SACD Vs. CD, has anyone compared them?

[dr*audio]

I am just curious; has anyone here taken a SACD version of a CD and compared it with the CD version on the same SACD player? What is the difference you hear in the sound, if any?
I have 3 Onkyo Integra CD players and I find it difficult to believe anything can sound better. If I'm sitting there listening to Amanda McBroom and it sounds like she's right there in the room with me, or listening to an orchestra or a quartet and I feel like I'm right there in the hall with them and I can hear pages turning and chairs creaking and point out where individual musicians are, and feel like there is depth to the soundstage and width beyond the speakers; basically it is totally involving and musical; then what could possibly be an improvement?
I feel that most people are satisfied with CD quality (well, most people wouldn't know the difference between Yorx and Audio Research) and for that reason the recording industry is not going to get behind SACD and put out releases in that format anyway. This basically means the format is doomed.
So I would like to know what the advantages are of this new format and why we should fight to keep it alive?

 

[wsjoe]

I went to a hifi store in Los Angeles and heard an Arcam with SACD and regular CD. The SACD sounded a little softer maybe because it's more spatial.

At CES2005 and heard many systems with SACD but not an A/B comparision with CD. And basically, to get the true SACD effect you need a good receiver that can decode all that extra information and of course, extra set of speakers. I heard $100k plus systems and they do sound good, but for the same money, I will always go for a good old 2channel stereo.

I would leave multi channel stuff for movies only.

wsjoe

 

[ByrdWyngs]

SACD does sound better but it can be hard to do a direct apples to apples comparison even in the same player. A lot of SACD's are remastered and/or different mixes than the original CD or vinyl release so some of the differences aren't a result of the media. In general though a good SACD will sound fuller, less 'edgy', and more natural than a CD, closer to vinyl. Most SACD's do have a 2 channel mix so you don't have to go multi channel if you don't want to.

 

[MannyE]

SACD does sound better but it can be hard to do a direct apples to apples comparison even in the same player. A lot of SACD's are remastered and/or different mixes than the original CD or vinyl release so some of the differences aren't a result of the media. In general though a good SACD will sound fuller, less 'edgy', and more natural than a CD, closer to vinyl. Most SACD's do have a 2 channel mix so you don't have to go multi channel if you don't want to.

And right there, what you said has always been my argument against spending money on SACD. Why OH why would I put a dime into SACD if I can get better results from vinyl?

I understand that there might come a time when I will see a certain artist released on SACD and have no other way of hearing it, but I see that day as a long way off. Most anything I want want to hear, and that most people want to hear, is available is available on CD or vinyl.

 

[uofmtiger]

Most anything I want want to hear, and that most people want to hear, is available is available on CD or vinyl.

Advantages over CDs:

Many albums are remastered from the original masters with SACD in mind. In this case, they sound better than their CD counterparts. You can hear a big difference on Dylan, Clapton, and many other albums..

RCA Living Stereo, for example, has remasted their SACDs to sound more like the orginal tapes. In some cases, this means they have given the SACD users the ability to hear the third channel that was part of the original recording. http://www.livingstereo-sacd.com/sacd/index.jsp

Many people already have at least 5.1 speakers setup in their home theaters. With multi-channel recordings, they can get more separation of instruments and get a fuller sound. Telarc is know for specifically recording SACDs with this in mind.

Hybrid SACDs are in the same price range as CDs, so I see no reason to buy the CD instead of the SACD for the reasons above. I would not reinvest in many of my albums that I already own on CD, but given the choice, I will always take Hybrid SACD over CD.

Advantages over Vinyl:

Price and/or availability: It is very difficult to find perfect used copies of many vinyl albums. If you want a premium RCA Living Stereo vinyl album, be prepared to spend big bucks. New 180G vinyl is usually at least $30. Old used vinyl is great if you already own it, but trying to locate a 6 eye Kind of Blue vinyl album for less than $50.

Conversion to digital format is much easier from a Hybrid SACD than it is vinyl. I have the equipment to burn vinyl to my computer, but it is just too much trouble. I usually just buy the album on CD if I want a digital copy.

Those are about the only advantages over vinyl. However, the price and availability issue is significant.

 

[Bob R]

I keep meaning to sit down and compare a SACD with a CD and with an LP. I think about it but never follow through because the multi-channel versions are just plain different and more enjoyable.

The niche they fit is “different” as in new technology & newer sound. I feel the same about concert DVD’s in DD or DTS 5.1. I love the advantage of the center channel and the rears for the “being there” feel.

I have listened to both the Rolling Stones “Now” and Micheal Jackson’s “Thriller” 2 ch SACD’s and compared them to the vinyl. The SACD’s were clear winners in dynamics and spaciousness. But, that’s not being too kind to the LP’s after all I’ve put them through.

Is a well made multi-channel recording better than 2 ch CD’s and vinyl? In my book yes, and the odds are 3:1, or in this case 6 channels to two.

Which format is best? Don’t make me choose, I want it all.

 

[reyneman]

If you accept the limitations of only one comparison....

I have an original vinyl, CD and SACD of Willie Nelson's 'Stardust'. Awhile back I did run a comparison of the three versions, using a Sony SCD-777ES for the CD/SACD and a Rega P-25 with a Benz Silver for the vinyl.

I have heard better CDs than this copy- must be an early transfer. However, in this case the CD wasn't in the running. Tonally incorrect, shrill, lack of ambience.

Between the SACD and vinyl, which was preferable would depend on individual preference. I thought the SACD was tonally a bit richer, the vinyl was more percussive with a bit more ambience.

I listen to all three formats, would NOT at this time base a buying decision entirely on whether the player was SACD or DVD-A compatible. However, I do find that SACD does have a distinct sonic advantage over CD, but the engineering or remastering can remove any advantage that one of the formats may have over the other formats. I continue to get the most satisfaction from well done vinyl, followed closely from well done SACD. In most cases, the venue and recording techniques make all the formats a toss up.

Of course, IMHO, in my system, YMMV etc applies.

 

[Micropassatman]

Hello alI I'm surprised nobody mentioned the (sonically) obvious. SACD has no physical playback artifacts. No hums, pops, or clicks. Period. If the two are tonally, variations of subtlety, I will choose the digital solution - always. Playback of vinyl, to me, is like driving my '70 VW bus, vs. my Passat. It is a pleasure to drive both, but it takes a LOT of work to keep driving the bus pleasurable. Digital sources are (usually)easier to maintain and IMHO, makes it easier to experience on the music, rather than 'hear' the medium.

 

[dr*audio]

I'm really not to concerned with comparing SACD or CD with Vinyl. I have both, enjoy both. I want to know if any of the hype about SACD is justified by a vast improvement in sound. The only way to quantify that is to compare the same recording as a CD and SACD on the same SACD player. So far only one person has presented that experience, even going further by comparing it to Vinyl. In this case I think the Vinyl gives sort of a control and would indicate that the mastering for the CD was lacking. I think lousy masters have been responsible for alot of the bad opinions about CD sound. It would be great if someone has compared an excellent sounding CD, like Dire Straits - "Love Over Gold" to an SACD pressing (if one exists.)

 

[uofmtiger]

I answered this question:

So I would like to know what the advantages are of this new format and why we should fight to keep it alive?

If you had stopped after your first sentence (in the original post) I would not have been confused by what you were asking... :cry:

I usually do not see the need to buy albums in every available format, however, I do have Dark Side of the Moon on CD, Vinyl, and SACD, so I will give that a test run this weekend and answer the "real" question.

 

[dr*audio]

I answered this question: If you had stopped after your first sentence (in the original post) I would not have been confused by what you were asking... :cry:

I usually do not see the need to buy albums in every available format, however, I do have Dark Side of the Moon on CD, Vinyl, and SACD, so I will give that a test run this weekend and answer the "real" question.

Derek,
That will make a great test. Sorry, I did ramble on a bit, but I did have more than one point to make.

 

[Yamaha B-2]

I have CCR's 'Cosmos Factory' on SACD, CD, original vinyl and 180g vinyl. My SACD/CD player will play CDs in either original format (44.1kHz) or upsampled to 192kHz. In order of pleasureable listening my ranking is; 180g vinyl, SACD/original vinyl (tied), CD at 192kHz and then original CD. I find the original CD to be like almost all 44.1kHz CDs. That is, has an 'edge' that gives me listener fatigue after about an hour of listening. Can't imagine going to a concert and listening to music that sounds like these redbook CDs.

Forgot to mention that I have the same versions of Miles' 'Kind of Blue' as I have for 'Cosmos Factory'. Like the following post, I had exactly the same results as above with the CCR album.

 

[Cloth Ears]

I've had a chance to listen to various versions of "Kind of Blue" on 180G vinyl, early CD, late CD, SACD (2-ch) and DAT (from a friend, so I don't know the original source).

Played through my ss playback system, using a pretty ordinary DVD player for the 3 digital disks, my old AMC CDM-7 for the 2 CDs, my no-name turntable (says 'JP' on the front) and my friends' DAT player.

The early CD was worst by a long shot, edgy, brittle, with 'weird' artifacts through-out. It actually sounded 'better' played on the $250 DVD player, than on the $600 (1992 $600) CD player. It's now a coffee cup mat...
The late CD is a vast improvement, no weird sounds, hardly any edge, but not quite the 'airiness' I'd like to have from this album.
The vinyl sounded pretty good, mostly an improvement over both CD formats, but couldn't quite match the impacts from some of the percussion that the later CD was able to produce. The instruments sounded more like they do in real life though.
The SACD prety much reproduced the music, the impact and the slam I'd expect - pretty much what I'd like the vinyl to sound like. I'd probably have a different result with an MC cartridge, but I'd have to put up with a higher noise-floor then also. And I couldn't do it on a $250 budget.
The DAT and DAT player were actually the best of the lot - even on my system it kind of sounded like the guys were in the same room - especially the chatter. Knowing my mate, it's probably some copy he made of a master tape onto DAT.
But I now have neither the DAT, nor the player it came on, and I haven't seen my friend for a couple of years either. So I'll live with new CDs unless I think it's special - in which case I'll shell out for a 2ch SACD. I'm not too keen on surround - as I've found the 'sweet-spot' now means you can't move too much forward or backwards either (rather than just limiting your 'side-to-side' movement.

My 2 cents, sorry if I've offended anybody

Jonty

 

[dr*audio]

I've had a chance to listen to various versions of "Kind of Blue" on 180G vinyl, early CD, late CD, SACD (2-ch) and DAT (from a friend, so I don't know the original source).


The DAT and DAT player were actually the best of the lot - even on my system it kind of sounded like the guys were in the same room - especially the chatter. Knowing my mate, it's probably some copy he made of a master tape onto DAT.
But I now have neither the DAT, nor the player it came on, and I haven't seen my friend for a couple of years either. So I'll live with new CDs unless I think it's special - in which case I'll shell out for a 2ch SACD. I'm not too keen on surround - as I've found the 'sweet-spot' now means you can't move too much forward or backwards either (rather than just limiting your 'side-to-side' movement.

My 2 cents, sorry if I've offended anybody

Jonty

I thought this was really interesting, since the sampling rate on DAT is 44KHz or 48KHz (you get a choice.) Same as a CD. It's basically the same A-D conversion and error correction of a CD, and it's what many CDs were mastered on, but most were done on systems superior to DAT, with higher sampling rates, then resampled to 44KHz for the CD.
So I think the difference you may have heard was not due to the recording system or sampling rate, but the analog circuitry in the playback sections of the CD / SACD players and the DAT machine. Was the DAT machine a Panasonic, by chance? They have much better sounding playback than TASCAM DATs and it's due to the opamps used in the playback circuit. A friend had a TASCAM DA-30II that he said never sounded as good as his Panasonic, but the recordings were fine. I changed the opamps from NE5532 to LM833N and now it sounds great, he says it sounds the same as the Panasonic. I have found the same thing with some CD players. I used to have an NAD CD player that sounded very harsh until I changed the opamps.
On the other hand, I have heard early CDs that sounded like garbage. Cream - "Disraeli Gears" comes to mind. :thumbsdn:

 

[Wireworm5]

I have just two Sacd albums. Although not a fair comparison I was comparing Shania Twain's Up with Joe Mellencamps Best of Remastered. From what I could discern the sacd seemed to have more depth and body, whereas cd music seems thin. My friend who was also listening, couldn't hear the difference.
But let me tell you, a 20 bit remastered cd like the above mentioned is pretty darn good. And if all cd were of this quality I wouldn't care for sacd.

 

[Kiwi]

I'm really not to concerned with comparing SACD or CD with Vinyl. I have both, enjoy both. I want to know if any of the hype about SACD is justified by a vast improvement in sound. The only way to quantify that is to compare the same recording as a CD and SACD on the same SACD player. So far only one person has presented that experience, even going further by comparing it to Vinyl. In this case I think the Vinyl gives sort of a control and would indicate that the mastering for the CD was lacking. I think lousy masters have been responsible for alot of the bad opinions about CD sound. It would be great if someone has compared an excellent sounding CD, like Dire Straits - "Love Over Gold" to an SACD pressing (if one exists.)

Now to be fair I have fairly middle of the road equipment but I think this would relate to the majority of people who enjoy thier music.
I have Brothers in arms on CD and SACD, I loaded the CD into My Old Denon CD player and the SACD into my Denon universal player both linked via digital coax to a Denon AVR 2805 home theatre AMP so I could switch between the two at the touch of a button. Its night and day the SACD is smoother more immersive and fuller in sound.
There is a but here and its a big one. The stereo track on the album has also been remastered and is also superior to the earlier CD. I cant do a direct comparison easily , but played in stereo through an older Yamaha AX700 the new recording is equaly as impressive as the SACD.
In all cases using the same front speakers to keep it fair.

I then draged out the best of the Eagles on Vinyl and the new remastered CD of the same album. the Vinyl recording is lifeless compared to the remix.

I am a big fan of these remastered CDs /DVD A or SACD. The whole Dire Straits range has been remastered and I have purchased the lot. I have just got the remastered version of the Eagles Desperado which is a big improvement.

I dont know about you guys but a lot of earlier CDs I own are pretty crappy sounding as are some vinyl records I own. I am pretty happy about this trend to high resolution formats.

Its interesting that the latest Neil young greatest hits CD has two disks one a standard CD and the other a 2 channel DVD PCM stereo disk.
They are both great but my vote goes to the DVD for the best sound.

Dave

 

[Yamaha B-2]

What's your vinyl rig consist of? Denon is one of the better CDPs around and their newer stuff is pretty hot on digital filter front, etc. So it may not be a fair comparison. But, agree with your assessment of the remastered CDs. Why couldn't they have done it correctly in the first place? Now have to buy them twice.

 

[Kiwi]

You could have a point. My turntable is an 80's technics and this is connected to a 80's Yamaha AX 700 integrated .

The Denon CD player is a DCD 1015 which is an older unit but one of the good ones I understand.

The Denon 2805 is near new and its pretty impressive but I will still use the big old Yammy for any 2 channel playback.

Dave

 

[uofmtiger]

I was able to test the different versions of Dark Side of the Moon this evening. This test was not conducted on world class equipment. I have the following setup:

Denon AVR3300 Receiver
Yamaha C750 Universal DVD (routed through an Outlaw ICBM)
Project DebutIII TT
4NHT Sb2s
1 SC1 (center channel)
Outlaw LFM-1 sub

I thought about doing a blind test, but there was no sense in it because the different sources all sound very different. Therefore, you are going to have to weigh the chance that I may be biased in my opinions:

1. SACD 5.1 channel version - This was my favorite of the different recordings. The sound of each instrument was very clear and the way the sound loops around the room is nothing short of magnificent. The bass in this version is unbelievable.

2. Vinyl - I have the new 180 gram Anniversary edition - This as a very difficult choice because the sound on this LP is crystal clear with almost no surface noise to speak of. It does have a warmer sound than the SACD version and that was taken into account in my ratings. I just "felt" the SACD version deeper because of the way the sound wrapped around me.

3. SACD 2 channel - In my opinion, the vinyl is better because of the warmer feel to it. I doubt I will ever play this version again unless I have it in the car.

4. CD - The CD sounds somewhat compressed next to the other three choices.

If I was not a big fan of this album, I could probably get by with just the vinyl version. However, I feel the SACD multichannel track is worth the extra money. I realize that diehard fans may scoff at the idea of releasing this album in a new flashy format. It works for me though. If you only own the CD, I would say that you need either a vinyl version or SACD version in your collection, if not both. :yes:

 

[Micropassatman]

Which version of the redbook CD did you use? I have the MFSL gold-disc version, and I think it sounds like a well mastered recording. I have three different versions of The Wall on CD as well. All three sound different.