SACD
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24005
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 17:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: SACD
Posted By: mystic fred
Subject: SACD
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:02
|
Anybody tried Super Audio Compact Discs? After hearing how wonderful this high-resolution source was claimed to be i thought i'd give it a whirl, i found the results to be mixed but overall i noticed a good improvement in some recordings. generally very full sound with increased sound stage and sonic range, even with a budget SACD player. Unfortunately the lack of rock titles is a drawback, though classical music and jazz are forging ahead into the future with this format. Prog rock artists which have had some albums released in this format are -
Moody Blues - threshold of a dream/question of balance/in search ofthe lost chord/days of future passed/childrens childrens children
Can - tago mago/future days/monster movie/soundtracks/unlimited edition (more to follow)
Peter Gabriel - plays live/up/so/us/pg1/pg2/pg3/pg4/birdy/shaking the tree/passion
Pink Floyd - dark side of the moon
Jeff Wayne - war of the worlds
Wishbone Ash - almighty blues live
Deep Purple - machine head/live at the BBC
Mostly Autumn - passengers
Mike Oldfield - tubular bells
a word from the sponsors.....
"What is the technology behind SACD?
The sound of SACD comes directly from Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording technology. DSD's simplified mechanism for recording and playback results in a frequency response of over 100kHz and a dynamic range over 120dB across the audible frequency range. DSD increases the resolution of music by more closely following the original wave form of the music, which results in music reproduction that is remarkably pure and faithful to the original. For additional information concerning the technology behind SACD, visit Sony Electronics SACD. What are the benefits of SACD? In addition to exceptional sound quality through the DSD system, the SACD format can accommodate more than four times the information of the current CD format. With this extra capacity, a standard Super Audio CD will provide space for 2-channel stereo data, as well as an area for up to 6-track multi-channel data, storage capacity for text and images, disc variations, copyright protection and much more. Will my current CD collection play on an SACD player? Yes. Super Audio CD players can play back all current CDs. Can I play a Super Audio CD on my current CD player? Only Hybrid SACDs - i.e., those containing a CD layer - can be played on CD compatible players. What is SACD Multi-channel? SACD multi-channel sound can contain as many as six separate channels, each captured on disc at the full DSD bit rate with the full DSD sound quality. Some producers will use the added channels to faithfully reproduce the precise acoustic signature of the performance space. Others will realize new creative possibilities, immersing the listener in a 360° field of sound. Multi-channel SACD takes its place beside stereo SACD as another compelling way to enjoy music. What is a Hybrid Super Audio CD (Hybrid SACD)? A Hybrid SACD contains two separate layers. One layer carries the normal CD information and the other layer contains the high density SACD information - a multichannel mix and/or stereo mix. A Hybrid SACD can be played on any CD compatible player. However, if played on a standard CD player, only the CD layer will play. The SACD layer can only be played on a SACD player. " -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:13
|
Of course there are many SACDs that suck - it's obvious that they can only sound good when the content was recorded, mixed and mastered in high quality. This website is quite helpful: http://www.sa-cd.net/ - http://www.sa-cd.net/ ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:21
i agree, i tried "layla" and it sounded muddy, worse than the vinyl, also santana's "abraxas" sounded a bit rough, but i found the peter gabriel albums, "tommy" and "a love supreme" excellent.  ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
MikeEnRegalia wrote:Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:25
|
I don't have a player ... I do have some Audio DVDs though, and I enjoy them mostly because of the 5.1 effects. It's simply nice to listen to a 5 piece band with the different instruments coming from different directions.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:33
|
from "Elliott Sound Productions" website...(maybe i invested wrongly..?) http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm - http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
"read what Ing. Öhman wrote in the Swedish Audio Technical Society * journal.
The following are quoted from what Ing. Öhman wrote in the journal:
"It is nothing less than a tragedy that Sony/Philips system SACD still is considered to be a real competitor to DVD-A, though it has lower real resolution than the CD-system in the highest octave. DVD-A does absolutely offer a much higher dynamic range than CD, but it is very questionable if SACD does. SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter. On the contrary, DVD-A is in theory 250 times better than the CD-system at all frequencies! In today's reality though, it is hard to achieve such hyper-resolution, but maybe in the future? If the potential exists, recording and playback technology can evolve. Today the DVD-A resolution is about 16 times better than the CD-system and the bandwidth extends up to 100 kHz to be compared with 22,050 Hz for CD." are our ears good enough to detect this?? ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:47
|
^ I don't know ... I doubt that all of the above statements are true. For example, CD audio is sampled at 44,100 Hz and not 22,050 Hz ... and DVD-Audio is sampled at 96,000 Hz, not 100,000 Hz.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 30 2006 at 11:55
|
Never heard a good SACD (i mean a record). One day maybe. Yeah and "Dark side" is awful. I muuch prefer the '94 remaster. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 31 2006 at 09:10
|
The theory behind SACD is good - using digital streaming and analogue filters, instead of digital brick walls that simply cut out swathes of potential sound as well as noise - but in practice, DVD-A sounds better to my ears. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 00:00
you should come round to my house, Oliver, and you'll hear some!
 i thought you'd never heard a good one? that is one of the best!! ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 06:58
| "Dark side" SACD is atrociously bumped and completly lost any "Life". |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 07:49
|
^ Apparently opinion is divided ... I wouldn't be surprised if the SACD version of DSotM was mainly bashed by older people who heard the original vinyl pressing in their youth, and appreciated by people who bought the CD version and got used to that.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:10
| I would agree with the first half of your statement but not the second: the last 94' remaster is better. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:17
|
^ I don't even know which one I have ... I'll check when I get home from work. But I don't think it's the remaster. BTW: I did listen to it on vinyl first ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:30
|
Indeed, the SACD version has lost any life.
Not to say that the 94' remaster is great... PF is poor on CD, like Beatles, another "huge" band. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:34
|
I wonder what those people would say who have never listened to vinyl. Suppose they only listen to CD/SACD ... are you sure they would prefer vinyl once they listen to it?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:37
|
Humm...depends on the playback equipment IMO.
If they listen to both on mine, they should prefer the former version, but no one is real good. the problem with this SACD version is that the low is ridiculous bumped and disgusting. But i may sounds "good" on a poor system. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:47
|
^ the people who created the SACD were no fools, and the reviews generally say that it's good. Do you really think that they optimized the mix for bad systems?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:53
|
Virtually all rock Cds are outrageously bumped.
The more i upgrade my system, the more good classical and jazz CDs work better, and the more it reveals how traffiked rock CDs are. I think it's optimized for everybody's system, or for "SACD" system with a little (false IMO) sub and many (poor IMO) speakers. That's quite logical anyway: audiophiles with real good systems are 0.01% of listeners. Beside that, IMO SACD technology is potentially better than CD. They just have to release some musical ones. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 08:56
|
^ but one would think that SACD is catered for those 0.01%. I can't think of any reason for a non-audiophile person buying SACDs. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 10:10
|
i shall dig out my old vinyl copy i got in 1973 and compare it with my SACD anniversary copy, then mike and i can report back on our findings, oliver. ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 12:38
I do agree cause the difference is too small. (and we seen that it may actually be worst than classic 16 bits CD) BTW, SACD and DVD-A doesn't work commercially, cause it interests very few people. Most people are satisfied with CD cause their system doesn't allow them to hear anything. And so they simply don't listen to it. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 12:42
Well if i remember well, you own two excellent turntables...I know who wins! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 13:11
It can be interpreted in two directions, Olivier.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 15:09
| What do you mean? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 15:23
|
i said: "I can't think of any reason for a non-audiophile person buying SACDs." You drew the conclusion that most people have crappy systems. That's offensive to anyone who doesn't buy SACDs but has a decent system ... and the other conclusion that explains why people don't buy SACD would be: Because the difference is very small - on any system. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 15:23
just to be really objective i'll do the listening test on the Linn!
(here we go, here we go, here we go... )------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 01 2006 at 15:39
| Of course the best |
Posted By: wolf0621
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 11:49
|
Most of the above discussion talks about SACD/DVD-A in terms of sound quality & that listeners aren't interested in these formats because they can't hear any audible improvements to the sound quality over 16-bit stereo cd's (or analog vinyl)...I can think of one obvious reason for non-audiophiles buying a DVD-A/SACD-capable system: they like surround sound...I'm not aware of any vinyl releases in 5(+) channels (although I did own a Realistic quad amp eons ago back in the pre-cd days, with 4 full-range speakers to match, of course, and buying some quad records...It was all the rage for about 15 minutes, sounded pretty good back then from what I recall)... The best you could do surround-wise with vinyl is to process it via the various music-oriented surround modes that are available (DPL IIx/Music works well for me most of the time), but again that's processing a stereo source to simulate a surround recording. True surround-encoded source material should yield much better/convincing results, provided that the encoding & mix of the source is up to snuff...Many producers are still experimenting with surround sound, and it doesn't help that lots of the material available consists of rereleases of original stereo recordings that most listeners are used to hearing reproduced in 2 channels. I wonder if this same type of argument was happening back when stereo LP's were first introduced & the monophonic die-hards were holding fast, or when transistors first came out...Here's an extract along those lines about inadequacies of stereo sources in creating a "surrounding" listening experience: "Stereophonic Sound was a breakthrough for consumers of the 50's and 60's, but does have limitations. Some recordings resulted in a "ping-pong" effect in which the mixing emphasized the difference in the left and right channels too much with not enough mixing of elements in the "phantom" center channel. Also, even though the sound was more realistic, the lack of ambience information, such as acoustics or other elements, left Stereophonic sound with a "wall effect" in which everything hit you from front and lacked the natural sound of back wall reflections or other acoustic elements" - from: hometheater.about.com, by Robert Silva
Also, the way DVD-A/SACD were marketed was a killer. No real "victor" emerged from this "format war" & I suspect that considerable listener confusion exists regarding these formats. Anyone who already has a surround-sound setup (most likely for video) can add a DVD-A or SACD-capable player, the price tags of which are very reasonable for many models...There's of course the problem of taking those discs on the road, I doubt that most listeners' car audio systems & portable players are surround-capable. Many discs do come with stereo versions of the surround material, or players can "down-convert" from 6 channels to 2 (just to ensure that the discs are still "playable" on other equipment)...
I wonder what makes music inherently more "musical" when it's in stereo (vs surround), but that same argument isn't generally made for movie soundtracks that accompany video, where surround is accepted & preferred & there doesn't seem to be a big public outcry to release these on 2-channel dvd's or vinyl. Anyone out there collecting stereo-only releases of dvd's?
Finally, the assembly process of recording music, using initial multiple discreet tracks that are finally downmixed to stereo to create the final product, would seem to me to potentially benefit from skipping that final downmixing, or blending of different channels. If some of those channels can be kept discreet, as they were initially recorded, it would seem to get us closer to how the music was laid down. Of course the quality of the actual final product depends greatly on the producer's skill, but conceptually I don't see why this multi-channel approach shouldn't/couldn't be superior to stereo in creating a more lifelike audio image. I'm sure there are awful SACD & DVD-A rereleases (and new releases), just like there are terrible vinyl & stereo cd releases, but there are probably some really good ones as well...
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 12:29
|
"Also, even though the sound was more realistic, the lack of ambience information, such as acoustics or other elements, left Stereophonic sound with a "wall effect" in which everything hit you from front and lacked the natural sound of back wall reflections or other acoustic elements"
This guy has not heard a well working and optimized system -so which features 3d effect-. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 13:44
|
^ nonsense. In any normal room the sound hits you from all directions with any system you use. The difference with 5.1 is that here the instruments can be placed at a certain position in the 3D mix ... and while some 5.1 mixes are not particularly inventive, some are mind blowingly good!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: wolf0621
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 15:26
|
^Yes, it's a matter of control...In a surround mix one can control fairly precisely where the sounds are coming from, just like in real life, and those sounds can actually be panned across the available channels... Imagine sitting in a room with 4 walls, a floor & a ceiling. Someone standing behind you claps his hands, where do you perceive the source of that sound to be? Behind you, even though the claps are also bouncing off the walls, ceiling & floor as well and reaching your ears fractions of a second later from those sources too. These delayed sounds contain spatial cues that give your brain a sense of the size of the room & ambience (or echo in really large spaces)...
With a stereo sound source, say a recording of that same hand clap played back on a good stereo system & where the speakers are in the front of the room facing you, where do you perceive the source of the sound to be? Is it still behind you? Maybe you can perform some magic on the room itself & make that happen, but what about the next recorded sound, that was recorded right next to you & 5 feet up along the side wall? And isn't it much easier to manipulate the recorded sound than to physically change the room around to make it work? Good multichannel recordings take the intended soundstage & replicate it through the use of the separate channels, plus control over sound reflections. The listener usually is able to manipulate parameters such as speaker distance & delay times to match the actual room dimensions, with the idea that any properly recorded & mastered mutichannel recording will sound similarly "good" in that same space when played back on that same equipment. Actual results vary based on the recording itself...
Therefore, multichannel formats are attempting to bring the listener closer to real-life sonic events than stereo can get, which to me is a good thing...
 (MER, good to be on the same side for once...Keep on tubing!) |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 16:46
|
Earlier in the thread we were discussing comparing an original vinyl copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" with the SACD Anniversary edition. The lp was played on a Linn Sondek LP12 with ittok tonearm fitted with Audio Technica ATL440 stylus and the SACD on a budget Sony XB770 (set on stereo), both connected to a Rotel RA971 amp, and Heybrook HB2 speakers.
Both sounded very clear and precise with good imaging but overall i found the biggest difference in the vinyl, apart from a little surface noise during quiet passages of course, sounded less bass-heavy, sharper, more natural and incisive - it fared very well indeed! The SACD seemed to sound much more full, stable and solid, and sometimes the vocals seemed slightly laid back, but at times the vinyl was more spacious and airy, with more forward sounding vocals, and the "clocks" from the vinyl really made me jump. Also you could say the vinyl sounded "wetter" than the SACD, but on "money" and "us and them" the imaging on the SACD seemed rather more solid and convincing, but at other times, especially on "lunatic", the vinyl really shone, and on some of the saxophone and guitar solos, they seemed to sound a bit "dirtier". Overall i'd say the SACD was smooth, sumptuous, weighty and refined and the vinyl seemed a bit more wet, alive and incisive. As far as surface noise is concerned, in the words of John Peel - "i like a bit of surface noise...life has surface noise"..! Each had their pros and cons, but i think the vinyl fared very well for a 33 year old record. ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|