Is 2-channel SACD noticeably better than CD? (1 Viewer)

[Rachael B]

Michael, I'm going to put either my 555 or 777 back in my theatre soon and do M/C SACD again. It's been awhile....

 

[Steve_AS]

I continue to take pronouncements about relative 'sonics' of different formats on a player, and relative sound claimed to be inherent to SACD vs CD vs DVD-A, with a grain of salt, until such times as the I see
properly done controlled comparisons. (If that time ever comes.) There's just too much scope for unintentional bias, or questionable assumptions about causes, in the usual sorts of comparison reports, to draw definite conclusions from them. For example, a 'vast difference' heard between an SACD and its CD counterpart could be due to mastering differences, rather than inherent format differences. Or due to expectations that SACD *should* sound vastly different from CD.

Surely if even *one* pair of SACD and CD layers sound great *and* 'nearly identical', as has been reported for the Beck disc here, then there isn't an inherently vast difference between the formats?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Surely if even *one* pair of SACD and CD layers sound great *and* 'nearly identical', as has been reported for the Beck disc here

Nobody with a decent resolution system thinks the CD layer of the Beck album (which I know very well) is anywhere close to the SACD 2 channel layer.

The fact is that high resolution is a step change in sonic improvement whether DVDA or SACD.

 

[Rich Malloy]

My wife just picked up Carol King's Tapestry. The worst surround mix we now own. It's like the engineer just spun the channel select knob randomly.

I missed this when first posted...

As some of you may know, there's a stereo-only and a stereo/multichannel mix of this album on SACD. But the two stereo mixes are NOT identical (the stereo-only SACD features the original mix, and the stereo/multichannel SACD features a remix of the two-channel version). After hearing that the remixed SACD was inferior, I looked and looked and found the original stereo-only release... just to have it as it appeared to be discontinued.

My question--which admittedly is a tad off-topic--is has anyone compared the two stereo mixes, and which do you prefer?

 

[Stephen Dodds]

While I find 2 channel SACD an improvement over CD, I also wouldn't call it a vast improvement, more an incremental one.

However, I love multi channel, whether SACD or DVD-A. And I still like my DTS multichannel discs.

However, I also use a Pioneer universal player, in my case an overseas version apparently closest to the DV47Ai.


Steve

 

[KeithH]

Rich, I only have the original stereo-only version of Tapestry. However, I seem to recall reading on Audio Asylum that the stereo mix on the multi-channel SACD is better than the original stereo mix. I've been wanting to pick up the multi-channel disc to do the comparison.

 

[Rich Malloy]

And I've read just the opposite, Keith!

Though I hope you're right, as the original stereo mix is merely acceptable (admittedly, I'm holding it to a rather high standard that the essentially "demo" nature of King's recording will never attain). But I'd like to discover that the new stereo mix is a great improvement, or even somewhat of an improvement, and I'm even mildly interested in hearing the multichannel mix though if it sounds anything like it's been described in this thread, I'll probably listen to it exactly once.

 

[Steve_AS]

Certainly they represent *technical* improvement, but whether those 'better' numbers necessarily and inherently translate into different sound...simply hasn't been verified with any rigor. The human ear/brain system isn't infinitely sensitive to differences, as best we can tell.

Anyway. Those look an awful lot like opinions and anecdotes to me, not verified facts. Personally, I stay away from words like 'nobody' and 'the fact is', when dealing with opinions and anecdotal evidence. I think that recording /mastering engineers are fine folks generally; but I'm pretty sure they aren't immune to misperception, any more than anyone else is. I know of few who have ever bothered to subject their audio perceptions and opinions to rigorous reality-testing, and none who do it regularly. The successful ones probably don't have the time to do so even if they wanted to.

I don't want to start an endless debate. I simply think that when the rhetoric gets to the level of 'vast differences' or 'orders of magnitude' differences, then it's a good time to at least *mention* some of the *other* well-established possible explanations for these perceptions. *Especially* if there are 'newbies' here trying to figure it all out. As a scientist as well as an audio hobbyist, I like to occasionally report what *science* has to say on these matters. And now I've provided that balance, and will sit back and happily read the rest of the thread, my mission accomplished. Cheers!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

As a scientist as well as an audio hobbyist, I like to occasionally report what *science* has to say on these matters.

Steve - this gets into an old religious debate of objectivism versus subjectivism. As a subjectivist I value science, but simply do not feel it can capture all the critical areas of an audio performance. Objectivists' on the other hand feel that science can measure everything. I can only tell you that I have met many a recording engineer with EE and physics background who changed their minds in favor of subjectivism after a year spent working on records. Science is a good starting point in audio but listening to the results is the ultimate ending point.

 

[John-Miles]

You need to visit my listening room in Atlanta where you may change your mind!

that may be true but whats the point of SACD if i got to go to your place to listen to it and ahve it sound good?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

whats the point of SACD if i got to go to your place to listen to it and ahve it sound good?

I get to have lots of friends that way.

Seriously, you get great sound on a midfi system. Whether DVDA or SACD, the sound quality is superb on just an average system with an average speaker and receiver.

Most of my friends have modest systems, but they are glad I turned them on to high resolution music.

 

[John-Miles]

Actually Lee I just could't resist taking that shot at you, it was meant in good fun and im glad you took it that way.

Personally i think I have a great system, definitely better than the average, but you know sacd and dvd-a really sine for me in surround, well and on those discs you knwo really well


bring on more multichannel i say.

 

[Steve_AS]

Steve - this gets into an old religious debate of objectivism versus subjectivism. As a subjectivist I value science, but simply do not feel it can capture all the critical areas of an audio performance. Objectivists' on the other hand feel that science can measure everything. I can only tell you that I have met many a recording engineer with EE and physics background who changed their minds in favor of subjectivism after a year spent working on records. Science is a good starting point in audio but listening to the results is the ultimate ending point.

Depends on what purposes the 'ending point' are being put to. If the 'ending point' is being used to determine that SACD and CD sound 'noticeably different' (which is the thread title here), then it's appropriate to note the illusions known for a well-established fact to afflict the 'ending point'.

No amount of professional experience changes the fact that sources of perceptual 'noise' exist that can either mask differences, or create the illusion that differences exist when there are none.

I have conversed with *audio equipment* engineers who were originally 'subjectivists'...but who came to learn, that some fervently-believed 'differences' really don't stand up to proper scrutiny.

I have also seen a wide range of claims for the 'difference' between the sound of SACD and CD, from audiophiles in print on online-- some say the difference is nonexistent, some say real but small, some say vast and obvious. As even you imply, the critical format comparisons tests are difficult to do, have not been done, to determine who's right, so to speak of the difference as 'fact' here is simply premature.

As for science, it *brought* us the technology of SACD and DVD-A and CD and tape and the LP, so if you think SACD inherently captures the 'critical areas' better than CD, then you have science to thank for it. It's also been studying perception for a century. There have been some interesting findings. Audiophiles would do well to acquaint themselves with them, especially when thousands of dollars of spending money are at stake.

Objectivists don't think *everything* can be measured. The science I've referred to so far, though, is not really about measurement -- it's about avoiding perceptual error. It's not about *measuring* two formats --we already know, from the design and the measurements, that SACD has a greater frequency range than redbook, for example. It's about determining whether this difference is audible -- which speaks directly to the subject of this thread. Making that determination requires acknowledging (and counteracting) things that might give a false determination. Some of those are pretty well documented.

Hi-rez was originally designed for archival use -- it was 'overkill' in a way, just as high bitrate/bit depth A-to-D transfers are, to provide 'insurance' against possible loss of info during subsequent digital manipulations. It was not, AFAICT, designed to *necessarily* or *inherently* 'sound different' than a properly-done 16/44 transfer.

 

[Steve_AS]

Seriously, you get great sound on a midfi system. Whether DVDA or SACD, the sound quality is superb on just an average system with an average speaker and receiver.

...as is the sound quality of a well-mastered redbook CD.

A badly-mastered or badly-sourced SACD or CD probably won't sound superb even on a high-end rig, though. I'm not sure one would sound noticeably better than the other.

 

[Rachael B]

Steve, I just trust my ears. From pillar to post SACD's rule over CD's. I listened to DSOTM's CD and stereo SACD programs last night and the difference was obvious and the CD layer sounded damn good for CD. I've compared some of Sony's early discs that lost to vinyl, but recently when I compared Blue Oyster Cult's AGENTS OF FORTUNE to vinyl, vinyl lost. They are getting better at making the discs. The only exception is Universal. They've put a couple of dogs on the market in the last few month's. The other labels are doing remarkably well IMHO.

To me, SACD is very natural sounding like vinyl is, to me anyway... To me, the CD format sounds good up to an extent. On CD's I so often feel a little of the sound has been averaged out. I grew up with vinyl. For years I've wished the CD era would end. I hope hybrid SACD does just that. It might? For years my greatest fear has been that the CD age would go on forever... Till DVD-A and SACD came along it was lookin' like tonal hades to me!

I trust my ears, SACD picks up where vinyl left off. CD is like the dark ages to me. Best wishes!

 

[Stephen Dodds]

I've found it interesting that those who tend towards vinyl also tend to tend towards SACD rather than DVD-Audio.

I think CD sounds better than vinyl (and I used to have a very high end turntable) so maybe that is why, while I think SACD is somewhat better than CD, I don't find the differences dramatic.

Steve

 

[Rachael B]

Stephen, IMO, there's nothing wrong with how DVD-A sounds for M/C. I've quit buying them for now but if I get a universal player I would consider them again. My gripes with the format aren't about sound quality. They're about ergonomics and versatility. I like getting 3-way play like I get with my hybrid M/C SACD's. If DVD-A always had a stereo track included and a CD side/layer/extra disc then I'd warm up more. I want versatility. I don't wanna have to use a monitor...the usual suspects, er, complaints. I'm stille peeved that my RP91 won't play my fav DVD-A too, Boz Scaggs' DIG. It wouldn't play Aaron Neville's disc until I upgraded it's software. In short, the DVD-A format has frustated me even more than SACD! Like DIG? Best wishes!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It was not, AFAICT, designed to *necessarily* or *inherently* 'sound different' than a properly-done 16/44 transfer.

Steve, I knew some of the Super Audio team when they were developing this since I work in the industry. It was specifically engineered to sound better than redbook CD by eliminating filters. All archival mediums are designed to record better than existing formats.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I think CD sounds better than vinyl

Stephen,

I am quite surprised by this statement since I have been listening to the VPI Scout which has slayed even the $20K Linn CD player I have also been listening to recently. I think most audiophiles would agree that LP sounds better than CD as well.

So the question is this: What turntable rig did you compare to what CD player? What was the rest of the system? What music did you listen to?

I once compared a high end turntable to a great SACD on a Sony SCD-1 and the turntable won that to my great surprise...

 

[KeithH]

Rich,

If and when I ever buy the multi-channel SACD of Tapestry, I'll both my thoughts on how the stereo layers compare. The stereo-only SACD certainly is not reference quality, but it is noticeably better than the remastered CD and MasterSound gold CD.


Lee posted about SACD versus CD:

You need to visit my listening room in Atlanta where you may change your mind!

CD playback in your system must be severely lacking!