A thorough review that shows SACD to be very inferior to DVD-A (1 Viewer)

[KeithH]

Larry, I understand your point, but don't you think the companies developing DVD-Audio and SACD are just a bit further along the learning curve with digital audio than were Sony, Philips, recording engineers in developing the CD? I do. Many early CDs sounded completely awful. However, many early SACDs and DVD-Audio discs sound wonderful, and I would say that none sound awful when compared to the corresponding CDs. Will the fidelity of older recordings on these two high-resolution formats (i.e., not considering DSD or 24/192 recordings) improve over time? Perhaps, but I don't think the improvement will be as drastic as what we have seen with the CD.

 

[KeithH]

Joe, maybe you are right about the price of the 'XA777ES. I hope so for your sake.
Don't let this discussion get to you. I am not going to dispute the numbers regarding any format, but let your ears tell you which format is best. SACD still gets my vote over DVD-Audio, though I admit that my comparisons, like most everyone else's, are flawed. Some DVD-Audio discs sound outstanding (Hotel California and Two Against Nature, for example), but disc after disc, I am astounded by the sound quality of SACD.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
You said...

Starting at about 4-5K, as delivered to the consumer, the noise begins a rapid increase. By 10-12kHz the noise floor is worse than Redbook CD. By 15kHz the noise floor has crossed the threshold of audibility. At 20K it's around the -70dB mark.

I'm not sure this is correct...my understanding is that the digital noise is mathematically pushed out beyond 50 khz. I need to research this, but I certainly don't hear it. Highs sound natural as a baby's butt to me.
I will spend a few days researching and get back to you on this. One of the great things on the forum is being challenged in technical areas by people with some Home Theater background like yourself.
Now about the "euphonic sound of tubes". This is an audio phenomena no longer true. My Audio Research VT100 amps accurately portray quality midrange as do many new tube amps across the whole range of frequencies. In fact, many audio reviewers have been commenting on how solid state has gotten euphonic. More evidence that the world is improving to me - amps are simply getting better and sounding more neutral.
Stacey,
This is true, David used, for the older recordings transfered to DVDA and SACD, a PCM master. However, if you compare Bucky Pizzarelli discs sonically, SACD still seems the winner to me. I admit it may be that certain Super Audio components may be further ahead in development for the studio, but we are still interested only in what the formats sound like today. While I agree to some measure with Larry that things will improve much more, one has to jump in the pool at some point.
Listen to the APO label SACDs latest batch. The DSD box they are using must be good because the music sounds great.
Imagine when David Chesky uses a pure DSD chain throughout straight to SACD. Aaaaah. Now we are on to something.

Lee

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Keith,

I agree that the high resolution formats are farther along as well, but feel we can still see material improvement. It may not be the difference, admittedly, as between early 80s redbook and 2002 JVC XRCD2 mastering.

I think you are absolutely right - some very early SACDs sound amazing. One reason for this is that 80s circa CDs are very grainy sounding and have listener fatigue. Scientifically there is a big link between fatigue and high frequency reproduction and this is where both high rez formats excell.

Lee

 

[KeithH]

Lee said:

some very early SACDs sound amazing. One reason for this is that 80s circa CDs are very grainy sounding and have listener fatigue. Scientifically there is a big link between fatigue and high frequency reproduction and this is where both high rez formats excell.

I agree with this statement. My biggest complaint with CDs time after time lies in the reproduction of treble. To my ears, that's the most obvious weakness of the CD format.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
Start here:
Sony XA-777ES
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?491:6
Then go here:
Philips SACD 1000
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?353:4
For good measure, compare the cheaper than both of them Toshiba SD-9200:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?407:5
The noise is there, it is not shifted out of band for consumer delivery.
Regards,

 

[John Haghighi]

I am a major DVD-Audio fan.

That editorial is crap

"."

 

[Phil A]

This is Stereophile's comments with regard to the noise floor and the SACD 1000:

"With CD replay, the 16-bit noise floor is, again, about 12dB higher than the SACD noise floor, at least in the midrange and bass. The two are equivalent in the mid-treble, and while the CD floor features a rise in energy above the audioband, presumably due to the player making use of a bitstream DAC, this rise is dwarfed by that featured in the SACD spectrum."

 

[John Kotches]

Phil,
One can then draw this conclusion from information exchanged here.
It is perfectly natural for a baby's butt to have substantial amounts of High Frequency noise :p)
Hmmm.. Makes one think, it does!
Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
I'm not sure your examples support your cause all that much. As John Atkinson says,

Someone has finally begun to get multichannel players right, providing sound quality that you can't get from the best CD players, or from any DVD-A player I've heard...The Sony is however a $3,000 unit and is still fully capable of reproducing low level musical detail and more transparency in the midrange and upper octaves than any CD or DVD-A player I have heard at any price.

Lee

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,

What equipment are you listening to?

It would be good to know what DVDA and SACD player and amp/speakers/etc. you have used to come to the conclusion that SACD does not reproduce highs well.

Let us know.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Why is it when someone has any criticism over DSD/SACD it becomes about their equipment?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion, but if you really want to know:

Preamps:

Ed Meitners Switchman-2

Manley Labs Purist

B&K Ref 30

Amplifiers:

Aragon 8008x3B

Cinepro 3K6, Series 3

BAT VK-6200

Bel Canto eVo 200.6

Sharp SM-SX1 integrated

Speakers:

Soundline Audio SL-2

Soundline Audio SL6-6

Acoustat Spectra 22

SACD Players:

Sony DVP-S9000ES

Sharp DX-SX1

Marantz SA12-S1

Sony DVP-NS900V

DVD-A Players:

Onkyo DV-S939

Integra Research RDV-1

JVC XV-D723GD

Toshiba SD-5700

Kenwood DV-5700

That's it, it has to be my gear. GMAFB.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

I'll start with the tech stuff.

Noise XA-777ES (considered exceptional Multi-channel playback) vs Toshiba SD-9200 (considered a good player at its release a year + ago) at a number of frequency points:

Freq.......Sony.......Tosh

20Hz.......-130.......

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
First off, your equipment-this is not irrelevant! This is to gain an understanding of what level of resolution comparisons were made at. You and I both know that listing associated equipment is an industry standard on subjective audio reviews. Reference and Chesky even list their playback equipment in the liner notes.
It looks like good stuff, but I am not familiar with the speaker line you use so I have no opinion. Have you listened to the 777ES players though? They do a better job on highs than the players you listed. Maybe that impacted your opinion.
What is GMAFB?
Secondly, about the quotes. The post started by questioning Super Audio's capability versus redbook (the nerve of Peter Moncrieff!) with the quite vindictive IAR review. So I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and cover this as well. So Bob Harley's and Neil Gader's comments are valid here since it answers the post.
By the way, isn't it interesting that Bob Harley loves the sound of the cymbals? Corroborating evidence for sure! And Mike Bishop thinks the 24/96 feed sounds "glassy". He must be confused by all the noise he heard on the SACD feed.
As far as Michael Bishop is concerned, it is a very valid data point in his preference of DSD. Even though he is looking at 24/96, that is still a standard by your own logic that exhibits higher frequency clarity than SACD. You can't have it both ways.
Plus, wait until we see what Ed Meitner can do with his new DSD equipment. The APO Miles Davis release Cookin' is unbelievable. See Acoustic Sounds for more. The SACD format is evolving.
Also, I don't see why Andrew Quint liking a DVDA disc detracts from his love of Super Audio.
On the technical side, how do you know you can hear these small differences?
How do yo know these differences exist for all SACD designs?
My ears are studio trained and I like the naturalness of Super Audio better than high rez PCM on pro equipment. Check out the GUarneri violin solo on the Red Rose Sampler. While recorded hotter than I like, the nice rosiny strings sound very real to several of the classical quartets I have worked on. The instrument's overall tone is wonderful.
At least we agree that Super Audio is a step change over redbook.
As far as hearing really high frequencies, we also agree that it is inconclusive and more work needs to be done. Proving hearing above 30khz will be difficult I think.
Lee

 

[JaleelK]

I'm seeing some comments like "superiority is based on 'their' opinions!" Can anyone supply other "unbiased reviews" for me to read that are more then just opinion? To me this one seemed to be much more then just opinion, and they weren’t just saying one sounds better then another, but one is more accurate then another. They definitely are very opinionated, but they pointed out many non-opinion "facts" in my perception. I’d love to read more reviews of this type.

I think what he did is give more just unsubstantiated opinion, he did discuss how DSD/SACD was flawed above 8000 KHZ,even in comparison to regular CD, regular CD faired better than SACD in comparison to the master recording. He also corrobated his findings with other test performed and he mentioned how each time in each A/B or ABR test with SACD, the results were the same. He also so gave background information of how DSD came about, started as method by Phillips to introduce budget CD players to the masses.

This is not just anecdotal this is scientific procedures, this is more than just, SACD sucks and DVD-A blows it away kind of analysis. I think he gives an opinion, but you cannot say his opinion is absent of any kind of scientific foundation,distortion at 8000 KHZ can be measured and I going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually measured distortion at that frequency point. Also, the distortion he wrote about as being one of the flaws of SACD, was also noticed by Sound&Vision magazine, however I can't remember if they directly contributed it to the SACD format or as flaws in SACD players, Sound&Vision did say that distortion is present in all SACD players they have reviewed.

The problem I have with his tests is that he did not say if they were blind, double blind and level matched, I would be a more comfortable if the tests were at least blind and level matched, that way we know that the potential for any bias towards SACD, in favor of SACD,CD, DVD-A etc would have been eliminated. That is the reason double blind test are necessary, we want scientific proof and not someone advocating his personal feeling about a format.

 

[Brian-W]

What is GMAFB

Give Me A F**cking Break.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
I understand. You thought I was some yahoo, with a crappy set of Bose Acoustimass modules. That's not the case.
Soundline is a small speaker manufacturer that starts with BG planar magnetic drivers, and improves on their performance somewhat, and couples them with a better woofer match than the Radia speakers have.
Acoustat manufactured full range ESLs for a number of years.
I'm also a trained musician and spent about 15 years between grade school, high school, college and a few years after as a professional musician. It's a pretty safe bet that I have a firm grasp of what a cymbal sounds like from 3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet and even 50 feet as opposed to a recorded cymbal.
My opinion about SACD has been formed over a period of time, and has evolved as I've gained more exposure. My opinion is formed now that I'm past the "gee whiz" phase of the new item. My experience tells me that anything which draws attention to itself initially ends up being a weakness, and I too thought cymbals were awesome at first. Then I listened more, and more.
If you have read carefully my comments, you would see that I like the midrange on SACD, so it's not like I think it's crap. I just think it (like everything else) has its limitations. In other words, I don't think it (or DVD-A) or analog are the one single answer.
Have you listened to any of Mark Waldrep's material on AIX Records' DVD-A? Or the Hi-Res Music material of old Concord Jazz Analog masters in DVD-V / DVD-A? These are excellent examples of just how good "lowly" 24/96K can sound.
GMAFB, Give Me A Fine Break
Hopefully none of us is taking this too personally, because there's certainly room for varied opinions
Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
That's interesting. I also love planar magnetic drivers. I use Maggie 1.6QRs in my system, soon to be 3.6s!
They are quite awesome on mids and highs.
And no I am not taking this too personally. I think it has been a good discussion. I personally don't hear the high frequency problems on SACD but do understand concern of some over the noise shaping that goes on in that region.
I was going to be upset until I saw the "FINE" break...
I have not heard some of these recordings but you have given me a shopping list. I will listen for the differences with these DVDAs.
Lee
P.S.
We may disagree over the formats but we do agree as engineers and musicians that capturing as much of the performance as possible, as accurately as possible, is a very worthy goal.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Right.

Frankly, the greatest technical recording in the world is pointless though, without compelling content.

So, I'd take a bad recording of compelling content over well recorded junk.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,

Agreed. I was assuming great content, of course.

Lee