• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What is the point of SACD?

S

surv1v0r

Member
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?
 
Register to hide this ad
Because we buy them. Because they have better audio than many conventional discs.
Because they may offer extra features or bonus tracks not on the normal release.

Not every SACD is a huge leap, but since many are, its worth a shot when you can get them for a reasonable price.

I probably own 40-50 or so SACDs, and maybe as many HDCDs (a different thing).

I had the original release of Roxy Music Avalon. I later bought all the Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music remasters when they came through -
and somewhere around 2003 I saw the Avalon SACD in a local best buy for $16 - so I bought it out of completeness. I did not have an SACD player for a number of years, but when I got my first OPPO about 6 years back, I got it.

It has an extra track not on the original release - Always Unknowing, and the disc is a Hybrid SACD - meaning it has the regular tracks on one layer
and the whole album in 5.1 surround mix on the SACD layer - and sounds just amazing on a good surround system.
Try the track India, which swirls around you.

The SACD version of Brothers In Arms is pretty impressive too.

While the stereo release of Beck's Sea Changes is a great recording, the SACD has an awesome presence that blows it away.

You'll hear clear differences in some of the Classical releases as well.

I have 2 Oppo disc players in my house - the older 981HD is on a 2 channel system, but does HDCD, SACD and a bunch of other things.
Downstairs, the BDP-93 (Bluray) Oppo is on a surround system and also does a ton of formats

They were not cheapos, but were not hugely expensive.
 
Last edited:
surv1v0r said:
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?
Click to expand...

The medium itself is indistinguishable from 16/44.1, but the mastering is typically superior if different from the 16/44.1 copy. Most differences arise from that.
 
Most people on here are interested in the best sound possible and will spend thousands of dollars on equipment. Why not spend more on media to get better sound if you can.
I don't have an SACD player but I sure understand why others would want one.
Beer
 
botrytis said:
your opinion......It is very distinguishable - to me, my wife and quite a few friends. (my opinion)
Click to expand...

Yes, because the mastering is different. If we had the exact same master were properly encoded into DSD and PCM respectively, the differences would be insignificant. Everyone would be up in arms if the SACD had a crappy master with squashed dynamic range and it is generally held that SACD as a whole has superior mastering. The fact is that 16/44.1 as a playback medium has resolution beyond the physical limits of the human ear and so does DSD.

Nevertheless, DSD is almost synonymous with excellent mastering (save for some rip-off masters that are almost unchanged from the crappy CD one), so I can see myself living with it just so I can get better, more enjoyable recordings. The ideal would still be to stay with PCM and to get that sort of mastering quality, but sadly the market segmentation is how it is right now.
 
Players aren't very expensive. You could probably get a used one for $50.

Hjames, you have some nice SACD's. Would have been nice to know some of those would go out of print. I also picked up Avalon back in the early 2000's and wish I had picked up more titles back then.
 
From the industry's standpoint, the main purpose of SACD was always the money. Both SACD and DVD-A offered much stronger copy protection than CD, so the recording companies saw the new formats as a way to reduce piracy of their products. The fact that it also eliminated the customer's ability to make legal digital copies for personal use was a bonus. On the hardware side, CD players had become ubiquitous and the basic patents on the technology were about to expire. Introducing new formats that required new playback hardware would give the equipment industry a financial shot in the arm and maintain a steady flow of royalty payments to the inventors of the new technology.

The selling point for the customer was sound quality, including the ability to play back more than two channels. Unfortunately most listeners couldn't hear any difference in stereo playback and weren't interested in adding multi-channel capability for a handful of new recordings. To them the new formats offered only higher cost and no ability to make mix CDs without converting to analog and back to digital. That, in a nutshell, is why both SACD and DVD-A lost the format war. If it weren't for hybrid SACDs that include a CD layer, I doubt that SACD would even be hanging on by its fingernails in today's market.
 
Also, there's a site called sa-cd.net that has reviews of many SACD's. A good resource to find out if a particular SACD is done well or sound the same as the redbook version.
 
surv1v0r said:
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?
Click to expand...

Cuz they sound good?
 
It was never sacd's fault that many who bought them didn't have a system able to flesh out the often small but real benefits.
 
Whether or not people can hear the difference between CDs and SACDs (and high-res FLAC) is hotly debated. (And frankly the issue has been beat to death, and therefore this thread might get moved by a moderator to “Audio Controversies”.)

Nonetheless, I’ll wade in.

My opinion is that whether or not hi-res deliverables (e.g., SACD or hi-res FLAC) sound better is something that each listener has to decide for himself or herself, based on the music they listen to, their hearing, and their hi-fi system. (My opinion is that hi-res recordings are most relevant for classical music played via a high-quality hi-fi system.)

And it’s a complicated topic. Differences in sound quality between a CD and a hi-res consumer deliverable can be due to differences in mastering, and/or the bandwidth of the deliverable.

If you’re inclined to let experts think and listen for you – which I’m not – you can find statements from AES on both sides of this issue. Here’s one example that says that the consumer deliverable does make a difference: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398 (And a 2007 AES report states that SACDs are often mastered better.)

I would turn the question around: Why are CDs still being produced? CDs are 30 year old digital storage technology. (Would you buy a PC with a 30 year old disk drive?) Assuming that the prices are reasonable (which sometimes they aren’t), I want to invest in the best quality consumer deliverable.

Then there’s the issue of CD’s relatively limited storage capacity compared with newer technologies. I can’t understand why box sets are still being issued that contain more than 50 CDs, whereas they could be delivered on a few Pure Audio Blu-ray disks. (E.g., Solti Ring cycle: 1 Pure Audio Blu-ray disk at higher res, or 14 CDs at lower res. The remastered Maria Callas studio recordings were released earlier this year on 69 CDs – why not a few higher-res Pure Audio Blu-ray disks instead?)

I think the future for hi-fi recordings is hi-res downloads and Pure Audio Blu-ray disks (partly due to sound quality, partly due to storage capacity). At the same time there are good deals available on SACDs, such as the RCA Living Stereo series of remastered classical recordings from the 1950s and 60s, which often have excellent sound quality. (See sa-cd.net for a listing of many hi-res recordings, including SACDs.)

Reasonably priced good quality universal players are available, such as the Oppo units that play MP3, CDs, SACDs, Pure Audio Blu-ray, hi-res FLAC, DVDs, Blu-ray video, etc.

Bottom line, if you have a universal player you can obtain whichever recording has the price/performance ratio the best suits your needs.
 
Last edited:
botrytis said:
the human hear has 120 a db dynamic range
Click to expand...

NEVER will you get 120dB of dynamic range in your home.
Maybepushing the limits in a great studio.
You need a soundproof room, to eliminate the +40dB background noise floor to be found in most homes (higher if you live in a city).
And then, to get 120dB of SPL takes some serously heavy duty loudspeakers.

Some headphones might do close, but your hearing will not last listening like that.
 
Another one of many "upgrades" that I bought into here that had no benefit I could discern. Damned if I or anyone else listening to my rig can tell the difference between redbook and sacd. One good thing is now I know firsthand and it didn't break the bank to find out.
 
To me the SACD never made all that much sense, 'cause DSD/PDM as a storage format seems less elegant/harder to process and less efficient compared to PCM. One could of course call it the more native format for single-bit delta-sigma converters, but as these will usually require a function block for PCM/PDM conversion anyway, I never saw a really good reason for using DSD as a storage format.

I think back then it would have been smarter to simply provide an audio-only mode on regular DVD players for audio-only DVDs with 24/96 PCM stereo tracks, as that was one of the audio formats of the video DVD anyway...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
My experience with SACD is limited; I own the 2 Pink Floyd SACDs (DSOTM and WYWH) and have only played them with a Sony Blu-ray player that has SACD support. Oh and a Rush SACD I borrowed from the library.

I enjoy the surround mixes on the PF albums. Does it sound better than their Redbook counterparts? Maybe a little. They provide a new way to listen to the album, which makes it worth the cost. And plus it's not like I dropped a ton of money on a SACD player; I already had the Blu-ray player (which was ~$100).
 
A whole lot depends on your equipment. As mentioned, trying to actually get 120db of headroom is difficult on most home systems, but for me, a well tuned room, solid gear, and mostly a dbx expansion box gets me a long way there. Far enough that there's a substantial difference in what I hear from the Oppo.

Try putting on some well mastered Dvorak ... the difference from quiet to crescendo is breathtaking. Helps that the house is well insulated from outside noise and I'm in the middle of nowhere anyway, but depending on the material, I've also been known to turn off the furnace, aquarium, and even stop all the mechanical clocks. I can hear a mouse fart if I go the extra mile.

Also, truth be told, I'd almost given up on SACD here, even after accumulating a fairly extensive collection. My solid state equipment just didn't give me all that much in the way of wOw in the format. That's chanced considerably since doing a full restoration on the Sansui QRX9001 I use in four channel direct mode, as well as adding a sweet little tube amp for the center channel. Driving the front channels with tubes on an exceptionally quiet amp as well. Difference is night and day now that the pre section is back to it's original glory.

Worth mentioning again. Mastering can limit the quality of what you hear. I'd think that's why a majority of SACD releases are classical, as the original miking and one pass recording doesn't add the hash that untold layers can add to the mix. That's also why a killer rock release is rare ... a lot of that was pounded out of the studio fast ... like, who's gonna hear subtle at 105db compressed anyway?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom