CD vs. SACD - 2 Channel Stereo - Difference?

[sonicman]

First, I apologize in starting a thread that likely has been 'beaten to death' - but I did do some searching & reading here, and some of the discussion seems to go back a number of years; possibly some new insight?

Second, I left a post in another forum (classical music) concerning my potential need for a new CD player, and the topic arose about the purchase of one w/ SACD capability; presently, I have 2-channel stereo; my argument was that a SACD played into 2 channels would simply mix or eliminate the multi-channel SACD layer and would likely offer no improvement over the standard CD layer (of course, realizing that these layers may be 'mastered' differently).

Well, that started a flurry of responses that SACD was much better than CD when played on a 2-channel system; I argued further that I'd probably not consider a SACD player unless I was also going to add 5.1 sound; again, posts stating that the difference between listening to the CD layer & the SACD layer on two speakers was like 'night & day' - :rolleyes:

So, I've been googling all day trying to find some documentation concerning this issue (like blind A/B comparisons) but w/ little luck - thus, would appreciate any comments, opinions, or potential links to some 'firm' information. Thanks all - :)

[DD66000]

You need to take our word for it, that SACD is better than cd. Higher bit rate, sampling frequency just make it better. The same for DVD-A.
Why buy just a cd player, instead of a multi-format player? I've got a Denon 1930ci that plays everything but bluray. And it has been given very good reviews, about two years ago, when I bought it.

[markw]

The way it was recorded, mastered, and mixed has more of a detrimental effect on te sound than the media used to record it. There are some extremely well recorded redbook CD's that will have you shaking your head with disbelief.

The only way you'll hear a "night and day" difference between two different versions of the same recording is if they remixed it, which is exactly what Sony did when deomnstrating their new SACD players to the world.

If you want to hear some fantastic redbook CD's, check out Mapleshade CD's and then get back to us. Reference Recordings do quite well, too and if you can find some Mobile Fidelity stuff, most is worth a try.

Of course, if you want multi-channel, then you have no choice here.

[sonicman]

You need to take our word for it, that SACD is better than cd. Higher bit rate, sampling frequency just make it better. The same for DVD-A.
Why buy just a cd player, instead of a multi-format player? I've got a Denon 1930ci that plays everything but bluray. And it has been given very good reviews, about two years ago, when I bought it.

Well, thanks for the response, but not sure if it's our word or your word relative to the above response. Yes, I already know the stats, i.e. standard CD sampling rate at 44.1 kHz and a resolution of 16-bit vs. a much higher sampling rate for SACD and a higher resolution - but is the assumption that these higher rates are a better experience for 'human hearing'?

The human ear at best can respond to frequencies of 20-20K Hz - the Nyquist limit would imply that a 'sampling rate' of 40K Hz is adequate to reproduce the sound for us humans; don't really believe that jumping up the resolution makes much difference, but I'm willing to be educated. Now understanding 'harmonics' above human hearing is completely clear to me (I'm an abdominal radiologist doing ultrasound in which we use 'harmonic' imaging in the MHz range on a daily basis), but do we appreciate these additional 'dog' sounds w/ our own ears and/or speakers/headphones? ;)

So, my question remains - does a 2-channel stereo system sound any different (if a blind A/B comparison were done) to one listening to a standard CD layer vs. a SACD in the same two speaker system? Thanks - :)

[sonicman]

The way it was recorded, mastered, and mixed has more of a detrimental effect on te sound than the media used to record it. There are some extremely well recorded redbook CD's that will have you shaking your head with disbelief.

The only way you'll hear a "night and day" difference between two different versions of the same recording is if they remixed it, which is exactly what Sony did when deomnstrating their new SACD players to the world.........


Thanks, Markw for the response - I own over 4000 CDs, including a number of the labels you mention, so appreciate the sound reproduction that can be done on a standard CD.

But again, my issue (before I want to purchase an optical player that will do SACD) is whether the sound produced via a SACD channeled into two speakers will sound any better than the standard CD layer? I currently own a NAD receiver w/ 2-channel sound - also, of all the CDs in my collection, perhaps a couple of dozen are 'hybrid' CD/SACD discs, so not a big investment - not really interested in going to a 5.1 sound system (main reason for me would be for a more interesting DVD experience) - so the bottom line remains whether SACD is the best sound option on 2 speakers?

Thanks again for your interest - Dave :)

[john72953]

Well, thanks for the response, but not sure if it's our word or your word relative to the above response. Yes, I already know the stats, i.e. standard CD sampling rate at 44.1 kHz and a resolution of 16-bit vs. a much higher sampling rate for SACD and a higher resolution - but is the assumption that these higher rates are a better experience for 'human hearing'?

The human ear at best can respond to frequencies of 20-20K Hz - the Nyquist limit would imply that a 'sampling rate' of 40K Hz is adequate to reproduce the sound for us humans; don't really believe that jumping up the resolution makes much difference, but I'm willing to be educated. Now understanding 'harmonics' above human hearing is completely clear to me (I'm an abdominal radiologist doing ultrasound in which we use 'harmonic' imaging in the MHz range on a daily basis), but do we appreciate these additional 'dog' sounds w/ our own ears and/or speakers/headphones? ;)

So, my question remains - does a 2-channel stereo system sound any different (if a blind A/B comparison were done) to one listening to a standard CD layer vs. a SACD in the same two speaker system? Thanks - :)

In my opinion...NO!

John

[sonicman]

In my opinion...NO!

John


John - thanks! :D Direct, concise, and the response that I wanted! Congratulations for a wonderfully short post - :) Dave

[supervij]

I don't know if my opinion will count for anything, as I do have a 6.1 system. Anyway, I have a CD of Peter Gabriel Plays Live. I also have the SACD of this same album. Both the CD and the SACD are in stereo; there is no multi-channel mix on the SACD. And the difference between the two is indeed night and day.

The CD is an old(ish) recording of 1984(?) concerts, and it sounds it: little if any bass, thin-sounding, meh. The SACD was a WOW moment: tons of bass, incredible "presence", a real you-are-there feeling to the music. There was greater dynamic range, and the instruments jumped out and grabbed you by the throat! I can honestly say I won't ever go back to the CD of this album!

cheers,
supervij

[TLS Guy]

Thanks, Markw for the response - I own over 4000 CDs, including a number of the labels you mention, so appreciate the sound reproduction that can be done on a standard CD.

But again, my issue (before I want to purchase an optical player that will do SACD) is whether the sound produced via a SACD channeled into two speakers will sound any better than the standard CD layer? I currently own a NAD receiver w/ 2-channel sound - also, of all the CDs in my collection, perhaps a couple of dozen are 'hybrid' CD/SACD discs, so not a big investment - not really interested in going to a 5.1 sound system (main reason for me would be for a more interesting DVD experience) - so the bottom line remains whether SACD is the best sound option on 2 speakers?

Thanks again for your interest - Dave :)

SACDs are two layer. There is the CD layer, and the SACD DSD ( Direct stream digital) layer. DSD is not PCM based. However the increased bandwidth of SACD I don't think is audible. There was study published in AES last fall, showing that bit rates above the CD sampling rate were not audible.

Now if you play the CD layer you are getting the engineers mix down of the three, four or five channel SACD, what ever it is. Now if you play the SACD layer two channel, the player has to convert to PCM to mix it down, negating any theoretical advantage of DSD. Now the mix may sound different, as one is the engineers mix, the CD, and the other the players mix, SACD.

My view is that if you are not going to play the SACD multichannel, you do not need an SACD player

[Alex2507]

From what I have gathered it will always depend on the recording whether it sounds best in CD, 2 channel SACD or even multi channel SACD. At least that is my take on it after paying some sort of attention to discussions like this for a couple of years. I only have a few SACD's but for what it's worth I wouldn't even dream of playing Brothers in Arms as a CD on my home system. I feel like it would be wrong. :D

Actually I don't think I have ever tried it so I guess I am basing my actions on the opinions of others. Supervig's opinion is good enough for me. I mean c'mon ... he's got 'Super' right in his name!;):D

Edit: Then of course there is what TLS just said but I have to wonder about the recordings themselves.:confused:

[DD66000]

To go a bit deeper than I did in my other post, everything comes into play. The mastering, as has already been mentioned, all the playback gear being used and of coarse the speakers.

But as you've already stated, using the same speakers for both formats puts that part aside.
In other threads over the last few years, its been stated by some, that the player, be it cd, dad-a, sacd is only a transport, and therefore makes no difference. Twice over I have found that to be total BS.

I first bought a cheap Sony cd player in '93, 12 years later a cheap Samsung multi-disc player. Both left much to be desired. Later as I found many more DVD-A/SACD disc available online than available locally I bought a Denon 1930ci multi-disc player. Now that unit is certainly not the most expensive you can buy, but it is head and shoulders above what I had been using for any format.

So the point is, the best way for you to determine if SACD 2 channel is better than cd is to buy a multi-disc player. The prices now are quite reasonable. Plus with having such a player will allow you to buy any recording you want. I have three versions of the 1812 Overture, LP, CD and SACD. The SACD version is a completely new recording, not just a transfer of the other two. It is by far the best of the three. But w/o a multi-disc player I would have never known that, much less be able to enjoy it.

[sonicman]

I don't know if my opinion will count for anything, as I do have a 6.1 system. Anyway, I have a CD of Peter Gabriel Plays Live. I also have the SACD of this same album. Both the CD and the SACD are in stereo; there is no multi-channel mix on the SACD. And the difference between the two is indeed night and day.

The CD is an old(ish) recording of 1984(?) concerts, and it sounds it: little if any bass, thin-sounding, meh. The SACD was a WOW moment: tons of bass, incredible "presence", a real you-are-there feeling to the music. There was greater dynamic range, and the instruments jumped out and grabbed you by the throat! I can honestly say I won't ever go back to the CD of this album!


Thanks, supervij for the response above; I guess the other question that has arisen concerns which 'mastered' tracks are used on the CD vs. the SACD layer? Presumably, a newer & superior SACD track will out-perform an older and poorly done CD track - not sure 'how often' this is an issue, but I guess another consideration. I've 're-bought' CDs over the years, esp. blues, in which re-mastering was performed and indeed sound much better even w/ the same 'red book' standards; a good example is Mississippi John Hurt - the latest re-incarnation of his '28 Avalon recordings was also a 'night & day' experience for me vs. my much earlier Yazoo purchase? :)

[j_garcia]

There is absolutely a difference, but just like DVDs, it depends on how well it was done. I've said this in just about every thread on SACD/DVD-A. I have discs that sound no better than the CD and I have others that are like a revelation. I had Patricia Barber's Companion on CD for years and I thought it was among the best sounding CDs I'd heard (MoFi). When I heard the SACD (2ch only) I was even further impressed because it does sound even better. The absolute best sounding CD I have is a copy made from the original master of Jazz at the Pawnshop. It sounds as good as most of my SACDs. I would like to get that on SACD, but it is going for $50 or more, and I am not sure how much better that one will sound :)

[sonicman]

SACDs are two layer. There is the CD layer, and the SACD DSD ( Direct stream digital) layer. DSD is not PCM based. However the increased bandwidth of SACD I don't think is audible. There was study published in AES last fall, showing that bit rates above the CD sampling rate were not audible.

Now if you play the CD layer you are getting the engineers mix down of the three, four or five channel SACD, what ever it is. Now if you play the SACD layer two channel, the player has to convert to PCM to mix it down, negating any theoretical advantage of DSD. Now the mix may sound different, as one is the engineers mix, the CD, and the other the players mix, SACD.

My view is that if you are not going to play the SACD multichannel, you do not need an SACD player

Thanks, TLS Guy - your concise explanation of the 'mix-down' from the multi-channel SACD layer to play over a 2-channel speaker system was pretty much my understanding; and I've heard some say that listening to the CD & SACD over 2 channels did sound different (likely reflecting the type of mixing you describe above), but not so much a revelation, like the multi-channel SACD sound stage.

I guess a reason for me to go w/ a more universal player (i.e. up to SACD capability) is not to expect much difference on my current 2-speaker system, but possibly as the start of a projected upgrade to at least a 5.1 system for my DVD viewing (I would enjoy that experience!). So, I guess I now must 'throw' that in my own 'mix' - thanks, again - Dave :)

[mr-ben]

SACDs are two layer. There is the CD layer, and the SACD DSD ( Direct stream digital) layer. .... Now if you play the SACD layer two channel, the player has to convert to PCM to mix it down, negating any theoretical advantage of DSD. Now the mix may sound different, as one is the engineers mix, the CD, and the other the players mix, SACD.

My view is that if you are not going to play the SACD multichannel, you do not need an SACD player

This is not correct. I have many SACD's, and most have three versions on the disc: the 2ch CD layer, the 2ch DSD (DSD is the encoding used for SACD), and the multi-channel DSD. On my player I can explicitly select which of the three I want to listen to. Some discs lack the CD layer, and some lack the multi-channel version, but almost all have a 2ch DSD version on them. It's easy for me to push a button and switch between the CD and DSD 2-channel versions on the same disc, and in my opinion, the DSD version is superior.

Sonicman - there isn't much of a cost difference going to a SACD player - why not try it for yourself?

[sonicman]

This is not correct. I have many SACD's, and most have three versions on the disc: the 2ch CD layer, the 2ch DSD (DSD is the encoding used for SACD), and the multi-channel DSD. On my player I can explicitly select which of the three I want to listen to. Some discs lack the CD layer, and some lack the multi-channel version, but almost all have a 2ch DSD version on them. It's easy for me to push a button and switch between the CD and DSD 2-channel versions on the same disc, and in my opinion, the DSD version is superior.

Sonicman - there isn't much of a cost difference going to a SACD player - why not try it for yourself?

Hi Mr-Ben - your implication above is that a SACD may have 'three layers'? Not sure that is true when looking @ the diagram shown below; all three of your suggestions are possible, but presumably have to be put on the two layers shown, or the multi-channel SACD layer is converted to the '2ch DSD' layer that your mention - I stand to be corrected by others, but thanks for the additional explanation of the choices.

Now I own about 2 dozen CDs that are SACDs (all classical music) and would love to hear that layer, but still not convinced that my 2-channel stereo system will provide much of a difference in the sound stage? Now, in the future I may want to go to multi-channel sound mainly for DVD films, so maybe a SACD option would be a good choice - now the quandary is 'what' choices to I have if a multi-disc player is desired vs. a single-disc player offering this SACD option - again, thanks all - Dave :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Sacd.jpg

[Pyrrho]

First, I apologize in starting a thread that likely has been 'beaten to death' - but I did do some searching & reading here, and some of the discussion seems to go back a number of years; possibly some new insight?

Second, I left a post in another forum (classical music) concerning my potential need for a new CD player, and the topic arose about the purchase of one w/ SACD capability; presently, I have 2-channel stereo; my argument was that a SACD played into 2 channels would simply mix or eliminate the multi-channel SACD layer and would likely offer no improvement over the standard CD layer (of course, realizing that these layers may be 'mastered' differently).

Well, that started a flurry of responses that SACD was much better than CD when played on a 2-channel system; I argued further that I'd probably not consider a SACD player unless I was also going to add 5.1 sound; again, posts stating that the difference between listening to the CD layer & the SACD layer on two speakers was like 'night & day' - :rolleyes:

So, I've been googling all day trying to find some documentation concerning this issue (like blind A/B comparisons) but w/ little luck - thus, would appreciate any comments, opinions, or potential links to some 'firm' information. Thanks all - :)

Technically, SACD is better than CD. The audibility of the difference, when using only 2 channels, is questionable at best. I wouldn't bother with SACD if I did not have a multichannel system, and I love multichannel SACDs. For 2 channels, I would just stick with a CD player, though if you happen to stumble upon some hybrid SACDs (i.e., SACDs with a CD layer playable on any CD player), you might want to pick them up just in case you go with a multichannel system in the future.

I doubt that you will be able to find a properly conducted double blind listening session with both a 2 channel SACD and CD (which would involve both with the same mix, level matched, etc.). And if you did find such a thing, my guess is that you would find that people could not hear the difference between them. That, of course, is admittedly a guess, but I have seen enough BS in the audio world over the years to recognize the hallmarks of more BS in this issue.

If you want to see the extent of BS on this sort of thing, you might want to search for a double blind test that the Sensible Sound did some time ago, in which people could not hear the difference between a cheap $100 RCA CD changer and a CD player that cost about $1000. Yet people constantly advise others to buy expensive CD players!

The bottom line is this: If you want to argue with people, you will be able to find people on line with whom one can argue, but if what you really care about are things that actually are audible, you need to do more serious research than simply asking people questions.

[TLS Guy]

This is not correct. I have many SACD's, and most have three versions on the disc: the 2ch CD layer, the 2ch DSD (DSD is the encoding used for SACD), and the multi-channel DSD. On my player I can explicitly select which of the three I want to listen to. Some discs lack the CD layer, and some lack the multi-channel version, but almost all have a 2ch DSD version on them. It's easy for me to push a button and switch between the CD and DSD 2-channel versions on the same disc, and in my opinion, the DSD version is superior.

Sonicman - there isn't much of a cost difference going to a SACD player - why not try it for yourself?

There are only two layers on the disc. You have to have a player, and there are a lot that do not, that outputs from the DSD decoder. a lot od SACD players, and may be most, always convert to PCM. They just do not tell you that. When you switch to two channel the player is in fact doing the mix down in PCM. There is really no advantage over CD.

So it all boils down to whether you prefer the engineers mix or the players.

I have stated in numerous posts, that DSD does not allow processing without conversion to PCM. If the player allows you to output from the DSD decoder, then you have to select it, not PCM. If you select any bass management, or level matching from a player that will output from the DSD decoder, then you will not be able to select the option to listen from the DSD decoder.

If you do want to listen to the DSD decoder, then you have to have DIY skills to do level matching and generate a sub output in the analog domain. None of my SACDs have a sub woofer channel. I do level matching in the analog domain. I don't need to generate a sub woofer channel, as my left and right fronts, and both rears, are truly full range reproducers and I have no need for a sub. The center channel has an F3 of 44 Hz, but since it is a TL it is only 12 db down at 25 Hz, so there is not much compromise.

My SACDS are either two, three, four or five channel. I'm listening to a four channel one now.

By the way the same applies to receivers with DSD decoders. If you elect to have level matching, delay or bass management done, then there has to be a PCM conversion.

The industry have done their best to gloss over the fact, that the SACD DSD system was never really finished off. Hardly any consumers understand the formidable technical problems of listening from the DSD decoder and having the sound properly balanced.

If any one wants to really see what SACD can do, this is the disc to have. It is Symphony N0.12 (Luosto) by Kalevi Aho (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=200410).

This work was commissioned for an open air performance on Mount Luosto, Lapland in Finland

This performance was recoded in Sibelius Hall Lahti Finland.

At the front is the Lahti Symphony Orchestra and a tenor soloist. At immediate stage left and right front, are trombones and percussion sections each side. At center left and right sides are tympani sections. Towards the back left and right are horns and more percussion sections.

At the rear is the Chamber Orchestra of Lapland, a saxophone soloist and a soprano soloist.

The first movement, "The Shamans" starts with hypnotic Laplander's drumming, and the drums are all around you and the drumming moves sometimes clockwise and sometimes anticlockwise. The force power and realism is astonishing and colossal. All drums crisp and no trace of boom. Not something to try if you have small rear speakers. The brass the comes in over the drumming.

The second movement depicts from the darkness of the arctic winter to midsummer.

The third movement has lyric "Songs of the Fells."

The fourth movement is a mighty storm in the Fells.

This is a most dramatic and atmospheric work.

At least on my system side imaging as well as front and back imaging is excellent. There is also excellent depth to the sound filed through 360 degrees.

We have been getting introduced to Kalevi Aho's music here in Minnesota, as the conductor of the Minnesota Orchestra is Osmo Vanska, who is from Finland. He founded the Lahti symphony orchestra, and he and Kalevi Aho are very close friends. Osmo has performed some of this composers music here in Orchestra Hall Minneapolis. The music has been enthusiastically received.

[Pyrrho]

SACDs are two layer. There is the CD layer, and the SACD DSD ( Direct stream digital) layer. DSD is not PCM based. However the increased bandwidth of SACD I don't think is audible. There was study published in AES last fall, showing that bit rates above the CD sampling rate were not audible.

Now if you play the CD layer you are getting the engineers mix down of the three, four or five channel SACD, what ever it is. Now if you play the SACD layer two channel, the player has to convert to PCM to mix it down, negating any theoretical advantage of DSD. Now the mix may sound different, as one is the engineers mix, the CD, and the other the players mix, SACD.

My view is that if you are not going to play the SACD multichannel, you do not need an SACD player

Not all SACDs have a CD layer. If they do, they are called "hybrid SACD"s. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

Some discs only have SACD audio, and no CD version at all.

Some discs have three different versions of the music, a multichannel SACD version, a 2 channel SACD version, and a CD version. This is not to be confused with the number of layers a disc has, as that is a separate issue from the information on the layers (though not totally separate, as the CD layer, if available, is a different layer from the SACD content). Some discs do not contain a 2 channel SACD version, but allow for a 2 channel downmix of the multichannel SACD version. The most layers an SACD disc has are 2, though they can be both SACD layers, or a CD layer and an SACD layer (see link above).

[mtrycrafts]

...
I doubt that you will be able to find a properly conducted double blind listening session with both a 2 channel SACD and CD (which would involve both with the same mix, level matched, etc.). And if you did find such a thing, my guess is that you would find that people could not hear the difference between them. That, of course, is admittedly a guess, but I have seen enough BS in the audio world over the years to recognize the hallmarks of more BS in this issue.

...

This was published in JAES as a peer reviewed paper during your absence:D

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

In fact they did just what you indicated should be done and the results are as you surmised:D

[mtrycrafts]

You need to take our word for it, that SACD is better than cd. Higher bit rate, sampling frequency just make it better. 've got a Denon 1930The same for DVD-A.
it.

Actually, if we are talking 2ch, hard evidence just doesn't support your supposition.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Also published in JAES, peer reviewed.
I'd rather take the word for hard data.

[mtrycrafts]

... It's easy for me to push a button and switch between the CD and DSD 2-channel versions on the same disc, and in my opinion, the DSD version is superior.

..?

Of course. That was their intent to make you believe that it was better; another audio illusion since the data and controlled testing doesn't support your case.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
The CD track is just not mastered equally well as the DSD. How would they sell it if they were shown top be the same? One has to be made inferior.

[TLS Guy]

Not all SACDs have a CD layer. If they do, they are called "hybrid SACD"s. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

Some discs only have SACD audio, and no CD version at all.

Some discs have three different versions of the music, a multichannel SACD version, a 2 channel SACD version, and a CD version. This is not to be confused with the number of layers a disc has, as that is a separate issue from the information on the layers (though not totally separate, as the CD layer, if available, is a different layer from the SACD content). Some discs do not contain a 2 channel SACD version, but allow for a 2 channel downmix of the multichannel SACD version. The most layers an SACD disc has are 2, though they can be both SACD layers, or a CD layer and an SACD layer (see link above).

I think a SACD that is not hybrid has to be regarded as "rogue." I'm pretty sure the SONY/Philips standard for SACD demands backwards compatibility.

I think the SACD/DSD system is too hobbled for most users. I think there are precious few people on the planet that have achieved high quality well balanced surround from DSD, without converting to PCM

I think you could make a strong case for going to audio Blue ray discs, using loss less compression. I think that would be much less hassle. However we have to convince the loony crowd that PCM is "audiophile" grade.

[mtrycrafts]

... Twice over I have found that to be total BS.

.

Need more than just another testimonial;):D

[mr-ben]

Hi Mr-Ben - your implication above is that a SACD may have 'three layers'?

Pyrrho stated it better than I did - there are only two layers, but the SACD layer may have two versions in it. It should be stated on the case what versions it has. Again, my player lets me select between three different formats on each disc, and not all discs have all three formats. Sometimes the multi-channel version has fewer than five channels. Here is a link to a Sony site with a description, which also appears on cards that are inserted into a large number of SACD cases: http://www.super-audiocd.com/aboutsacd/format2.php
http://www.super-audiocd.com/img/aboutsacd/en/structure.gif

I think a SACD that is not hybrid has to be regarded as "rogue." I'm pretty sure the SONY/Philips standard for SACD demands backwards compatibility.

Early SACD discs were all SACD-only. The Hybrid discs with the CD layer came later. While most later SACDs were hybrids, they aren't all, and they're not required to be.

While many SACD players probably convert the DSD into PCM, I don't know what percentage do that. DSD-native DACs are common (Burr-brown, Cirrus, Wolfson, etc), and I'd guess PCM-conversion is rare, at least if you don't have any bass management or other signal manipulation enabled in the player. If you're listening to 2-channel music, there shouldn't be any need for that anyway.

I've read the studies that show that SACD sounds no better than CD. I don't care - the debate has gone round and round for years. Sonicman - Since you already own several SACD discs, you should take one someplace where you can switch between the CD and SACD layers and listen to it yourself, and make your own decisions. Or spend $150 on a Sony SCD-CE595, which is a 5-disc player, or one of the many DVD+SACD players, and try it at home.

[sonicman]

Thanks ALL for the continued discussion on this topic - I do have a question concerning some confusion on my part in the last few excellent posts; my understanding of the 'hybrid' SCAD is that 2 layers are present; one is the standard CD 'red book' audio (i.e. 44.1 kHz sampling @ 16 bits); while the second is a multi-channed SACD layer - now for the latter, do the number of channels available for 'surround' sound vary from disc to disc? Finally, my assumption is that when the SACD layer is played onto 2 speakers, the machine 'down-mixes' and/or eliminates some of the channels, so that basically just 2 versions are present on the disc.

Thanks TLS Guy for the discussion of the Aho recording - do not have that one and enjoyed the review by David Hurwitz; what was interesting is that he felt the surround effect was quite dramatic, but then stated that he preferred the 2-channel sound! Of course, he can be somewhat eccentric in his reviews (lot of mixed opinions about him on my classical music forum), but this just brings in another consideration, i.e. who cares about SACD, just give me my 'old' 2-channel stereo! ;):D

Thanks again - Dave :)

P.S. - sorry but while typing my post, others reply w/ clarification!

[TLS Guy]

Thanks ALL for the continued discussion on this topic - I do have a question concerning some confusion on my part in the last few excellent posts; my understanding of the 'hybrid' SCAD is that 2 layers are present; one is the standard CD 'red book' audio (i.e. 44.1 kHz sampling @ 16 bits); while the second is a multi-channed SACD layer - now for the latter, do the number of channels available for 'surround' sound vary from disc to disc? Finally, my assumption is that when the SACD layer is played onto 2 speakers, the machine 'down-mixes' and/or eliminates some of the channels, so that basically just 2 versions are present on the disc.

Thanks TLS Guy for the discussion of the Aho recording - do not have that one and enjoyed the review by David Hurwitz; what was interesting is that he felt the surround effect was quite dramatic, but then stated that he preferred the 2-channel sound! Of course, he can be somewhat eccentric in his reviews (lot of mixed opinions about him on my classical music forum), but this just brings in another consideration, i.e. who cares about SACD, just give me my 'old' 2-channel stereo! ;):D

Thanks again - Dave :)

P.S. - sorry but while typing my post, others reply w/ clarification!

The number of SACD channels does vary. There are two, three, four and five channel, and I have some of each. Some SACDS also have a sub channel. Classical CDs generally do not, and none of mine have. That is why you need full range speakers, and I mean really full range, or the ability to derive a sub signal in the analog domain.

The Aho is definitely better in the five channel version. However, I suspect there are few systems in the whole world that are built and set up to delover the goods.

If you click on my signature, you will see I have five TL speakers, in fact four of them are dual TLs. TLs have very low Q and can reproduce bass with power and authority with no trace of boom or sloppiness. I have a most unusual set up. That disc could not be better for showing how well the design of that system works. Even for me it is hard to conceive that any reproducer can do that when playing that disc. Sadly few will ever experience that effect for a play back system. Certainly having small bookshelf rear speakers will doom you for a start.

[DD66000]

Need more than just another testimonial;):D

And my quote "Twice over I have found that to be total BS." was taken out of context, WHY?
Which was referring to the fact that a cd player, or SACD/DVD-A player is not just a transport, as some like to suggest, and therefore there can be a SQ difference between models.

When the only thing in a system that is changed is the source component, while the speakers and amps are the same, if the resulting sound becomes edgy, brittle or anything else different and/or worse, then it has to be the fault of the source component.

The whole point was, just buying a high res player doesn't automatically mean better sound, compared to a cd player. Which was my experience.
It has to be a quality unit.

[Pyrrho]

...
I've read the studies that show that SACD sounds no better than CD. I don't care - the debate has gone round and round for years. Sonicman - Since you already own several SACD discs, you should take one someplace where you can switch between the CD and SACD layers and listen to it yourself, and make your own decisions. ...

Doing that will enable one to decide which mix one prefers, but it will not generally be a fair comparison of the formats themselves due to the fact that different mixes are put on the disc for SACD and CD.

[mtrycrafts]

Pyrrho stated it better than I did - there are only two layers, but the SACD layer may have two versions in it. It should be stated on the case what versions it has. Again, my player lets me select between three different formats on each disc, and not all discs have all three formats. Sometimes the multi-channel version has fewer than five channels. Here is a link to a Sony site with a description, which also appears on cards that are inserted into a large number of SACD cases: ]

Early SACD discs were all SACD-only. The Hybrid discs with the CD layer came later. While most later SACDs were hybrids, they aren't all, and they're not required to be.

While many SACD players probably convert the DSD into PCM, I don't know what percentage do that. DSD-native DACs are common (Burr-brown, Cirrus, Wolfson, etc), and I'd guess PCM-conversion is rare, at least if you don't have any bass management or other signal manipulation enabled in the player. If you're listening to 2-channel music, there shouldn't be any need for that anyway.

I've read the studies that show that SACD sounds no better than CD. I don't care - the debate has gone round and round for years. Sonicman - Since you already own several SACD discs, you should take one someplace where you can switch between the CD and SACD layers and listen to it yourself, and make your own decisions. Or spend $150 on a Sony SCD-CE595, which is a 5-disc player, or one of the many DVD+SACD players, and try it at home.

This would indicate that the audio is not layered as the video is on a DVD movie but sectioned. That would make sense as SACD that contains 16/44 track should play on a standard CD player for backward compatibility with older CD players that would not be able to read layered tracks.

[mtrycrafts]

And my quote "Twice over I have found that to be total BS." was taken out of context, WHY?
Which was referring to the fact that a cd player, or SACD/DVD-A player is not just a transport, as some like to suggest, and therefore there can be a SQ difference between models.

When the only thing in a system that is changed is the source component, while the speakers and amps are the same, if the resulting sound becomes edgy, brittle or anything else different and/or worse, then it has to be the fault of the source component.

The whole point was, just buying a high res player doesn't automatically mean better sound, compared to a cd player. Which was my experience.
It has to be a quality unit.


It comes down to mastering and being multi channel, not to the player, period, end of story. Some players may be designed to sound euphonic, or just don't meet their design specs and are broken.

[Pyrrho]

This would indicate that the audio is not layered as the video is on a DVD movie but sectioned. That would make sense as SACD that contains 16/44 track should play on a standard CD player for backward compatibility with older CD players that would not be able to read layered tracks.

You might want to look at the links about SACDs above, which I will repeat here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

http://www.super-audiocd.com/aboutsacd/format2.php#

Basically, an SACD can be either 1 or 2 layer, and it can have up to three different versions of the same music on it. To have all three, it must be 2 layer, though it can have two SACD versions (2 channel and multichannel) with 1 layer. If it has a CD version, one layer will be devoted to that and another to SACD. Some SACDs have two layers that are both SACD material, so it can be very long if it is just SACD. All of my SACDs are hybrid SACDs with the CD layer, which I like very much, because I can play them on any CD player.

[mtrycrafts]

You might want to look at the links about SACDs above, which I will repeat here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

http://www.super-audiocd.com/aboutsacd/format2.php#

Basically, an SACD can be either 1 or 2 layer, and it can have up to three different versions of the same music on it. To have all three, it must be 2 layer, though it can have two SACD versions (2 channel and multichannel) with 1 layer. If it has a CD version, one layer will be devoted to that and another to SACD. Some SACDs have two layers that are both SACD material, so it can be very long if it is just SACD. All of my SACDs are hybrid SACDs with the CD layer, which I like very much, because I can play them on any CD player.


I read the 2nd link with no mention of layers and the picture had the them in separate areas. So, if there are layers and the CD track is backwards compatible, would that not require it to be the top layer?

[Pyrrho]

I read the 2nd link with no mention of layers and the picture had the them in separate areas. So, if there are layers and the CD track is backwards compatible, would that not require it to be the top layer?

Not according to the first link. According to it, the top layer is out of focus for a regular CD layer, so it reads the lower CD layer.
Objective lenses in conventional CD players have a longer working distance, or focal length, than lenses designed for SACD players. This means that when a hybrid SACD is placed into a conventional CD player, the laser beam passes the high-resolution layer and is reflected by the conventional layer at the standard 1.2 mm distance, and the high-density layer is out of focus. When the disc is placed into an SACD player, the laser is reflected by the high-resolution layer (at 600 µm distance) before it can reach the conventional layer. Conversely, if a conventional CD is placed into an SACD player, the laser will read the disc without difficulty since there is no high-resolution layer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

[eljr]

Thanks, Markw for the response - I own over 4000 CDs, including a number of the labels you mention, so appreciate the sound reproduction that can be done on a standard CD.

But again, my issue (before I want to purchase an optical player that will do SACD) is whether the sound produced via a SACD channeled into two speakers will sound any better than the standard CD layer? I currently own a NAD receiver w/ 2-channel sound - also, of all the CDs in my collection, perhaps a couple of dozen are 'hybrid' CD/SACD discs, so not a big investment - not really interested in going to a 5.1 sound system (main reason for me would be for a more interesting DVD experience) - so the bottom line remains whether SACD is the best sound option on 2 speakers?

Thanks again for your interest - Dave :)

Personally I detest "blind man" tests so I cannot offer more than my opinion. I swear by SACD. Why? Because of the remastering done.
As to weather SACD sounds better than a red book remastered cd, I have never heard a difference.

[mtrycrafts]

Not according to the first link. According to it, the top layer is out of focus for a regular CD layer, so it reads the lower CD layer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

OK, yes, thanks. Since the CD has a longer focusing and fixed distance for Red book, no refocusing, then it seems they just placed the SACD above it, not below it. Or, they had to, no choice.

[mr-ben]

Doing that will enable one to decide which mix one prefers, but it will not generally be a fair comparison of the formats themselves due to the fact that different mixes are put on the disc for SACD and CD.

For some discs, this is true. For example the NIN Downward Spiral contains different mixes for the CD and 2-ch SACD layers. But this disc came out as a CD first and a SACD later. in general, why would a company that intends on releasing a SACD first spend the time and cost to create more than one mix? I would expect most recordings are done in analog or high-resolution PCM (e.g. 24bit/88.2khz), mixing is done in the same righ-resolution format, and then the final master is converted to either 16/44.1 or DSD (or both) for the final disc. This seems especially likely for classical music.

The Norah Jones SACD is an interesting disc to read about. For the 2-channel mix, they took the 16bit/44.1khz CD format and converted it to DSD, rather than going back to the original source. People noticed.

[Pyrrho]

For some discs, this is true. For example the NIN Downward Spiral contains different mixes for the CD and 2-ch SACD layers. But this disc came out as a CD first and a SACD later. in general, why would a company that intends on releasing a SACD first spend the time and cost to create more than one mix? I would expect most recordings are done in analog or high-resolution PCM (e.g. 24bit/88.2khz), mixing is done in the same righ-resolution format, and then the final master is converted to either 16/44.1 or DSD (or both) for the final disc. This seems especially likely for classical music.

The Norah Jones SACD is an interesting disc to read about. For the 2-channel mix, they took the 16bit/44.1khz CD format and converted it to DSD, rather than going back to the original source. People noticed.

With anything that is not a new recording, there will be an old mix or mixes to use, so it will cost nothing to use one of them for the CD layer. Often, in the material in the case of the discs that are sold, they even tell you that they are using an older mix for the CD layer, and have only remastered it for the SACD section.

In the case of new recordings, there is a reason to do a second mix, which is to promote the SACD format, so companies want that version to sound better. Think about the fact that there are companies making the discs, and how it benefits them if people like the new format. I doubt that Sony has ever released a hybrid SACD with the same mix on both the CD and SACD layer, though obviously I cannot know that for sure.

Also, it isn't going to be as expensive to do two mixes at once as it would be to do two mixes at different times. They would save time by needing to load the source multitrack tapes only once. Indeed, it could be as simple as just adding reverb to one of the multitracks for one of the mixes, or simply re-EQing the mix for the CD layer, to slightly diminish the deep bass and treble (or whatever). That would cost practically nothing, and would serve the purpose of promoting the new format.

Of course, there could be hybrid SACDs with precisely the same mix for both stereo SACD and the CD sections, but there will generally be no way of knowing that.

Really, though, all they need to do is have the SACD layer at a very slightly higher volume, and then when people compare, because practically no one bothers to level match things, people will believe that the SACD has better bass, better treble, and will reveal more detail. This is because human hearing is not linear, and as the volume decreases, subjectively, the bass and treble appear to diminish faster than the midrange, which is why they put "loudness compensation" switches on so much vintage gear, to compensate for this well known effect. And of course, being slightly louder, one will hear more detail, so the purpose is served well enough if only they have the volume slightly higher on the SACD section(s).

That aspect of human hearing also tells us what is fatally wrong with most of the casual comparisons that most people make, when they are trying to decide if two different CD players sound different or not, or two amplifiers, or two of anything, really.

And as a side point, several of my relatively new SACD recordings were DSD original, not high resolution PCM or analog, though most of my SACDs are older recordings that were originally analog.

[sonicman]

Personally I detest "blind man" tests so I cannot offer more than my opinion. I swear by SACD. Why? Because of the remastering done.
As to weather SACD sounds better than a red book remastered cd, I have never heard a difference.

Well, 'blind experiments' are not easy to design nor always to interpret, I guess, but can be revealing; an analogy might be 'wine tasting' - hard not to ignore a less expensive red wine when up against a classified Bordeaux if the labels & prices are evident; having participating in a number of these tastings over the years, the bottles placed in paper bags does 'level' the playing field. ;)

But, I was curious w/ your last statement and would appreciate further clarification - your state that 'I have never heard a difference' - I'm assuming that you mean when both CD & SACD are compared on a 2-channel system - correct? Or does even a 'surround sound' system not make much difference? From all of the interesting discussion her so far, I can now appreciate the differneces in the making and mastering of the SACD layer(s) that might impact dramatically on the sound of that layer even on a multi-channel system. Thanks. :)

[markw]

In the case of new recordings, there is a reason to do a second mix, which is to promote the SACD format, so companies want that version to sound better. Think about the fact that there are companies making the discs, and how it benefits them if people like the new format. I doubt that Sony has ever released a hybrid SACD with the same mix on both the CD and SACD layer, though obviously I cannot know that for sure.

Also, it isn't going to be as expensive to do two mixes at once as it would be to do two mixes at different times. They would save time by needing to load the source multitrack tapes only once. Indeed, it could be as simple as just adding reverb to one of the multitracks for one of the mixes, or simply re-EQing the mix for the CD layer, to slightly diminish the deep bass and treble (or whatever). That would cost practically nothing, and would serve the purpose of promoting the new format.When I was buying tires at Two Guys from Harrison. I was quoted two prices for the same tires. The white walls were three dollars more each than the blackwalls. Being frugal (which means I didn't have $$ to spare), I chose to save $12 and went for blackwalls.

When I was watching them bring out the tires, they brought out four whitewall tires. I thought I was getting a break.

Then they started mounting them ...with the whitewalls on the inside. When I asked and them why they were doing that they said it's because I didn't pay the extre $3 each for whitewalls. So, they begrudged me the whitewalls because I didn't ante up twelve bucks for the exact same product.

Is this any different than Sony (or anyone else) begrudging redbook CD buyers a remastered redbook version on a dual-layer CD when they lose nothing by doing the right thing? ...or they going to re-release another "remastered" redbook version of the same old crap, ala Pink Floyd et al?

...Or are they afraid that if they did so, those miraclous improvements SACD supposedly offers might not be quite so earth-shattering as the marketing mavens would have you believe?

[mtrycrafts]

....
In the case of new recordings, there is a reason to do a second mix, which is to promote the SACD format, so companies want that version to sound better. .

When Sony introduced SACD they invited folks for a demo. Well, some of those were audio experts and dug unto the demo. They discovered that Sony was playing games with the recording to make it sound better, like different EQ, phase shifting, etc.
All written up in Stereo Review I think.:D

[eljr]

But, I was curious w/ your last statement and would appreciate further clarification - your state that 'I have never heard a difference' - I'm assuming that you mean when both CD & SACD are compared on a 2-channel system - correct? . :)


That is correct. When I listen (admittedly) wanting to hear a difference between 2-channel red book and SACD I don't. If I listen to an old red book CD and a Sacd the difference is generally dramatic.

I only listen to two channel.

[eljr]

When Sony introduced SACD they invited folks for a demo. Well, some of those were audio experts and dug unto the demo. They discovered that Sony was playing games with the recording to make it sound better, like different EQ, phase shifting, etc.
All written up in Stereo Review I think.:D

That is very interesting and sadly not surprising.

[mnnc]

Based on Oppo's reputation as major...above and beyond...bang for buck products, my guess is that this player will do dvd, br, sacd, dvda, and cd very well. All this in a nice package for 5 bills. Updates or not...I'm all over this. The fact is that it will be doing dvda and decoding/processing will all be onboard so that people like myself can get the high-rez movie audio through it's analog outs. This makes it not only a univ source player but a univ player in the sense that it can be used with older pre/pro- recv's as well as current hdmi inputs. Plays/decodes all audio formats that really matter and is compatible with nearly every pre/pro or rec'r on the planet...this is a no brainer.

[eljr]

Based on Oppo's reputation as major...above and beyond...bang for buck products, my guess is that this player will do dvd, br, sacd, dvda, and cd very well. All this in a nice package for 5 bills. Updates or not...I'm all over this. The fact is that it will be doing dvda and decoding/processing will all be onboard so that people like myself can get the high-rez movie audio through it's analog outs. This makes it not only a univ source player but a univ player in the sense that it can be used with older pre/pro- recv's as well as current hdmi inputs. Plays/decodes all audio formats that really matter and is compatible with nearly every pre/pro or rec'r on the planet...this is a no brainer.

:confused:

Whay does this have to do with the OP?
and what does 5 bills mean?