Thread: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT SACD?

Posts: 289
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 29 next

Post by Ernani71 August 31, 2010 (1 of 289)
Hello to the SA-CD community! I am considering buying an SACD player, but when I started reading about SACD technology on the Internet I encountered information that was highly contradictory, some people swearing by SACD and others totally debunking the belief that SACD is any better than regular CD. I am no longer even sure I want to buy an SACD player after reading some very negative stuff about it. For instance, one comment that is really making me think twice is from the Acousence record label website:

"We have not yet produced any SACDs at ACOUSENCE to date [note: they finally released one since this was written, but then they seemed to stop and have gone vinyl] because we were far from convinced of the musical result when we performed our own experiments using the DSD (Direct Stream Digital) recording procedure for SACD, not to mention a strange tone colouration and unnaturalness in the timbre and tone structures of individual instruments. External productions that we have heard so far also gave no occasion for us to believe that anything else could be achieved with this medium at all. As can be read in various professional articles written by ACOUSENCE's label chief, Ralf Koschnicke, temporal resolution plays a very significant role in music transfer, and in this respect, the DSD recording method of SACDs is open to criticism. Although the transmission range in this method is not sharply restricted by filters, as with a CD, the high frequency noise inherent in the system starts at 20 kHz already, so that the signal parts that are so essential to the musical fine structure are easily masked by signal noise, which ultimately leads to a similar result as the one effected by filtering in a CD."

Acousence is more convinced by DVD-Audio, which is their digital medium of choice. When researching SACD, I encountered a lot of comments like the above. For instance, here is what Wikipedia says:

"In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings. However, In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone. The authors suggested that different mixes for the two formats might be causing perceived differences, and commented: 'Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.' This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community. Some have questioned the basic methodology and the equipment used in the AES study. Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard. However, DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz. Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content."

I also read an article about this reviewer who swore by SACD who took a bet wagered by a guy who didn't believe in SACD. The bet was whether the SACD guy would be able to tell the difference between SACD and CD in a carefully set up test, and it turned out that the SACD guy was able to identify SACD only less than half of the time! What does it mean when somebody who raves about SACD can't even tell the difference in most cases?

After reading all the negative stuff, it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. I mean, if "it has been shown [that] people cannot distinguish" between DSD and PCM in most cases, where's the case for SACD? No wonder it's called a dead or dying format. I've read all the stuff about how the frequencies we can't hear affect those that we DO hear and how our bodies sense higher frequencies even if we don't actually hear them, but the results of the studies are (or at least sound) pretty devastating for SACD. I bet a lot of people who read that Wikipedia article are totally turned off from wanting to pursue SACD.

In defense of SACD, I did find a Philoctetes round table on youtube entitled "Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters" which features several audio engineers (people who have worked with the likes of Elvis Costello and Peter Gabriel). About 50 minutes into the discussion, the topic of SACD comes up, and almost all the people in the round table agreed that SACD was not only a vast improvement over Redbook CDs, but went so far as to claim that SACDs are basically a faithful reproduction of the master tape (!), which is quite a claim.

So -- what's a pair of ears to do? Are SACDs really better than CDs? Is DVD-Audio better than SACD? Do I get the Oppo that can play both SACD and DVD-A, or do I get the Pioneer than can only play SACD? Or do I just keep listening to CDs? Help!

Post by Polly Nomial August 31, 2010 (2 of 289)
Listen to a MCH system and a few MCH SACD's (I note that your preference generally seems to be for acoustic music, ideal for this set-up) - if you can't tell the difference between stereo (what RBCD is limited to) and MCH (what almost all modern acoustic SACD recordings provide), then go visit your local ENT clinic!

Any of the non-RCA Living Stereo releases in the classical section of the Top Library part of this website will surely astonish you sonically as well as artistically (likewise for the Top Recommendations).

Happy listening

PN

Post by rammiepie August 31, 2010 (3 of 289)
Every once in a while I turn off my big screen TV and play SACDs and DVD~As.

Is it better than Vinyl?

A tough question since I've been out of the vinyl arena for years [some of the newer, pricey SACD stereo~ only players do equal vinyl, though].

Is it better than DVD~A.

That also depends on the player. The Meridian 800 is the best but the OPPO BDP~83 with a few necessary (actually mandatory tweaks) can play DVD~A quite convincingly and the SACD playback in multi~channel is superb!

A good SACD (or any hi def 5" optical disc for that matter) is upon close scrutiny the equal of vinyl, certainly better than 95% of RBCDs and is capable of transcending the listener to another realm......without the inherent imperfections of vinyl { incursions known as ticks and pops} and the absolute presence of the orchestra, singer or solo violin lets you in on another secret........that the sound is something very special.......without doubt, better than rbcd (except a very few like XRCD some DTS discs and some Japanese imports)

SACD IS worth it and it's only getter better

And there's no turning back!*

(if you do, there is a 10 step recovery program where former MP3 junkies hang!)

Post by audioholik August 31, 2010 (4 of 289)
Ernani71 said:

I encountered a lot of comments like the above. For instance, here is what Wikipedia says:

"...Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard. However, DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz."

After reading all the negative stuff, it makes me wonder if all you SA-CD.net people aren't a bit looney.

I wouldn't necessarily say the above statement was that much negative. Do you think that people listening to SACD and 24/176,4 recordings are looney?

My advice? I guess it's best to hear SACD for yourself.

Post by DownUnder August 31, 2010 (5 of 289)
I for one, don't feel I have to convince you about SACD. Listen with your own ears and draw your own conclusions. Its not like you couldn't organize some listening tests around your area.

Your post seems so "troll-ish" to me.

Regards

Post by Ernani71 August 31, 2010 (6 of 289)
DownUnder said:
Your post seems so "troll-ish" to me.

Maybe it seems "troll-ish" to you because I'm asking for advice?

Post by rognvaldr August 31, 2010 (7 of 289)
Ernani71 said:

Maybe it seems "troll-ish" to you because I'm asking for advice?

No, it sounds troll-ish because it seems like you already made up your mind. It doesn't give the impression at all that you're seeking advice.

With all the arguments that you're presenting against SACD there's no way anyone will convince you otherwise. After all, you quote from Wikipedia so it must be true, right?

Personally I took part in double blind tests once and my score was 83%. The ones I had missed were SACD's that were known not to sound very good to begin with (I recall an SACD from CCR being amongst those for example).
In the end a lot of it comes down to personal taste imho when deciding what sounds best, but at least it's a way to escape the brickwalled RBCD's.

I have no surround sound setup btw. I only listen to stereo with and without headphones.

Mike

Post by michi August 31, 2010 (8 of 289)
Wait... 176.4 vs DSD --- what, like you can opt for 176.4 instead?

Very little is out on DVD-A. Nothing is being released on it anymore. That's not true with SACD.

Your choice is between 44.1/16 and DSD; not 176.4/24 and DSD.

Personally I think that the differences between high rate PCM and DSD are ... minor... compared to the difference either DSD or 176.4/192 PCM vs 44.1/16.

Repeatedly I have to remind people that sound quality does not only manifest itself in immediate recognition A/B tests, but in the involvement you get 1/2 hr into a disc vs getting "fatigued" and turning it off. Not all differences are immediately recognizable.

A subtle difference is not an invalid difference.

SACD players are available for extremely low costs right now. (Even Sony's entry level Blu-ray players will do it now.) -- and, there are some highly recommended discs you can try without having to put forth any sort of intense investment.

However, if you've convinced yourself it's horrible, it sounds like your mind has been made up.

Post by Ernani71 August 31, 2010 (9 of 289)
Polly Nomial said:

Listen to a MCH system and a few MCH SACD's

Thanks -- thing is I don't like trying systems out in stores. I would only test SACDs out in the comfort of my own home after I buy an SACD player, which I'm pretty sure I will do soon.

Post by Ernani71 August 31, 2010 (10 of 289)
rammiepie said:

Vinyl?

... the OPPO BDP~83 with a few necessary (actually mandatory tweaks) can play DVD~A quite convincingly and the SACD playback in multi~channel is superb!

I debated getting a record player. My dad had a great vinyl-centered system, and I have great memories of that. But not too many new classical recordings are being issued on vinyl, so I decided against it.

The OPPO BDP-83 is one of the SACD players I'm thinking about getting. I read that universal disc players try to do too much and consequently sacrifice on sound, but the OPPO seems to be an exception. I was also thinking about the Pioneer PD-D6-J. I set $700 as my limit for a player.

What are the OPPO tweaks? By the way, I hear that taking a green marker and coloring the sides (rim) of your discs is a pretty good tweak for discs, strange as it may sound.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 29 next

Closed