CD vs SACD

[GOS]

I must have too much time on my hands.....on the other hand, I don't understand all the ins and outs of dynamic range, especially when you compare (for example) a CD vs SACD.

In several cases, I have 2 copies of the same title. One might be a CD and the other might be SACD version of same title. What made me curious, was running DR (via foobar) comparing my CD version to my SACD version. Waveform below is the song Changes, by Black Sabbath. It's the third song on their Vol 4 title.

The top waveform is from the CD and the bottom is from the SACD. In general, they look the same, but if you get out your microscope (haha) you see subtle differences. Seems like the SACD might be squashed down ever so slightly. Also, at the very end of the song, you notice some more dramatic quiet spots on the CD, where the SACD seems to be "filled in" a bit more. If that makes sense....

The overall DR between the 2 is very close...but for every song, the DR value is "one less" on the SACD vs CD.....
So, Changes CD is DR 12 and Changes SACD is DR 11. And so on....

What's it all mean?

 

[GOS]

And for those of us that say some stare at these diagrams too much......no, I cannot hear one bit of difference between the 2......so why concern myself?
Because I'm debating getting rid of the CD...I mean...my flac version. Trying to declutter my NAS a bit.

 

[Ninecats]

Numbers and figures aside, to me there are only two principal advantages in SACDs favour: ability to do multichannel and usually attracting good engineers (eg Kevin Gray, Michael Dutton or Steve Hoffman). As for the format itself, I still have yet to find one single proof that sacd or dvd audio bear any audible advantage over redbook pcm (my hearing is excellent, says my local audiologist). That is my opinion, I will gladly change it when or if I can be convinced that it is in fact any audible difference.

But as long one or two of the reasons above are filled, then I’ll gladly stick to it!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

And for those of us that say some stare at these diagrams too much......no, I cannot hear one bit of difference between the 2......so why concern myself?
Because I'm debating getting rid of the CD...I mean...my flac version. Trying to declutter my NAS a bit.

Love your bravery on this to get to some inner truth; but I recommend a much larger and more dynamic sample size for your experiment - and don’t forget ripped LPs.

 

[GOS]

Love your bravery on this to get to some inner truth; but I recommend a much larger and more dynamic sample size for your experiment - and don’t forget ripped LPs.

Yeah, in this particular case, I also have Vol 4 on vinyl.....haven't ripped it yet and don't really want to if it's not significantly better than my CD & SACD. Since DR on both are very respectable, I suspect the vinyl is not likely better. I mean, can you imagine Sabbath from 1973 having a DR of 14? I can't either...lol

 

[jimfisheye]

This is a little bit flippant of a comment but the dynamic range numbers from these media player apps are all but meaningless IMHO.
I can take just about any recording and alter it to get whatever dynamic range number you want to see. I could put a mp3 file on a bluray and make it have a large dynamic range if you please. None of this has any reflection on what the program sounds like or how close it sounds to the original master.

The LUFS scale being used nowadays is a more accurate reflection of dynamics and loudness FYI.

It's really kind of the same game as in the past. SOme music releases are stepped on and screwed up. You have to search out the cleaner copies. You'd think this might have come to an end in the digital world but if anything it's worse than it was even back in the vinyl days. There are not only CD versions that got screwed up with just crude volume war and treble pummeling but even allegedly HD releases in formats like SACD and bluray.

Forget the DR meter readings and trust your ears.
Level match one release to another and A/B them. Go with what sounds better. You DO have to be critical with level matching! Louder will sound better at a glance unless it's really really distorted.
When you see silly meter readings and/or obvious evidence of brick wall limiting, you certainly get a clue right up front of course! But trust your ears and keep searching out the unmolested masters.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Love your bravery on this to get to some inner truth; but I recommend a much larger and more dynamic sample size for your experiment - and don’t forget ripped LPs.

Bravery....he just loves to stir the pot

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I’m thinking music most of us have multiple formats in different styles of music; i. e. Court and Spark, Let’s Dance etc. Only stereo of course.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Numbers and figures aside, to me there are only two principal advantages in SACDs favour: ability to do multichannel and usually attracting good engineers (eg Kevin Gray, Michael Dutton or Steve Hoffman). As for the format itself, I still have yet to find one single proof that sacd or dvd audio bear any audible advantage over redbook pcm (my hearing is excellent, says my local audiologist). That is my opinion, I will gladly change it when or if I can be convinced that it is in fact any audible difference.

But as long one or two of the reasons above are filled, then I’ll gladly stick to it!

I think you outlined the most important reason...the production team...the SACD projects usually attract the more talented engineers...of course SACD technology has some inherent advantages...more disc capacity(longer playing time) higher sampling frequency and more channels...but all of us have seen that having the best format(by the metrics)isn't an advantage when the content isn't done properly...

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Bravery....he just loves to stir the pot

I knew what I was doing, Clint

 

[jimfisheye]

Aside: We need to start a Black Sabbath post about the best released copies. Some of them are still best from original pressing vinyl. A couple of the DSD (SACD) masters are cleaner copies. One or two of the HD PCM copies are the real deal. Most of the digital copies (including some DSD and HD PCM editions) of these albums are hands down some of the worst transfers I've ever heard! Most of the vinyl reissues are garbage too save for a one or two of those heavy vinyl remasters from a few years ago. For such a seminal band, their albums are nearly impossible to find in unmolested condition.

I'm sure there are issues to talk about with the masters and all that but there's still no excuse for this!

It might seem a bit silly trying to have an audiophile discussion about Black Sabbath too! But at the end of the day, better seats for the recording are better seats for the recording.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

And for those of us that say some stare at these diagrams too much......no, I cannot hear one bit of difference between the 2......so why concern myself?
Because I'm debating getting rid of the CD...I mean...my flac version. Trying to declutter my NAS a bit.

Most people...regardless of age and hearing capability... couldn't hear the difference between such a small difference in DR...Dynamic Range is just one indicator..not everything....and like I've said numerous times on here...I'm very sensitive to it and a lot of people aren't...so it might not be a factor for many people

 

[ssully]

Whatever differences you are 'seeing' are due to mastering, nothing to do with SACD vs CD. And the really tiny differences are just noise in the waveform display.

 

[Ninecats]

I think you outlined the most important reason...the production team...the SACD projects usually attract the more talented engineers...of course SACD technology has some inherent advantages...more disc capacity(longer playing time) higher sampling frequency and more channels...but all of us have seen that having the best format(by the metrics)isn't an advantage when the content isn't done properly...

Aye, ”attracting good engineers” is touching your ”attract the more talanted engineers” and the team. Bottom line is: if it’s not done properly in the first place (recording, mastering), no hi res solution will save that (to these ears at least).

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I don't think enough credit goes to the studio producers (microphone types / placement and room acoustics); but that's not what we're really talking about here, it's how the recordings are handled and massaged down to the final product.. I like what jimfisheye was saying; don't know if I totally trust those DR numbers, got to trust your ears. The truth is out there if you're Brave enough.

 

[ssully]

DR (as measured by the "DR meter') isn't just affected by the use of compression/limiting, it is also affected by EQ , e.g., bass levels.

 

[hafquark]

I used to think differently, but now I pretty much accept that a well-mastered stereo CD of a top quality recording is a as good as it gets for human music listening. Mark Waldrep of AIX, a strong proponent of 24 bit, has concluded that the Red Book standard is indistinguishable from higher resolution recordings (although he is still greatly favors multi-channel music).

The DR Meter's DR numbers along with peak values are a helpful indicator of the dynamics of a two-channel recording, but not the be-all and end-all evaluation tool. My ears tell me within a few seconds when a CD is brickwalled, and I'm very sensitive to over-compression and boosted highs.

Floyd E. Toole's "Circle of Confusion" is a better indicator of why many recordings sound so bad even over a good pair of reasonably neutral speakers in a decent listening space. Here's a review link of his book "Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms." A highly recommended read for all folks seriously obsessed with musical recordings. Toole also is a believer in the superiority of multi-channel sound over stereo.

Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I used to think differently, but now I pretty much accept that a well-mastered stereo CD of a top quality recording is a as good as it gets for human music listening. Mark Waldrep of AIX, a strong proponent of 24 bit, has concluded that the Red Book standard is indistinguishable from higher resolution recordings (although he is still greatly favors multi-channel music).

The DR Meter's DR numbers along with peak values are a helpful indicator of the dynamics of a two-channel recording, but not the be-all and end-all evaluation tool. My ears tell me within a few seconds when a CD is brickwalled, and I'm very sensitive to over-compression and boosted highs.

Floyd E. Toole's "Circle of Confusion" is a better indicator of why many recordings sound so bad even over a good pair of reasonably neutral speakers in a decent listening space. Here's a review link of his book "Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms." A highly recommended read for all folks seriously obsessed with musical recordings. Toole also is a believer in the superiority of multi-channel sound over stereo.

Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

Are you aware of any books on the Psychoacoustics of headphones; that would interest me also?

 

[ssully]

Are you aware of any books on the Psychoacoustics of headphones; that would interest me also?

Dr. Toole's colleague Sean Olive has been conducting research on that for the last few years.

Google "sean olive headphones" to see pertinent links.

 

[holland123]

"This is a little bit flippant of a comment but the dynamic range numbers from these media player apps are all but meaningless IMHO. "

Right On.

"Whatever differences you are 'seeing' are due to mastering, nothing to do with SACD vs CD. And the really tiny differences are just noise in the waveform display."

Right on Also!