SACD help

[nocondorfx]

I bought a pioneer 578a universal player, and I bought the Pink Floyd 30th hybrid for it. I am only using 2 speakers right now until i move into a bigger room. Will I still get a taste of the SACD or will it sound like a regular cd with only 2 channels? And how would I connect it to the receiver? TIA

 

[Francious70]

With a higher sampling rate than a regular CD it will still be like night and day.

Paul

 

[Az B]

With a higher sampling rate than a regular CD it will still be like night and day.

Paul

That's debateable. 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio is already very high resolution. Frequency Response? What's the point of instating a new format that can reach 40kHz when very few people can hear past 18kHz?

S/N ratio? 96db is nearly as good as the best analog amplifiers, EQs, DVD players, CD players, etc which mostly fall short of 100db. Receivers and more budget minded equipment are lucky to reach 90.

Dynamic Range? Until recording engineers and producers stop insisting on compressing the snot out of recordings, there's little point in trying to make the hardware more capable. Besides, CD audio is already quite capable in that area.

I'm hard pressed to hear any difference in SACD and Redbook CDs.

 

[WmAx]

That's debateable. 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio is already very high resolution. Frequency Response? What's the point of instating a new format that can reach 40kHz when very few people can hear past 18kHz?

In the current standing peer-reviwed research for audio transmission, [1]16kHz actually was the point at where musical playback no longer benefited audibly when using trained audio professionals as test subjects. Test material used was music, impulses and harmonicly rich tones.

S/N ratio? 96db is nearly as good as the best analog amplifiers, EQs, DVD players, CD players, etc which mostly fall short of 100db. Receivers and more budget minded equipment are lucky to reach 90.

Dynamic Range? Until recording engineers and producers stop insisting on compressing the snot out of recordings, there's little point in trying to make the hardware more capable. Besides, CD audio is already quite capable in that area.

96dB is sufficient to encompass highly dynamic uncompressed classical works. For other types such as rock, pop, etc. is so far in excess of the needed range that it is usually wasteful. Besides, the demands on speakers to reproduce 96db range from the average noisefloor of a room(40-50db) is insane. Even if you have specially isolated room that is purpose built for silence or you live in a remote location away from neighbors and roads and have no noise from utilities in the house, the noisefloor is still 25-35db. 35+96=131db. Besides a few large horn speakers and line arrays, this SPL is not possible. You could consider that you can hear distinctly below the noisefloor to a certain extent, but this is not an issue considering the average power level of the music and it's relation to masking the lower level information. Additionally, consider the noisefloor of a specially built isolation studio -- 25db. The S/N is limited to the peak sound ratio of the sound source vs. the studio noise. Once you apply ANY compression, you raise the noisefloor further.

-Chris

[1] Which Bandwidth Is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?
G. PLENGE, H. JAKUBOWSKI, AND P. SCHONE
JAES, Volume 28 Number 3 pp. 114-119; March 1980

 

[WmAx]

I bought a pioneer 578a universal player, and I bought the Pink Floyd 30th hybrid for it. I am only using 2 speakers right now until i move into a bigger room. Will I still get a taste of the SACD or will it sound like a regular cd with only 2 channels? And how would I connect it to the receiver? TIA

The SACD player connects with standard RCA analog outputs. As far as differences, any audible differences are likely to be caused from volume level differences, multichannel program(if applicable) or different mixes/masters of the album rather then differences caused by the actual format. Their is no credible evidence to support differences in sound due to the format alone.

-Chris

 

[flyv65]

I bought a pioneer 578a universal player, and I bought the Pink Floyd 30th hybrid for it. I am only using 2 speakers right now until i move into a bigger room. Will I still get a taste of the SACD or will it sound like a regular cd with only 2 channels? And how would I connect it to the receiver? TIA

I'm not familiar with your universal player, but on mine I have the option of selecting either SACD multi, SACD stereo, or standard CD (and of course the PLIIx stuff). I was quite impressed with the two channel SACD, although in all honesty, I can't say I spent much time listening to it on the home system as a "regular" CD. Have you hooked up your player with the correct analog outputs (as opposed to digital)?

Bryan...I really enjoyed the Floyd...

 

[nocondorfx]

well... actually I dont get to open up the player till xmas and im buying a reciever right after xmas too.

 

[Colonel_Tomb]

That's debateable. 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio is already very high resolution. Frequency Response? What's the point of instating a new format that can reach 40kHz when very few people can hear past 18kHz?

S/N ratio? 96db is nearly as good as the best analog amplifiers, EQs, DVD players, CD players, etc which mostly fall short of 100db. Receivers and more budget minded equipment are lucky to reach 90.

Dynamic Range? Until recording engineers and producers stop insisting on compressing the snot out of recordings, there's little point in trying to make the hardware more capable. Besides, CD audio is already quite capable in that area.

I'm hard pressed to hear any difference in SACD and Redbook CDs.

I hate to say it, but I agree with you. The basic sonic benefits of SACD are subtle, and I suspect those who claim otherwise are immersed in the placebo effect.

I think the real improvements lie in contemporary remastering. Most stereo SACDs sound very good, but well-mastered CDs sound great nowadays too. I'm a bit tired of hearing self-described audiophiles bash red-book CD, because I think that it has really gotten good as it's matured. The problem all these years was lousy mastering, which came about for various reasons, both technical and business-related. I've replaced many of my early-generation CDs with remasters from the '90s, and the improvements there were as good as anything I've gotten from stereo SACD.

The greatest benefit of SACD is surround sound. But if there were a surround variation of CD, it'd be good too. I support high-resolution . . . but I think 16/44.1 was enough all along.

 

[sjdgpt]

remastering a classic albumn into a surround SACD doesn't mean that the newer albumn is going to be an improvement over the prior mastering.

Personally, remastering seems a bet like self gratification... its not usually a good subsitute for the real thing .... if you get my drift.

I am waiting for a larger number of original works to be specifically recorded for surround/SACD, otherwise, what good is SACD?

 

[Rob Babcock]

The lack of original stuff in surround is depressing. The dyed-in-the-wool audiophools who should be exploring and embracing MC are mostly audio Luddites too petrified of change to give it a chance. And the "unwashed masses" are too busy downloading the current flavor-of-the-week for their portable iToys to care about sound quality. There's a trickle of stuff conceived for surround and/or mixed with input from the original artists, and some of it's amazing. The newest Steely Dan & Flaming Lips DVD-A's, for instance, are shining examples of how good recorded music can sound. And AIX is cranking out really innovating material designed for surround. But of course I wish there was 100X as much as there is.