What is the point of SACD?

[E-Stat]

I looked at Meyer's credentials (I have posted them below, so people can judge for themselves), but, on paper, he looks up to the challenge of creating an ABX test.

And Moran's background is in literature.

Did you actually read the methodology? Rube Goldberg would have been proud.

Why cripple the test from the outset using sub standard gear?

Did he demonstrate that the ABX box used doesn't share the problems measured by Frank Van Alstine to combine the signal output? Oops.

John Atkinson measured the performance of the Pioneer player used and found it had no better dynamic range capability than a 16 bit player. Oops.

I'm sure none of these facts will sway the "all amplifiers sound the same" and that Redbook is "perfect sound forever" crowd, but I continue to find it both amusing and sad to folks just reading about this nine year old study.

 

[DougMac]

...I continue to find it both amusing and sad to folks just reading about this nine year old study.

I find it both amusing and sad this thread has grown to 14 pages of bickering by both parties where very little sheds any light to the OP's original question.

Too often measured, reasonable responses to valid questions get buried under pissing matches by the entrenched hard core.

I nominate this thread as a worthy addition to the Audio Controversies forum, where it can die a quiet death.

 

[chicks]

Even more amusing and sad is that a group in their 50s and 60s, who have been shown by 100 years of testing to be unable to hear much of anything above 10Khz, claim that they can hear differences above 20Khz.

Ah well, the marketeers have done their job well.

 

[E-Stat]

Even more amusing and sad is that a group in their 50s and 60s, who have been shown by 100 years of testing to be unable to hear much of anything above 10Khz, claim that they can hear differences above 20Khz.

When you don't understand the primary problem to be addressed, it is virtually impossible to solve it.

Hint: it's not that.

 

[DougMac]

Let's check out Chick's comments one at a time, and find if he, or the article is producing truth or not.

Jeez dude, give it a rest.

 

[SuperJay01]

I think you owe it to the artist to listen on the highest quality possible. I'm always happy when a vinyl purchase comes with a flac download as well.

 

[JP]

Appears to be a rather emotional topic, for whatever reason. I stopped reading after 'idol' came out.

 

[DougMac]

And why didn't you give that message to chicks about two pages ago...........

Cheers
Pos

Yeah, it's always the other guy.

 

[Dan ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ]

Moved to The Cutting Edge, where the rules are a bit more strict.

 

[surv1v0r]

I find it both amusing and sad this thread has grown to 14 pages of bickering by both parties where very little sheds any light to the OP's original question. Too often measured, reasonable responses to valid questions get buried under pissing matches by the entrenched hard core.
<SNIP>

As the person who innocently started this thread I concur.

I have tried religiously to follow the points expressed by (I guess) sincere posters and in the process have forgotten my original question which was along the lines of

It is my understanding that no normal person is capable of reliably distinguishing between music from a CD and a SACD (unless listening to 5.1) so why are people still producing SACD disks?

The best answer I can come up with after this debate is that people are still producing SACD disks because there is a market for them.

I am still inclined to believe that a "number" of these purchasers may be buying SACDs on the basis that there is a possibility that they will be subliminally aware of a qualitative advantage and they will always buy what they "believe" to be "the best" on the off chance that they will benefit from a superior "experience".

Perhaps RLS was right and it is in fact better to travel hopefully than to arrive?

 

[JP]

Perhaps RLS was right and it is in fact better to travel hopefully than to arrive?

It's never what we thought it would be, when we finally get there.

My observations:

1) There's appears to be a mini revival for SACD/DSD as manufacturer's have positioned it as more 'analog' like. Anecdotally, it'd seem that the claims of HF content and distortion from DSD aren't dissimilar to what you get from vinyl. I haven't researched that, as I just don't care.

2) The quality of the product (the music, not the medium) tends to be better on an 'audiophile' release than with the standard fare - more care in remastering, etc. For the SACDs/DSD I own, this is the only reason I own them.

At the end of the day, at least for me, I worry about the stuff I think actually matters - quality of the recording, production, mastering, etc. I've my preferences for mediums, but that pales in comparison to the challenges of getting true hi-fidelity content.

 

[soundboy]

Doesn't the SACD layer on most of the Living Stereo hybrid discs present the music in 3 channels, as it was recorded at the session? If so, the CD layer, which is limited to 2 channels by the format, can't be the same as the SACD layer. It may have been mixed down to 2 channels and converted to 16/44.1 PCM with great care, but it's not the same as the analog recording used to make the 3-channel SACD master.

The SACD layer also has a separate 2 channel stereo mix. The CD layer is on a separate layer.

 

[Wildcat]

your opinion......It is very distinguishable - to me, my wife and quite a few friends. (my opinion)

Even on my modest system (before upgrades), I had a couple of non-audiophiles comment on why my playback sounded smoother than CDs I'd played. I can tell the differences myself also. With CD, it's that grating, "buzzy" quality that causes me to subconsciously clench my jaws together (leading up to a headache). With DVD-A and especially SACD, I don't get that. The Oppo 105 made CD digital more tolerable, but still, that stress is sometimes there.

Nothing I lose sleep over, really...it's not frequency response or noise floor. It's that smoothness of being closer to the original analog waveform. Subtle, but it's there.

 

[sqlsavior]

The point of SACD is higher quality music reproduction. As usual, mastering matters more than format, and generalizations have limited value. Also as usual, some feel a need to push their own value conclusions on others. All understandable, given human nature.

What I don't understand is the assertion, on an audio forum, that someone else does not, and in fact can not hear what they say they hear. It just seems so particularly quixotic to me. This from someone once accused of "tilting at windmills"!

 

[E-Stat]

The point of SACD is higher quality music reproduction.

What I've learned here is that only incompetent, deaf engineers master CD recordings.

 

[surv1v0r]

<SNIP> it's not frequency response or noise floor. It's that smoothness of being closer to the original analog waveform. Subtle, but it's there.

Forgive me but that sounds like gobbledegook. I really don't believe that you can hear what isn't there or is outside the human hearing range. The following quote is taken from Wikipedia, I have edited it slightly but not in a way that would alter its relevance:

When it is necessary to capture audio covering the entire 20–20,000 Hz range of human hearing, such as when recording music, audio waveforms are typically sampled at 44.1 kHz (CD), 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, or 96 kHz. Sampling rates higher than about 50 kHz to 60 kHz cannot supply more usable information for human listeners.

There has been an industry trend towards sampling rates well beyond the basic requirements: such as 96 kHz and even 192 kHz. This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show that ultrasonic frequencies are audible to human observers; however in some cases ultrasonic sounds do interact with and modulate the audible part of the frequency spectrum. It is noteworthy that this intermodulation distortion is not present in the live audio and so it represents an artificial colouration to the live sound. (LINK)

What do you mean by "closer to the original analogue waveform"?


As to the comment that someone doesn't understand the assertion that someone else "does not, and in fact can not hear what they say they hear", I think that what is being suggested is that the "listener" is persuaded, perhaps as a result of paying out vast sums of money, that they can hear what cannot be demonstrated in laboratory conditions - cf "The Emperor's New Clothes".

People will believe what they want to believe, this is most obvious where they have spent their hard-earned money to buy something that they have been told will make them feel happier - or superior. Cars are probably an even better illustration of this human trait than HiFi

 

[Herr Eickhorn]

I recently noticed that a particular Classical CD in which I was interested was available in SACD format.

I don't have a SACD player; I believe that they tend to be significantly more expensive than ordinary CD players and my understanding is that no normal person is capable of reliably distinguishing between music from a CD or a SACD (unless listening to 5.1).

Why are people still producing SACD disks?

A few years ago I bought a nice SACD player (Sony SCD-XA5400ES0) reputed to be one of the best. Certain I would be transported to audio nirvana, I bought a whole batch of SACD's. A few were exceptional, most were average and some were downright crappy. I was a little disappointed.

I have found the same thing in just about every source, such as vinyl & CD. A few are exceptional, most average & some crappy.

You will not be guaranteed good sound with SACD, Vinyl, CD, etc. But if you take the best direct-from-DSD SACD you can find, and a documented "Hot Stamper" LP, and a well mastered CD by a genius such as Barry Diament, and compare the sound quality, you'll have a real horse race on your hands and I doubt you will find much difference. It would be like racing Secretariat, Seattle Slew and American Pharoah. Now I think vinyl would be Secretariat. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Daunia 70]

IMHO,there isn't much point in SACD unless you're more into home cinema,surround sound etc than you're into proper two channel stereo hi-fi.
A lot depends on the quality of the actual player in the first place.

I've compared Roxy Music's "Avalon" SACD (very highly regarded) in a TOTL Pioneer DV-868AVI Elite DVD/SACD/CD player (that was awarded the very best in UK hi-fi magazines) and a hi-end McIntosh CD/SACD player against a 22kg NEC CD-903 CD only player from 1986... The Roxy Music SACD sounded way better in the NEC CD only player (and I'm not the only one who thinks this). It was the forwardness/upfrontess,depth,and slam... sadly of which all seem to be missing from these newer/modern SACD/CD/DVD/Blu-ray all-in-one players.

 

[Hyperion]

So, correct me if I am wrong, a CD only player will play the CD encoded tracks on the SACD, and (obviously) not the SACD tracks.

Leads me to ask what is the difference between the native CD and the SACD with the CD tracks? - that makes it sound so much better.

 

[PAGS]

So, correct me if I am wrong, a CD only player will play the CD encoded tracks on the SACD, and (obviously) not the SACD tracks.

Leads me to ask what is the difference between the native CD and the SACD with the CD tracks? - that makes it sound so much better.

In simple terms (which is as technical I get without getting into trouble), there's more data in the SACD layer, hence - in theory - better sound. SACD does seem to sound better to me, but then I've laid out the $$ for an SACD player and a number of SACD discs. So it migh be just between my ears.

NOTE: Not all SACDs have a red book (CD) layer; only hybrid SACDs. If you buy a straight up (my term) SACD and don't have an SACD/universal/Sony player, you won't get any sound.