Does the Fidelity of an SACD change when going from mltich to 2ch

[petermwilson]

Hi,
I've noticed on DVD-A discs that 5.1 has a certain sampling rate and 2ch has a different one.

Is this the same with SACDs or is it the same regardless and BTW what is it or are they?

Peter m.

 

[JonUrban]

Interesting question. I would figure that it did not, and hope it did not. If it did, that would be ammo for the

"DVD-A/SACD Format Wars of the Early 2000's",
brought to you by Sony and WB. An equal opportunity dispute.
All rights reserved. No format arguement can be used without the express written permission of the affected parties.

 

[bmoura]

Hi,
I've noticed on DVD-A discs that 5.1 has a certain sampling rate and 2ch has a different one.

Is this the same with SACDs or is it the same regardless and BTW what is it or are they?

Peter m.

It depends on the source used for each SACD track. On the Concord Jazz Multichannel SACDs, some claim that the Surround SACD layer sounds better than the Stereo SACD layer.

 

[Cai Campbell]

It depends on the source used for each SACD track. On the Concord Jazz Multichannel SACDs, some claim that the Surround SACD layer sounds better than the Stereo SACD layer.

Isn't the DSD data rate constant per channel regardless of the number of channels? I seem to remember reading that somewhere but I'm not certain. Assuming this is true, then as long as there was no PCM conversion (for mastering or whatever) then the "resolution" should be identical for all channels, whether it be stereo or multi-channel. And even if there was some intervening PCM processing, as long as the PCM resolution was the same for the stereo tracks and multi-tracks, the end result should offer the same DSD resolution for both cases. Again, this assumes that DSD always uses the same data rate per channel.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Isn't the DSD data rate constant per channel regardless of the number of channels? I seem to remember reading that somewhere but I'm not certain. Assuming this is true, then as long as there was no PCM conversion (for mastering or whatever) then the "resolution" should be identical for all channels, whether it be stereo or multi-channel. And even if there was some intervening PCM processing, as long as the PCM resolution was the same for the stereo tracks and multi-tracks, the end result should offer the same DSD resolution for both cases. Again, this assumes that DSD always uses the same data rate per channel.

Yeah, maybe the surround just sounds better because it is surround. All channels should be equal.

 

[bmoura]

Yeah, maybe the surround just sounds better because it is surround. All channels should be equal.

As I understand it, some audiophiles say the Concord Jazz Surround SACD layers sound better because they were redone from the analog masters while the Stereo SACD layers were generated from the original CD Audio tapes vs. the analog master tapes.

 

[Guy Robinson]

As I understand it, some audiophiles say the Concord Jazz Surround SACD layers sound better because they were redone from the analog masters while the Stereo SACD layers were generated from the original CD Audio tapes vs. the analog master tapes.

Ah, yes. That could definately make a difference. I think with DVD-A there is the 192/96 sampling which could in itself make a difference with stereo (192) and MC (96). With DSD if all things are equal the MC and stereo should be the same unless of course the mixes are different as you point out above.

 

[Scottmoose]

Ah, yes. That could definately make a difference. I think with DVD-A there is the 192/96 sampling which could in itself make a difference with stereo (192) and MC (96). With DSD if all things are equal the MC and stereo should be the same unless of course the mixes are different as you point out above.

That's probably it -I wouldn't've thought DSD should be affected unless like a great many have sadly been; it's been pumped through PCM converters during the master / remastering, which rather negiates the point of DSD in the first place; as do the all in one converters in many of the universal players (Pioneer 656 anyone? Nice player, but not exacly SACD optimised). Curses! Then again; could it simply be that surround sound is itself 'higher fidelity' (whatever that might mean)? Stereo's nice enough. But -and it's a big but; at the end of the day, it has to cram all it's information, and a great deal of it not the correct information, into two front channels; then expect the poor things to provide phantom centre and recording depth as well. Not ideal. A nice 'natural' live surround recording, for example, will stuff all of the out of phase information, reflected sounds etc to the rear channels where it belongs, instantly giving a much more natural feel to the recordings. So it damned well should sound better.
A thought: it might be interesting if two rear speakers were utilised in an ambiophonic setup (now championed by magazines like Hifi Choice) whilst listening to the stereo layer and see what happened. It's beyond me why more stereo-heads don't do this -far from being 'innacurate' as is claimed, it's technically a much more natural reproduction of the recording than just utilising the front speakers. Not as good as discrete, but better than nothing.
Scott

 

[Cai Campbell]

My experience has been that digital surround sound, whatever format, for casual listening, gives the illusion of "higher resolution" than stereo, even if the stereo tracks are the same or higher resolution. It depends on the mix, but having 4, 5 or 6 speakers surrounding you with sound seems to "add up", audibly, to a greater perceived resolution.

This is my explanation for my satisfaction for DTS. Even though it is a lossy, 4:1 compressed format, the net result, resolution-wise, SEEMS as good as uncompressed redbook stereo. That is, until you start to REALLY scrutinize it, but that's another matter...

 

[kstuart]

As I understand it, some audiophiles say the Concord Jazz Surround SACD layers sound better because they were redone from the analog masters while the Stereo SACD layers were generated from the original CD Audio tapes vs. the analog master tapes.

Very similar situation on the DSotM SACD - the surround tracks are the first new remixes in 30 years from the original multitrack tapes, while the stereo tracks are taken from the same worn-out and overused stereo mixdown tape.