SACD - not that impressed...

[edwelly]

Hello all - I finally hooked up my ICs for SACD this weekend. I demo'd 2 cds, the Nora Jones hybrid and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the moon. While they both sounded great, I was not overly impressed with the quality of the sound. I was hoping that I was be blown away but that never happened. I actually like my 2 channel sound better. If I compare the SACD to a DVD audio, I was disappointed with the sound of the SACD. What I found w. the SACD was the front and rear speakers were working but the sub was filling in a few things and the center channel was pretty much no existent.
has anybody else found this to be true? If not, please advice as to what I may have messed up...

 

[gene]

I was not impressed with the multi channel version of Norah Jones either. If you want to be dazzled, try some 2CH Patricia Barber SACDs from Premonition Records.

 

[edwelly]

QUOTE: try some 2CH Patricia Barber SACDs from Premonition Records

Doesn't a 2CH defeat the purpose of SACD or am I not understanding?

 

[j_garcia]

QUOTE: try some 2CH Patricia Barber SACDs from Premonition Records

Doesn't a 2CH defeat the purpose of SACD or am I not understanding?

Listen to one of them, then ask again. SACD is very recording dependent. Try Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.

You are not fully understanding. SACD is not just about mulitchannel, and in fact there are plenty of SACDs that are 2ch only.

 

[Mobius]

I was not impressed with the multi channel version of Norah Jones either. If you want to be dazzled, try some 2CH Patricia Barber SACDs from Premonition Records.

I on the other hand like the multi channel version of Norah Jones but I felt the 2 channel SACD side of that album was no better than the regular CD. I have heard wonderful things about the Patricia Barber SACDs but I have not had a chance to pick any up yet. Diana Krall also has several SACDs out that I think are worth while.

 

[Mobius]

What I found w. the SACD was the front and rear speakers were working but the sub was filling in a few things and the center channel was pretty much no existent.
has anybody else found this to be true? If not, please advice as to what I may have messed up...

Did you remember to go into your players menu settings and setup the SACD options. I am not sure what settings your player offers but mine for example has settings for your speakers for large, small with & without a sub + some balance settings.

 

[jaxvon]

Indeed, if your sound is not adjusted correctly (as in speakers set to large, no sub enabled), then your sound can be crappy. Make sure to double check all your settings.

 

[edwelly]

so why would you want a 2 channel SACD? Ins't that just a regular CD?

 

[edwelly]

QUOTE: Indeed, if your sound is not adjusted correctly (as in speakers set to large, no sub enabled), then your sound can be crappy. Make sure to double check all your settings.

I have this setup in my receiver. Do I need to set these for my CD/DVD player?

 

[jaxvon]

You might have to do so. I know my DVD player has speaker settings that are in effect when you use the analog outputs (which you have to do with SACD). Also, the point of 2ch SACD is the fact that it is a much higher resolution audio. The sampling rate is at 192kHz, instead of the normal CD rate of 44.1kHz. This basically equates to a truer replication of the original analog signal.

 

[Mobius]

so why would you want a 2 channel SACD? Isn't that just a regular CD?

2 Channel SACD is a higher resolution format than regular CD so typically they sound better than a regular CD.

 

[Mobius]

QUOTE: Indeed, if your sound is not adjusted correctly (as in speakers set to large, no sub enabled), then your sound can be crappy. Make sure to double check all your settings.

I have this setup in my receiver. Do I need to set these for my CD/DVD player?

Yes you'll need this setup in your player too. Your receivers bass management is not being used when playing SACDs, you have to use your SACD players.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

..... While they both sounded great, I was not overly impressed with the quality of the sound. I was hoping that I was be blown away but that never happened. I actually like my 2 channel sound better.

Problem with Hi-Res #1. CD is damned near perfect for stereo. Any upgarde will be minimal at best.

If I compare the SACD to a DVD audio, I was disappointed with the sound of the SACD. What I found w. the SACD was the front and rear speakers were working but the sub was filling in a few things and the center channel was pretty much no existent.

Problem with Surround #1. No standards. The SACD may not be mixed like the DVDA, which may be diffrent from the DTS-CD. Or the guy working the levels that day may really, really hate bass. This is why there was never a clear answer to which had better sound quality (SACD or DVDA), no two engineers mixed the same.

 

[gene]

The sampling rate is at 192kHz, instead of the normal CD rate of 44.1kHz.

Actually you are thinking DVD-A. SACD has a much higher sampling rate, but is a 1 bit converter.

See: DVD-A vs SACD

Rock; I agree with you for the most part. CD if recorded well is really tough to beat. The big advantage to DVD-A/SACD is multi channel assuming the discs are mixed and mastered correctly with proper bass management.

For more info on these topics I suggest checking out our Audio Formats and Compression articles in our:

Specs and Formats Section

 

[WndrBr3d]

What people also need to keep in mind is that some Audio Recordings are only mastered at 48khz or 96khz sample rate.

Sure, SACD and DVD-A are capable of much higher sample rates, but it's all dependant on the sample rate it was mastered at.

This is why not all SACD's sound the same.

 

[WmAx]

You might have to do so. I know my DVD player has speaker settings that are in effect when you use the analog outputs (which you have to do with SACD). Also, the point of 2ch SACD is the fact that it is a much higher resolution audio. The sampling rate is at 192kHz, instead of the normal CD rate of 44.1kHz. This basically equates to a truer replication of the original analog signal.

SACD samples at 2.882 Ghz, with 1 bit wordlength, as compared to CD's 44.1kHz and 16 bit wordlength. As for 'truer' replication, you would have to specify as to what this refers to; certainly not any parameter demonstrated to be audible for musical reproduction. Or are you referring to the reproduction of supersonic[inaudible] frequencies?

-Chris

 

[j_garcia]

SACD samples at 2.882 Ghz, with 1 bit wordlength, as compared to CD's 44.1kHz and 16 bit wordlength. As for 'truer' replication, you would have to specify as to what this refers to; certainly not any parameter demonstrated to be audible for musical reproduction. Or are you referring to the reproduction of supersonic[inaudible] frequencies?

So are you saying that a well done SACD doesn't sound better than a redbook CD?

 

[gene]

So are you saying that a well done SACD doesn't sound better than a redbook CD?

it has the potential of sounding better, though the differences will be subtle if both formats are utilized correctly. OTOH I have heard SACD's that sound worse than the CD equivalent mix.

 

[WmAx]

So are you saying that a well done SACD doesn't sound better than a redbook CD?

The only benefit that is demonstrated to be useful on SACD is the multi-channel capability. The rest of the supposed technical advantages for musical playback are subjectively based hype/marketing driven. In fact, SACD has several disadvantages compared to CD: the data is not rippable for fair-use purposes[portable players, backup, compilation discs, etc.] nor is the digital output stream available for flexible use[it's only available on select special encrypted systems such as the Denon firewire, etc.].

-Chris

 

[jaxvon]

I was already corrected on the sampling thing. As for 'truer' recreation, I was simply referring to the ability to decrease error rates. However, I don't know how good the interpolator is on most DACs. Assuming it's close to ideal, then SACD "quality enhancement" is a moot point.