Would a stereo SACD via analog out saved to FLAC and played via USB

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

johnrd

Well-known Member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
109
sound better than the same disc played via redbook in a mobile system such as Acura's ELS? Has anyone ever tried/compared them?
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,068
Location
Connecticut
If you recorded the SACD at 24/96, then created a DVD-Audio from those files, you would have to assume that the resulting playback would sound better than a commercially purchased CD (at 16/44)

If you recorded the SACD at 24/48 to .flac to play in the ELS 3D System in the 2019/2020 Acura, then again, I would say that it would sound better than a CD, as there is more info in the files than on the CD.

If you made a CD out of the SACD recorded at 24/96, downsampling to 16/44, then that would be debatable.
 

johnrd

Well-known Member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
109
Thanks Jon. Have you ever done a stereo SACD to a DVD-A file? Saw MFSL SACD of Anticipation and wondered how such a capture might sound in the Acura.
 

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,368
Location
Western NY
sound better than the same disc played via redbook in a mobile system such as Acura's ELS? Has anyone ever tried/compared them?
I've been told on this forum that I wouldn't be able to hear the difference between Redbook and an MP3 on a mobile system.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,068
Location
Connecticut
Thanks Jon. Have you ever done a stereo SACD to a DVD-A file? Saw MFSL SACD of Anticipation and wondered how such a capture might sound in the Acura.
Sure! When I had Acura's with DVD-A I used to always record my SACD's into the MOTU at 24/96 then put the audio on DVD-A's. Once sacd_extract came along, it made it much easier.

Same for the new car with USB, although these can only be 24/48, but still, stereo OR surround, they sound great!

Remember, the "format", is just the carrier. It's the content that's what's important.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,068
Location
Connecticut
I've been told on this forum that I wouldn't be able to hear the difference between Redbook and an MP3 on a mobile system.
True. There are people out there who don't think HiRez or surround in a car is worthy, because of "road noise", "speaker placement", "poor components", heck, I've even had people post that it was dangerous because it would be distracting to have a saxophone solo coming out of the back seats! :eek:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and my opinion is this: Surround and HiRez in the car are AWESOME!
 

Sal1950

Senior Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
246
Location
Central FL
sound better than the same disc played via redbook in a mobile system such as Acura's ELS? Has anyone ever tried/compared them?
If both the SACD and CD were created from the exact same master they would sound the same.
 

bluelightning

500 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 14, 2018
Messages
529
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA
If you recorded the SACD at 24/96, then created a DVD-Audio from those files, you would have to assume that the resulting playback would sound better than a commercially purchased CD (at 16/44)

If you recorded the SACD at 24/48 to .flac to play in the ELS 3D System in the 2019/2020 Acura, then again, I would say that it would sound better than a CD, as there is more info in the files than on the CD.

If you made a CD out of the SACD recorded at 24/96, downsampling to 16/44, then that would be debatable.
I will have respectfully disagree with most of what you said unfortunately. There are the subjective and objective/facts/science based parts to this. For the objective part, first question would be whether the mastering (bit depth/ resolution aside) in the red book layer was different than the that of the SACD and the OP actually preferred the SACD mastering 2) As for the 24/96 "recording", that will depend on the SNR/fidelity of the chain i.e. analog out to A/D conversion which will most definitely be no better than 20 bits. In fact, I would say might be likely no better than 16-18 bits. It could actually be worse than 16 bits over all. There are no true 24 bit ADC/DACs. At best they are doing @20-21 bits.

As for the subjective part, which we can all argue about, assuming you got the best conversion possible, I find it hard to believe that one would be able to tell or actually measure the difference in car especially with road and engine noise which will easily drown out any fine details. In fact "mere" red book CD has far more dynamic range (96 dB+) than necessary for a car environment (and for that matter most environments, but I wont go there). I personally find very high dynamic range (CD) classical recordings to be problematic in the car, soft part are almost inaudible and loud parts blow out ear drums. Thus, I doubt the added resolution is any use.
Now for multichannel that is a different story.

I would say for car save the space and stick with 16/44.1 or 16/48.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,068
Location
Connecticut
I will have respectfully disagree with most of what you said unfortunately. There are the subjective and objective/facts/science based parts to this. For the objective part, first question would be whether the mastering (bit depth/ resolution aside) in the red book layer was different than the that of the SACD and the OP actually preferred the SACD mastering 2) As for the 24/96 "recording", that will depend on the SNR/fidelity of the chain i.e. analog out to A/D conversion which will most definitely be no better than 20 bits. In fact, I would say might be likely no better than 16-18 bits. It could actually be worse than 16 bits over all. There are no true 24 bit ADC/DACs. At best they are doing @20-21 bits.

As for the subjective part, which we can all argue about, assuming you got the best conversion possible, I find it hard to believe that one would be able to tell or actually measure the difference in car especially with road and engine noise which will easily drown out any fine details. In fact "mere" red book CD has far more dynamic range (96 dB+) than necessary for a car environment (and for that matter most environments, but I wont go there). I personally find very high dynamic range (CD) classical recordings to be problematic in the car, soft part are almost inaudible and loud parts blow out ear drums. Thus, I doubt the added resolution is any use.
Now for multichannel that is a different story.

I would say for car save the space and stick with 16/44.1 or 16/48.
As long as you "respectfully" disagree! :)

Hey, whatever works for you, me, or whomever, that's cool. When I had an Acura that played DVD-Audios, 2.0 and 5.1, I would from time to time play a CD, then play the stereo layer of the same album from a DVD-Audio, and to me, it sounded better. I mean, it did not sound anywhere near as great as the 5.1 tracks, but it did have more punch. The discs I was comparing was Donald Fagen's "Morph the Cat". Now, understand that the DF DVD-Audio's are probably some of the very finest DVD-A's out there, so maybe it isn't a fair shot.

But if a source file created at true 24/96 stereo did not "sound better" than a 16/44 file created from the CD, then what would be the point of SACD and/or DVD-Audio, BluRay Audio, or HDTracks?

As for HiRez 5.1 audio in the car, I have had it since 2004 and I would HATE to give it up. And if you think I cannot hear the difference between a 5.1 DVD-Audio like "Morph the Cat" compared to any DTS 5.1 CD, even with my shitty hearing, then I would have to "strongly" disagree. In fact, I might have to get you in the car and blast something like "Funeral For a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding".
 

JediJoker

900 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
965
Location
Portland, OR, USA
...I would from time to time play a CD, then play the stereo layer of the same album from a DVD-Audio, and to me, it sounded better.
Are you sure they were the same mastering? Level-matched? Double-blind ABX tested? That last bit might be the most important. Bias is probably the biggest factor.
But if a source file created at true 24/96 stereo did not "sound better" than a 16/44 file created from the CD, then what would be the point of SACD and/or DVD-Audio, BluRay Audio, or HDTracks?
The primary benefit of higher resolutions is in recording, mixing, and mastering. That said, there are technical advantages to maintaining resolution from start-to-finish, and other possibly audible advantages to high resolution playback, but can you actually hear the difference? Survey says: unlikely.
And if you think I cannot hear the difference between a 5.1 DVD-Audio like "Morph the Cat" compared to any DTS 5.1 CD, even with my shitty hearing, then I would have to "strongly" disagree.
But that's apples-to-oranges. The apples-to-apples would be the same mix/master of Morph The Cat—or any surround mix—in lossless vs. lossy. In a compromised noisy environment like the car, the odds of being able to pick out one from the other in a double-blind ABX test are probably no better than a coin flip.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,068
Location
Connecticut
True JediJoker, for example, the CD might have been brickwalled, the DVD-A stereo not. Who knows? This is an old argument, had it here in the forum many times with folks like ssully and others. Everytime it comes up it goes round and round and just continues, so it's not worth it.

I'm happy with the Higher Rez, even if it makes me feel better mentally. Could be all that there is to it! :)
 

dghan

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
22
A few points...

An SACD is sampled at multiples of 44.1 kHz, so when converting it to PCM (why convert DSD to analog then PCM?) use 88.2 or 176.4 kHz. There are plenty of free programs around than can do the DSD-to-PCM conversion.

For a hybrid SACD, the CD layer and the SACD stereo layer are mastered with different dynamic range compression usually (I'm not taking about 16 vs. 24 bits). If the SACD layer when converted to 16-bit/44.1 kHz sounds better than the CD layer, then it's probably because the SACD was mastered to be more dynamic. Most CDs are mastered to 8 to 12 dB of dynamic range, while the hi-rez version is mastered to be 3 to 9 dB more dynamic (although not lately if you look at the Dynamic Range Database). This can make a difference in the details heard.
 

JediJoker

900 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
965
Location
Portland, OR, USA
For a hybrid SACD, the CD layer and the SACD stereo layer are mastered with different dynamic range compression usually...
I doubt this is true anymore, even if it once was. With SACDs being the province of audiophile labels, hybrids generally use the same mastering on both CD and SACD stereo layers. I personally only own one hybrid SACD with a different, more dynamic mastering on the SACD stereo layer: Spyro Gyra's Original Cinema.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,068
Location
Connecticut
As long as you recognize that. I think it's important to say, "I think I can hear a difference," or, "I perceive a difference," rather than, "I can hear a difference."
I am not going to go back and forth with anyone. To old for that. Done it too many times. I will agree to agree just so that ssully doesn't get fired up! :)
 
Top