Is SACD really any better for 2ch?

[Irvrobinson]

I finally got around to trying SACD (2ch) in my audio system. I had heard some demos at a dealer, but I've never felt dealer demos are worth the time they take. A friend lent me his Sony XA-9000ES for a couple of days, along with a few SACDs, some of which were the dual layer type. I've got a pretty revealing system (Levinson electronics, Legacy Focus speakers), and I was expecting to hear differences. I can still hear 18KHz test tones, so even that equipment seems to be of high quality. :-)

I came to the conclusion that the sound quality of the SACDs I auditioned were within the range of sound quality I've heard from CDs. The SACDs exhibited consistently better sound quality than any arbitrary set of CDs I own, but I'm not convinced that proves anything. Clearly, the record labels are putting more effort into recording and mastering quality for SACDs, and I also suspect they are choosing good-sounding original recordings. (Though the Billy Joel SACD my friend lent alone sounded no better than the CD version I own.) The CDs I own with the best sound quality actually sounded better, to my ears, than any of the SACDs. My friend that lent me the Sony player is convinced that is because I listened to CDs on my Levinson 39 player, and that its quality exceeds the Sony's. That might be a factor, as I am convinced that the Levinson does sound better playing CDs than the Sony does, but the difference is subtle and I don't think I could differentiate the two in a double-blind test. The Sony is no slouch; it's a very high quality unit.

I've read in audiophile magazines that some reviewers consider SACD bass to be superior to CD bass, but I found no evidence of that. None. And these speakers easily produce very clean 25Hz bass to room-shaking levels. (In fact, they can make you quite nauseous with test tones.) At first I thought the SACDs had a consistent advantage on cymbals, but a Yellow Jackets CD I own led me to think CD is just as good. I couldn't find any part of the audio spectrum or any instrument that led me to the conclusion SACD has an advantage. I heard no consistent imaging superiority from either format. Frankly, I admit to feeling a bit disappointed. I like to upgrade my system. :-)

Since most studios these days use digital formats that are different than the 16bit/44KHz CD format, I did wonder if the format conversion degraded CD sound. Well, I'm a piano music fan and my friend did include a new Sony SACD including some Bach stuff. To my ears the pinnacle of piano recording is still Telarc's ancient Chopin CD by Malcom Frager. Nothing I heard on SACD was even close, and the Chopin was recorded with an old Soundstream digital machine in a proprietary format about 25 years ago.

So I've concluded that while digital formats with higher resultion than Redbook CD arguably have advantages in a recording studio, I could hear no advantage whatsoever in my home system, in two channels. I have concluded that the differences in recording quality, mastering quality, and even CD/SACD player quality far outweigh audible differences between CDs and SACDs. I've spent a fortune upgrading my audio system, but SACD is not an investment I'll be making.

[beekermartin]

Thank you for your post. I've been thinking about buying a SACD/DVD-audio player for awhile now. I recently bought X-10v3 for my current DVD player to upgrade it's CD sound and that has made a big difference. Now CD's sound great. But I still feel that I am missing something not having a SACD player. I have Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon hybrid disk and I would love to hear it using a SACD player. A friend of mine has a Denon 2900 but he won't let me borrow it. :confused: I don't want to buy anything until I can actually listen to one to see if I can justify the upgrade.

[Mort Corey]

Take your DSOTM disk and play it on your friends 2900.....guarantee you'll want one then ;)

Mort

[Irvrobinson]

Take your DSOTM disk and play it on your friends 2900.....guarantee you'll want one then

Mort

Really? That DSOTM hybrid is one of the discs my friend dropped off. And, in fact, I thought I heard differences between the layers. But... my wife has the CD version from years ago, and I think it sounds different than the CD layer on the hybrid. Not necessarily better or worse, but different to my ears. I don't care for Pink Floyd myself, so perhaps I'm a bad judge, but for me this disk was not a convincing argument for SACD. Nonetheless, the SACD layer did seem to have better bass than the hybrid layer. Hmmm... I wonder if that was by design?

The only argument I could make for SACD is the remark I made in my original post, about more consistent quality from the labels. I've found CD recording & mastering quality to be all over the map, but the SACDs I tried were much more consistently good in these departments. Perhaps it's because SACD is marketed to sound better so they try harder. Whatever, but I heard no evidence that the medium is the basis for the superiority. Several CDs I have sound better than any SACD I auditioned. I think that's rather telling.

[Polkfan]

Try SACD in multichannel mode. It sounds considerably better to me than stereo. I'm talking about classical music, but I can definitely tell a difference with the SACD sounding better.

[rgriffin25]

I am curious as to how many discs you have listened to that were actually recorded for SACD? In my opinion an older remastered recording does not have the clairty the newer recordings have. For me one of the biggest advantages of SACD or DVD-A is multi-channel playback. So if multi-channel is not for you I can't argue that point.

[beekermartin]

I currently only listen to music in 2 channel. I have a Yamaha RX-V1 receiver which I am currently using to power all my speakers. I have Mirage OM-5's for mains, OM-C2 for front center, OM-R2 for surrouonds, OM-C3 for rear center, and a PS-10 just for fill as a rear sub. I have tried using some of the surround sound fields the Yamaha offers but don't really enjoy it for listening to music. I don't care for music coming from all different directions. I've never been to a concert where the band was all around me. I prefer the imaging of 2 channel. Of course I haven't heard a well recorded SACD so I can't say if I would like it or not.

One of my concerns is not having the same speakers for all 5 channels. All of my speakers are from the same series so they do match but I would assume the best way to listen to surround music would be with the same speakers for all channels. I am sure the majority of people don't have listening rooms designed just for surround music. Most of use use our setups for home theather and music. So I am sure most of us aren't using the same speakers for all 5 channels. It would be kind of akward having a 55" tall speaker in the middle of my TV screen. :D

I guess the only way to be sure would be to borrow my friends and judge for myself. If I can't convince him to let me borrow it maybe Tweeter will let me borrow a unit for a night. After all, I am a good customer! :rolleyes:

[Mort Corey]

When referring to DSOTM, I meant the multi channel tracks. To me, SACD and DVD-A stereo tracks aren't enough better to justify the additional cost in hardware and software. SOME titles are pretty awesome in the surround format but there are also some that are remastered pretty poorly and use the multi channel output as more of a gimick.....kind of like some of the quad recordings of old. Not a big Pink Floyd fan myself, but that recording is one to use to show off milti channel music...JMHO

Mort

[Polkfan]

I currently only listen to music in 2 channel. I have a Yamaha RX-V1 receiver which I am currently using to power all my speakers. I have Mirage OM-5's for mains, OM-C2 for front center, OM-R2 for surrouonds, OM-C3 for rear center, and a PS-10 just for fill as a rear sub. I have tried using some of the surround sound fields the Yamaha offers but don't really enjoy it for listening to music. I don't care for music coming from all different directions. I've never been to a concert where the band was all around me. I prefer the imaging of 2 channel. Of course I haven't heard a well recorded SACD so I can't say if I would like it or not.

One of my concerns is not having the same speakers for all 5 channels. All of my speakers are from the same series so they do match but I would assume the best way to listen to surround music would be with the same speakers for all channels. I am sure the majority of people don't have listening rooms designed just for surround music. Most of use use our setups for home theather and music. So I am sure most of us aren't using the same speakers for all 5 channels. It would be kind of akward having a 55" tall speaker in the middle of my TV screen. :D

I guess the only way to be sure would be to borrow my friends and judge for myself. If I can't convince him to let me borrow it maybe Tweeter will let me borrow a unit for a night. After all, I am a good customer! :rolleyes:


Very nice system you have there. While it would be desirable to have identical speakers for the best multichannel experience, the benefit of multichannel can be obtained without identical speakers.

I've noticed an improvement in ambience and can sense a wider soudstage with more immersion into the music in multichannel as opposed to stereo with my budget system. I have grown very fond of multichannel music and listen to nearly all of my music in multichannel mode. But that is my preference.

I also don't believe a person needs to have an acoustically perfect room to enjoy the benefit of a good multichannel recording. None of us will ever attain that level of acoustic perfection. Granted my system is only a budget level system, but I can definitley tell a difference between the modes of listening (SACD stereo vs multichannel) with my preference being SACD mutichannel.

But it is nice to have the choice. :)

[rgriffin25]

Most of the classical recordings I own use the rear speakers to create the concert hall feel. A few give the listener the feeling of being on the stage. I really think it really depends on how it is mixed. For me that is part of the fun, trying to imagine what it will sound like before I give it a spin.

I will say that not all multi-channel recordings are equal. For the most part I really enjoy being surrounded in music.

[Rob Babcock]

I don't see much point in 2 Ch SACD. I can't say the stereo tracks really sound much if any better than CD, and as someone pointed out, the SACDs are probably getting the best mastering jobs. The big advantage in SQ is the MC aspect, at least in my view.

[Polkfan]

I don't see much point in 2 Ch SACD. I can't say the stereo tracks really sound much if any better than CD, and as someone pointed out, the SACDs are probably getting the best mastering jobs. The big advantage in SQ is the MC aspect, at least in my view.


I agree absolutely. My understanding is that SACD was created for the multichannel experience...

[Irvrobinson]

I am curious as to how many discs you have listened to that were actually recorded for SACD? In my opinion an older remastered recording does not have the clairty the newer recordings have. For me one of the biggest advantages of SACD or DVD-A is multi-channel playback. So if multi-channel is not for you I can't argue that point.
__________________
Griff

I'm not sure how many were recorded for SACD, which I assume you mean direct to DSD. I think two, one being the Sony Classical Bach disc. Most of the others were either originally analog or 18+bit digital. There were 23 discs total. I completely agree that multi-channel is a huge advantage for SACD. That's why I put 2ch specifically in the subject.

[Irvrobinson]

When referring to DSOTM, I meant the multi channel tracks. To me, SACD and DVD-A stereo tracks aren't enough better to justify the additional cost in hardware and software. SOME titles are pretty awesome in the surround format but there are also some that are remastered pretty poorly and use the multi channel output as more of a gimick.....kind of like some of the quad recordings of old. Not a big Pink Floyd fan myself, but that recording is one to use to show off milti channel music...JMHO

Mort

DSOTM must be one of the all-time most popular system demo discs. I think that's the only reason my friend bought it. :-) I wonder how many mixes of that recording there are in existence. (?) I agree about multi-channel, but I'm so happy with stereo that I can't get myself to splurge for multi-channel, or have all of that equipment everywhere.

[rgriffin25]

Well, getting a proper multi-channel set-up is a pretty big upgrade. With most home theaters people use smaller surround speakers. To do this properly you would need to have 5 identical fullrange speakers, it can be done otherwise w/o the same effect.

I remember the first time I heard Dolby Digital, I wondered what it would be like to have multichannel music?? So I was quite anxious to check both of these formats out. I am very glad that I did.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=Irvrobinson]

I came to the conclusion that the sound quality of the SACDs I auditioned were within the range of sound quality I've heard from CDs.

Not surprising that this is your conclusion ;)
Except for different mastering, what else would there be?



I've read in audiophile magazines that some reviewers consider SACD bass to be superior to CD bass, but I found no evidence of that.


Reviewers are dime a dozzen. And, why would they be any better at speculating than the next guy? :D

Now, if they arrived at that opinion, everyone has one, through a bias controlled listeing protocol, then I might sit up and take notice ;)






I couldn't find any part of the audio spectrum or any instrument that led me to the conclusion SACD has an advantage.

That is because it doesn't in 2 channel.


So I've concluded that while digital formats with higher resultion than Redbook CD arguably have advantages in a recording studio,


That is the only place where it is needed.

I've spent a fortune upgrading my audio system, but SACD is not an investment I'll be making.

You may want to consider multi channel recorded audio vs 2 channel?

[Irvrobinson]

Not surprising that this is your conclusion
Except for different mastering, what else would there be?

I think that's an interesting question. It has been postulated by some audiophiles that 16bit words represent insufficient resolution to properly capture subtle nuances of music. I can see where they would make this mistake, because they think (for example) 24bit words are going to more closely capture the minute differences in loudness levels. What they're forgetting, of course, is that at most frequencies hearing is a logarithmic function, and minute differences in volume levels are not audible. The longer words are for capturing a wider dynamic range, not necessarily finer granularity. I chuckle at the vinyl advocates that criticize CDs, as a phonograph recording has (probably) 25db less dynamic range than even a CD.

The other factors that could affect the CD versus SACD comparison are digital filtering schemes, and their effects on audible frequencies, distortion signatures, the quality of the D/A converters, and, of course, the quality of the analog buffering and amplification sections. I have an open mind. But I still didn't hear anything that would lead me to invest.

Perhaps I'm just old and set in my ways, but multi-channel doesn't excite me at all for music. For movies, maybe, but there's not enough content out there I enjoy to drive me to make a home theater investment. YMMV.

[mtrycrafts]

I think that's an interesting question. It has been postulated by some audiophiles that 16bit words represent insufficient resolution to properly capture subtle nuances of music. I can see where they would make this mistake, because they think (for example) 24bit words are going to more closely capture the minute differences in loudness levels. What they're forgetting, of course, is that at most frequencies hearing is a logarithmic function, and minute differences in volume levels are not audible. The longer words are for capturing a wider dynamic range, not necessarily finer granularity. I chuckle at the vinyl advocates that criticize CDs, as a phonograph recording has (probably) 25db less dynamic range than even a CD.

The other factors that could affect the CD versus SACD comparison are digital filtering schemes, and their effects on audible frequencies, distortion signatures, the quality of the D/A converters, and, of course, the quality of the analog buffering and amplification sections. I have an open mind. But I still didn't hear anything that would lead me to invest.

Perhaps I'm just old and set in my ways, but multi-channel doesn't excite me at all for music. For movies, maybe, but there's not enough content out there I enjoy to drive me to make a home theater investment. YMMV.

Seems we agree, except for the multi channel ;)

[dsa220]

I agree absolutely. My understanding is that SACD was created for the multichannel experience...

Not entirly true, SACD was originally conceived as a 2-channel system by Sony (and subsequently Philips). If anybody remembers the early SACD players and media, they were all in stereo. It was not until DVD-A basically said that it will be primarily a multi-channel medium and pushed all the 'right' buttons with those in the HT community that the SACD camp decided to also go (primarily) the multi-channel route.

In my humble opinion, multi-channel recordings as they are presently being done are a joke. Of all of the many titles that I currently own, only two are worth anything in multi-channel; the afore mentioned DSOTM (although the screwed up MONEY so bad that I can not even listen to it in multi-channel). The other is Alison Krauss and Union Station - Live. Everything else is a farce.

[Rob Babcock]

From what I've read it was more a bait-and-switch. Sony launched as stereo to give themselves audiophool cred, much like you'd give you child grape flavored cough syrup so he's take it. They intended it to be MC all along, if the things I've read are to believed. Unfortunately, audiophools are pretty much the only ones who care about SACD or DVD-A, and there's probably not enough of us to make a format viable without getting the masses on board, too.

[markw]

From what I've read it was more a bait-and-switch. Sony launched as stereo to give themselves audiophool cred, much like you'd give you child grape flavored cough syrup so he's take it. They intended it to be MC all along, if the things I've read are to believed. Unfortunately, audiophools are pretty much the only ones who care about SACD or DVD-A, and there's probably not enough of us to make a format viable without getting the masses on board, too.So, again Joe Sixpack and his WalMArt shopping habits determines the fate of these two formats.

Not that I'm going to lose any sleep over this. I've heard som incredible two channel redbook CD's that I doubt SACD could improve significantly upon. Try Mapleshade or Reference Recordings for examples of these.

[WmAx]

So, again Joe Sixpack and his WalMArt shopping habits determines the fate of these two formats.

In this case Joe Sixpack is a smart cookie whether he knows it or not.

Would you like to replace RBCD with a format that does not allow you to use the data as YOU see fit(portable audio, backup, music server, aftermarket DSP processing, accesory DACs, etc.)? Do you want to relenquish ALL rights(where did fair use go?) of use and choice to the music distributor?

From my perspective, SACD and DVD-A are doomed for so long as they implement this bull feces.

-Chris

[markw]

From my perspective, SACD and DVD-A are doomed for so long as they implement this bull feces.

-ChrisOn a basic, two channel level I agree with you. Alas, if one demands more than two channels, one must pay their money and choose.

This is one of the times I'm glad I still prefer two channels for music. That may change in the future when they get off of the "ping pang pong" effects and more into the ambiance but, for now, I'll sit pretty as I am.

[Rob Babcock]

I love MC music, but I think WmAX is correct- both formats will doom themselves if they can't be copied or ripped for portable use. It's absurd in this day and age where entertainment is mostly digital that the labels expect you to buy multiple copies if you want SACD in the house with a copy for the car. Just assanine.

My local BB has recently scaled back their SACD section by about 50%. That can't be a good sign. Next to Wally World, BB is the largest seller of CDs & DVDs in the country now. As WM & BB go, so goes the market. If the few stores that have pushed them give up, how can they hope to grow?

I have no doubts that both formats will survive for many years as a niche market, unless they're absorbed by Blu-ray or HD-DVD. But my optimism that they'll one day gain wide consumer acceptance is starting to fade.

[markw]

..and no, it ain't the drugs, either.

Quad... SQ, QS, CD4 or discrete. Actually, the first two were the biggest parallel to the current day in that both could be incorporated cheaply onto a twwo channel product. Yes, CD4 could also but that involved a new cartridge and some pretty low cap TT wiring.

ultimately, they thrashed it out for so long and the benefits were so, well, let's be chariatible and say, "questionable" that they both eventually died of their own weight and the software manufactuter's simply didn't find it worth their while to bother with it.

But, since we're all talking the same basic 5 1/4" disc, it may take a while for them to die down unless, of course, it remains a niche, and don't be surprised if that niche costs somewhat more.

[Rob Babcock]

I don't think the Quad debacle is a very good analogy. They both use multiple channels, but the similarity ends there. MC was a truly novelty back then. What else used surround in the 70's? It was the very late 70's before even the original Dolby Pro Logic system was first used (Star Wars was the first film in surround, and well into the next decade many films were still stereo or even mono). Now we have hundreds of millions of surround DVDs, all decent theaters have surround, every Xbox game on the market uses Dolby Digital, there are DTS Playstation games, computers use 5.1 audio for games, etc. I think there're are something like 40 or 50 million surround systems in the US today. Granted, many of them are probably HTiB rigs, but the average Joe Sixpack equates movies with surround.

Has surround caught on for music? It's hard to say to what degree, but I'd have to say it has. Sales of SACD & DVD-A have hardly been brisk, but how many people use PLII, Meridan Tri-Field, Harmon's Logic 7 or some other surround mode for music playback? An awful lot, I can tell you that. At least one hi end dealer I'm aquainted with has proclaimed plain old 2 ch stereo dead as far as he's concerned. And the Ampzilla guy's (I can't spell his name) won Best of CES with his Trinaural 3 Channel Stereo processor.

[lblampman]

Perhaps I'm just old and set in my ways, but multi-channel doesn't excite me at all for music. For movies, maybe, but there's not enough content out there I enjoy to drive me to make a home theater investment. YMMV.

In general I agree with your feelings about music; I don't want to hear it from several different directions...except that's what happens in the real world. That is, if you walk into a theater with live music playing you don't *only* hear the music from the stage; you also get the reflections from the rest of the theater. The idea then of surround sound for music is to support those subtle nuances that would be relavent to a particular live environment.

You shouldn't actually *know* when the surround speakers are working. When I got our latest surround system set up my wife complained that she couldn't hear the rear spearkers very well. I had her close her eyes and just listen to the whole sound and not try to hear any particular speaker (or speaker set). Then I turned off the surround speakers and she said the sound went 'flat'; now this (with the surrounds turned off) is exactly the same setup she has listened to for quite some and has been very happy with. My point is you shouldn't be able to tell when the surrounds are "on", only when they're "off". They should be adding ambiance, depth, and feel to the music and not giving you the sense than you're hearing the music from everywhere in the room.

Obviously this is just one guys opinion :).

All the best,

Les

[MDS]

In this case Joe Sixpack is a smart cookie whether he knows it or not.

Would you like to replace RBCD with a format that does not allow you to use the data as YOU see fit(portable audio, backup, music server, aftermarket DSP processing, accesory DACs, etc.)? Do you want to relenquish ALL rights(where did fair use go?) of use and choice to the music distributor?

From my perspective, SACD and DVD-A are doomed for so long as they implement this bull feces.

-Chris

My thoughts exactly! I would only add that I have no problem with MC music and would like to have the option of MC music, but only if I can then do whatever I want with it. If any multi channel format does achieve market dominance, let it be DVD-A. DVD-A is PCM based (compressed with MLP) and thus we could retain the ability to get the raw pcm samples and use the same kinds of tools that have been used for decades to manipulate it - like I do for standard RBCD.