Are SACD's really that much better?

[jazzman21]

I've read all lot of stuff about SACD's, like how they have surround sound Dolby 5.1 technology that lets you hear ever precise sound and instrument playing, and also that they have exceptional clarity, but i'm still not sold. Somebody out there please convince me that it is better than standard cds.

[shawn·m]

I can’t convince you, but here’s what: If you’ve access to a hi-fi dealer, see if they’ll let you perform your own taste-test comparison. That’s what sold me (though I’m not terribly interested in 5.1).

[Claude]

When testing how much better (stereo) SACD is, be sure to use a CD and a SACD with a comparable remastering, for example a hybrid SACD.

I have a very good hifi set and I have upgraded some of my CDs to SACD versions, but in some cases (especially Sony albums, Miles, Monk, Mingus) the difference was rather difficult to hear compared to the latest CD versions. My setup is stereo only.

Don't expect a spectacular difference between CD and stereo SACD. It is subtle and may not be relevant to you if you are not noticing differences in sound between good CD players or amplifiers for example.

If you have music in early CD versions with poor remastering (OJC, CBS) upgrading to the SACD will be an occasion to get a much better sound, mainly because of the greater care that was taken for the mastering to SACD.

[sideshowbob]

5.1 multichannel has nothing to do with music, IMO. I've yet to hear a multichannel setup that didn't sound pretty poor. Mostly this is down to the majority of multichannel mixes, which seem to want to put the listener in the middle of the band, with drums behind you and other instruments in front. Unless you're actually in a band, you would never hear live music like that.

So, multichannel isn't a strong selling point for SACD. As to sound quality of SACD stereo masters, from what I've heard they're as variable in quality as ordinary CD masters, from good to bad.

The major problem, of course, is that there's so little music available in the format, and what is available is mostly the same tired reissues of the expected "classics". There's also very little demand for a new high-res CD alternative from the majority of the record-buying public, IMO. I don't expect SACD to survive as anything other than a niche format, if at all.

-- Ian

[Tenorman]

When I was looking for a CD player last year, I asked around various specialist shops about SACD. They all came out with the same comment. If you want an SACD player which will match the output of a standard CD player on CD replay, you need to double the price. It appears that many of the SACD players available in the UK are not as good at playing the standard CDs as their prices would suggest.

In the UK at least SACD versions of the Jazz and other music that I would purchase normally are few and far between.

So I am waiting for two things

1. the availability of the software
2. The availability of a machine that will play CD at the quality of my current machine, without the hefty price premium

[Tenorman]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
5.1 multichannel has nothing to do with music, IMO. I've yet to hear a multichannel setup that didn't sound pretty poor. Mostly this is down to the majority of multichannel mixes, which seem to want to put the listener in the middle of the band, with drums behind you and other instruments in front. Unless you're actually in a band, you would never hear live music like that.

-- Ian

If they set up up the multi channels like that, they would have to swap right and left channels, otherwise the whole effect is twisted

[Greg]

Originally posted by jazzman21
I've read all lot of stuff about SACD's, like how they have surround sound Dolby 5.1 technology

Actually, it's not dolby. It's DSD. Dolby is based on PCM.

that lets you hear ever precise sound and instrument playing, and also that they have exceptional clarity, but i'm still not sold. Somebody out there please convince me that it is better than standard cds.

If your ears don't convince you, nothing will. For those of us who are obsessed with detail and convincing quality of the sound, SACD takes giant steps over CD to use a jazz parlance.

[gregk]

I've had a SACD player for 6 months now and a few SACDs, and I haven't really noticed a vast difference in sound. SACD is better, at least from what I've heard, but not enough to make much of a difference to an average listener. I'm more than an average listener and the difference doesn't really knock me out. Of course, it all depends on the disc, mastering, speakers, player etc. If I hadn't been in the market for a DVD player (I bought one that plays DVDs and SACDs; its a Sony) I doubt I would have bothered to get a SACD player. The store set-up wasn't all that impressive. As for the surround sound aspect, I care nothing for it. The few titles I've heard in surround seem unnatural to me, like I'm watching a movie or something. So, I usually ignore any surround layer and stick to the 2-channel

[JPW]

Originally posted by Greg

If your ears don't convince you, nothing will. For those of us who are obsessed with detail and convincing quality of the sound, SACD takes giant steps over CD to use a jazz parlance.
Can't say I can hear any improvement with SACD. And the specs look dubious, too.
As Ian notes, the mastering quality runs from good to p-poor - mastering is where I hear differences. And hardly any of the music I'm interested in is available, or ever will be, on this format.
The SACD sound seems to be more audiophile than CD - ie more "air" and "3-d soundstage (talking 2-channel here). If that floats your boat, then fine.
I ahve enough problems setting up two speakers in a room, setting up 5 verges on the impossible IMO.

[GA Russell]

I have no opinion regarding SACD or DVD-Audio specifically.

However, it seems to me that fidelity is a major weapon to use against illegally downloading mp3s. Or to look at the other side of the coin, mediocre fidelity is free; but when you pay money you get great fidelity.

For that reason, I see standard CDs being phased out, in favor of high fidelity SACDs or DVD-Audios, whichever wins out.

[Greg]

I think the industry cares far more about a digitally secure format than a high quality format. SACD provides security. DVD-A doesn't.

As for the guy who said SACD had "dubious" specs, what's dubious about a sampling rate 64 times that of CD? I have no argument with you if you say you hear no difference (although you didn't mention which discs you compared, nor the context of the comparison, e.g., system details) but that's between you and your ears. What is irrefutable is SACD's specs that are clearly superior to CD, and, as implemented, superior to DVD-A as well.

[Gerry]

http://www.sacd.philips.com/b2b/downloads/dsd_2.pdf

Please note, especially, fig. 9. Tough to argue "dubious" specs based on frequency response. Dynamic range is trickier, but treated properly, that too becomes a pretty weak argument. Classifying a format as "audiophile" because it possesses qualities like "air" and so on, seems like confusing the format's capabilities with a particular recording's (or group of recordings') qualities. I suspect we all have certain red-book CDs that possess all of these qualities; SACD just allows the best recordings to shine a bit more and, maybe, offers a bit more margin for error for those on the next tier.

There seems to be, both here and on other boards, a misunderstanding of what mastering engineers can and cannot do with a recording. The belief that the quality of a recording is solely, or even largely, the result of the mastering engineer's prowess is, I'd argue, a myth. While there are some amazingly good mastering engineers out there, and while a poor one can certainly do considerable damage to a recording (if not totally destroy it); in most cases, what comes out of the mastering room is going to be a cleaned-up version of what came in. If something arrives at the mastering house trashed (or even marginal), it will probably leave trashed (or marginal). To a large extent, mastering engineers can only polish what they're handed; and if that's a turd...

[Claude]

From a review of Murray Perahia's recording of the Goldberg variations (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=6247):

The SACD and CD versions of this acclaimed recording of Bach's Goldberg Variations were released almost simultaneously late last year, as Sony, the co-developer of SACD, tried to gain some traction with the new high-resolution format. While SACD prices have dropped considerably since then, approaching CD levels, the fact that Sony decided to release this high-res version in a two-channel single-layer SACD-only format probably did not help its cause (a hybrid version certainly would have made more sense for marketing purposes). Nonetheless, the choice appears to be pretty much moot, since this recording, already sonically excellent, benefits only slightly from the enhanced qualities of SACD.

Comparing it to the CD version, you instinctively want to hear more in the new format, and at some level psychological desire overcomes the fact that these two versions sound pretty much alike. Listeners may discern a more vivid and realistic rendering of piano timbre, an increased sense of a three-dimensional soundstage, and the illusion of more "air" around the instrument. Complex contrapuntal passages "seem" crisper and the individual "voices" come across as more finely etched; but in the end the technical improvements are probably minimal enough for most listeners to relegate the search for superlatives to wishful thinking. The CD version is, for all intents and purposes, as good in its overall presentation, suggesting that a well-engineered recording matters way more than its ultimate release format.

[peter rh]

Claude or others who can read German ?
Oscar Peterson on Telarc at Amazon.de
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005QZLG/ref=cm_ups_wishlist_title/302-2747362-9828048
is this a SACD or hybrid ?
format says Audio cd but..........

[Kevin Bresnahan]

In the US, this is available as a hybrid SACD so by the writing on this page, I imagine this one is too. BTW, I have had great luck opening two windows, one with Amazon.de and another with Amazon.com. Do this and the translation is right there: they use all the same words for both sites.

Later,
Kevin

[Claude]

Originally posted by peter rh
format says Audio cd but..........

It actually says "Format: SACD" and "Additional formats: Audio CD"

Telarc discs are imported from the US, so the format should be the same everywhere. The SA-CD.net description (http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/453) says it's a hybrid SACD. If that's true, the info on the amazon.de page ("You need a SACD-capable player") is not correct.

[peter rh]

Thanks Kevin & Claude.
Claude - do I understand that there is no way of telling from the
Amazon webpage alone,that this is a SACD or Hybrid ?
Is it best to check each individual cd unless there is no doubt that
a new release is a Hybrid?

[Claude]

SACD, single layer, hybrid, multichannel seems to be a too complex subject for many big stores. Their information is often inaccurate. Sometimes albums listed as CDs are hybrid SACDs, without this being mentionned. But it is often possible to check this with the ASIN number.

I once emailed the Amazon.de customer support to ask if a particular disc was the CD or the SACD version, and they replied that I could safely order and simply return it (unopened) if the item is not what I expected. :laugh: So they couldn't tell from their database which format it was.

As far as the Amazon stores are concerned, Stephen from the excellent www.sa-cd.net website (formerly SACDinfo.com) checks their SACD offerings regularly. If he posts a link to an Amazon store you can be almost sure it's a SACD. His other infos (single layer/hybrid, stereo/multichannel) are also much more reliable.

[peter rh]

Claude - thanks, I've noticed a wide variety of info( or lack of) at
some websites.The www.sa-cd.net site looks very useful - looks
like it's best to check if there is any doubt

[bugs26]

ok look guys if you're not sold on SACD you should be, the multichannel is the best though. Of course the first cd you should buy when you get it is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. SACD is a whole new experence guys, it's so much clearer, with it I've heard things I have never heard before. I payed $180 for mine, it's a 5 disc DVD/CD/SACD player and can play any burned cd dvd also. The picture quality is great too. The only problem I really ran into is that when you set up the speakers. Guys if you have a Sub there is no need for tower speakers. In my opinion tower speakers sound the best even with a sub you can get the extra bass in it. But when you're setting up your speakers threw the DVD/SACD player you need to make shure if you have a sub to turn your front speakers to small because there is NO way you're going to get any bass sounds out of your system with it set to large. I was just passing by threw web sites and saw that a couple of you guys wanted to know what was so great about it and I'm telling ya, it's a WHOLE NEW EXPERENCE!

[sideshowbob]

Of course the first cd you should buy when you get it is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.


But that's a bloody awful record, why would I want to buy that!!??

-- Ian

[jacman]

i dunno, i'm sorta tired of all the "latest greatest" gear to buy. seem like every 6 months there is something "better" to buy.
i realize it's not every 6 months, but i just can't afford to upgrade, endlessly.

i'm happy going to my local used record shop and browsing the dixieland section. :wink2:

[Javry]

I have a universal player....so I get both SACD, DVDA, and of course the regular CD stuff. Personally, I don't think any one of them is ever going to be the mainstream. Most people are satisfied with CDs as they are and they won't want to invest a lot of money in a whole new setup that's going to require them to go out and buy their whole CD collection over again just to say they now have SACD/DVDA.

Now....after having said that, my vote goes for DVDA in a flash. I don't have many of them but for the ones I do have, the sound is incredible.
Javry

[dkummer1]

Your telling me you can't hear a difference in DVD-A and SACD in comparison to regular CD's? You got to be kidding me. The difference is huge. The definitive seperation and expanded frequency are far superior to regular CD's.

I have run across some DVD Video disc that have superior sound quality that would come close to DVD-A or SACD.....close but not the same.

Go to a showroom and listen to a CD or FOURPLAY or Steelye Dan then listen to it on SACD or DVD-A. If you can't notice an improved difference...then get an I-POD cause its all you need for you musical experience.

If you notice a difference than invest in a 5.1 6.1 or 7.1 dolby Surround Sound system and ENJOY and blast off.

[Claude]

expanded frequency are far superior to regular CD's.

Unfortunately my hearing stops at 19kHz (wax removed!), so the CD frequency range should be enough. My dog might benefit more from SACD. :)

[wordsandsounds]

Go to a showroom and listen to a CD or FOURPLAY or Steelye Dan then listen to it on SACD or DVD-A. If you can't notice an improved difference...then get an I-POD cause its all you need for you musical experience.

I don't know what the economics or wages are for most of the people posting here are but for my money, I can't afford it. I often laugh and wonder about who can spend a couple thousand on single speaker, and then drop multiples more on players and everything else. From what I have heard, there is a difference in newer recordings, Flaming Lips for example, but in older recordings, not nearly the same distinction (thinking Kind of Blue era here). Even so, I can dream about a system that on the cheap end will run a sixth of my early salary, but I have a lot of loans and bills.

[rnx]

Unfortunately my hearing stops at 19kHz (wax removed!), so the CD frequency range should be enough. My dog might benefit more from SACD. :)

But maybe there are overtones that do have a pschyco-acoustic effect. However, IMHO there are more important aspects to consider when evaluating the overall audio quality.

The entire hi-fi system from player to speakers, will have a greater effect on the sound than just the format. With regard to greater sampling frequencies, my personal feeling is that higher bit depth has a greater impact. I've recorded 44/16 44/24 48/16 48/24 96/... and I find that more bits give a greater "expansion" - i'm sorry i can't put that into better words. It also gives greater dynamic range.

For a straight on DSD recording it *will* make difference on good systems.

But I don't think CDs will be phased out for copyright protection or economics. It's still a trillion dollar industry. It can't shut down. In my country what still sells most is audio cassettes at less than 1 USD. There's a whole other half of the world you know. Here people who buy CDs are the privileged class. I say this without any offence to *anyone* - it's just a fact.

rnx

[Javry]

I was in a local high end stereo store a couple of weeks ago. In the front of the store, they have all the new stuff[ DVD players, ect. In the middle of the store is where they have all of the home theater setups. I spend a lot of time there also. But in the back room, they have a couple of turntables setup with a few LPs. They have a couple of CD players in there also so people do go back there. But in todays world, that room gets very little attention compared to the other parts of the store.

One rainy Saturday, I noticed that they had a remastered LP of an old Count Basie recording sitting beside the turntable. So I decided to plop down and listen to it. As much as I'd like to come offf like a vinyl officianado, the truth is I'm totally taken up by all the new technology, which is a shame. Because, what I heard coming out of that turntable was just plain outstanding. I literally sat there for a couple of hours and listened to that LP over and over again. The imaging, the soundstaging, the voicing....especially the drum cymbals...........just great.

I found myself wondering later how I had gotten so far away from from all this over the years. As convienient as CDs are, I have never heard one CD [either SACD, DVDA, or redbook] sound as good as what I heard on that turntable. It became very obvious to me that you don't have to have the latest technology or spend gobs of money to get the best sound. In fact, I would argue that the late technologies focus more on surround music or home theater where you prime attention is on video....and not as much on the kind of good sound that can keep you sitting there hour after hour just listening.....what a shame.
Javry

[JPW]

Unfortunately my hearing stops at 19kHz (wax removed!), so the CD frequency range should be enough. My dog might benefit more from SACD. :)
Claude,
Your hearing is remarkably good. I can't hear much above 14kHz, and neither can most adults.
Most of the (admittedly few) SACDs I've heard, have been of the"audiophile wet dream" type and thus not my cup of tea at all.
It's pretty easy to make the sound "airy" with lots of "blackness", "slam" and 3d staging (aka phase distortion ;) ), if you know which buttons to press.
24bit is a good thing, but you need to maintain high quality the whole length of the chain from recording to output to make it really worthwhile.
Anyway, this is not the direction the music industry is taking.
Don't don't listen to me: I mostly listen on vinyl anyway.

[Lonson]

Anyone heard the two two cd set "Yo Miles!" SACDs? Seems as if they would sound really nice, DSD recorded. . . .

[snoutinator]

yep, they did a good job with the latest yo miles! recording. somebody was paying attention.

[Lonson]

Thanks! I have the very first one and want more, so I'll put these on my "hit list" for my SACD player.

[Lonson]

Snout, thanks again for the recommendation. I think I prefer "Sky Garden" to "Up River" MUSICALLY, but both these hybrids sound wonderful!

[IBSmiester]

The 11 SACD's all sound good to awesome. My only jazz ones are Mingus' Ah Um, and Miles' In A Silent Way, and both are excellent for sound, and the music speaks for itself. As far as other ones I'd reccomend, Beck's Sea Change is a great album with stunning sound, and anything from the RCA Living Stereo series is great too. I realize that SACD is not going to take off in the consumer market (DVD-A has already disappeared), but I think that it is getting pretty good support from audiophiles and will be around as long as the old redbook CD is. Even the remote possibility of a hi-rez format replacing CD's was killed by the format war (between DVD-A and SACD), and Sony Music's (not Sony Electronics, they are different companies) lack of support for SACD was the biggest blow to SACD.

[clave]

Actually, DVD-A is a going proposition in some countries (Brazil comes to mind), but I think the companies involved were also thinking of the export market, and made a big mistake in doing DVD-A as opposed to CD.

[Johnj]

I realize that SACD is not going to take off in the consumer market (DVD-A has already disappeared), but I think that it is getting pretty good support from audiophiles and will be around as long as the old redbook CD is.

Depends what you mean by 'will be around'. I think it is pretty clear that, at best, only a small percentage of new releases will be in the SACD format.

[IBSmiester]

Depends what you mean by 'will be around'. I think it is pretty clear that, at best, only a small percentage of new releases will be in the SACD format.

Basically I mean that SACD's will still be in production (specifically by audiophile and classical lables like Telarc, Mobile Fidelity, RCA Living Stereo, etc, although in limited numbers much like how vinyl is still produced) and will be supported by audiophile hardware makers (like Marantz, Sony ES, Cary, Classe, Linn, etc) as long as CD is around. When CD as a format bites the proverbial dust, SACD will disappear with it. At least that's how I feel about it. People keep saying how SACD is dead, but my favourite format (vinyl) supposedly died 20 years ago and it's still alive and kicking in the audiophile world.

[GregM]

The unmistakeable conclusion is that SACD, aside from some classical and boutique labels, is now dead.

Several ifs come to mind.

If more people who supposedly care about sound quality had recognized SACD for what it was...

If the recession didn't hit when it hit...

If DVD-A had just gone away when SACD beat it to market instead of muddying the waters of next-generation digital audio...

If the labels had been more supportive...

If downloadable music wasn't so seductive to the teenie bopper crowd...

One can easily imagine scenarios in which SACD would thrive. Unfortunately it ain't going to happen. But kudos to Sony for introducing great hardware, software and subsidizing labels that otherwise wouldn't have released an SACD. Ultimately the ball was in the hands of us consumers and we dropped it. I know guys who'll drop $25 on an LP but they won't pay retail price for an SACD that lists for $15. They wait for it to show up in the BMG club website for $5.

[shawn·m]

It sure looks like SACD’s future has gone from bad to worse lately. So much so that I recently made a run to a local dealer and picked up a few disks for fear they might not be available much longer. Over reaction? I’d like to think so. Well, as long as they keep making SACD players, I’ll at least be able to wallow in the titles I currently have.

GregM, I agree there are a number of reasons SACD didn’t capture a larger audience. However I also think the Crest plant, with its cracking spindle-hole disks, helped undermine the existing market… One of the disks I picked up during the aforementioned run was Dark Side Of The Moon and you’d best believe I checked for a “Made In Japan” on the tray card. Really, I can’t think of a better way to take the format down than have one of the production plants put out defective merchandise, claim they’ve solved the problem and then shovel more broken disks into retailers’ bins.

Did Crest ever overcome the cracking?

In my opinion, remastering also plays a role in SACD’s failure to catch on. Engineers, in some cases, haven’t learned to take advantage of SACD’s superior dynamic range and instead master as if they’re still working in CD. Two examples that immediately come to mind: Dark Side Of The Moon and Blue Train. Both suffer from a degree of compression that’s undesirable and unnecessary, but that also tends to blur the line between CD and SACD sound quality.