SACD - not that impressed...

[j_garcia]

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.].

So the next obvious question then is, have you personally done, or are you aware of a DBT or some other data, to support that statement? The benefits are clear to my ears. I agree with the statement on some level though, 1) because I have at least a few CDs that show that redbook is very well capable of exellent fidelity, and 2) because I have SACDs that really sound no better than the previous redbook release(s), but it is very likely because the same exact masters were used and they were basically lazy in my book, when remastering for the SACD and just threw together some crappy gimicky-mix that sounds poor for the multichannel tracks. Many of the SACDs I own, I listen to in 2ch, for exactly this reason - the m/c mixes are crap. When we are talking about a high quality masters and a good transfer, SACD still seems to be capable of even better detail than redbook - case in point - Patricia Barber's SACDs, which are all 2ch. The redbook layer was already pretty amazing, but I can still hear the improvement offered by the SACD layer, and it doesn't take tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment to hear it. So, does that mean that the average redbook CD is intentionally not as clean as it could/should be?

 

[gene]

All tech issues aside, some of the best sounding 2CH recordings I own are SACD while some of the worst sounding multi channel recordings I own are DVD-A. I personally believe the people mixing 2CH SACD's are more careful in making a recording that preserves dynamic range and doesn't abuse compression. Perhaps since SACD is marketed towards the Audiophile, makes it partly responsible for the stellar sounding recordings moreso than any debatable format advantages.

 

[My Rantz]

I have a few 2 channel SACD's and around 50 with the multi-channel mix and a few single layer multi channel titles (which are annoying having the one option). I have about the same quantity of DVD-A's (including a few DualDiscs).

The 2 channel SACD's I have sound absolutely superb but I much prefer the well mixed multi-channel titles - especially those from Telarc, though there are many others doing a fine job as well. Many people tout DSOTM as a fine hi-res surround example, and it is, but I believe there are many much better - in both genres. While overall I find SACD better (sonically) than DVD-A, it is still difficult to distinguish which format is better when listening to the best (of the titles I have) of both.

What is terribly important is that with SACD there are no delay settings so the recommended speaker placement for such seems to be of significent benefit as does setting the right speaker size and experimenting with the bass filters/settings/ on both the player and, if an option, on the external inputs of the receiver. Getting it all right can make a huge difference in hearing the benefits of well engineered/mixed hi-res multi-channel titles.

The beauty of the hybrid SACD is that there is something for everyone, including the redbook fans and this is why, imho, they should be the #1 format.

 

[WmAx]

So the next obvious question then is, have you personally done, or are you aware of a DBT or some other data, to support that statement?

RBCD was designed from the ground up to be a transparent format through the use of scientific listening trials that focused on each individual parameter. The parameters of RBCD exceed the known parameters required for transparent music playback according to credited, peer-reviewed perceptual studies[1][2].

No one has yet demonstrated the requirement for parameters that exceed RBCD for musical playback through credible research. Thus, when such things [such as RBCD being inadequate] are claimed, they are at best, speculation(s).

-Chris

Footnotes
[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

[2]Perception of Phase Distortion in Anti-Alias Filters
Preis, D.; Bloom, P. J.
Volume 32 Number 11 pp. 842-848; November 1984

 

[WmAx]

When we are talking about a high quality masters and a good transfer, SACD still seems to be capable of even better detail than redbook - case in point - Patricia Barber's SACDs, which are all 2ch. The redbook layer was already pretty amazing, but I can still hear the improvement offered by the SACD layer, and it doesn't take tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment to hear it. So, does that mean that the average redbook CD is intentionally not as clean as it could/should be?

It is documented that the various versions of albums have different masters/mixes in some cases. I believe that on this site, in the special features section, that a Diana Krall CD was shown to be different when compared to the hi-res version(s). Specifically, additional dynamic compression was added. I have also recieved confirmation by e-mail from Telarc[a highly regarded audiophile label] that at least one of their CDs had a different master than the SACD[Tierney Sutton, Dancing In The Dark], with the CD version being more compressed. So, you can not depend on any label to do their best across all formats, apparently. But this is not an inherant issue with the format; it's a [misguided?] marketing driven problem.

-Chris

 

[tbewick]

Don't you think that SACD's sound better possibly because they are more expensive, and therefore that more time can be spent mixing them well?

 

[edwelly]

You guys got all technical on me so I feel a little silly asking this but last night I went into the setting on my SACD player and made some changes to the speaker size. I put the Nora Jones CD back in and listened. It sounded better but I could still not hear much of anything coming from the center channel and or the sub. If I switched to 2 CH, then the sub came alive. What do I not understand???

 

[eirepaul]

Hear, Hear!

I have a few 2 channel SACD's and around 50 with the multi-channel mix and a few single layer multi channel titles (which are annoying having the one option). I have about the same quantity of DVD-A's (including a few DualDiscs).

The 2 channel SACD's I have sound absolutely superb but I much prefer the well mixed multi-channel titles - especially those from Telarc, though there are many others doing a fine job as well. Many people tout DSOTM as a fine hi-res surround example, and it is, but I believe there are many much better - in both genres. While overall I find SACD better (sonically) than DVD-A, it is still difficult to distinguish which format is better when listening to the best (of the titles I have) of both.

What is terribly important is that with SACD there are no delay settings so the recommended speaker placement for such seems to be of significent benefit as does setting the right speaker size and experimenting with the bass filters/settings/ on both the player and, if an option, on the external inputs of the receiver. Getting it all right can make a huge difference in hearing the benefits of well engineered/mixed hi-res multi-channel titles.

The beauty of the hybrid SACD is that there is something for everyone, including the redbook fans and this is why, imho, they should be the #1 format.

This post is the best I've seen on this thread so far regarding this subject. I completely agree My Rantz. I also have some excellent and not so excellent examples of all the formats. Correct system setup is vital of course, but when it is all coming together with an excellent multi-channel recording I close my eyes and I am completely immersed in the music in a way that is hard to describe. If you like Elton John, I heartily recommend the SACDs of his early albums. They were pretty well recorded in the first place (for the early 70s) and in multi-channel they sound better than ever. With multi-channel, I continue to discover nuances of music I have known for over 30 years.

I don't know about SACD being the #1 format. Personally I like the extras provided by DVD-A and DualDisc - it enhances the experience all the more. I guess they can continue to all co-exist. Surely multi-channel music has to be here to stay - it's just too much darn fun.

 

[eirepaul]

What changes did you make?

You guys got all technical on me so I feel a little silly asking this but last night I went into the setting on my SACD player and made some changes to the speaker size. I put the Nora Jones CD back in and listened. It sounded better but I could still not hear much of anything coming from the center channel and or the sub. If I switched to 2 CH, then the sub came alive. What do I not understand???

Did you change your speakers to large for the multi-channel mode? That would have eliminated the sub from the mix.

 

[edwelly]

yes I did... That would explain a lot there... Thanks!

 

[j_garcia]

Don't you think that SACD's sound better possibly because they are more expensive, and therefore that more time can be spent mixing them well?

I think if they want the formats to survive, they'll need to do better than just "average" to keep the people who are interested in the formats to keep buying. I buy select titles because I WANT a better sounding presentation. If it sounds barely better than the redbook, then I don't have a reason to buy it. They need to spend the time doing a good mix and using the best masters available to put out something that is worth paying a little more for.

You guys got all technical on me

Sorry, threads do that sometimes here.

 

[Rob Babcock]

To me, MC is the real draw of SACD & DVD-A. I'd advise you to give it a chance- two discs is not enough to really judge the format. DSotM is 30 years old and the Nora Jones mix is a bit "uninvolving" for some. I recommend you try Nickle Creek, Alison Krauss' live disc, or Sea Change by Beck. There are a lot of excellent sounding DVD-A discs, too, probably moreso than SACD IMOHO.

 

[j_garcia]

Reanimation

Linkin Park's Reanimation DVD-A has some very good m/c mixes, if you like that sort of thing. It's one of my favorite DVD-As.

 

[edwelly]

So I played around some more last night and I each time I am getting better results. I also have DVD-A disc, Lyle Lovett (not sure if he has more than one) but I played it using the MULTI channel part and it was ok. I then switched it over to use the digital cable and WOW, what a HUGE difference. The digital out rocked my socks off...
Is this normal for the digital to be that much better than the multi channel outs?

oh and incase I haven't said thanks for all of your help, THANKS!!!

 

[jaxvon]

That's because your receiver does the bass management and processing for the digital signal. Your player's bass management and such is probably lacking.

Edit: You might think about trying out an ICBM with your system. The reviews from customers say it works wonders:

http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/outlaw-audio/others/PRD_126031_1590crx.aspx

 

[j_garcia]

That's because your receiver does the bass management and processing for the digital signal. Your player's bass management and such is probably lacking.

Edit: You might think about trying out an ICBM with your system. The reviews from customers say it works wonders:

http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/outlaw-audio/others/PRD_126031_1590crx.aspx

If you want info on the ICBM, go straight to the Outlaw forums.

IIRC, I remember the 563 was known to have crappy bass management, so it would not surprise me if the newer models did as well. Hate to say it, but my 2900 isn't exactly stellar in that regard either.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

isn't it nice to know that after 5-6 years of electronics companies throwing hundreds of thousands of research & design dollars away on SACD/DVDA players, not one has managed to make good use of bass management?

Who really wants a 200Hz crossover? Is it that freakin' hard to make user-selectable "steps" in 5Hz increments? The DD/DTS preamps & receivers have had that for at least 10 years now. (At least the sony ta e9000es does).

 

[Mobius]

To me, MC is the real draw of SACD & DVD-A. I'd advise you to give it a chance- two discs is not enough to really judge the format. DSotM is 30 years old and the Nora Jones mix is a bit "uninvolving" for some. I recommend you try Nickle Creek, Alison Krauss' live disc, or Sea Change by Beck. There are a lot of excellent sounding DVD-A discs, too, probably moreso than SACD IMOHO.

I agree with Rob on these recommendations. I also wanted to note that Beck - Sea Change is also available on DVD-A and it sounds great. The new Beck album - Guero (i think) is also available on DVD-A and I like this one, reminds me of the old Beck stuff.

There was also mention of the Linkin Park DVD-A which is a great surround mix. Both of the Porcupine Tree DVD-As are great listens as well.

 

[Mobius]

isn't it nice to know that after 5-6 years of electronics companies throwing hundreds of thousands of research & design dollars away on SACD/DVDA players, not one has managed to make good use of bass management?

Who really wants a 200Hz crossover? Is it that freakin' hard to make user-selectable "steps" in 5Hz increments? The DD/DTS preamps & receivers have had that for at least 10 years now. (At least the sony ta e9000es does).

I don't understand it either.

 

[edwelly]

I was incorrect. My DVD player does not play DVD-A (it's a Sony) so any recomendations on MULTI SACDs would be great. I just ordered Outlaws ICBM so I should have it installed by next weekend...