• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

SACD

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
144
13
4,595
Hello to all, I need to say that although I had for a few years a SACD player I never bought a SACD disc and never listened to as well. Silly , I know. Yesterday I came across SACD section in a music shop and bought one to try out. Wow. Really good sound. I think I'm becoming a fan of this format. For anyone who have not heard it , it makes a huge difference. However I don't know why only some genres are converted to SACD and why so many famous artists who sell tens of thousands of their records do not have ( apart from a normal CD ) an option for SACD ? Expensive in making ? Generally SACD are expensive , true...but worthy to buy them.
 

tino

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2011
135
10
18,595
stereoman said:
Hello to all, I need to say that although I had for a few years a SACD player I never bought a SACD disc and never listened to as well. Silly , I know. Yesterday I came across SACD section in a music shop and bought one to try out. Wow. Really good sound. I think I'm becoming a fan of this standard. For anyone who have not heard it , it makes a huge difference. However I don't know why only some genres are converted to SACD and why so many famous artists who sell tens of thousands of their records do not have ( apart from a normal CD ) an option for SACD ? Expensive in making ? Generally SACD are expensive , true...but worthy to buy them.
Interesting. If I were in the market for a physical disc player I would go for one that does SACD ... just in case I come across used SACD format discs.

Regarding the disc you bought, how was the price of the disc compared to the CD or equivalent DSD format download ... did you have a chance to compare?
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
144
13
4,595
tino said:
stereoman said:
Hello to all, I need to say that although I had for a few years a SACD player I never bought a SACD disc and never listened to as well. Silly , I know. Yesterday I came across SACD section in a music shop and bought one to try out. Wow. Really good sound. I think I'm becoming a fan of this standard. For anyone who have not heard it , it makes a huge difference. However I don't know why only some genres are converted to SACD and why so many famous artists who sell tens of thousands of their records do not have ( apart from a normal CD ) an option for SACD ? Expensive in making ? Generally SACD are expensive , true...but worthy to buy them.
Interesting. If I were in the market for a physical disc player I would go for one that does SACD ... just in case I come across used SACD format discs.

Regarding the disc you bought, how was the price of the disc compared to the CD or equivalent DSD format download ... did you have a chance to compare?
I bought only a LINN sampler with various 14 songs and genres ( jazz, classical etc. ). Not expensive , I paid 9.99 Euros. But you can buy a whole SACD from 16 Euros. The average price is about 35 Euro. The same SACD disc can be directly compared by switching the layers from SACD to CD and vice versa. If you're going to buy a new player , buy SACD. The difference in ambient ( I mean in 2 channel set up not only dolby ) ,dynamics and clarity is huge. Some people claim this is only due to better mastering. But SACD have a different sampling rate and technical data I believe.
 

muljao

New member
Jul 18, 2016
154
0
0
One of my Blu-ray players does SACD, only realised the other day. I have it going through a dac doubled up as a CD player. I must try get a SACD to try out
 

spiny norman

New member
Jan 14, 2009
293
0
0
muljao said:
One of my Blu-ray players does SACD, only realised the other day. I have it going through a dac doubled up as a CD player. I must try get a SACD to try out
Although if you do, you'll discover that all it will output through a standard S/PDIF coax or optical link to the DAC is the CD layer of the SACD disc, not the full-fat SACD quality.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
144
13
4,595
spiny norman said:
muljao said:
One of my Blu-ray players does SACD, only realised the other day. I have it going through a dac doubled up as a CD player. I must try get a SACD to try out
Although if you do, you'll discover that all it will output through a standard S/PDIF coax or optical link to the DAC is the CD layer of the SACD disc, not the full-fat SACD quality.
I think you might be right. Maybe it's not gonna sound like a dedicated SACD player but worthy to try out. I am sold on SACD. I wonder why this format did not get break through to the market...interesting.

By the way - I think SACD players cannot output through optical , coax. In contrary to CD output they can only output SACD signal by analog RCA. At least my manual of my Denon says so.
 

thewinelake.

New member
Jan 22, 2016
58
0
0
I've got one of those Linn discs and have played it on a Sony PS/3. I'd like to do some more tests such as playing the disc in a conventional player and seeing how it sounds. Presumably that would have mostly the same mastering for redbook CD and SACD versions?
 

spiny norman

New member
Jan 14, 2009
293
0
0
stereoman said:
I think you might be right. Maybe it's not gonna sound like a dedicated SACD player but worthy to try out.
Into a DAC, it's not going to sound anything like an SACD player, because it will only be playing the CD-quality layer.

stereoman said:
By the way - I think SACD players cannot output through optical , coax. In contrary to CD output they can only output SACD signal by analog RCA. At least my manual of my Denon says so.
Yes, that's what I said. Or in some cases they can output SACD quality digitally over an HDMI link to a suitable AV receiver, but not into a conventional DAC.
 

ID.

New member
Feb 22, 2010
207
0
0
stereoman said:
The difference in ambient ( I mean in 2 channel set up not only dolby ) ,dynamics and clarity is huge. Some people claim this is only due to better mastering. But SACD have a different sampling rate and technical data I believe.
I've had a number of SACDs, and while some of the discs were very good, it was mainly because they were remastered.

In my experience the difference isn't that great. Perhaps better ambient details. A little better on the highs and lows, but probably not actually enough to pick up consistently in a blind test. Have you compared the same tracks in CD quality, or are you just impressed with how good the SACD you bought sounds? If it's the latter a lot of it is down to the quality of the recording and the mastering.

There's some interesting (or not so interesting) tests one can do to see how much of an effect the sampling rate has for hi resolution files, although arguably a bit harder to do with SACD or files in the SACD format/DSD rather than the more standard PCM.

Why it never took off? The improvements are minimal at best. The manufacturers got greedy, and tried to make it a premium thing rather than making it standard on every player. More greediness by trying to make music fans buy all their music again at a higher price. But ultimately, if the differences were really as big as claimed it would have sold itself, much like the switch to higher resolution TVs.
 

Leeps

New member
Dec 10, 2012
219
1
0
Personally I've found the results with SACD to be patchy. The most recent SACD I bought was 'fine', but not night and day remarkable. (My Bluray plays SACD's and I'm transmitting to my AV receiver by HDMI, which my AVR can decode).

Although I only have half a dozen, my foray into Bluray Audio has been much more successful IMO, although I would limit that to the ones that are multi-channel encoded. The quality of the DTS-MA 7.1 audio only discs are truly excellent and to my taste just have it all; superb detail, attack and dynamics and yet fluid, organic and mercury-like all at the same time.

But Bluray Audio, despite it being a good idea and an obvious use of the players that are in many homes (unlike SACD equipped players), they just won't catch on in the era of streaming. Some of that lack of success is the lack of support and marketing from the music industry though. There's very little main-stream stuff on Bluray Audio and quite a bit is best described as 'niche' (read 'weird').

Wouldn't it be great for example if all new Bluray movies had an extra-cost option of the movie soundtrack on a second disc, mastered in DTS-MA 7.1. I'm not prepared to spend extra on steelbooks (which are just silly marketing ploys IMO), but I'd willingly pay extra for a soundtrack on Bluray Audio. I enjoy listening to many movie soundtracks (Interstellar, The Village, The Martian, Tron etc etc) and I'd love to hear them in full-fat multi-channel DTS-MA.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
144
13
4,595
ID. said:
stereoman said:
The difference in ambient ( I mean in 2 channel set up not only dolby ) ,dynamics and clarity is huge. Some people claim this is only due to better mastering. But SACD have a different sampling rate and technical data I believe.
I've had a number of SACDs, and while some of the discs were very good, it was mainly because they were remastered.

In my experience the difference isn't that great. Perhaps better ambient details. A little better on the highs and lows, but probably not actually enough to pick up consistently in a blind test. Have you compared the same tracks in CD quality, or are you just impressed with how good the SACD you bought sounds? If it's the latter a lot of it is down to the quality of the recording and the mastering.

There's some interesting (or not so interesting) tests one can do to see how much of an effect the sampling rate has for hi resolution files, although arguably a bit harder to do with SACD or files in the SACD format/DSD rather than the more standard PCM.

Why it never took off? The improvements are minimal at best. The manufacturers got greedy, and tried to make it a premium thing rather than making it standard on every player. More greediness by trying to make music fans buy all their music again at a higher price. But ultimately, if the differences were really as big as claimed it would have sold itself, much like the switch to higher resolution TVs.
Firstly, I cannot agree with you as to the SACD sound mastering issue. Of course SACD have much better mastering but the digital converter in SACD players is 1 bit DSD with 2.8224 Mhz sampling frequency. Of course I compared the same SACD to CD ( I wrote earlier that this can be directly compared by switching both layers in SACD of the same disc ) BUT one does not have to compare. The difference is hugely audible. It reminds me a bit those people who few years ago could not tell the difference between SD and HD TV. Believe it or not really there are so many of them. I think the same reason was beacause of similar listeners who could not tell a difference and evetually the markets started to doubt in SACD. Again, mastering yes but also the sampling frequency and dynamic range.

The biggest differences that I have notices are indeed the most audible in vocal passages like opera etc. but not only, the drums and strings for example sound very airy without any constraints.
 

Reijer

New member
Apr 22, 2014
13
0
0
Is SACD not a succes, just like betamax, video2000, laserdisc, quadraphonic vinyl, minidisc, because 'the people' found it to expensive (or not worth the money to say it better) and that the cd become te common standard, just like VHS for video was.

Video2000 was far better but it was more expensive and the technique to complex to repair for most of the people.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
152
88
18,670
Hi,

Blu-ray audio is now much more expensive, not sure why. Amazon prices have increased significantly, so it may be catching on, hence the rise.

There is a lack of music for the format, not sure about SACD.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

abacus

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2008
430
175
19,070
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
 

Gazzip

New member
Jan 15, 2011
88
0
0
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
144
13
4,595
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
 

Gazzip

New member
Jan 15, 2011
88
0
0
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
I was referring to dynamic range not frequency range.
 

Al ears

Moderator
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
You may be right but in my experience it is not frequency range that is the kicker it is soundstage and the apparent depth you can get from a SACD. Orchestral pieces make this quite apparent. It would appear that bitcount does much more and it is certainly quite apparent to my ears. Does it manifest itself more depending on the quality of the equipment used in playback? I cannot say for sure. Most SACD's I own are stereo only which is fine by me as my stereo set-up is much better than my home theatre surround system.

All discs I have are excellent which is more than I can say for a couple of Bluray Audio ones I own.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
152
88
18,670
Al ears said:
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
You may be right but in my experience it is not frequency range that is the kicker it is soundstage and the apparent depth you can get from a SACD. Orchestral pieces make this quite apparent. It would appear that bitcount does much more and it is certainly quite apparent to my ears. Does it manifest itself more depending on the quality of the equipment used in playback? I cannot say for sure. Most SACD's I own are stereo only which is fine by me as my stereo set-up is much better than my home theatre surround system.

All discs I have are excellent which is more than I can say for a couple of Bluray Audio ones I own.
Hi,

When you refer to blu-ray audio, are you stating the Pure Audio versions? These are meant to be the optimal and produced to the highest standard.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
144
13
4,595
shadders said:
Al ears said:
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
You may be right but in my experience it is not frequency range that is the kicker it is soundstage and the apparent depth you can get from a SACD. Orchestral pieces make this quite apparent. It would appear that bitcount does much more and it is certainly quite apparent to my ears. Does it manifest itself more depending on the quality of the equipment used in playback? I cannot say for sure. Most SACD's I own are stereo only which is fine by me as my stereo set-up is much better than my home theatre surround system.

All discs I have are excellent which is more than I can say for a couple of Bluray Audio ones I own.
Hi,

When you refer to blu-ray audio, are you stating the Pure Audio versions? These are meant to be the optimal and produced to the highest standard.

Regards,

Shadders.
No , Blu ray audio is almost non existent. Though it serves the best audio quality I guess. On the other hand for such a niche like SACD there still thousands of them to buy.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
152
88
18,670
stereoman said:
shadders said:
Al ears said:
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
You may be right but in my experience it is not frequency range that is the kicker it is soundstage and the apparent depth you can get from a SACD. Orchestral pieces make this quite apparent. It would appear that bitcount does much more and it is certainly quite apparent to my ears. Does it manifest itself more depending on the quality of the equipment used in playback? I cannot say for sure. Most SACD's I own are stereo only which is fine by me as my stereo set-up is much better than my home theatre surround system.

All discs I have are excellent which is more than I can say for a couple of Bluray Audio ones I own.
Hi,

When you refer to blu-ray audio, are you stating the Pure Audio versions? These are meant to be the optimal and produced to the highest standard.

Regards,

Shadders.
No , Blu ray audio is almost non existent. Though it serves the best audio quality I guess. On the other hand for such a niche like SACD there still thousands of them to buy.
Hi,

I examined amazon, and there are many hybrid CD and SACD albums available.

The record companies could quite easily provide a DVD which has both compressed standard CD quality (compression wars) and 24bit 96kHz uncompressed audio on one single layer DVD.

I am assuming that the cost to produce a single DVD is very similar to producing a CD.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

abacus

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2008
430
175
19,070
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
The affects you mention, relate to analogue sound, not a digital stream, so don’t confuse the 2, (The digital domain is a completely different kettle of fish compared to analogue) hence 24/96 offers no advantage over 16/44 for playback.

​Hope this clarifies

​Bill
 

Al ears

Moderator
shadders said:
Al ears said:
stereoman said:
Gazzip said:
abacus said:
CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.

SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.

If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.

SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.

Hope this helps

Bill
+1. I think Bill is correct.

As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.

I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.

Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
You may be right but in my experience it is not frequency range that is the kicker it is soundstage and the apparent depth you can get from a SACD. Orchestral pieces make this quite apparent. It would appear that bitcount does much more and it is certainly quite apparent to my ears. Does it manifest itself more depending on the quality of the equipment used in playback? I cannot say for sure. Most SACD's I own are stereo only which is fine by me as my stereo set-up is much better than my home theatre surround system.

All discs I have are excellent which is more than I can say for a couple of Bluray Audio ones I own.
Hi,

When you refer to blu-ray audio, are you stating the Pure Audio versions? These are meant to be the optimal and produced to the highest standard.

Regards,

Shadders.
They are indeed but God knows where they sourced the mastering of the Rolling Stones disc I have..... ;-)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts