
as a pratical matter it makes no real difference. There are not enuf, nor IMHO will there ever be enuf, SACD recordings to justify buying a high end SACD player, especially if you already have a reasonably good quality RB system. For those of us who don't sit around fixated on the 'sound' of our systems its a moot point. High quality RB recordings and playback is quite adequate, for me anyway. :-)
And which of the Asylees are you referring to, exactly? You are FAR too healthy! :-)I more or less agree with you. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'll buy some more SACDs from time to time and will listen to the SACDs I already have, so I need an SACD player. Between those and my CDs and LPs, I'll be satisfied. What annoys me, though, is the self-serving flip-flopping by the audio press and dealers. It would be fine if they said, "SACD is better, but it's dead, so we're going to focus on RBCD". But no. The approach seems to be, "Well, regardless of what we might have said before, we no longer believe SACD is better because RBCD playback has thoroughly reinvented themselves lately and is now better! It's so much better that we now prefer the RB layer on Hybrid discs! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
JoshT is right. OK if folks think SACD is dead, maybe it is maybe it isn't, but I don't think its ok for the reviewers and manufacturers to talk as if CD can reproduce music in the same way as long as you can fork out a large sum. This is just not true. Dead or not, SACD is clearly the superior format - Its like saying 480i is just as good as 1080i, it isn't. Bottom line, if one system can reproduce a signal with higher resolution all else being equal, it clearly will tell more of the truth about the original recording.To the point about sitting around fixated on system sound, is'nt that what this hobby is all about? Hey, you may be satified to settle for second best, but if I can pay $1,500 for a player that does a great job with regular CD and in addition does a great job with the better SACD format, then I will fixate on getting that player. The end result is more musical enjoyment.
Unfortunately, for many it may well be what its all about, however for myself (and I assume others as well who may not visit the net as much) that may no be so.I bought an audio system to listen to music in the home, music I would not ordinarily be able to hear at concerts etc. This led me to my secondary interest of audio. While I play around with audio, music is my real hobby, not the latest trend or format in audio. I will cede to you that great audio can make listening more pleasurable but I don't buy/listen to music just because it might sound good, audio wise, if the performance isn't top rate, or at least in a manner that I enjoy.
If the performance is top rate I'll listen to it any way I can. As it stands right now there is not enuf SACD music that is not duplicative of stuff I own on LP's or RB that warrants a SACD purchase.
I'm happy that you have found, by your description, a modest audio system with which you can hear great RB and SACD from a $1500 player. Its so hard to find a great redbook player for $1500, let alone one that includes SACD. Congradulations! Perhaps you should identify this player, and your components as well so like minded folks can benefit from your experience and save a lot of time and money.
I'm sure that in an earlier 'audio life' I would have taken equal pleasure in adopting your style and editorializing about your choices in selecting audio equipment and informing you of the better choices available to you had you exercised better judgment. But life is too short, thats not where I'm at! :-)
Hi Chuck,You point is well taken. Music is the first priority and its true that SACD falls short in terms of software availability. I wonder why more artists did not adopt DSD recording?
Its easy to get bogged down in the incessant pursiut of a certain sound from a certain system, but I'll admit that I am guilty of that from time to time.
and overlooked the ID of your great redbook player which you have already ID'd as a Denon 3910. Sorry about that -
I'm not sure I agree that the difference is as clear as you have experienced. I think some excellent CDs will come very close to SACDs, although I do think my very best SACDs sound a bit more open and airy and natural.But what bothers me is the extent to which the audio press and many dealers now seem to be downplaying or even denying the difference. When SACD seemed to have a more promising future, these same people where preaching its virtues. Now that it's a dying format, or at least appears to be, the same folks are preaching how fantastic the latest advances in RDCD playback technology are and how the gap has been closed, etc., etc.
Seems so biased and self-serving.
I would have to agree with you -- about a year ago, I invested a considerable sum in an expensive very well-reviewed "universal" player, hoping to take advantage of the supposedly superior SACD and DVD-A formats. I purchased a small number of SACDs but honestly failed to hear that much of an improvement over the Redbook counterpart -- and I'm talking about well-reviewed discs with supposedly excellent sonics. About the only thing perhaps going for some of these SACDs was an improvement in dynamic range, but this was not enough to bowl me over. These particular CDs are not ones that I play very often at all, and I have not been moved to purchase any more. I am presently planning to sell this universal player.
here my thoughts:
I use three different players that will do SACD, and one is clearly better than the other two. But I also have a couple pretty good red book players as well. One of the redbook players does 24 / 96, and the other upsamples at 24 / 192. Cannot for the life of me tell a dimes worth of difference between the 192KHz and the 96KHz sampleing rates. But recently I picked up an SACD copy of Kinda Blue, and when compared with the DSD version I thought the latter sounded better. Why I'm not sure, but for surethere wasn't much if any advantange here. Later I picked up some of the 24 bit copies of some of the older Miles Davis stuff, and once again was well pleased when playing thru my Jolida. Then to add insult to injury I picked up a copy of a Doors CD mastered at 24 / 96. Was stunned at the sonics. Big and open
in the Jolida, but a bit edgy in the others.
gary
Gary, I've heard the DSD version of Kinda Blue and your right, its not that much different than the best CD version. I think this is because the original material is such that CD is capable of delivering results that are close to what DSD can accomplish. But many SACDs I own sound considerably better than redbook CD. 96/24 DVD-Audio and DTS also sound very good. I have 3 players capable of DSD SACD; Denon 3910, Sony DVP-NS9000ES(stereo only), and DVP-N900V(multi-channel). These may not be considered high-end but they all do a good job IMO. I have to question the practice of some players down-converting DSD SACD to PCM in order to access quality DACS. I am inclined to think that keeping the signal DSD all the way would be best.
Redbook CD and SACD have their own individual problems, and whether one sounds better than the other in a particular system depends on the relative magnitudes of these problems' influences on the sound.The higher data content of SACD should make it sound better. However the consumer implementation shifts noise to just above the audio band, where it can do major mischief with the sound. The mechanism involves intermodulation, which may be controlled by intelligent design or avoided by luck.
Redbook CD playback generates its own RF noise problems and is sensitive to external sources. Your descriptions suggest you have not heard Redbook CD playback where the RF noise has been brought under control.
SACD can sound better for two reasons:
1. The publisher remastered the original crappy CD master.
2. The publisher added some phoney multichannel effects.If you take a well master two channel CD and compared it with the same music on a two channel SACD it is very very doubtful that you would be able to hear the difference under controlled condtions (level matched ABX test).
Sorry EH, That I don't agree with. To Ted's point the balance of the multi-channel mix is critical. Some of my very best multi-channel recordings don't use the center channel. Others that sound great use all channels. Yes I do have some multi-channel discs that are too heavy in the rear, but on a well-balanced, well-recorded multi-channel disc, its clear that the future is not only going to be about high-rez, but also about multi-channel. To my way of thinking it is the future in digital (and its available now).
HowdyBoy you haven't heard a good SACD setup then :)
Most all of my multichannel SACDs which also have separate CD release don't contain "phoney multichannel effects." but instead are mixed from the original multichannel recording (sometimes three channel, more often four or five channel.)
Anyway using a Linn CD12 (which in it's time was considered a fine CD player and a lowly Marantz SACD player it was painfully clear that SACD had more info, more details, more room ambiance... When you move up to a better SACD player the differences are even more obvious.
Anyway I think it's an overgeneralization either way, but in my personal experience you can tell if a CD is playing with just a few moments of exposure, something is clearly missing that I enjoy about SACD. I have some friends who would say just the opposite. SACD and CD are clearly different.
-Ted
The music is soooo much more relaxed (ease of presentation), present and just plain there that any valid comparison is moot. DBT or not.I do however have several SACDs that just plain sound crappy. In most cases you can blame the original tape. Rock and roll doesn't really float my boat on SACD, so I generally stay away unless it is a title that I do not have or can be had for 5.99 at yourmusic.com. I blame that on the multi track recording techniques used on many of the albums of music that I grew up with. Sorry Gen Xers, but very little since MTV came about floats my boat. As if anybody here would really want to hear Howard Jones or Simon Lebone and the boys in high def.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
