SACD

[Al ears]

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

? You cannot hear digital. Ultimately it has to be converted to analogue doesn't it?

 

[Gazzip]

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

? You cannot hear digital. Ultimately it has to be converted to analogue doesn't it?

I really don't understand the point of SACD for anybody with anything other than the very best loudspeakers. The frequency response of a standard definition audio CD is 20Hz to 20kHz. Most speakers at a reasonable price get nowhere near those limits (or the bottom end at least) so what's the point in SACD which has a wider FR? I just don't get why most hifi hobbyists would need that.

 

[Al ears]

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

? You cannot hear digital. Ultimately it has to be converted to analogue doesn't it?

I really don't understand the point of SACD for anybody with anything other than the very best loudspeakers. The frequency response of a standard definition audio CD is 20Hz to 20kHz. Most speakers at a reasonable price get nowhere near those limits (or the bottom end at least) so what's the point in SACD which has a wider FR? I just don't get why most hifi hobbyists would need that.

Others might agree but it's not just about our hearing or frequency response of those that you are using its more down to data density and what that can do to soundstage.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

Most of the music that I listen to is not released on SACD. Frustrating.

I wish SACD was more popular.

 

[ID.]

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

? You cannot hear digital. Ultimately it has to be converted to analogue doesn't it?

I really don't understand the point of SACD for anybody with anything other than the very best loudspeakers. The frequency response of a standard definition audio CD is 20Hz to 20kHz. Most speakers at a reasonable price get nowhere near those limits (or the bottom end at least) so what's the point in SACD which has a wider FR? I just don't get why most hifi hobbyists would need that.

Others might agree but it's not just about our hearing or frequency response of those that you are using its more down to data density and what that can do to soundstage.

While some manufacturers make arguments for the effect that harmonics, etc. from above the range of human hearing can have on the audible parts, most people seem to think that the benefits are from data density and the effects on soundstage and small ambinet cues, etc. that help make things seem more real.

 

[iMark]

We bought a Pioneer universal player back in 2003. Back then the majors like Universal had started to release a lot of new stuff on hybrid SACDs. That worked very well for us. It meant that we could play the SACD layer at home and load the CD layer in iTunes. In 2004 I got my first iPod Mini so I could listen to the music of SACDs on the iPod.

Back then I didn't want to take original (and quite expensive) SACDs in the car so I used to make copies of the CD layer on CD-R.

Unfortunately the major record labels (first SonyBMG and later Universal) dropped support for SACD. Especially for jazz and classical I've never understood why the majors dropped support for SACD. Smaller labels like BIS and Linn still release wonderful classical hybrid SACDs. Classical SACDs from around 2003 now sell at ridiculous prices.

At least there are now some Bluray Pure Audio discs. But they obviously aren't easlly ripped in a computer and the digital downloads aren't lossless files, which I find very strange. Bluray Pure Audio discs would be a very good replacement for the SACD if the downloads were CD quality. But it does seem a step back from hybrid SACD which I still think is a very clever concept. Even if you don't have a player (yet), you can always play the CD layer.

We now have a Sony BDP-S590 which plays SACDs so the Pioneer DV-565 is now in the attic. If we don't end up buying the Sony UHP-H1 it might come back down so we can listen to the few DVD-Audio discs we have....

Too many formats......

 

[MajorFubar]

I've never heard any hi res music that doesn't sound exactly the same when its re-sampled down to 16/44. But I have heard DACs that seem to sound better playing at >=96kHz, even when they're playing 16/44 files.

 

[Gazzip]

I've never heard any hi res music that doesn't sound exactly the same when its re-sampled down to 16/44. But I have heard DACs that seem to sound better playing at >=96kHz, even when they're playing 16/44 files.

...and nor did the AES when they carried out a series of double blind tests known as the Meyer/Moran tests. Their conclusion was that no matter how good stereo SACD or DVDA sounded in its native format, it sounded equally as good as when encoded on to a CD in good old 16/44 PCM when played at normal listening levels. At very high levels the higher res formats did however present a lower noise floor.

There was a caveat... Meyer and Moran concluded that SACD and DVDA recordings did sound very, very good, albeit that as above they sounded the same when down-sampled to 16/44. This they put down to the fact that SACD recordings were usually prepared using exceptional mastering equipment and techniques, which led to very, very good recordings, and that the musical genres selected lent themselves very well to such mastering.

So... although SACD may not be audibly superior to Red Book CD, there is an argument that SACD does actually sound better than your average, badly mastered, Red Book. This would also explain why not much was ever made available as SACD release.

 

[stereoman]

Trust me , they do. Buy yourself a SACD hybrid in stereo. Put it on, listen to SACD and then switch the layer of the same disc to a normal CD. My player can do this instantly. No way you cannot hear the difference.

 

[MajorFubar]

Trust me , they do. Buy yourself a SACD hybrid in stereo. Put it on, listen to SACD and then switch the layer of the same disc to a normal CD. My player can do this instantly. No way you cannot hear the difference.

Without sounding disrespectful I wouldn't trust that the CD layer is at all the same master. Equally I can only go off my own tests which show no audible difference when I've re sampled a hi res file to 16/44. There are so many possible variables, including the not to be ignored possibility that the DAC in your player sounds better playing at high bit rates. But if the difference is as glaringly obvious as you say it is, I'd say the CD layer is simply a different master.

 

[BigH]

<p>Trust me , they do. Buy yourself a SACD hybrid in stereo. Put it on, listen to SACD and then switch the layer of the same disc to a normal CD. My player can do this instantly. No way you cannot hear the difference.</p>

Then why can't all these experts hear a difference in blind tests? If you down sample from 24 bit to 16 bit it sounds the same. Some SACDs have different mastering on the different layers. Or maybe it's your player.

 

[nopiano]

Trust me , they do. Buy yourself a SACD hybrid in stereo. Put it on, listen to SACD and then switch the layer of the same disc to a normal CD. My player can do this instantly. No way you cannot hear the difference.

Without sounding disrespectful I wouldn't trust that the CD layer is at all the same master. Equally I can only go off my own tests which show no audible difference when I've re sampled a hi res file to 16/44. There are so many possible variables, including the not to be ignored possibility that the DAC in your player sounds better playing at high bit rates. But if the difference is as glaringly obvious as you say it is, I'd say the CD layer is simply a different master.

That's a really interesting point, major. I'd assumed somehow the same basic data was present, but the SACD layer contained more of the same. What you are saying suggests a disc could actually contain a cd layer with one recording, and a SACD layer with something totally different. Is that how it works, I mean technically, not in a commercial release!?

 

[MajorFubar]

Yep it's most definitely possible but I don't know why they would do that. But don't forget this is an industry where it's not uncommon for a CD master to be completely different to a HD download (or vinyl). I'm talking about obvious differences too like different compression and tonal balance, not just vague 'is it different or am I imagining it' differences. So who knows

 

[stereoman]

Hmmm. Confused then.

 

[emperor's new clothes]

Hi Nopiano,

I have 30+ hybrid sacds and the DSD layer is a completely different beast to the PCM cd layer. The best DSD to my ears were recorded in DSD - mostly classical. DSD64 files can also be downloaded and are roughly equivalent to a 24/96 PCM in resolution, but have a much more consistent SQ relative to my experience of BluRay audio discs and downloads, which are a mixed bag. As Stereoman said, no duffers, unlike my cupboard full of cr@p cds. As I see you have a very high quality TT, I'm sure you would appreciate the "analogue" quality of a good SACD player. I just upgraded mine to the next model up - outstanding, IMHO

The new Marantz SA10 @£6000 upconverts everything to high speed DSD as does PS Audio's up market Directstream DACs. If 16/44.1 was perfect, then Bob Stuart of Meridian and MQA, Robb Watts of Chord, Denon & Cambridge audio's new pcm unsampling DACs to name but a few, wouldn't have bothered trying to mitigate it's inherent limitations, IMHO.

 

[nopiano]

Hi Nopiano,

I have 30+ hybrid sacds and the DSD layer is a completely different beast to the PCM cd layer. The best DSD to my ears were recorded in DSD - mostly classical. DSD64 files can also be downloaded and are roughly equivalent to a 24/96 PCM in resolution, but have a much more consistent SQ relative to my experience of BluRay audio discs and downloads, which are a mixed bag. As Stereoman said, no duffers, unlike my cupboard full of cr@p cds. As I see you have a very high quality TT, I'm sure you would appreciate the "analogue" quality of a good SACD player. I just upgraded mine to the next model up - outstanding, IMHO

The new Marantz SA10 @£6000 upconverts everything to high speed DSD as does PS Audio's up market Directstream DACs. If 16/44.1 was perfect, then Bob Stuart of Meridian and MQA, Robb Watts of Chord, Denon & Cambridge audio's new pcm unsampling DACs to name but a few, wouldn't have bothered trying to mitigate it's inherent limitations, IMHO.

Thanks for those thoughts. I do own a few SACDs from the likes of Linn and BIS, but have only heard the cd layer. ( I've also tried some hi-res downloads from the same companies, but none of the same tracks!) Those discs are amongst the best recording, so I certainly buy the argument they are generally mastered to a higher standard.

My CD player is getting on for 19 years old, and though one of the best, I'm very tempted to try a serious SACD machine, though by no means are they commonplace amongst higher end machines. I guess only a home listen can really determine whether it is worth the bother. And that Marantz is too pricy for my pocket!

 

[tino]

My CD player is getting on for 19 years old, and though one of the best, I'm very tempted to try a serious SACD machine, though by no means are they commonplace amongst higher end machines. I guess only a home listen can really determine whether it is worth the bother. And that Marantz is too pricy for my pocket!

Have you heard about the Sony UHP-H1? ... WHF review here ... might be too cheap for you though

 

[MajorFubar]

If 16/44.1 was perfect, then Bob Stuart of Meridian and MQA, Robb Watts of Chord, Denon & Cambridge audio's new pcm unsampling DACs to name but a few, wouldn't have bothered trying to mitigate it's inherent limitations, IMHO.

if there was a fundamental problem with 16/44 then no amount of upsampling would mitigate its inherent limitations, because you can't put back what has already been lost; it's no different to upscaling a 640x480 JPG of the Mona Lisa to ten megapixels and expecting it to show her nasal hair.

Actually what you appear to be suggesting is what I've already suggested, that some DACs just simply sound better at higher bit rates irrespective of the bit rate of the source material. And I'd probably agree with that, because I always felt my old HRT II+ sounded better at 96kHz even when playing bog standard CD rips.

But none of this is a surprise or new and a similar technique was used extensively on second generation CD players so that the steep low pass filters could be pushed way above the audible range and made somewhat more gentle.

 

[nopiano]

My CD player is getting on for 19 years old, and though one of the best, I'm very tempted to try a serious SACD machine, though by no means are they commonplace amongst higher end machines. I guess only a home listen can really determine whether it is worth the bother. And that Marantz is too pricy for my pocket!

Have you heard about the Sony UHP-H1? ... WHF review here ... might be too cheap for you though

Yes, thanks I saw it in the Awards issue, though tend not to read bluray reviews much as I have an older Sony BDP-something which does all i need for pictures. I guess I have looked at Oppo a few times, but never heard one in an audio only context. That's where I'm struggling, as most reviews, like the one you linked say something along the lines of "...good for a bluray machine...", though once I recall an Oppo (possibly the one around £500) was compared to a Marantz CD6xxx for stereo, which isn't quite what I'm seeking. It seems that Hegel, Primare and a few other higher-end CD players eschew SACD, though I think Denon still support it..

 

[emperor's new clothes]

Hi Nopiano,

IMHO, as I have both to compare, a dedicated stereo player would be preferable in your quality system. The Marantz SACD range can act as a digital hub and I feed my SA14 via coax from the SBT - sounds superb with quality streams such as beeb3 and Paradise Radio AAC 320kbps. With CD, detail retrieval on The Wall reveals subtle back ground chat that I've never heard before.

Considered the Denon 2500NE which has rave reviews in hifi news etc. No digital inputs, but bit cheaper - both built like the proverbial in Japan.

http://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/hifi/cdsacdplayer/dcd2500ne

http://www.marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?catid=hifi&subcatid=sacdcdplayer&productid=sa14s1

SACD is still very popular in Japan and they like to own physical media. Sadly, imports are expensive and I no longer visit.

 

[emperor's new clothes]

Hi Major,

I have a simplistic view that having spent my hard-earned on the best hardware that I can afford, it makes sense to feed it the best quality software. Don't mind in what form it comes, but continue to be thwarted by an avaricious and cynical music industry.

cambridge audio's view on upscaling from cd's problematic sample rate.

https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/products/851/851n

ATF video at bottom

I have some wonderful sounding CDs. In 1983, we were told they all would be perfect. Still annoyed that I ditched vinyl!

 

[nopiano]

Hi Nopiano,

IMHO, as I have both to compare, a dedicated stereo player would be preferable in your quality system. The Marantz SACD range can act as a digital hub and I feed my SA14 via coax from the SBT - sounds superb with quality streams such as beeb3 and Paradise Radio AAC 320kbps. With CD, detail retrieval on The Wall reveals subtle back ground chat that I've never heard before.

Considered the Denon 2500NE which has rave reviews in hifi news etc. No digital inputs, but bit cheaper - both built like the proverbial in Japan.

http://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/hifi/cdsacdplayer/dcd2500ne

http://www.marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?catid=hifi&subcatid=sacdcdplayer&productid=sa14s1

SACD is still very popular in Japan and they like to own physical media. Sadly, imports are expensive and I no longer visit.

Yes, that Denon 2500 I'd definitely one on my radar. Maybe the Marantz too. Thank you!

 

[MajorFubar]

Hi Major,

I have a simplistic view that having spent my hard-earned on the best hardware that I can afford, it makes sense to feed it the best quality software. Don't mind in what form it comes, but continue to be thwarted by an avaricious and cynical music industry.

What you're thwarted by is an industry which is now expecting you to pay a premium for hi-res downloads and SA CDs etc just to give you a sound quality which was/is already possible from CDs.

The link you provided is very interesting and more or less backs up what I said but in better words. On CD players the technique was called oversampling. Whacking-up the sampling frequency facilitates the use of shallower low-pass / anti-aliasing filters because they can be pushed up way above the 20kHz cut off. I also (tenuously) stand by my belief that converters designed for 96kHz/192kHz etc seem to sound better at those frequencies for some reason I admit I can't explain, even when replaying 44.1kHz files. So IMO that helps as well.

Their claim that the oversampling process 'almost' completely elliminates jitter is a bit dubious IMO because I don't see how the two are linked at all. But jitter is a magic buzzword so they had to throw it in somewhere.