CD vs. SACD - 2 Channel Stereo - Difference?

[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

 

[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

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!

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!

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

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]

This reminds me of buying tires in the late 60's

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?