CD vs. SACD - 2 Channel Stereo - Difference?

sonicman

sonicman

Junior Audioholic
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

DD66000

Senior Audioholic
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.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
The limiting factor in what you hear is most likely not that of the media.

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

sonicman

Junior Audioholic
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

sonicman

Junior Audioholic
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

john72953

Full Audioholic
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
 
supervij

supervij

Audioholic General
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

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
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
 
Last edited:
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
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

DD66000

Senior Audioholic
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.
 
Last edited:
sonicman

sonicman

Junior Audioholic
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

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
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

sonicman

Junior Audioholic
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

mr-ben

Audioholic
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

sonicman

Junior Audioholic
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 :)

 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
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.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
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.

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

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
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

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
...
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
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top