Not much difference between SACD and CD Sound Quality?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by laynecobain, Oct 27, 2011.

  1. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    I agree that some of those detalis may seem insignificant to some, but to many of us they're not. In fact, to me they are extremely significant and delightful. Hearing them makes me smile, and once again that it my goal.

    I haven't tried to hear the differences in power cables and the tape on the prongs, but some of these kinds of tweaks do make a difference. I have no idea if they all exist or not, but I believe the differences between SACD and CD are usually far more significant than any of those tweaks could hope to be. Once you learn to spot them they're as obvious as night and day.

    I don't know if anybody has done this, or how easy it would be to do, but many have compared masterings by mathematically subtracting one from the other and seeing what was left. I suspect if somebody subtracted a CD's sound from an otherwise identical SACD's sound it might be interesting to see what was left.
     
  2. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!


    Oh man! That happened to me yesterday! I was in the car listening to the mono single mix of Eddie Floyd's "Knock On Wood," digging how it sounded when I listened to it as a kid, and all of a sudden, during the verse after the four "knocks", I expected to hear the piano that is on the stereo mix. My memory had been corrupted by hearing that damned stereo mix.
     
  3. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    But, why do you need to prove to yourself if something is false if you are comfortable that it's not? A trained ear does not lie. Just roll with it, baby!

    As an INTJ personality, understand the analytical way of thinking, and the need to find the truth, but I also try to find a balance and not drive myself crazy.
     
  4. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    I didn't get that from Grant's post. Perhaps I misunderstood what you posted.

    I say do trust yourself, specifically your ears. As for trusting science, that's opening a can of worms. Of course science is very trustworthy, assuming that you are scientifically looking at the right things. That is the problem.

    Our ears hear all regardless of whether we understand the science involved. We don't necessarly have to understand a thing to marvel in it's beauty.

    I wouldn't necessarily trust what others say here on the face of it. However, if enough people suggest something, I would want to investigate further to see why these suggestions are being made.

    I have no doubt that some memebers here will agree with things they don't understand because they don't want to admit that they don't understand them, or because they don't feel that they are qualifed or experienced enough to notice them. I'm sure some people want to be accepted so will agree with things without doing their own investigations.

    That said, this is a wide forum and we have all kinds of members here, from top professionals to beginning amateurs. We are all striving to learn and increase our enjoyment of music and listening systems. Believe me, as one with pro experience, I've surely learned a lot form some of our amateurs. None of us knows enough to not learn from others here.

    I surely don't agree with everything that is posted here. If somebody posts something that I disagree with or don't understand, I will try to discover why we disagree or try to increase my understanding. Sometimes it's because I was missing something. Sometimes it's because the OP was missing something. The point is I will try to investigate to discover if the differences are valid to me or not. That is how I learn.
     
  5. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I'm not anti-science. I'm anything but anti-science. I just think it's bad science to simply conclude that if one person can't hear something, no one can. It's like saying five people can hear something, but that sixth person can't, so the first five people's claims are thrown out the window. Why isn't it the other way around?

    The people to beware of are the ones who stop learning and think they know all there is to know. An intelligent person will keep learning, and listen to those who may not be on their level of experience, training, ect.
     
  6. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Do you have a link to that study? That result is surprising (though perhaps it deals only with presbycusis). Performing musicians generally have higher rates of noise-induced hearing loss as compared to the general population. I would not be surprised to read that performing musicians exposed to a given level of sound energy suffer less hearing loss than industrial workers exposed to the same level of sound energy (as "enjoyable" sound tends to cause less hearing damage), but I can't imagine anyone has undertaken that kind of comparative study.
     
  7. shokhead

    shokhead Head shok and you still don't what it is. HA!

    Location:
    SoCal, Long Beach
    I just listened to the DCC and SACD Cosmo's Factory. Rebook of the SACD was good. First thing I noticed with the DCC was a better bass and cleaner highs. FWIW.
     
  8. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I'm looking for it....I can't find it. Either i'm using wrong search terms or the thread was removed. I cannot find the bookmark. The thread was just in the last six months.
     
  9. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    That was the obvious stuff. Now, go back and listen for the small details like the reverb tails, the space, how wide the sound stage is, and depth of the sound stage.
     
  10. shokhead

    shokhead Head shok and you still don't what it is. HA!

    Location:
    SoCal, Long Beach
    I said it was the first thing I noticed, not the only thing.
     
  11. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    While they leave new redbook CDs to sound like crap. :rolleyes:
     
  12. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Thanks for checking, I'll try to see if I can dig it up later as well.
     
  13. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    IMO, if they came up with this conclusion than their research is flawed. I was a member in fine standing of the AES for over 10 years and I don't always agree with their findings.

    When digital recorders, CD's, and digital synthesizers first appeared, I was there as a member of the AES. The vast majority of AES members loved these formats from the beginning and I was very vocal in my opposition, due strictly to the sound quality. Most of the engineers seemed to not notice or care so much about that compared to the convenience factor and feature sets.

    Btw, this is a large reason I left the AES and the industry.
     
  14. Roninblues

    Roninblues 猿も木から落ちる。

    .. and at the end of the day you will listen to whatever you choose, as it should be.
     
  15. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I have to admit that, while I was impressed by the CD I heard in a mall audio store in 1984, when I finally got a CD player, the only real thing that impressed me was the silent background, and lack of vinyl record noise. The sound, though I never wanted to admit it until recently, was shrill and brittle, and it bothered me. Later, I realized that was because of the lousy Sanyo CD player and low-powered amp I had at the time. Since Hi-rez, I have realized that the limitations of the 16-bit word is the problem.
     
  16. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Eh, CD's can sound amazing if prepared carefully. We all know this..
     
  17. pinkpotato

    pinkpotato Forum Resident

    But SACD can sound even more amazing if given the same special treatment.
     
  18. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host



    How much more? That's the deal. A tiny little bit? Is it worth upgrading a system for thousands of dollars to possibly hear that little bit more depth? If you have the money, sure. But some of these people with mid-fi systems don't have the money to burn for that "little bit" of improvement. So I can't recommend that they slave, make their kids go hungry, etc. for something they may or may not be able to perceive..

    I get my great gear free. I'm lucky, I don't have to pay through the nose. I'm grateful for that, sure. People ask me all the time about upgrading. It's always about having money to burn on something like that. Really, how important is it to you?

    I've heard so many SACD's that sound like crap, bad mastering, bad source, etc. There are some disks out there that sound wonderful but what percentage more wonderful than an equally mastered CD of the same title, done by the same engineer at the same time? Like I said, do the CREEDENCE test I mentioned above and see for YOURSELF if it is worth YOUR while. That's worth 20 bucks to you, right? Better than spending 5 grand on a gamble..

    It's your money and your call, not mine, thankfully..
     
    Anonamemouse likes this.
  19. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    But for the mass market, they usually aren't. There is probably no way the industry will suddenly start releasing CDs with better mastering.
     
  20. Espen R

    Espen R Senior Member

    Location:
    Norway
    The problem with a thread like this is:
    - are we discussing the question in an absolute context?
    - or are we discussing the question in a way "most people" experience differences between CD and SACD with a cheap digital multiplayer in a 5.1 sourround set-up?

    I think LeeS is discussing this question in an absolute context.

    For me, as a "die hard" audiophile, I will discuss this question in an absolute context. After I did some changes in my HiFi system that really lowered the noise floor, the two BIG things that really make SACD sound different from CD sound is a "flow in micro dynamics" that make SACD sound much more alive, and a super silky smooth sound SACD that makes CD sound a bit strident and harsh.
    Things like depth in soundstage and transparens is of course even better with SACD, but that is secondary for me.
     
  21. italianprog

    italianprog Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    140 responses and I haven't read anyone put it more succinctly than this.

    I don't have an SACD player so I won't comment on that format specifically; but, I do have a DVD-A player (two actually), and Sea Change on DVD-A and MFSL CD. The difference, to me, is wide enough (staggeringly so) to warrant the added expense of the format. I suppose there probably is no definitive way to say why SACD is better than CD.
     
  22. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    If I may repeat the quote: perfect! I missed this post earlier, but it says it all!

    When I was younger, the first thing i'd always zero in on were the drums. Now, any time I put something on, the very first thing I listen for is the sound quality, meaning the width and depth of the soundstage. Most musicians I know listen to their chosen instrument first. Most non-audiophiles I meet listen for the lyrics first.
     
  23. dlokazip

    dlokazip Forum Transient

    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    I used to zero in on the main melody instrument, usually the guitar. Now I listen for dynamics and depth.

    Same here. Sometimes, annoyingly so.
     
  24. DrPhibes

    DrPhibes Vengeful Revenant and 5.1 Fanbeast

    Thanks for the replies and input folks.

    Okay. Can you point me where I can find some? Most of the DSD material I have has analog tape as its original source. Maybe a new Classical release would be native DSD? Would it say so on the liner notes?

    Thanks. My SACD player is an OPPO BPD-80 and the receiver is a Yamaha RX-V667. The Oppo is set as you suggest. I'm having a hard time finding out if the DSD - analog conversion in the receiver is a direct conversion. If I understand the issue, it is possible for the receiver to convert the DSD signal to PCM and then to analog?

    Incidentally, I had some .flac files in both 16/44.1 and 24/96 stereo from the same master and did a quick A/B (not blind). I could not convince myself that they sounded identical - the dynamic range sounded greater (louder louds, quieter quiets) on the 24/96 and the keyboard tones sounded a little different. I preferred the 24/96. The difference was subtle, I'm not sure I could tell which was which in a blind test.

    That setup was mac-mini using Cog -> toslink out -> receiver @ 2 channel stereo. I did not adjust the volume between listens.
     
  25. Onder

    Onder Senior Member

    But isn't the MFSL version completely different mastering? I'm not saying you can't hear the difference but it's hard to compare two formats using two different sources.

    Ondra
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine