Underwhelmed by SACD.

[12th Monkey]

Any thoughts on this, as it's not what I had expected?

I have an Arcam FMJ23T CD player, which is more than ten years old. It was the last model they made with the dcs ring DAC (IIRC) and it's always struck me as smooth and engagingly musical - hence not replacing it. It's not SACD-compatible, but that's an itch I'd always been curious to scratch.

My last BR player was a transport only, so I couldn't use it as an SACD source, but I bought a Cambridge Audio BD 752 which has stereo outputs. I bought Pixies 'Doolittle' on SACD, and set about my listening.

The SACD is a hybrid, and the CD layer is also remastered. I was using the same cable and input on my stereo setup, so there's no difference to sound that could be introduced, other than that which emerges from the two players. I know from trying it that the BR player isn't as good with CDs as the Arcam, so I needed to flip between sources. I listened to my old CD and the remastered one on the Arcam and the SACD on the BR, and kept wondering whether I'd heard something different, but after much faffing about concluded that the SACD has just the slightest touch more space and definition to cymbals, voices etc, and that it held less spacially-precise sources (such as an effects-heavy guitar) a little more precisely in the soundstage. But the head-scratcher for me was that this seemed to be because of the remaster - I couldn't tell the difference between the SACD on the BR and the remastered CD on the Arcam.

I hadn't expected this. Some thoughts occur, and I wondered if anyone else had any comparable experiences:

1) The BR player is not as good an SACD player as the Arcam is a CD player. Maybe a newer CD/SACD player of similar standard would show the differences?

2) The music isn't the most subtle. If I'd been listening to something from an audiophile jazz label, maybe it would be more apparent? Not that I'm going to change my musical tastes for higher fidelity thank you very much - Pixies are my favourite band and I know 'Doolittle' as well as I know any album.

3) The CD player is pretty heavily-pampered. Good cabling (inc mains) - I know that there are many here who think that cables make no difference, if so, I'll respect your views, just don't feel the need to add them to this thread please! - but the same istrue of the BR player. And both stereo and BR are pretty much completely isolated from vibration. I also have a mat from a company called Marigo which is supposed to absorb stray laser light, remove static and stabilise discs, whic i used all through. Maybe the much maligned CD has a lot to offer if pampered?

4) It could be that I am just cloth-eared, but years of listening to stuff carefully suggests to me I am not. If this is your conclusion, discretion is appreciated!

Who knows? I am intrigued enough about all of this to ask for anyone else's exeriences though - thanks in advance for any thoughts shared!

 

[MajorFubar]

But the head-scratcher for me was that this seemed to be because of the remaster - I couldn't tell the difference between the SACD on the BR and the remastered CD on the Arcam.

Nope that's pretty much it. There are no audible benefits to be gained from greater bit depths and faster sample rates except during recording, mixing and mastering. Some claim DSD technology is audibly superior to PCM, but I'm not au fait enough with it to be able to filter out the bullsh--t from the truth, of which there is lots about it on the net. I read an article a few years ago from someone who claimed DSD was clearly audibly superior, but he also believed in HiFi USB cables, which in my mind brought into question everything else he wrote.

 

[ID.]

Not surprised by that, but I am surprised that you hear the difference from all your cables while not hearing the difference between CD and SACD.

 

[Covenanter]

My subjective view is that there isn't much difference. In the classical world the recordings that are on SACD are often very fine so you tend to connect the recording quality with the format. I've listened to both the SACD and the CD layers on a number of recordings and whilst I can convince myself that I can sometimes hear a difference I can also convince myself that the opposite is also true.

Chris

 

[ID.]

My subjective view is that there isn't much difference. In the classical world the recordings that are on SACD are often very fine so you tend to connect the recording quality with the format. I've listened to both the SACD and the CD layers on a number of recordings and whilst I can convince myself that I can sometimes hear a difference I can also convince myself that the opposite is also true.

Chris

that is pretty much my experience. Perhaps a bit more air and fine detail giving a sense of space. Maybe the bass and treble seem a touch better, but then again it could be the master and I can't be bothered to do ABX testing when the difference is so small that it may as well not be there (and may be imagined or down to the recording or mastering).

 

[abacus]

A lot of SACD are multi-channel, therefore if you have a home cinema system that supports DSD (Or you have multi-channel in) then you will get a much more expansive sound with the SACD layer, compared to the normal CD layer.

If you are just using SACD for stereo, then unless it uses a better master recording, you will not notice any diffrence in sound quality.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[12th Monkey]

Nope, all in good old-fashioned two-channel through the stereo setup, which will always remain separate from the video side of things.

But - good to know that my experience is not atypical. I guess I probably won't be buying any more SACDs, but if the three Pixies ones I bought have just a tiny bit of an edge over the unremastered CDs I'll write this one off to experience and consider it to have been worthwhile. But not worthwhile getting another interconnect and reprogramming the remote so that the stereo is be able to flip between sources.

And only one mention of cables. This place is slipping. (Sorry, only joking!)

Cheers

Simon

 

[michael hoy]

A lot of SACD are multi-channel, therefore if you have a home cinema system that supports DSD (Or you have multi-channel in) then you will get a much more expansive sound with the SACD layer, compared to the normal CD layer.

If you are just using SACD for stereo, then unless it uses a better master recording, you will not notice any diffrence in sound quality.

Hope this helps

Bill

+1

 

[emperor's new clothes]

I have a number of SACDs collected over the last decade, most bought in Asia where more popular and cheaper. I agree that they vary depending on mastering, but I can hear a difference between layers - the best having increased dynamic range: eg LSO/Berlioz/ symphony fantastique which also came with a BLuRay audio disc in the box - far superior to the cd IMHO. DSOTM just sounds different and i find the surround layer a bit gimmicky although I was fortunate to see PF live in the early 70s with their pioneering quadraphonic PA. BIA has better defined bass and Why Worry a superb 3d recording - the first digital master. Knopflers Shangri La another excellent SACD. Played on Marantz UD7007 and Marantz SA8005. I have bought a number of BR Audio HD24/192 and some are rubbish.

 

[manicm]

I disagree that it's just a case of mastering. I've said this many times before and I repeat - the majority of bluray players do DSD to PCM conversion which is an inferior way of playback. Some will preserve and output the DSD stream via HDMI to a compatible AV receiver - not all are. So I'm not surprised at all if the OP finds his Arcam offers superior playback than the Cambridge bluray player, even though the PCM layer is used.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Interesting thread this....

Never owned a SACD disk are they all multi-channel?

Like HDCD there really is no way of knowing what are the benefits of this 'higher quality', that these superior formats offer over a well mastered CD.

I have a few HDCD's - my player is compatable but I hear nothing to say one is better than the other.

Not via stereo anyway - some tracks on BluRay do sound stunningly immersive though through a 5.1 setup with full rang speakers.

A few movie sound tracks are pretty impressive.

But this is taboo and drags the AVreciever v stereo amp debate out.

But maybe AVreceivers are not being used to their full potential.....

To add one example the Gladiator sound track I have the film on BR and the CD the sound track sounds far better on BluRay so much more immersive (I have a sub Sat set up)

While stereo is more direct....

Cool topic.....

 

[Rethep]

There is a fairytale called "The emperors new clothes"! ;-) It contains: SACD, High res, cables, high damping factor-numbers, high Watt-numbers, and worries about all this!

And another one which contains: Don't worry and enjoy music, enjoy music, enjoy music!

 

[Al ears]

There is a fairytale called "The emperors new clothes"! ;-) It contains: SACD, High res, cables, high damping factor-numbers, high Watt-numbers, and worries about all this!

And another one which contains: Don't worry and enjoy music, enjoy music, enjoy music!

Its a fairytale alright, really fantastic.

....and the story goes 'because I cannot ascertain any differnce then neither can you' .......

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go!

 

[ID.]

There is a fairytale called "The emperors new clothes"! ;-) It contains: SACD, High res, cables, high damping factor-numbers, high Watt-numbers, and worries about all this!

And another one which contains: Don't worry and enjoy music, enjoy music, enjoy music!

Its a fairytale alright, really fantastic.

....and the story goes 'because I cannot ascertain any differnce then neither can you' .......

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go!

there was a difference, but not enough for me to pursue the tiresome process of ABX testing, etc. to try and isolate the cause nor was it great enough for me to rebuy as much of my music as possible on SACD or high resolution file.

 

[Leeps]

I've only got into SACD and Bluray Audio recently, with mixed results. (Both formats sent by HDMI to my AVR which does the conversion).

Generally the sound quality of my Bluray Audios has been significantly better than the SACD's, although I've largely only bothered ordering multi-channel mixes, as this seems to offer the most noticeable difference.

With the classical Bluray Audios I have, they are truly stunning. They manage to extract more detail and punch and yet have a certain mercury-like smoothness at the same time. I have quite a lot of classical CD's, but none of them get close to this level of quality. Even my best classical CD's have a certain brittleness about them which has been observable on all my recent systems.

Having said all that I do tend to follow the same principles as when I first started buying CD's, which is to avoid new releases of old recordings. I remember feeling 'had' in the early days of CD, especially with classical music, thinking "why is this CD sounding so bad?" only to realise that it was a recording originally made in the early 60's: I made a habit of reading the information on the case more thoroughly afterwards! So if I buy Bluray Audios, I look for recent masters.

I did break this rule recently buying a stereo only Bluray Audio of Supertramp's "Crime of the Century." It was very good, but then so's the CD. I think that time period was a real peak for analogue recordings, just before quality went south again in the 80's. Anyway, in retrospect I couldn't really justify paying the premium, particularly when I had the CD and can stream it on Tidal anyway.

So for SACD or Bluray Audio, for me at least, I'll stick to multi-channel only of recent masters, and likely classical only where the differences seem clearer. And my preference based on the recordings I have is for Bluray Audio over SACD. (My AVR does process SACD DSD, so it is picking up the hi-res layer).

 

[12th Monkey]

Disagree about older recordings sounding worse - at least not that it's a given. Most of my classical CDs are far from new and they sound great, but listening to something like Ray Charles stuff from the sixties shows that on the contrary, many old recordings are much better than newer stuff. Someone I knew here many years ago referred to old recordings simply being 'recording the room' - in other words there's no cut-and-pasting together the different instrument and vocal tracks, and no buggliering-about with effects. Some of Charles' pieces have the greatest clarity and naturalness of timbre and soundstage in my fairly large collection.

And as one poster says, it's all about the music. Of course it is, but I'd have thought it a given that our being here suggests that we care about how we are listening to stuff as well as what we're listening to? I know some people get too hung up, kit-obsessed and analytical, but as my stereo setup is largely unchanged in a decade, I'll presumptuously exclude myself from that category.

Just picking up the DSD references, does a CD/SACD play the SACD layer in a different manner to a Blu-ray player, at least in some cases?

And in for a penny, in for a pound. My experiences are that I do hear differences in the areas that cause much argument (cables, mains, isolation from vibration etc), but I would suggest that my original post strongly suggests I am not automatically taken in by the notion that because something 'should' sound better that it actually does.

 

[Leeps]

Just picking up the DSD references, does a CD/SACD play the SACD layer in a different manner to a Blu-ray player, at least in some cases?

Not that I know of. My comment was more about my AVR. In my system's case, my Bluray player passes the signal to my AVR by HDMI. As my AVR can process SACD (it says so on the display), then I'm confident that it's playing the SACD layer. Presumably if my AVR couldn't process it, it would either produce no sound at all, or if the conventional CD layer on the Bluray player was manually selected, then the AVR could "understand" the signal and just process it at 16/44.

Alternatively I'd have so use the analogue outputs of the Bluray, but I'm fairly confident that would sound WORSE than CD because the analogue part of my AVR is not that good. It's digital inputs are far better.