The referenced test doesn't compare a CD resolution recording with an equivalent SACD recording. It does something a little different, and 'down samples' high resolution digital (source implied to be SACD and DVD-A, but details hidden in the actual paper) using a pro CD recorder. I have a problem with the age of the test, too.. since we learn to hear audio differences and things outside our previous experience are simply not heard. I agree that there are CDs that sound better or little different than the same music on SACD. I've got a few, but the playing field for a definitive test should be as level as possible. They've made a good try at that, but I don't think anyone with experience of better than CD digital thinks it sounds the same as CD all the time. You can do the same test on your own, playing the SACD and CD at home. You will need any of the Rolling Stones Hybrid SACDs.. Aftermath/Paint it Black is a good start. Report back if they sound identical. Let someone else operate the controls if you want single blind testing.
144 dB S/N ratio vs. 96 dB S/N ratio = less quantization noise. Yes, there is an audible difference between 24 bit and 16 bit. Any audible differences between a 44.1 kHz sampling rate and the higher sampling rates is due to intermodulation distortion.
the term is used to describe an ability of audio hardware such as pre-amps and playback devices, i find it analogous to recordings as well. for me its quiet passages are quieter, more "space" or better definition and separation between all the components that make up the sound (instruments and voices).
I say this because the redbook layer of all my Hybrid discs is so much more "full" and has much more bass. Example: The Pixies - Surfer Rosa MFSL Hybrid SACD. The redbook layer has much more bass and this recording needs it. The SACD layer is just missing that punch. Anyone notice this difference? Or am I the only one? Maybe I need a better SACD player. Using NAD T585 now, which has very good redbook and smooth - albeit bass-shy - SACD sound. Any recommendations?
That may be true, but you'll need to name names here or risk dismissal. (and we know they messed up the Nora Jones one)
The 16/44.1 digital format was not designed to be perfection forever like marketing people claimed (mankind? achieved perfection? anyone buy that?). It's the CD spec, created for a format designed around 1980 with practical compromises in the picture (it had to be x size, stereo, play for x minutes and the computer aspects had to be practical to mass-produce - in 1980!). Yes it is an amazing format, yes it does sound great if everything is at its best, yes A/D and D/A improved. Yes, it's "fine for most people for most uses." Still, like wind-up acoustic 78 machines whose marketing folks claimed to have achieved perfect sound, I have not found it perfect. Close, but no. Higher res is closer. Very subtle differences, absolutely. But why stick with the outdated format if we can move on to something even subtly better? I'd certainly like to have the option wherever possible. Convenience is compelling too.
A short anecdote; when the Marantz SA-1 SACD player landed at the store I worked at we bought the hybrid SACD of Dave Brubeck's Time Out to demonstrate to our clientele of advantages of this new format. We would play it to them blind and ask them which version they preferred and the final tally after a few months was 50/50. Never sold one on the demonstrable advantages, only on the paper advantages.
Speaking only from use of a Pioneer DV-79AVi combo player - which I don't know is a particularly great option or not at present. The CD sound is very nice indeed (esp. with video circuits & display disabled). The SACD sound, where comparison has been possible (mostly classical, like Living Stereo SACDs, Vaughan Williams Pastoral' Hickox on Chandos, and some pop incl. the Nat King Cole titles, Sam Cook, Stones) has some very subtle but consistent features. To my perception, it doesn't strike me that SACD has more of anything (discounting multi-channel) so much as the CD is subtly lacking refinement and the SACD reduces or eliminates the comparatively glassy, chunky sound characteristic of CD. A hair 'smoother', more detailed and resolved 'micro-dynamics', warmer mids/upper bass. Same with (true) high-res via computer. It just feels more like what I was familiar with from (decent) analog, such as mic feed, quality reel tape and LP. Again, all very subtle differences here and of course is just my perception. Personally, I've not perceived any lack of bass or fullness from SACD but it is smoother, which might in some circumstances come off a bit like there might be slightly less bass.
SACD vs CD is one of audio's few hot topics that has actually been researched properly: An AES study running over a year and over 550 trials on both students and recording professionals concludes there is NO audible difference between the formats themselves. SACD can ofcourse still sound better because of a different mix/master used for the SACD layer, either because the engineer genuinely believes the "superior" format merrits such attention, or , for those less optimistic, just to make SACD look good and make some money.
[ sarcasm ] Of the scientists/engineers creating the CD and SACD, those creating the CD achieved perfection to the limit of human hearing despite not aiming to do so, while those creating the SACD were nuts. Creation of the CD was pure and righteously motivated for sonic perfection, whereas the SACD creators were working under delusions or impure motives to rip people off. Rest assured the CD is recorded and manufactured to the highest standards. It cannot become obsolete. Of all the times such claims have been made about recorded formats, it is correct for the one most convenient to you. The study was long and cites many people in many tests, so it must be correct and proper for its purpose. As a listen through the majority of recorded history proves, most recording professionals are capable of noticing and caring to discern reliably on the basis of such subtle differences. Such a study would surely find enough students who give a hoot, are honest, and are also already sophisticated, highly discerning listeners to make a worthwhile study. When you look at how discerning most people are and how fine most sound systems are, you can be confident about the indisputable accuracy and discernment of group studies where it concerns extreme subtleties of sound quality. The circumstances were of course always conducive to one being that discerning to begin with. [ / sarcasm ] Good luck getting a group to reliably agree on what tires are on a test car. Especially if folks involved are disinclined towards against wanting to believe expensive tires make any difference, expect the study to be summed as proving "no difference" or "50/50." Real life tends to be mm, let's say somewhat less than ideal where it concerns such endeavors. I would trust such studies to correctly grade paper cups. Provided absolutely nobody with ties to any interests in any related businesses are involved. The results of that study might prove those involved were satisfied there was no difference heard. It doesn't follow that you are not capable of hearing any difference. Recordings indistinguishable from real life were achieved in the acoustic disc era, if you believe what you read. Most likely my skepticism will be disregarded, but I point out skepticism should be applied as readily to those who say they don't hear anything as those who say they do, yet the arguments seem to be aimed one way most of the time.
Have never been able to compare a redbook c.d. to an SACD, but since my equipment is "mid-fi", after spending money on music, I turn my attention to upgrading what I have, not introducing another format, which I probabaly will not get the most out of anyway.
I am not sure what you are trying to convey here, but it sounds like a very elaborate way to say you disagree with what might be the only actual peer reviewed scientific journal on any of these kinds of audio subjective/objective related matters. Have you actually read the study? I t was conducted BY recording professionals FOR recording professionals. It was not born from scepticism, but from a genuine question wheter or not releasing/distributing music in high resolution provides any benefits.
Yes; yes, it's been discussed here before (though I wish I could have that time back and the time I'm spending here in this thread, but evidently I'm compelled to drop my two bits plus a piggie full of change on this somewhere). I suspect many recording professionals and/or their employers would rather not release/distribute music in higher than CD resolution, at least not at this time. Many don't avail us of CD resolution any too generously. Possibly by coincidence, I'm not sure, their study happens to "prove" that position amongst themselves. You accept it and that's fine. I'm just getting it out and having done so will step off of my soapbox.
re: SACD Some sound good, some sound bad. It's all in the mastering. I won't make a blanket statement and say that they sound better all the time. They don't. I've heard my fair share of stinkers (Norah Jones - Come Away with Me, a large chunk of the Concord Jazz titles which just sound loud.) However, when done right, SACD is fantastic and better than redbook. One of the finest SACDs I have ever heard was the MFSL version of Soultrane by John Coltrane. Russian Lullaby on that disc is just amazing. Reference quality all the way.
This thread entertainingly reminds me of what I imagine a high-end wine snob forum would be like. Lots of people throwing out cliches and catch phrases, but at the end of the day, the jumbo $7.98 bottle of Barefoot comes out on top. If people here actually listened TO music instead of listening AT it and arguing over what amounts to split hairs, there would be a whole lot more enjoyment and a fraction of the b!tching. Carry on, kids... j
What a charmer you are! Believe me, this isn't just some high end snob forum where people only listen to audiophile approved recordings and then debate the merits of various tweaks. Maybe you just haven't been around here long enough to notice, but first and foremost this is a music lovers' forum. It just so happens that most people here ALSO care about sound quality. Is that so wrong? As for your wine analogy, I've had lots of wine that costs under $10 that I like. Very seldom have I had what I consider to be expensive wine, and I've never had even a sip of astronomically priced wine. I'm not going to argue that my $10 bottle of Syrah is the best wine in the world, though.
Well, for many people, better reprodution equals better enjoyment of the music, so it's worth debating what sounds best. If Boone's Farm is all you need to float your boat, then more power to you, as well as a fatter wallet. John K.
Lots of variations between CD and SACD could come from the condition of source material (are they first generation, what shape are the masters in), and then the care with which they are remastered, remixed, or whatever. I don't see much discussion on the possibility of different listening abilities among music listeners. Genetically, we are all very similar but also there are many differences. Certainly some have the heightened sense of hearing, and I am not restricting this to those who are blind and may actually develop this sense to a higher level to compensate. Add to this the fact that as we age, our abilities become "duller," if you will. Our vision deteriorates, and this is called presbyopia. This usually takes place in the 40s and beyond, and many compensate by using reading glasses. Our hearing also deteriorates, and this is known as presbycusis. Ability to discern higher frequencies goes first. In these listening tests, I don't think anyone running the tests takes variations in hearing ability into account. Or do they? I think the tests can hardly be considered free from error in terms of design, unless hearing tests are administered initially to all participants. And I won't even discuss information bias . . .
Like some have said, SACD, DVD-A, CD and the rest, some good and some bad. A DCC cd Steve's, a SACD of Steve's and are they going to sound the same?
This is just a myth, it's real easy to find recording where the mastering is the same on both. Many Chesky SACDs are the same as are the SACDs from 2L and Channel Classics.
Personally, I can't tell much difference myself. If there is a difference, it depends on how the sound source was recorded, mixed and mastered. The potential with SACD is there, but it is even more dependent of the system you play it through. System and component choices are based on personal perception. What sounds good to one person may not sound so good with another. Years ago when I was buying new speakers, the JBL 2-ways sounded much better to me than the next step up 3-ways. A few years ago I bought a pair of Audiosource/MTX 5-way commercial speakers and they sounded even better to me. I've never heard a Bose speaker than impressed me, but due to size constraints when putting together my 7.1 surround system, I chose Bose 201's for the surround speakers using the Audiosource/MTX for the front channels and a JBL 3-way dedicated center speaker with a KLH 15" 3oow sub-woofer. My JBL 2-ways are now part of my dedicated mid-70's vintage quad system.
Atane, No one is saying that. We are saying that the sound quality depends on three things: 1. Original recording quality. 2. Mastering quality. 3. Resolution of the format. When #1 and #2 are the same, then on #3 having it on SACD will always be better than having it on CD. P.S. Most MFSL SACDs are the same mastering as the CD.
Um, you're on an audiophile forum, what did you expect? This is what audiophiles debate. Sure, there are other threads on just the music, but the main goal of this forum is to discuss audiophile topics, ie, difference between masterings, difference between formats, pressings, etc. I can't hear most of the differences that is discussed here, but I understand that a lot of people can hear the difference, and know a lot more than I.
