![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.33.84.204
In Reply to: The Clear Superiority of SACD in the Digital Class posted by O'Shag on August 13, 2006 at 23:30:06:
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?
![]()
Follow Ups:
"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
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: