View Full Version : CD vs SACD vs DVD-A
GV#27
10-08-2009, 09:59 PM
Here's a link to an interesting article I'm sure some here would enjoy reading.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=70893.0
So if the same care was taken with regular CD's - instead off this severely restricted dynamic range crap we get today to satisfy pop radio and ipods - regular redbook CD's would sound every bit as good as specialty type formats like SACD and DVD-A
Interesting.
I can't wait to hear Jesse's opinion on this. :D
GV#27
10-08-2009, 11:48 PM
While I agree that the full potential of redbook is not always utilized atleast in mainstream releases,I'm not in agreement with the articles assertion of it being the equal of the hi rez formats.I have Fagan's Morph the Cat on both CD and DVD-A(came packaged together).This should be a fair comparison of the two formats,as one would think the same hi rez master was used but with the redbook being down sampled to 16/44.1k.My listening comparison's (using the exact same player and system)show them to both sound very good but to my aging ears the DVD-A sounds better.
F1nut
10-09-2009, 12:01 AM
So if the same care was taken with regular CD's - instead off this severely restricted dynamic range crap we get today to satisfy pop radio and ipods - regular redbook CD's would sound every bit as good as specialty type formats like SACD and DVD-A
Whomever wrote that is deaf.
dorokusai
10-09-2009, 12:04 AM
I agree.
disneyjoe7
10-09-2009, 12:10 AM
I'll second that.
dkg999
10-09-2009, 12:21 AM
Just the technical capabilities of the SACD format would seem to make it a clear winner over standard redbook CD. But what do I know, I still think vinyl sounds good.
megasat16
10-09-2009, 12:56 AM
When I can and if I can, I always listen to hi-rez over redbook. But I have a few redbook CDs that can compare to their hi-rez counterparts. All depends on how good it was recorded in the first place. But normally, SACD or DVD-A is the way to go.
Whomever wrote that is deaf.
Ding... Ding... Ding...
;)
John K.
10-09-2009, 03:21 AM
GV, I first became aware of this study about two years ago when it was published in my AES Journal. There are many excellent SACDs and DVD-As, some of which I've suggested here for their superior performances combined with superior sound quality . It was long suggested by some experts in sound technology that the superior sound was due to superior care in the recording, mixing and mastering process, rather than the higher sampling and/or bit rates in the SACD and DVD-A formats. The study didn't compare SACDs and DVD-As with CDs, but rather took SACDs and DVD-As of recognized excellent sound quality and subjected the output to a 16/44.1 ADC-DAC processing, "downgrading" them to the Redbook CD standard. A group of experienced listeners in a properly controlled double-blind test found no audible difference in the excellent sound quality resulted from this.
This convincingly(to those approaching the topic with both open minds and open ears)established that the 16/44.1 CD format was adequate for full realization of audio quality when done with proper care throughout the process. This is, of course, not done with many CDs, and is more often, although not always, done with SACDs. It should be noted that even the CD tracks on SACDs are often not mixed/mastered identically with the SACD track on the same disc, and for that reason don't sound as good as they could.
So, we should enjoy the superior sound available to us on many SACDs(primarily classical), but we shouldn't harbor mythologies as to why they're better.
F1nut
10-09-2009, 03:34 AM
to those approaching the topic with both open minds and open ears
Something you simply can't do.
GV, I first became aware of this study about two years ago when it was published in my AES Journal.
The study didn't compare SACDs and DVD-As with CDs, but rather took SACDs and DVD-As of recognized excellent sound quality and subjected the output to a 16/44.1 ADC-DAC processing, "downgrading" them to the Redbook CD standard. A group of experienced listeners in a properly controlled double-blind test found no audible difference in the excellent sound quality resulted from this.
I get that, and agree that 44.1/16 can sound damn good when care is taken throughout the entire recording/mix/mastering process. Perhaps it is just so rare that it happens that has me jaded.
But the fact remains, the high resolution formats consistently provide a more pleasing experience. It is an interesting test, and I don't doubt that, with the way it was conducted, I would be unable to tell a difference. But I bet I could tell the difference between a CD and an SACD (that I am familiar with) on my, or any comparable system. I own one particular disc in all three formats (NIN- TDS) and have no trouble telling the difference between the CD and the DVD-A or SACD. Honestly, I prefer the SACD. This is just my opinion, and a double-blind would be fun to try. But I'm fairly confident.:)
Polkitup2
10-09-2009, 07:26 AM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.
Ricardo
10-09-2009, 07:33 AM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.
Bingo!
cfrizz
10-09-2009, 08:44 AM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.
:eek::D ROTFLMAO!!! Good one!:D
GV#27
10-09-2009, 09:01 AM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.Apparently you didn't read the part describing the equipment actually used.;)On the otherhand thay are AES folk who tend to be more on the objectivist side of the fence.
disneyjoe7
10-09-2009, 09:14 AM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.
Bingo! we have a winner :D:D:D:D
NotaSuv
10-09-2009, 01:03 PM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.
ding ding ding read on....................
Most of the tests were done using a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room with an ambient noise floor of about 19 dBA SPL, all electronics on (see Fig. 2). We also took the test setup to several other locations: a Boston-area mastering facility with very large four-way studio monitors; a local university audio facility, again with large high powered monitors in a custom designed listening space (the subjects for this test were students in the recording program); and a private high-end listening room equipped with well-reviewed electrostatic loudspeakers and very expensive electronics and cables. In all venues we performed informal tests of the subjects? upper hearing limits to see whether there was a correlation between this parameter and the audibility of differences.
Think what they used was a bit better than rat shack and lamp cords..........
ding ding ding read on....................
Most of the tests were done using a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room with an ambient noise floor of about 19 dBA SPL, all electronics on (see Fig. 2). We also took the test setup to several other locations: a Boston-area mastering facility with very large four-way studio monitors; a local university audio facility, again with large high powered monitors in a custom designed listening space (the subjects for this test were students in the recording program); and a private high-end listening room equipped with well-reviewed electrostatic loudspeakers and very expensive electronics and cables. In all venues we performed informal tests of the subjects? upper hearing limits to see whether there was a correlation between this parameter and the audibility of differences.
Think what they used was a bit better than rat shack and lamp cords..........
I read all that stuff. I concede that, under the given circumstances of the test, the results are accurate and predictable really.
I wonder if the results would be the same if you had various source formats and played them back at a re-sampled higher bitrate?(rather than lower) eg: a 44.1/16 source resampled at 96/24 vs a native 96/24 source of the same material.
I would bet the difference in format would reveal itself a bit more clearly.
F1nut
10-09-2009, 01:41 PM
Further proof that blind tests are absolutely worthless.
treitz3
10-09-2009, 02:27 PM
Anybody who says that redbook and DVD-A can be that of the SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound needs to go see a hearing doctor. Either that or they just need to actually listen to what they are hearing. Yes, they can come close. To say that they are the same is just....well, pure hogwash.
After the quote on post #2, I didn't even bother to read the link. Counting the pieces of dust on my A/C filter would actually be more productive.
steveinaz
10-09-2009, 04:57 PM
Well, I can't speak to comparisons of SACD, but I do know that Redbook can sound extremely good---and agree with their assertions that it's more about the technique than it is the format. Ever notice how good HDCD recordings sound, even if you don't have HDCD decoding? There's been extra effort put into that recording. I have never had a CDP or DAC that decoded HDCD, but they certainly sound good universally.
If every CD was mastered as well as the really good ones, SACD/DVD-A would have never existed in the first place, IMO.
F1nut
10-10-2009, 04:39 AM
While it's true that a well mastered CD sounds good, there's something more organic about SACD.
george daniel
10-10-2009, 09:54 AM
While it's true that a well mastered CD sounds good, there's something more organic about SACD.
Key word----Organic
treitz3
10-10-2009, 09:56 AM
....that sounds so damned sweet.......
george daniel
10-10-2009, 10:00 AM
....that sounds so damned sweet.......
EL-34's Tom,, El-34's,, ;)
treitz3
10-10-2009, 10:05 AM
Good morning George. Yes, the tubes definitely help. ;)
TUBES RULE!!!
danz1906
10-10-2009, 11:39 AM
Whomever wrote that is deaf.
Agreed!
GV#27
10-10-2009, 08:39 PM
GV, I first became aware of this study about two years ago when it was published in my AES Journal. John are you an AES member? The study didn't compare SACDs and DVD-As with CDs, but rather took SACDs and DVD-As of recognized excellent sound quality and subjected the output to a 16/44.1 ADC-DAC processing, "downgrading" them to the Redbook CD standard.Thats an important point.I'm curious if the CD version of the Fagan album I mentioned previous is just downsampled version of the hi rez master?I suspect it is therefore my CD vs DVD-A should be a good barometer of the differences between the two formats. That a group of experienced listeners in a properly controlled double-blind test found no audible difference in the excellent sound quality resulted from this.I'm not 100% convinced with the accuracy of the double blind process but I know the NCR (and IIRC Harman) have found it usefull for loudspeaker comparison.
Something you simply can't do.
Huh,I don't see what he said that deserved that jab:confused:
Think what they used was a bit better than rat shack and lamp cords..........
Yeah can't say as Ive seen any ESL speakers at my local RS of late.
Anybody who says that redbook and DVD-A can be that of the SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound ..The maximum dynamic range capability of DVD-A is equal to SACD,both about 10db better than redbook.
xcapri79
10-10-2009, 08:54 PM
Whomever wrote that is deaf.
This is an unfair comment. Those conducting the tests could obviously hear.
We hear using our ears and our minds and sometimes we let our our minds imagine more than what we truly hear.
Perhaps this is where myths are born.
Further proof that blind tests are absolutely worthless.
Only if they disagree with your premise, right?
Fongolio
10-10-2009, 08:56 PM
Anybody who says that redbook and DVD-A can be that of the SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound needs to go see a hearing doctor.
Tom,
Although I agree with this statement as far as redbook versus SACD goes, my experience with DVD-A is that it is the equal of and sometimes better than SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound. Most of my DVD-A's are recorded in 24 bit 192 kHz giving them a resolution much much higher than redbook's 16/44.1. The resolution of DVD-A is much closer to that of SACD and in my ears equal. Therefore I conclude I "need" to see a hearing doctor.
Kelvin
F1nut
10-10-2009, 08:57 PM
Huh,I don't see what he said that deserved that jab:confused:
He has a long and consistent history of relying on other people's opinions/articles, blind A/B tests and the use of specs to determine what something might sound like instead of using his own experiences. There's nothing open minded or open eared about him.
GV#27
10-10-2009, 10:33 PM
Tom,
Although I agree with this statement as far as redbook versus SACD goes, my experience with DVD-A is that it is the equal of and sometimes better than SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound. Yes DVD-A and SACD are both hi rez formats and capable of excellent sonics.The determining factor is the quality level of the data that actually gets imbeded into those little pits.
John K.
10-11-2009, 12:02 AM
GV, yes I'm a member of the AES. Although I'm not professionally engaged in audio engineering, I've been a hi fi enthusiast for about 40 years, and I find that some of the materials available to me as a member help me personally in understanding audio principles, which I in turn can use to inform others about the realities in this area.
Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation. There's certainly no shortage of charlatans in audio manufacture and sales who've learned how handsomely profitable it can be to never underestimate the gullibility of some audiophiles who buy in to and propagate this misinformation.
One irony in this is that many of those espousing a philosophy of "Just trust your ears", reject(often with insults)the findings when the only way to accomplish this, i.e., a properly controlled double-blind test, indicates that there's no factual support for one of their pet beliefs. They appear to have about as much enthusiasm for such testing as a vampire has for sunlight.
shack
10-11-2009, 12:09 AM
Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation.
Pot...kettle...black...:rolleyes:
xcapri79
10-11-2009, 12:16 AM
GV, yes I'm a member of the AES. Although I'm not professionally engaged in audio engineering, I've been a hi fi enthusiast for about 40 years, and I find that some of the materials available to me as a member help me personally in understanding audio principles, which I in turn can use to inform others about the realities in this area.
Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation. There's certainly no shortage of charlatans in audio manufacture and sales who've learned how handsomely profitable it can be to never underestimate the gullibility of some audiophiles who buy in to and propagate this misinformation.
One irony in this is that many of those espousing a philosophy of "Just trust your ears", reject(often with insults)the findings when the only way to accomplish this, i.e., a properly controlled double-blind test, indicates that there's no factual support for one of their pet beliefs. They appear to have about as much enthusiasm for such testing as a vampire has for sunlight.
Well said! But there are exceptions. Note the DarqueKnight.
He loves to test and his reports are well written and very creative.
GV#27
10-11-2009, 12:46 AM
GV, yes I'm a member of the AES. Although I'm not professionally engaged in audio engineeringThats great John,my understanding is that you need to have engineering credentials for membership do you not? I find that some of the materials available to me as a member help me personally in understanding audio principles...Yes the journals are great resourses.I have access to them through a library and perodically get my read on with them.Some of the papers hold no interest, some are well beyond my knowledge base but others are downright educational.
Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation.100% agreed.
One irony in this is that many of those espousing a philosophy of "Just trust your ears", reject(often with insults)the findings when the only way to accomplish this, i.e., a properly controlled double-blind test, indicates that there's no factual support for one of their pet beliefs. They appear to have about as much enthusiasm for such testing as a vampire has for sunlight.There certainly is a lot of diversity of opinion I will just leave it at that.:)
BlueFox
10-11-2009, 01:08 AM
I have noticed in other areas, and it also applies to audio, is, for whatever reason, many people do not let the facts get in the way of their fantasy.
megasat16
10-11-2009, 01:18 AM
Well, BullSh$T truimphs AES and IEEE!
F1nut
10-11-2009, 01:25 AM
Of course, when one relies solely on the results from a highly flawed test procedure (who really believes that a $200 Japanese receiver sounds exactly like a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers?) aren't they the ones who are living out the closed minded, even ignorant fantasy of their pet beliefs? Why yes, yes they are.
Keiko
10-11-2009, 02:18 AM
Yes DVD-A and SACD are both hi rez formats and capable of excellent sonics.The determining factor is the quality level of the data that actually gets imbeded into those little pits.
Bingo!
It's all subjective and this is just my opinion, but I've heard some redbooks that can compete with Super Audio. Here's an excellent example of a well mastered redbook CD that just blows me away, and sonically sounds very close to as good as any well mastered SACD I own.
http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Geisha-John-Williams/dp/B000BJS4TO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1255237611&sr=8-1
On another note, I've ripped some vinyl and put it on CD that sounds better than a lot of factory redbooks, and can rival some of my hi-rez discs. Again, this is just my subjective opinion, based on my experiences. FWIW
Fongolio
10-11-2009, 02:41 AM
I've ripped some vinyl and put it on CD that sounds better than a lot of factory redbooks, and can rival some of my hi-rez discs.
I have to agree with that having listened to some of Mike's vinyl rip cd's. I think cd's mastered from an analog source sound better than those mastered from a digital source most of the time.
People can make all the arguments they want for blind testing or what have you but your ears tell you what you like. For me sometimes that's redbook, sometimes sacd or dvda but my ears always prefer analog vinyl. The example of Donald Fagen's Morph The Cat was used earlier. I have it in redbook cd, dvd-audio and vinyl LP. In this order my ears prefer vinyl, dvd-audio, and then redbook cd. That said, the redbook cd is one of the best redbook recordings I've ever heard and blows away even some of my sacd or dvda recordings. A poorly recorded/mastered sacd or dvda is just that...poorly done, and all the high res in the world won't make it sound great.
I will play what my ears tell me to. No matter what the format.
BlueFox
10-11-2009, 02:42 AM
Here's an excellent example of a well mastered redbook CD that just blows me away, and sonically sounds very close to as good as any well mastered SACD I own.
http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Geisha-John-Williams/dp/B000BJS4TO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1255237611&sr=8-1
Thanks for the tip. I loved the movie, and the soundtrack CD appears to be right in line with my current musical interest.
Keiko
10-11-2009, 03:19 AM
I have to agree with that having listened to some of Mike's vinyl rip cd's. I think cd's mastered from an analog source sound better than those mastered from a digital source most of the time.
Thanks Kelvin......Actually, it's gotten better since I've upgraded the table & cartridge and improved on my mastering techniques. Been thinking about getting my own label. "K-Dog Records." :D ;)
Keiko
10-11-2009, 04:40 AM
Thanks for the tip. I loved the movie, and the soundtrack CD appears to be right in line with my current musical interest.
You're welcome fox. If you do decide to purchase this disc, let us know your impressions.
Peace out,
Mike
Of course, when one relies solely on the results from a highly flawed test procedure (who really believes that a $200 Japanese receiver sounds exactly like a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers?) aren't they the ones who are living out the closed minded, even ignorant fantasy of their pet beliefs? Why yes, yes they are.You didn't know that all amps and CDP's sound the same? Same goes for capacitors, resistors, etc...
Welcome to the world of meterphiles.
treitz3
10-11-2009, 11:48 AM
Tom,
Although I agree with this statement as far as redbook versus SACD goes, my experience with DVD-A is that it is the equal of and sometimes better than SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound. Most of my DVD-A's are recorded in 24 bit 192 kHz giving them a resolution much much higher than redbook's 16/44.1. The resolution of DVD-A is much closer to that of SACD and in my ears equal. Therefore I conclude I "need" to see a hearing doctor.
KelvinGood morning Kelvin. I have all of the above formats including HDCD, XRCD and vinyl. While I can agree that DVD-A can come closer to SACD than any other format I might have, it is still not the same. I have observed this many times because I have a couple of reference songs/albums on most all if not all of the formats. I have played them all in the same player and I have also swapped players through the years.
Every one of the formats are recording/remastering dependent. Here's an example. Take the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms SACD and compare it to the XRCD version. At first, the XRCD sounds like it might be better than the SACD. At least this is what I thought when I first played it. Now, after about three or four minutes it became very obvious that the noise floor had increased and that some of the dynamics were WAY too hot. Put in the SACD and the noise floor all but disappeared and the dynamics went back to sounding more natural. Some may prefer the XRCD more than the SACD because they are possibly mistaking the loudness for better sound.
What I'm getting at is that with some formats, the sound may "sound" better, but at the compromise of sound. Ok, that made no sense. When I say that some folks aren't actually listening to the music, this is what I'm talking about though. When one compares a CD to DVD-A to an SACD, are they comparing apples to apples or are they "thinking" that the DVD-A or CD sounds better because of the loudness, or boost of certain frequencies?
When I listen, I compare ALL aspects of the recording. Every single aspect of the recording is criticized. I'm also blessed to have a very revealing rig which definitely helps define all of these aspects rather quickly. When all of the aspects of a certain medium are put into question and one just doesn't listen to the music off axis or while they are walking around the room, then SACD is the clear winner.
GV#27
10-11-2009, 11:01 PM
My personal expierience has been that the best of both DVD-A and SACD can offer excellent SQ.I would be hard pressed to declare one sonically superior to the other and I reinterate my previous statement that the quality of the original source has a huge influence on the results.
IMO given that they are encoded with excellent source data they both exceed CD quality by a comparable margin.For a true apples to apples comparison the same material would have to be encoded on disc's of each format.There are probably others but I can only think of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Frampton's Comes Alive that are available on both.However these are remasters not the 24/192k PCM or pure DSD masters that would be necessary to provide a level playing field and show both formats in their best light.
F1nut
10-12-2009, 02:21 AM
Welcome to the world of meterphiles.
Yeah, really! :rolleyes:
ben62670
10-12-2009, 03:10 AM
My personal expierience has been that the best of both DVD-A and SACD can offer excellent SQ.I would be hard pressed to declare one sonically superior to the other and I reinterate my previous statement that the quality of the original source has a huge influence on the results.
IMO given that they are encoded with excellent source data they both exceed CD quality by a comparable margin.For a true apples to apples comparison the same material would have to be encoded on disc's of each format.There are probably others but I can only think of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Frampton's Comes Alive that are available on both.However these are remasters not the 24/192k PCM or pure DSD masters that would be necessary to provide a level playing field and show both formats in their best light.
I have been holding off till someone posted this. I think that many dual layer SACD's are recorded to make SACD shine. The CD layer IMHO is purposely encoded to make the SACD level shine. Am I saying that SACD isn't better than CD? No, but an apples to apples comparison would be nice. Personally I do not have the equipment to take full advantage of the SACD's resolution.
Ben
janmike
10-12-2009, 06:15 AM
All I know is I am happy that I was introduced to SACD. End of story. Thanks Jesse.
LessisNevermore
10-12-2009, 08:28 AM
I have been holding off till someone posted this. I think that many dual layer SACD's are recorded to make SACD shine. The CD layer IMHO is purposely encoded to make the SACD level shine. Am I saying that SACD isn't better than CD? No, but an apples to apples comparison would be nice. Personally I do not have the equipment to take full advantage of the SACD's resolution.
Ben
Ben, I've done a head-to-head comparison of a standard CD, and the CD layer of the same titled SACD. No discernible difference between them, so I don't think there are any shenanigans at play. SACD is just that good.
skrol
10-12-2009, 10:54 AM
When you refer to "AES" is that the IEEE AES?
Ben, I've done a head-to-head comparison of a standard CD, and the CD layer of the same titled SACD. No discernible difference between them, so I don't think there are any shenanigans at play. SACD is just that good.
As have I. SACD is a clear winner in my opinion.
I am really astounded by the argument. Seems folks should quit effing around and just listen. It's not hard to hear the difference. Even on a modest rig. :rolleyes:
GV#27
10-12-2009, 01:01 PM
When you refer to "AES" is that the IEEE AES?
http://www.aes.org/
BlueFox
10-12-2009, 02:04 PM
One item I have noticed is with a hybrid if I compare the SACD track to the CD track played through the Benchmark Dac1 then the CD and SACD are very close to each other.
GV#27
10-12-2009, 03:22 PM
One item I have noticed is with a hybrid if I compare the SACD track to the CD track played through the Benchmark Dac1 then the CD and SACD are very close to each other.The DAC1 cannot decode an SACD (DSD)data stream,you will be hearing the redbook layer.
edit.Sorry I may have misread,did you mean using a separate SACD player vs the DAC1?
GV#27
10-12-2009, 03:28 PM
I have been holding off till someone posted this. I think that many dual layer SACD's are recorded to make SACD shine. The CD layer IMHO is purposely encoded to make the SACD level shine. Am I saying that SACD isn't better than CD? No, but an apples to apples comparison would be nice. Personally I do not have the equipment to take full advantage of the SACD's resolution.
BenOn the flip side ,apparently the SACD layer in a great many cases is sourced from lower res PCM masters so it's full potential may not be realized.
BlueFox
10-12-2009, 03:37 PM
The DAC1 cannot decode an SACD (DSD)data stream,you will be hearing the redbook layer.
edit.Sorry I may have misread,did you mean using a separate SACD player vs the DAC1?
Using the same SACD player, Sony 9100ES, and switching between SACD and CD layer. SACD is digital out over iLink to 7100ES and decoded into analog. CD is digital out to DAC1 to analog to 7100ES.
Danny Tse
10-12-2009, 03:43 PM
I am really astounded by the argument. Seems folks should quit effing around and just listen. It's not hard to hear the difference. Even on a modest rig. :rolleyes:
My headphone system is extremely modest....Sony DVP-NS500V SACD/DVD/CD player connected to a Technics Dolby Pro-Logic receiver used (in 2 channel stereo mode) as headphone amp. Headphones are my 10 year old $69.00 Grado SR60s (not even the new "i" version). On a well-produced SACD such as Steely Dan's "Gaucho", the sound quality is just amazing.
Using the same SACD player, Sony 9100ES, and switching between SACD and CD layer. SACD is digital out over iLink to 7100ES and decoded into analog. CD is digital out to DAC1 to analog to 7100ES.
You are not making a good comparison. You are using different DAC's. No?
:confused:
shack
10-12-2009, 04:00 PM
There are good SACD recordings and somoe not so good SACD recordings...then there are those EXCELLENT SACD recordings. An excellent SACD blows away an excellent redbook...PERIOD! There is no "conspiracy" to have a poor redbook version on a hybrid disc to make SACD sound better, because it isn't necessary. The SACD layer IS better...if done well.
BlueFox
10-12-2009, 04:08 PM
You are not making a good comparison. You are using different DAC's. No?
Yes, you are right. The point I was trying to make is it possible to get good CD sound approaching SACD. Some day when I win the Lotto I want to get one of the $50K CD players with the pre-ringing filter which is suppossed to make CDs sound even better.
Danny Tse
10-12-2009, 04:32 PM
Every one of the formats are recording/remastering dependent. Here's an example. Take the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms SACD and compare it to the XRCD version. At first, the XRCD sounds like it might be better than the SACD. At least this is what I thought when I first played it. Now, after about three or four minutes it became very obvious that the noise floor had increased and that some of the dynamics were WAY too hot. Put in the SACD and the noise floor all but disappeared and the dynamics went back to sounding more natural. Some may prefer the XRCD more than the SACD because they are possibly mistaking the loudness for better sound.
The SACD and XRCD versions of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" are 2 different animals.
The XRCD, which predated both the SACD and DVD-A versions, was commissioned by Hong Kong Universal Music and was intended to be sold in that city alone. While the XRCD was manufactured and remastered by JVC in Japan, the XRCD nonetheless reflected the sonic preferences of local audiophiles in Hong Kong. The "too hot dynamics" you mentioned is a giveaway to that sonic preference.
The remastering of "Brothers In Arms" for SACD and DVD-A, on the other hand, was done for a worldwide market. The SACD was never officially available in the US because Dire Straits was signed to a Warner Bros. label, which means any hi-rez releases would be on DVD-A (the DVD-A version of "Brothers In Arm" appeared on a DualDisc in the US). US Warner Music has since reversed itself and is now in support of SACD (witness the SACDs of Doobie Bros., the Band, etc. through Mobile Fidelity).
What I am saying is that you're comparing 2 different remasters on 2 different formats.
Yes, you are right. The point I was trying to make is it possible to get good CD sound approaching SACD. Some day when I win the Lotto I want to get one of the $50K CD players with the pre-ringing filter which is suppossed to make CDs sound even better.
I think approaching is the operative word here.
Why can't all CD's sound like Steely Dan CD's? ;)
BlueFox
10-12-2009, 04:50 PM
Why can't all CD's sound like Steely Dan CD's? ;)
Because Steely Dan sucks? ;)
megasat16
10-12-2009, 04:54 PM
There are good SACD recordings and somoe not so good SACD recordings...then there are those EXCELLENT SACD recordings. An excellent SACD blows away an excellent redbook...PERIOD! There is no "conspiracy" to have a poor redbook version on a hybrid disc to make SACD sound better, because it isn't necessary. The SACD layer IS better...if done well.
Great Post, Shack! About time to straighten out what format is superior!
GV#27
10-12-2009, 04:56 PM
What I am saying is that you're comparing 2 different remasters on 2 different formats.
Yep oranges and apples.Thats some good background info on the various versions of BIA.
Why can't all CD's sound like Steely Dan CD's? ;)That would be nice.
Because Steely Dan sucks? ;)Reported.:p
Because Steely Dan sucks? ;)
Well there is no accounting for individual taste is there?;)
Fongolio
10-12-2009, 06:22 PM
Ok, I take back one statement I made earlier. I just listened to Led Zeppelin's Mothership on CD and this sounds far superior to the original vinyl. However, the Mothership versions have been remastered and I don't have it on LP to compare. I just wish Jimmy, Robert, and John would remaster the whole Zep catalogue this well. Some day......
Keiko
10-12-2009, 06:45 PM
Because Steely Dan sucks? ;)
Oh no, you didn't! :mad: :p
TouchyFeely
10-13-2009, 09:38 PM
Of course they didn't hear a difference. They were probably using lamp cord for cables, a Radio Shack amp, and a $39 CD player since they are likely the same crowd that believes none of that matters.
Agreed 100% LOL!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.