Steve's SACD sound quality (DSD versus Redbook layers)

How do you categorize, to your own ears, on the same equipment, the difference between the Redbook (standard CD) and DSD (SACD) layers on the Hybrid discs that Steve has released so far (Zombies, Richie Valens, John Lee Hooker, etc).

If you wish, feel free to elaborate on your thoughts, describe the setup you used for this comparison, and so on.

If you haven't compared, or didn't use the same setup (at least amplification and speakers), please don't vote in the poll!

 

Big difference to me, but that's because the SACD encode is so much more dynamic and forward.

For someone else, it might be slight. I rarely listen to the discs without listening to the SACD layer.

I'm sure most members would say it's slight, but it's still night and day. Does that make sense?

 

I can't vote because I only listen to the SACD layer at home and only listen to the redbook layer on my PC at work.

There is not comparison between the Altec Lansing ACS90 computer speakers at work an the Apogee Dueta Signatures at home.

 

The tone is pretty consistent, but the little details come to life with the hi-rez SACD layer. Reverb/echo, cymbal splashes that hang and shimmer, drum heads that sound like skin stretched tight and ready to snap - I love those SACD's!

 

My vote for Quantum Leap will show up as more SACD's that come out will keep getting better and better. So that even remaster's of the original SACD mixes will be wanted and needed.

 

I own an inexpensive Sony SACD player. For the most part, differences between the redbook and SACD layers are very subtle. I would have to say that Steve's redbook layers are very good. I don't hear a significant difference between the two layers.

 

I own several of Steve's Cd/SACD hybrids but I don't have an SACD player and have no plans to get one. The CD layers all sound great though.

 

Hi,

My vote was....... "Substantial difference, always noticable". Geez..... imo, that's a pretty strong statement in and of itself. Dunno how i can say "Almost like night and day" or "A genuine quantum leap" when the redbook layer is pretty freakin' good and i still prefer vinyl to even SACD.

-Jeffrey

 

I didn't vote. Similar to David, I have only listened to the CD layers in the car and office and the SACD layers at home. I've meaning to do some comparisons. All I can say is that Steve's SACD layers sound incredible.

 

I voted "There's a difference?" - because I honestly have no idea.

I've never listened to the Redbook layer of any of the ~290 hybrids I own, and I doubt that I ever will. Life is too short.

Regards,
Geoff

 

After endlessly reading all the SACD hype, I've felt the need to check out SACD for myself. For the past week I have had on loan a Sony SCD-XA777ES. I should also mention that the only SACDs I own are a handful of the Rolling Stones reissues (Aftermath UK, Between the Buttons UK, Their Satanic Majesties Request, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and The London Years). I then went out and purchased the Zombies SACD for comparison.

First of all, I'll state that both layers of all the above discs sound quite good, mastering-wise. (Please, let's leave aside the take selections and other issues which occur on some of the Stones discs. I am talking strictly about the sound here.)

My normal redbook CD rig consists of a Pioneer Elite PD65 as a transport and a Van Alstine Transcendence DAC. Comparing the Sony's redbook playback to the Van Alstine DAC (when hooked up to the XA777ES), it did not surprise me in the least that the difference between the Sony's internal redbook playback and the Van Alstine was night and day. I'd rate the Sony's own redbook playback as "quite good" and the Van Alstine's as "out of this world", which is why I bought it in the first place.

What did surprise me, however, was how the Van Alstine DAC (redbook layer, of course) consistently trounced the SACD layer of each and every hybrid listed above, viz. better imaging, wider soundstage, more subtle detail, more warmth, less grain. Thus, I've concluded that I much prefer the redbook layer of the above discs as played through the Van Alstine over the SACD layer played through the Sony's electronics.

So what to make of this? Here are a few insights and speculations. Bear with me and entertain the following:

1) It can be argued that comparing an $1800 44.1/16 bit tube DAC to solid state SACD (even if it is Sony's current flagship model) is not entirely fair. But this is the real world; Sony does not allow for the option of using a high resolution DAC (nor, of course, does Van Alstine make one). We are forced to make do with what we have and can (read: are allowed to) use.

2) Assuming that the redbook layer is not deliberately crippled or otherwise futzed with, perhaps the prosaic truth is that the full sonic spectrum and fine detail of these vintage 60s recordings can be captured and heard in their entirety on 44.1/16 - provided of course that a superior DAC is used to decode it at the endstage. Of course I'd grant that pure DSD recordings might be another matter entirely, although this remains to be seen/heard.

3) I’m well aware that SACD (and high resolution PCM, for that matter) is a relatively new and immature technology and will improve, just as 44.1/16 has. I'm certain that it will. But that is neither here nor there, with regard to the issue at hand.

4) The mantra around these forums – and one that I happen to agree with – is “it’s all in the mastering, regardless of format”. And for the time being, my listening experiments force me to conclude that SACD is a hype that fails to deliver. Certainly the industry has its own cynical reasons for introducing high-resolution formats (reselling back catalogue for the umpteenth time, selling new hardware, retaining exclusive patents, raising prices, attempts to restrict Fair Use, introduction of a new generation of expensive studio and mastering equipment, etc.), but does this truly benefit the music fan in any significant way? (Let’s leave gimmicky multi-channel playback out of this for now.)

5) Now please correct me if I am wrong, but time and again I have read comments from Mr. Hoffman stating that such-and-such a CD “sounds like the master tape”. If this is indeed so, and if I have understood his comments correctly, then he appears to be stating that redbook CD can adequately reproduce the sonic signature of the master, and therefore what would be the point of a new “high resolution” format? To sound more like the master tape already sounds? This makes no sense. (Again, a pure DSD or high resolution PCM recording may be another case entirely – at least in theory.)

Let’s get down to brass tacks. As many have pointed out, cheaper SACD players and cheaper equipment will produce little or no discernible sonic improvement over redbook CD. My experience is at the other end of the spectrum – a well-designed 44.1/16 DAC offers superior sound reproduction to a top of the line SACD player. The question then becomes “is 44.1/16 playback really more than adequate?” As of now, I’d have to say “yes”.

Comments greatly appreciated!

 

I can't vote, 'cause I've also only listened to the SACD layers. Sheer heaven, why go elsewhere if I don't have to.

Jeff

 

The differences are great. The tonality of things like cymbals and reverbs actually change when you jump into DSD land... and I mean that in good way. I suspect the DSD layer is capturing things far more accurately than the PCM layer can. That's why they felt the need to invent DSD... for archiving recordings. They needed something with superior resolution than anything else so it could retain all the details in the original recordings. I'm sure you guys have read the various interviews with those big named mastering engineers saying they consider DSD to be the new analog (their words, not mine). Bob Ludwig has mentioned it in all those interviews about the Stones' discs. He thought his switcher was broken when he couldn't detect the difference between the straight analog and DSD sources. Pretty amazing!

As for Steve's SACDs, if you don't hear the resolution differences between the PCM and DSD layers you should look into your system. Is your receiver converting the signal to PCM for processing such as bass management, EQ (no matter if it's on or off), artificial ambiance, etc? I wasn't hearing any differences with my system so I looked into my Sony ES receiver. I discovered the first thing it does is convert any analog sources to PCM (24/96) and process it. I had to go a different route do take advantage of my SACDs. Most of Sony's ES line now has an analog direct mode just for SACDs.

Wow, what a long post. Sorry.

 

Very interesting post. I do notice a difference in the Rolling Stones "Let it Bleed" SACD between the redbook and the SACD layer. The guitars sound more natural. However, the other SACDs I have, I can only say I that I hear subtle differences. Maybe I am expecting too much. I thought the difference would be dramatic; it is not for me. My Yamaha HTR-5250 receiver has inputs for an external decoder (all six channels), so I don't think my equipment is the problem (I could be wrong, though).

 

A few more thoughts, a lot of SACDs have been sourced from PCM masters. You would get no improvement in sound quality.

A HUGE problem is most modern home theater type receivers convert any analog signals to PCM which would negate any extended resolution from the DSD layer.

You really need to hear the differences in a controlled environment. I've heard comparisons done by some of the big mastering guys. The differences are anything but insignificant. High res PCM sounded grainy after hearing the DSD converters. Michael Bishop (Telarc) played a recording on a modest hi-fi- set up at a local AES meeting. The differences were huge. Everyone in the room was blown away. The timbre of the trumpets actually changed (more digital sounding) when he played the 24/96 version. It changed more when he played the 16 bit version.

I've heard Tom Jung, Doug Sax and Hank Williams (among others) do similar tests. Without fail DSD sounded better. I know these guys aren't stepping up and making public statements (far too political of an environment for that) but in private conversations they've said they hope DSD becomes the new standard.

 

But I would also say that the tonality of cymbals and reverb changes when I switch between the XA777ES's internal redbook playback and the Van Alstine DAC. Yes, I do think that the SACD layer sounds better than the redbook layer when both are played through the Sony unit's internal DACs. It is when I play the redbook layer through the external DAC that SACD performance sounds noticeably lacking.

I apologize if I haven't been clear enough about this.

My real point here is that, yes, I see the benefit of higher resolution, higher bit recording and mastering (and archiving). What I am questioning is whether it is truly necessary to have higher resolution, higher bit PLAYBACK.

Of course one could easily say that what is really needed here is a better SACD DAC, one that could blow away the Van Alstine redbook DAC. And you may be correct. But I am saying that the Sony XA777ES doesn't have it!

Let's go further into the realm of speculation then. What would be the limit of adequate sound reproduction? At what point do high resolutions and multiple bits become overkill? In theory, a 44.1/16 playback system should be able to duplicate bit-for-bit a 44.1/16 recording. And provided there is a competent mastering job, we also know that a 44.1/16 playback system can do an excellent job reproducing a higher resolution source tape. Can it be better? I don't know - that's exactly what i am trying to find out!

If, all things being equal (i.e. the mastering), the generally perceived improvements of SACD/DVD-A over "lowly" redbook CD are a matter of debate even among the most "golden-eared" audiophiles, then I think that there are some important, unanswered questions here.

Yesman, I don't believe that this is a DSD vs. PCM issue. If the sampling rates and bits are high enough, PCM could also sound indistinguishable from an analogue source. The question (again) is what exactly would be the target rate. Is 192/24 enough? Too much? Would, say, 892427272/67898 (a number I just made up) be overkill? Where does it end?

Sony/Philips have their own reasons for devoping DSD. (Can you say "patent royalties"?). Keep in mind that the introduction of these new formats has virtually everything to do with business and little to do with pleasing the ears of audiophiles.

I suppose that the bottom-line question generated from these speculations can only be answered (if they can be) by psychoacoustics ("what are the limits of human hearing?").

I am not trying to make this another horrid "redbook vs. hi-rez" debate or "DSD vs. PCM" slugfest. If I wanted that childish nonsense I'd hang out at Audio Asylum! If my experience would show that SACD sounded better than redbook I'd have no problem with that, so be it. I didn't enter into my comparisons with any bias; I simply felt that I'd prefer the one which produced the best sound. And, for now, in this case, it happens to be redbook via a specific DAC.

What is interesting to me is that the redbook layer sounds better with the Van Alstine DAC than the SACD layer sounds via a highly-touted SACD player. And the implications of that tell me that this is not a trivial matter to be brushed aside. This brings up hard questions that many audiophiles prefer not to consider, but I am not among them.

 

Pepzhez,

There is tremendous potential in SACD.

I can easily see where a virtually hand-made Redbook DAC can compete with, and surpass in specifric areas, a mass-produced SACD player like the XA-777ES. Bob Neil on Positive Feedback had similar things to say about the sound of the $15,000 Audio Note 4.1x DAC.

But when one of these SACD players is given the same care and attention (modification) that Van Alstine gives to his work, then the inherent advantages of the higher resolution, when combined with an analogue output stage that's not throttling the sound, produces a sound that is superior to even the best Redbook.

This is also true for a machine like the Meitner, which is designed from the ground up to be state of the art. I still think we have much to learn about SACD, and how to make the most of this signal.

With all respect to The Zombies and The Stones SACDs (I have them too), I suggest you try an SACD that's made from better material. Say one of the pure DSD Sonys or pure DSD Telarcs.

I think with a better recording you may start to experience some of the SACD magic. I just don't think I could be happy with the conclusion you have reached based on The Zombies and The Rolling Stones SACDs. As loveable as these are, these are not state of the art.

Regards,
Geoff

 

The latest THE ABSOLUTE SOUND has said much the same thing about the Meitner.

 

To me the biggest problem is that most home theatre receivers really don't sound that good.

It's finally starting to change, but in my reviewing I've struggled to find HT receivers that sound as good on music as a modest Rotel 931mk2 integrated amplifier.

If any one is using a HT receiver, then I believe you're missing a lot of what's on your discs, be they CD, SACd or DVD-A

 

$9,000!?!

 

Geoff, if this is indeed the case (and I'm beginning to think that it is), then you have confirmed my suspicion: SACD offers no benefit to recordings such as these! Provided that this is correct, you are stating that any SACD that is not a pure DSD recording is no better than a well-mastered redbook CD.

Ergo, non-"pure" DSD (i.e., 99.99999999% of all the world's extant masters) recordings transferred to SACD = unnecessary; no real sonic improvement; marketing hype.

Well I could be blunt and ask in the following manner: Mr. Hoffman, do you agree with Geoff's statements? Do you really feel that the SACD layer of your Zombies disc is sonically better than the redbook layer? More to the point: is the redbook layer sonically capable of fully reproducing the Zombies master tape or not? I fully understand the political and pragmatic reasons you may have if you do not care to answer this question honestly.

It seems to me that we would have to take everything on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps a DSD recording requires DSD playback in order to achieve full sonic potential; perhaps redbook CD is more than enough for, say, a Joe Meek master tape. Is "Telstar" or "Just Like Eddie" going to sound any better on SACD than it does on Hoffman's well-mastered redbook?

So, if this is true, if the Stones, Zombies, Beatles, (insert the name of any recording pre-DSD), et al. really don't really benefit from the SACD treatment, then there exists no truly justifiable reason for a spate of SACD remasters when redbook is more than adequate - other than the music industry selling you these titles (and attendant hardware) once again.

I'm not being needling; I'm just asking the question(s)!

Too many variables and unclear info here. Perhaps they needed to use better PCM converters. Regardless, logic would therefore dictate the following: non-"pure" DSD SACD = unnecessary; no real sonic improvement; marketing hype.

I've not heard the Meitner. But nor do I own any pure DSD recordings that would benefit from it. I would imagine that Van Alstine could very well make an SACD DAC that is far superior to any stock Sony DAC. The only problem is that there's no way to get the damn signal to the DAC (thanks a lot, Sony!). We can talk about controlled conditions all we want, but we have to deal with the real world limitations, whether impsoed by Sony or not.

Again, you make the implicit case that SACD is only good for new, all-DSD recordings. All well and good - for DSD recordings - and perhaps the $9,000 SACD player. What about everything else?

 

Pepzhez,

please don't put words in people's mouth that they did not say. If you're after confrontation arguments, then there are plenty of places you can find them on the internet. But not here - Steve and the Gorts put in too much effort to have it destroyed by this crap.