Thread: SACD and DVD-A - No Point?

Posts: 71
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Post by dkdc April 4, 2008 (1 of 71)
Anyone have any research to counter this info - and to support my investment in SACDs?

From http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=200060#Post200060

As to human hearing and the supposed benefits of much higher sampling rates (48 kHz, 96 kHz and higher vs the standard CD rate of 44.1 khz/16-bit) there isn't any point, because the conventional 44.1 kHz sampling rate of standard CD recordings will fully cover the uppermost limits of human hearing. Indeed, after our teen years, most males can't hear anything above 15 kHz. Not that it matters, because there is little or no musical information of interest in those ultra-high frequencies.

The best DVD-A and SACD recordings sound "better" to many enthusiasts mostly because greater care is taken in the recording and engineering. These formats also permit a bigger dynamic range, but even here, conventional CD will cover the audible dynamic range of the most extreme orchestral or instrumental dynamics.

In fact, a recent study presented at a meeting of the Audio Engineering Society showed that a large sample of recording engineers and enthusiasts were unable to detect the presence of a 44.1-kHz, 16-bit A-to-D and D-to-A converter in a line-level music signal. ---->>>> In other words, they couldn't distinguish any difference in standard CD recording and the high sampling rate DVD-A and SACD standards.

Post by dkdc April 4, 2008 (2 of 71)
And later Alan Lofft said in an email to me:

"I do believe that the multi-channel recording capabilities of the high-resolution formats, SACD and DVD-Audio, are highly worthwhile and do enhance musical realism.

But the higher sampling rates don't seem to yield any audible benefits when they're carefully compared to the standard CD rates."

So, stereo SACDs are a complete waste of money - get the remastered redbook versions?

Post by Ear April 4, 2008 (3 of 71)
Well, I do hear a difference. A SACD can be played much louder and still sound good, while the CD hurts my ears at some point. But maybe this is just my personal feeling.

Post by Claude April 4, 2008 (4 of 71)
Two things about the message you linked:

- The main advantage of SACD over CD (not considering the multichannel features) is not the more extended frequency range, but the higher resolution. SACDs contain much more information over the whole frequency range.

- Don't rely on the results of some listening tests others have done. Many people think hi-rez is not worth it, many others find it adds a lot. The important thing is what YOU hear. The best would be to borrow a SACD player and a few hybrid discs (for SACD/CD comparision) and try them on your system at home.

Also keep in mind:

- Don't expect a $200 SACD player to sound significantly better than a $200 CD player. High quality software also needs high quality hardware

- Don't expect every SACD reissue to sound better than the CD version. With analogue recordings, the quality of the mastering is more important than the format. A true SACD/CD format comparision can only be made when both discs use the same mastering. That's usually the case with hybrid discs, but not on all.

Post by Claude April 4, 2008 (5 of 71)
dkdc said:


So, stereo SACDs are a complete waste of money - get the remastered redbook versions?

Why "remastered"?

Remastered does not automatically mean better sounding. Finding the best sounding version of one recordings (on CD, SACD or LP) can be very time-consuming and expensive, as there is no general rule on how to find them without listening or relying on the advice of people whose ears you can trust.

Post by Uncle Dudley April 4, 2008 (6 of 71)
Claude said:

Two things about the message you linked:

- The main advantage of SACD over CD (not considering the multichannel features) is not the more extended frequency range, but the higher resolution. SACDs contain much more information over the whole frequency range.

- Don't rely on the results of some listening tests others have done. Many people think hi-rez is not worth it, many others find it adds a lot. The important thing is what YOU hear. The best would be to borrow a SACD player and a few hybrid discs (for SACD/CD comparision) and try them on your system at home.

Also keep in mind:

- Don't expect a $200 SACD player to sound significantly better than a $200 CD player. High quality software also needs high quality hardware

- Don't expect every SACD reissue to sound better than the CD version. With analogue recordings, the quality of the mastering is more important than the format. A true SACD/CD format comparision can only be made when both discs use the same mastering. That's usually the case with hybrid discs, but not on all.

"Don't expect a $200 SACD player to sound significantly better than a $200 CD player"

I recently bought a Sony SCD-CE595 at BestBuy for $150. The sound of SACDs in this machine is absolutely amazing while the regular CDs sound just like regular CDs. I am so hooked on the SACD format with the machine that I can't listen to anything else. If you don't believe me buy this machine and see for yourself. If you don't like the sound (impossible) you can take it back to BB for a full refund within 2 weeks.

Post by dkdc April 4, 2008 (7 of 71)
Claude said:

Why "remastered"?

Remastered does not automatically mean better sounding. Finding the best sounding version of one recordings (on CD, SACD or LP) can be very time-consuming and expensive, as there is no general rule on how to find them without listening or relying on the advice of people whose ears you can trust.

Point taken - I should have said buy the best sounding version.

Post by dkdc April 4, 2008 (8 of 71)
Claude said:

Two things about the message you linked:

- The main advantage of SACD over CD (not considering the multichannel features) is not the more extended frequency range, but the higher resolution. SACDs contain much more information over the whole frequency range.

Higher resolution - that is particularly what I asked Mr. Lofft in my email - and he said - those two panels could hear no difference.

But, as they say, one study is as good as no studies. And to establish something scientifically you need repeated studies all finding the same result.

Post by dkdc April 4, 2008 (9 of 71)
Claude said:

- Don't rely on the results of some listening tests others have done. Many people think hi-rez is not worth it, many others find it adds a lot. The important thing is what YOU hear. The best would be to borrow a SACD player and a few hybrid discs (for SACD/CD comparision) and try them on your system at home.

Thanks for your response

What I hear? Or what I think I hear? Or want to hear? Studies based on more data yeild more accurate results, I would think.

I do have an SACD machine - the old Pioneer 563A that is supposed to be good aside from bass management issues.

---

On a tangent - I suppose, though, that if one bought into what Lofft is saying - then one would believe that Sony / Phillips knew about this since they were investing so much money into the SACD technology. Therefore, the naysayers are pretty much accusing Sony Phillips of a kind of fraud - saying that it would sound better when they knew it would not.

By the way - I just bought another SACD between my first two posts and now - Two parts of Respighi's Rome trilogy by Reiner / CSO. But, they didn't have the remastered redbook version at the store.

Post by Claude April 4, 2008 (10 of 71)
Uncle Dudley said:

"Don't expect a $200 SACD player to sound significantly better than a $200 CD player"

I recently bought a Sony SCD-CE595 at BestBuy for $150. The sound of SACDs in this machine is absolutely amazing while the regular CDs sound just like regular CDs. I am so hooked on the SACD format with the machine that I can't listen to anything else. If you don't believe me buy this machine and see for yourself. If you don't like the sound (impossible) you can take it back to BB for a full refund within 2 weeks.

My experience was with $400 players only, I haven't tried cheaper ones.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Closed