CD vs SACD

[4-earredwonder]

I had a rare all RBCD listening session early AM spinning a most eclectic assortment of DTS RBCDs, Japanese Imports, EU Imports and early 'Americana' RBCDs [from the early 90's] which I had loaded into my Meridian SooLoos .... and I retired to my bedroom with a broad smile on my face. "Not too shabby," I thought. 16 bit/44.1 PCM which represents the majority of my music collection and overshadows my equally huge SACD,DVD~A, BD~A collection ... very nicely, IMO, acquitted itself. Since most of my favorite music will never be released in HD multichannel .......I've come to 'respect' the aurally perceived shortcomings of the "Perfect Sound Forever" RBCD which, IMO, had it contained just a few more bits [like 20, perhaps] would've squashed the 'impending' vinyl revival which endures to this day.

And as jimfisheye points out ..... trying to find the PERFECT Black Sabbath remaster from the hundreds upon hundreds of BS releases from just about every corner of the globe can be frustrating........and why is this so?

And then a recent TV commercial pointing out that the modern Iphone has MORE computing power than NASA's computers which sent that man to the moon had me thinking ..... Is extracting the perfect digital remaster, utilizing current technology, from 30/15 ips Open Reel analogue masters REALLY THAT DIFFICULT????

 

[Franklin]

Is Hoffman an engineer?

 

[DuncanS]

DSD, SACD etc. are all Delta-Sigma Modulation derived techniques based on an idea from 1946! There is nothing new. Sigma-Delta methods (correctly Delta-Sigma - pedantry I know!) are good for making easily reproducible high resolution ADC & DAC chips, which is why it became popular (the very early chips had a low bandwidth of a few kHz and were 20-bit, aimed at seismic & instrumentation systems). Then somebody had the brainwave of putting the modulator bit stream onto a disc and SACD came about. The technique is not without its drawbacks, HF noise being one, complexity, possible instability, and the 100kHz bandwidth fantasy! But the 'clever' thing is how it all got marketed for/to the audio world.

It works, and in the hands of someone who understands the 'mediums' drawbacks works pretty well. I think the 128fs & 256fs versions and their inherent noise-shaping are much better than the original 64fs. I do have to say that in general I prefer 24-bit PCM, over SACD, and SACD in general over CD. However, I have a lot of SACDs (Edit: & CDs) and will continue to buy them!

 

[jimfisheye]

The biggest difference between different releases is really truly the mastering. The lowly 16 bit CD can hold a complete music signal pretty flawlessly if used carefully. Any of the HD formats - 24 bit HD PCM or DSD - are capable of perfect delivery of full quality music. You should even be able to copy back and forth between the HD formats all day long - destructive lossy copies, not digital clones - and still be none the wiser. There are certainly cases of generation loss that go wild sometimes and stand out. But just a little move on an eq in mastering will do much more than that. Just different volumes by 0.1db are perceivable and the louder one will sound better.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The biggest difference between different releases is really truly the mastering. The lowly 16 bit CD can hold a complete music signal pretty flawlessly if used carefully. Any of the HD formats - 24 bit HD PCM or DSD - are capable of perfect delivery of full quality music. You should even be able to copy back and forth between the HD formats all day long - destructive lossy copies, not digital clones - and still be none the wiser. There are certainly cases of generation loss that go wild sometimes and stand out. But just a little move on an eq in mastering will do much more than that. Just different volumes by 0.1db are perceivable and the louder one will sound better.

Jim, since the major conglomerates rarely ever release the absolute master tapes anymore for replication, one really wonders how much care was taken to digitally remaster those analogue masters for preservation purposes. IMO, since thousands were conceivably done over a very short period ......doubt the care that should have been taken was ever enforced.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

This isn't a technical comparison...I think that ship has sailed...hopefully....but this is a "real life" comparison....actually more of a perception and marketing observation....I mentioned on here before... in the CD thread... about a recent title(2018 release) I purchased that sounded excellent...I wanted to let members know that it wasn't a shrill piece of plastic....it was a Jennifer Warnes album on CD...Another Time, Another Place.....another member on here had mentioned it...I grabbed one on amazon for $9.99....now if you look at that description from discogs and scroll down you will notice that it was mastered by Bernie Grundman...a well known and respected engineer...now if you just scroll down beyond that until you find the category "recorded by" and you will see 4 names...now 2 of those names are very important...Elliot Scheiner and forum member Steve Genewick...both very impressive and respected with a long list of projects under their belt...and most people know that the record companies act like the CIA when it comes to issuing credits for these titles...there is a lot of politics and misdirection involved...and the titles themselves are a bit convoluted and vague...Elliot is listed in the technical category a lot of times..which is a "catch all" for just about everything on a recording...

So here we have this inexpensive CD that sounds good with at least 3 big names in the production...so why would they do that?....sometimes the artist insists on specific people...and in this case Jennifer has worked with ES and Bernie quite a few times...but like the TV infomercial says..."wait there's more"....it's time to cash in on this impressive production team...so then there is THIS...so when you see the SACD description it proudly touts the involvement of Bernie Grundman...but the CD description doesn't mention him at all on amazon....then they mention the HDCD availability on the CD layer...and what do you actually get for 3 times the price of the CD...you get 1 song...There's A River...that's it...and of course you get the upscale SACD...woo hoo...because hey...you are an audiophile...you have this marvelous machine that plays them..so now we can charge you more and make it look totally justified...

I'm not saying that all CDs are going to sound as good as all SACDs....but this is one of many examples of people being more important than the technology...you get Bernie...Elliot and Steve Genewick working on a CD and you could put that music on an 8 track and it would sound good...well maybe

 

[J. PUPSTER]

This isn't a technical comparison...I think that ship has sailed...hopefully....but this is a "real life" comparison....actually more of a perception and marketing observation....I mentioned on here before... in the CD thread... about a recent title(2018 release) I purchased that sounded excellent...I wanted to let members know that it wasn't a shrill piece of plastic....it was a Jennifer Warnes album on CD...Another Time, Another Place.....another member on here had mentioned it...I grabbed one on amazon for $9.99....now if you look at that description from discogs and scroll down you will notice that it was mastered by Bernie Grundman...a well known and respected engineer...now if you just scroll down beyond that until you find the category "recorded by" and you will see 4 names...now 2 of those names are very important...Elliot Scheiner and forum member Steve Genewick...both very impressive and respected with a long list of projects under their belt...and most people know that the record companies act like the CIA when it comes to issuing credits for these titles...there is a lot of politics and misdirection involved...and the titles themselves are a bit convoluted and vague...Elliot is listed in the technical category a lot of times..which is a "catch all" for just about everything on a recording...

So here we have this inexpensive CD that sounds good with at least 3 big names in the production...so why would they do that?....sometimes the artist insists on specific people...and in this case Jennifer has worked with ES and Bernie quite a few times...but like the TV infomercial says..."wait there's more"....it's time to cash in on this impressive production team...so then there is THIS...so when you see the SACD description it proudly touts the involvement of Bernie Grundman...but the CD description doesn't mention him at all on amazon....then they mention the HDCD availability on the CD layer...and what do you actually get for 3 times the price of the CD...you get 1 song...There's A River...that's it...and of course you get the upscale SACD...woo hoo...because hey...you are an audiophile...you have this marvelous machine that plays them..so now we can charge you more and make it look totally justified...

I'm not saying that all CDs are going to sound as good as all SACDs....but this is one of many examples of people being more important than the technology...you get Bernie...Elliot and Steve Genewick working on a CD and you could put that music on an 8 track and it would sound good...well maybe

Besides Jennifer's golden voice - Dean Parks on guitar, now come on, you know that's going to be good!
And what about Roscoe Beck who's played with Robben Ford and Eric Johnson Sweeeet.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Besides Jennifer's golden voice - Dean Parks on guitar, now come on, you know that's going to be good!
And what about Roscoe Beck who's played with Robben Ford and Eric Johnson Sweeeet.

It does have a "little" country sound to some of the songs...but not the tobacco spitting...confederate flag waving type...pretty mild really...

 

[bluelightning]

DSD, SACD etc. are all Delta-Sigma Modulation derived techniques based on an idea from 1946! There is nothing new. Sigma-Delta methods (correctly Delta-Sigma - pedantry I know!) are good for making easily reproducible high resolution ADC & DAC chips, which is why it became popular (the very early chips had a low bandwidth of a few kHz and were 20-bit, aimed at seismic & instrumentation systems). Then somebody had the brainwave of putting the modulator bit stream onto a disc and SACD came about. The technique is not without its drawbacks, HF noise being one, complexity, possible instability, and the 100kHz bandwidth fantasy! But the 'clever' thing is how it all got marketed for/to the audio world.

It works, and in the hands of someone who understands the 'mediums' drawbacks works pretty well. I think the 128fs & 256fs versions and their inherent noise-shaping are much better than the original 64fs. I do have to say that in general I prefer 24-bit PCM, over SACD, and SACD in general over CD. However, I have a lot of SACDs (Edit: & CDs) and will continue to buy them!

You are correct. Yet so many of these DSD folks go around peddling it as if it is God's greatest gift to mankind!

 

[jimfisheye]

Jim, since the major conglomerates rarely ever release the absolute master tapes anymore for replication, one really wonders how much care was taken to digitally remaster those analogue masters for preservation purposes. IMO, since thousands were conceivably done over a very short period ......doubt the care that should have been taken was ever enforced.

I'd need to do some research here...

I believe you get everything from highly controlled archiving of analog masters to 24/96 PCM and preserving of 24/96 digital masters (as well as preserving original 24/48, 24/44.1, & 16/44.1 digital masters) on the one hand to wild wild west "I think that might be in a closet somewhere" mayhem on the other and everything in-between.

They might have a HD master but the label only requested CD resolution copies. Then the label might have a SOP thing where all CD versions get volume war boosted and treble hyped. But they have the genuine undamaged HD master sitting right there if only they were willing to release it. On the other hand... An older analog master might have been transferred to 16/44.1 30 years ago and not touched since. Someone would have to do the work (and assuming the tape is still in OK shape) to make a HD transfer. But then we muddy the waters with that original 16/44.1 transfer getting the SOP volume war hype... and this is still the real problem.

 

[skherbeck]

It does have a "little" country sound to some of the songs...but not the tobacco spitting...confederate flag waving type...pretty mild really...

Nuttin' wrong wit a little country!

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

I can’t understand why SACD is still around. For stereo recordings? Fine. But for multi-channel recordings? Why bother? Anyone using Digital Room Correction and/or Bass Management is only getting/hearing PCM and not the benefit of DSD in the first place.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I can’t understand why SACD is still around. For stereo recordings? Fine. But for multi-channel recordings? Why bother? Anyone using Digital Room Correction and/or Bass Management is only getting/hearing PCM and not the benefit of DSD in the first place.

I've listened to SACD via PCM and/or DSD and to be honest, Perp, NO difference to my ears. My Main system utilizing my Meridian 861 v.6 converts ALL incoming signals to PCM and the sound from my OPPO playing mch SACDs is SUPERB!

If you can REALLY hear the difference ....... WHISTLE!

BTW, SACD is still in vogue because of its hybrid nature.....whereas DVD~A and even BD~A do not contain a RBCD layer. Simple as that! Contrast that with the 'doomed' dualdisc with the RBCD 'side' that was unable to play in or destroyed many a CD transport.

 

[bluelightning]

I've listened to SACD via PCM and/or DSD and to be honest, Perp, NO difference to my ears. My Main system utilizing my Meridian 861 v.6 converts ALL incoming signals to PCM and the sound from my OPPO playing mch SACDs is SUPERB!

If you can REALLY hear the difference ....... WHISTLE!

BTW, SACD is still in vogue because of its hybrid nature.....whereas DVD~A and even BD~A do not contain a RBCD layer. Simple as that! Contrast that with the 'doomed' dualdisc with the RBCD 'side' that was unable to play in or destroyed many a CD transport.

But many DVDAs include a DTS track in the Video_ts folder which should be compatible with all players that play DVDs at least.

 

[marpow]

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

Good point. I like to turn up the stereo and walk away and do things around the house and of course CD vs Anything is pointless, might as well play what is cheapest. I get tempted ALL THE TIME, to purchase stereo downloads from HDTracks 24 bit because I want to believe that the 24bit downloads are better than my 16bit CD's. I keep telling myself this is hogwash even though I want them. Now if I don't have music then I don't feel so bad buying the downloads.
When I purchase older CD's I try to see if they are selling the 1990's release as they do sound better than a remastered CD from the 2000's forward, and they are usually cheaper.
Now with SACD, I do happen to really like them, they do sound warmer to me, maybe because rather than playing them and walking away I tend to sit, listen and enjoy my music system and the music. I really think MOFI does a fantastic job with the quality of sound in there hybrid stereo SACD's.
My player is JRiver and automatically analyzes the music with there DR scale and I like others cannot tell the difference unless we have an average DR8 vs a DR13, then I can, but mostly not.
I also believe that running your stereo music through an external DAC can immensely help in sonic reproduction. Like Ralphie says, and I agree, have faith in your players, we spend a lot of time, research, energy and money into these fabulous listening systems we all have, have faith that they will play these discs superior.
Now for MCH that of course is another can of worms, so I am only talking stereo. Myself, like many others, the type of music I like will mostly stay stereo CD's.

 

[bluelightning]

have faith in your players, we spend a lot of time, research, energy and money into these fabulous listening systems we all have, have faith that they will play these discs superior.

Do realize that faith, beliefs etc. are not fact, in fact they are often at odds with each other . Just because we spend a lot of time, energy etc. doesn't necessarily mean they sound better or play discs or media in a superior manner.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Do realize that faith, beliefs etc. are not fact, in fact they are often at odds with each other . Just because we spend a lot of time, energy etc. doesn't necessarily mean they sound better or play discs or media in a superior manner.

Geeze...the next thing you are going to tell us is that you don't believe in the force

 

[CPR]

On "Who's Next" Deluxe Edition, the sound quality, & Dynamic Range, blow away the original CD
Mind you, it's NOT SACD, but the re-mastering on this item certainly sounds as good as the 2 channel single layer Japanese SACD; (which I've listened to)
Same goes for "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out"; the re-mastered version is BETTER than the SACD
Anyway, all speculative, & one person's opinion

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I don't believe it can all be standardized to one statement. Depending on the SACD or CD; I can tell improvement in the sound on some SACDs, but it may be due to additional factors like who engineered & mastered it. I've got some SACDs that I also think sound awful.

As far as HDTracks goes; almost all the ones I've tried, tend to have much more high end than I like. A lot of folks prefer LPs to digital; and this leads me to believe it also comes down to what type of sound each of us prefers. Some will like more high end or bass or midrange. As steelydave referred to, in the digital realm, it's just zeros and ones. How many of those zeros and ones are packed together and read in a specific time period determines the resolution. Also, each of us can hear various frequencies differently and some have tinnitus; and then there's speaker types and configuration and room acoustics. So, for me, I just have to play around with each type of format and all these other factors until I'm happy with the results. I liken it to what kind of wine do you like? Take ten people, put them in a room, and play a well regarded LP version of DSOTM, then a CD, then the Blu-ray and you may get many different answers to what sounded the best. Sure, there's software that's supposed to give you a standardized number for comparison like DR, and that should be considered, but only up to the ability our ears can perceive these differences.

 

[DuncanS]

Geeze...the next thing you are going to tell us is that you don't believe in the force

………….there is nothing to see here...………