SACD, FLAC, DVDA, HDCD... What?!?!?

[herbu]

Having a little trouble w/ my old BDP, so just ordered an Oppo 103... (mainly just because I can).

So I read the 103 can handle all these acronym formats, and that they are better than regular CDs. I'm old. There was a time when the technical specifics were interesting and understood, but that time is rapidly passing. And due to a lifetime of shooting, my hearing is gone above about 4kHz.

But I'm still curious if I can tell the difference between a regular CD and one of these "new fangled" hotrod formats. (I THINK I can hear the difference between Pandora and a CD.) And since the 103 can apparently handle them, I want to buy one to try.

1) What is technically the best format?
2) Where can I get one to try? (Amazon?)

If I can't tell the difference between the best of SAC/FLAC/CRAC and Pandora, then I'll know not to worry about pursuing it any further.

Thanks,
Herb

 

[j_garcia]

There is no "best" format. SACD, HDCD and DVD-A are practically dead, so you have no need to worry. HDCD is 20 bit vs 16 bit (standard redbook CD), but I'd say those are difficult to pick out how much is "better". I have quite a few, many CDs are mastered that way and just don't mention it, but they would be akin to going from 256kbp mp3 to 320kbps; unless being very critical, they'll be hard to tell apart. SACD and DVD-A do offer superior audio IMHO, but a lot of that is in the mastering of those discs as well. They usually went back to master tapes, cleaned things up and made better tracks, so the result sounds better. The better mastered the disc, the better it will sound, regardless of format.

DVD-Audio I'd say anything by Porcupine Tree. All of those discs sound great and the newer ones aren't too hard to get.

A disc I would recommend for checking out would be Brothers In Arms SACD. The price is up a bit, but it is still one of the better priced ones for the quality of the disc. The 2ch is awesome and the 5.1 tracks are also excellent. Flyod Dark Side of the Moon SACD is also quite good and still not too expensive.

Amazon.com: Brothers in Arms: Music

If you aren't interested in paying $20-30 average and in some cases $50+ for SACDs, you may as well forget the format. The days of them being $12-15 and in stores are long gone.

There's Blu-ray Audio as well That hasn't seemed to have taken off really though, but requires no special gear beyond a BD player and a receiver able to decode the audio (or a player like the 103/105 that can internally decode and send via analog to the receiver).

 

[Pyrrho]

There are technical advantages to SACD and DVD-Audio over CDs, but it turns out that in double blind listening tests, people cannot tell the difference between a high resolution signal and one converted to the CD format and reconverted to analog. Here is some reading on this:

BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

However, there is one way in which they can be audibly very different, and that is that they can be multichannel instead of only two channels. That difference is easy to hear. Some multichannel discs are done such that they recreate the ambiance of a live performance, such that one does not really notice that the rear channels are on, as most of the sound is from the front (as is the case when hearing, say, a symphony orchestra live). But when done right, it sounds more real than any two channel recording. Some other multichannel recordings (mostly popular music) puts different performers in different channels, which is a very unnatural effect, though some people seem to like it.

You can search for discs on places like Amazon.com, some of which are reasonably priced, some of which are ridiculously expensive. You can also read more about the technical aspects of these formats on places like Wikipedia.


There is, of course, another factor in such matters, and that is that companies do not always put the same masterings on the different formats, and since different masterings of a recording can easily make an audible difference, there can be audible differences between different discs that you buy that have nothing whatever to do with which format is "better."

 

[herbu]

Thanks, guys. Brothers In Arms is right up my alley. Will give the SACD a shot.

 

[sterling shoote]

I've experimented with formats and concluded I cannot distinguish between hi-rez and CD; but, SACD still appeals to me for multi channel sound, which is not common or even available on other formats. Now, getting the multi channel off SACD can be a problem but that[s for another thread. BTW, SACD is not dead, but it clearly is not main stream. Initial marketing was a blunder, never fixed.

 

[Irishman]

As long as you can continue to get titles and artists you want, who cares if it becomes mainstream? It's not like mainstream acceptance will make things better in some way.

I've noticed that even Best Buy offers SACD titles on their website. Go figure.

 

[j_garcia]

I've experimented with formats and concluded I cannot distinguish between hi-rez and CD; but, SACD still appeals to me for multi channel sound, which is not common or even available on other formats. Now, getting the multi channel off SACD can be a problem but that[s for another thread. BTW, SACD is not dead, but it clearly is not main stream. Initial marketing was a blunder, never fixed.

No, SACD is not the only multichannel format. DTS CDs came out before SACD. DVD-A was a competing format at the time of SACD and offers excellent multichannel. Blu-ray audio offers multichannel PCM and DTS-HD MA tracks.

Some shops are still releasing SACDs. I just bought one that was released this year. But where you can only get a handful of titles easily now, in the good 'ol days, there were a few thousand to choose from, though there is still a used market too.

 

[sterling shoote]

Not becoming mainstream means not much selection out there in popular music today. Noting multi channel formats, I have a few bluray titles; and, it appears to me it would be a good way to go forward. I do not see that happening though.

 

[Pyrrho]

I forgot to say in my earlier post that my favorite format for music is hybrid SACD. The reason being, it has a CD layer, so a 2 channel version can be played on anything that can play a CD, which makes it very "universal." The SACD portion can have multichannel and 2 channel versions, and can be played back on SACD players. But I really like the fact that hybrid SACDs have a CD layer. None of the other multichannel formats have such "universality" to them. With DVD-Audio, they typically have a "lossy" [i.e., not lossless] version that can be played on any DVD player, but that is still less universal than a CD, though the "lossy" version on DVD-Audio is generally multichannel.

I also prefer how SACDs are handled in my SACD/DVD-Audio/DVD/CD changer, as they behave like CDs, but DVD-Audios behave more like DVDs, with a menu popping up instead of them simply starting to play when the carousel turns to them.

 

[j_garcia]

Hybrid SACD is my favorite format also. That bugs me with DVD-A too, but that's because they basically are DVDs. There was also Dual Disc that was a flipper, with the DVD-A portion on one side and the CD on the other, but for whatever reason they made them thicker than a DVD/BD and many players would either not play them or destroy them due to clearance issues. So basically with those, you had to be careful; I only have a few of those and I only play them on my BD/DVD players.

DTS CDs would play multichannel DTS via any CD player with a digital out to an AVR with DTS capability, but no CD tracks so if you don't have a DTS capable receiver you get pink noise.

 

[herbu]

OK... I got the Oppo 103, and I got the Brothers In Arms Hybrid SACD from MoFi. When I play the SACD, the Oppo shows it is outputting only 2 channels, and the Denon X4000 confirms it is receiving only 2 channels.

I played w/ the 103 settings, then returned to factory settings, all still give me only stereo output.

I don't really understand all the acronyms or their meanings in the 103 manual, so don't really know what I'm doing. I'm beginning to think this SACD is really only 2 channels. The SACD says "Original Master Recording", and "UDSACD 2099/STEREO", and the jacket says "This Ultra High-Resolution dual-layer hybrid SACD is recorded with Direct Stream Digital technology...". But I do not see anything on the SACD or jacket that says anything about multi-channel.

So at this point, I'm guessing it just cost me $35 to learn that SACD does not necessarily mean multi-channel. I still want to hear a good example of a SACD recorded in 5.1, just to hear it. I'll do a little more shopping and see what I see.

BTW, a Bluray disc does show on the 103 as multi-channel output, and the X4000 confirms multi-channel input. And more than multi-channel, the particular formats match... the 103 shows "dts-HDMA", and the X4000 shows "DTS-HD MSTR", (for The Hobbit). With my old Samsung BDP, the X4000 just showed "Multi Channel" in. So I'm guessing this is another upgraded capability. Maybe I'll be able to notice, maybe not, but I'll know it's better.

 

[Adam]

Hi, Herb.

Check out page 51 of the Oppo manual where it talks about the Playback Setup. You'll want to set the "SACD Priority" to "Multi-Channel." On my older Oppo, I have to stop playback to have access to that choice, but you might not have to.

I just checked out the MoFi version of that disc, and it does appear to just be stereo. The less expensive version that you can buy from sites like Amazon has multi-channel.

EDIT: I should be more clear now that I've looked around a bit. The 20th Anniversary SACD is in multichannel. Amazon has this MoFi version on the same page as other versions, so the older reviews talk about the multichannel version, too. That's a flaw on their page.

 

[herbu]

Thanks, Adam. SACD Priority is set to Multi-Channel. This is one of the settings I played with, then going back to the factory settings I noticed it is the default setting also.

Looking again on Amazon, it is confusing. I see both my CD and the 20th Anniversary CD. I don't see specification of stereo or multi-channel in either, and the customer reviews seem to reference both. I guess it is a case of caveat emptor. My fault. I'll have to do a better job researching.

Thanks for the help. I'm still telling my wife this BDP is A LOT better than the old one, as she let me buy it out of the kitty instead of using my discretionary fund.

 

[Adam]

Outside of it being stereo, how do you like that disc? From the reviews that I read, some people believe it to be better than the 20th Anniversary mastering. I'm tempted to get this version because of that (so thanks in advance for getting me to spend more money ), but I wasn't impressed by MoFi's stereo SACD release of Foreigner 4 last year...so I haven't jumped on this.

 

[herbu]

Love the album!!! And the stereo SACD sounds perfect to me... as good as I've ever heard anywhere. However, I'm old... my ears are old... I don't have $20k speakers... I can't participate in, or understand 80% of the technical conversations here... this is the first and only SACD I have owned, so have no basis for comparison even if I would be able to distinguish differences.

Our financial advisor says if we die at 90, we'll die w/ $XM in the bank. I say Oh Hell No we won't! So hell yeh!!! Buy it!!!

 

[Adam]

Our financial advisor says if we die at 90, we'll die w/ $XM in the bank.

I'll also die with $XM in the bank, except that X is going to be some small decimal...

 

[Pyrrho]

...
I don't really understand all the acronyms or their meanings in the 103 manual, so don't really know what I'm doing. I'm beginning to think this SACD is really only 2 channels. The SACD says "Original Master Recording", and "UDSACD 2099/STEREO", and the jacket says "This Ultra High-Resolution dual-layer hybrid SACD is recorded with Direct Stream Digital technology...". But I do not see anything on the SACD or jacket that says anything about multi-channel.

So at this point, I'm guessing it just cost me $35 to learn that SACD does not necessarily mean multi-channel. I still want to hear a good example of a SACD recorded in 5.1, just to hear it. I'll do a little more shopping and see what I see.

...

Sorry, we forgot to mention that the capability of having multichannel does not mean that there must be multichannel on it. DVDs and BDs can have movies with mono soundtracks on them, but they are capable of more. The same idea applies to SACD and DVD-Audio.

In my earlier posts, I worded it correctly, saying that they can have multichannel sound, not that they do always have it. But I should have been clearer, as should everyone else.

 

[herbu]

Thanks again, guys. You were nothing but helpful. And I'm in a better place now than before.
1. I know SACD is likely the highest quality scheme/format available to me w/ my equipment.
2. SACDs, like all media, are subject to the quality of the master used, and copying equipment & technique.
3. SACDs are capable of considerably more information than CD due to thicker layer and laser focal length of your player.
4. SACDs can be stereo or multi-channel.
5. My Brothers In Arms SACD can produce an example of probably the highest quality stereo audio my equipment can produce.
And all that for $35.
I'd say it was a pretty good experience.
Thanks again for all ya'lls help.

 

[kyle bermingham]

Based on recommendation from this site I bought the SACD Brothers in Arms. It sounds EXCELLENT in SACD (on my new Oppo-103).

 

[Purple Haze]

Thanks folks,
SACDs on Oppo 103 sounds great - Some of the best
1. Brothers In Arms SACD
2. Dark Side of the Moon SACD
3. Shangri la - Mark Knopler SACD
4. Police - Singles collection - Beware - has not so good mixing. on the other hand Police - Regetta de blanc and Zenyetta Mondetta are awesome.

Anybody converted SACD to FLAC 96/24 ? Just curious on the lossless approach.
HDtracks.com has a free sampler - interesting soundscape
Thanks in Advance