What is the point of SACD?

[surv1v0r]

SACD so far sounds no better than CD on my gear. I've only played two so far and one had been remastered to death. The other although very good sounds much the same on its CD layer.

I suspect that as suggested below by Gazjam, you need to invest a fair amount in expensive gear. Having done so, it would not be entirely surprising if one was to be reluctant to admit that the difference was marginal.

Sadly, one's hearing range declines with age, as a resuilt only teenagers may derive any actual benefit - as if they could care less

[Gazjam]

I suspect that as suggested below by Gazjam, you need to invest a fair amount in expensive gear. Having done so, it would not be entirely surprising if one was to be reluctant to admit that the difference was marginal.

Sadly, one's hearing range declines with age, as a resuilt only teenagers may derive any actual benefit - as if they could care less

I never suggested that...

The thing is, You dont need expensive gear to extract SACD.

An old PS3 and a home computer or laptop would do it.
Software wise there's free open source stuff to do the conversion, so not much of an investment at all really.
Having said all that,
Like most aspects of this hobby, whats better on paper isn't always better in reality, and SACD vs redbook is no different...
Various reasons:

(1) MUSIC MATTERS!
You wont get a night and day improvement with pop, rock, metal and the like, you know..the popular stuff?
SACD has taken off mostly in the Classical music area, where more subtle detailed music highlights the improvements better.
So over time SACD has naturally found its target market...not the money generating consumers unfortunately, so the labels aren't pushing the format.

(2) MASTERING IS EVERYTHING
As others have said, its not so much the "technology" that automatically makes the improvement, its the way its used.
SACD can sound far better than standard CDs, but only if they are recorded well and mastered right.
For a mastering engineer, SACD provides a bigger 24bit sandbox with bigger dynamic range to play in, what he does with that can make it or break the final product.
I have several SACDs that sound no better than CD, mostly because of lousy recording.
Also, I have 320K MP3 recordings that sound really great!
As long as the mastering and recording is done well, its not the delivery mechanism that matters, its what goes on before you hear it!

Digressing a bit, vinyl is another good illustration of mastering and recording being the most important step in the chain, just like mastering for digital.
Vinyl, weirdly, is technically inferior on paper so why can it sound so much better?
The mastering is different and is done in a way that (mostly) takes advantage of the format, but again not done properly can make it sound mediocre.
Unfortunately, unlike digital, getting the sound quality to a higher level CAN get expensive.

Mastering done right though, that takes advantage of what SACD can do (24bit, higher dynamic range) can be stunning, much better than redbook CD.
As I said, you don't need mega bucks equipment to play back the digital SACD files...which is the important bit in this case, not the plastic disc.

The recent SACD release of Vangelis' Blade Runner is a great example of it done right, MUCH better sounding that the original CD all because of its mastering and SACD's
Great video here showing some of the behind the scenes mastering for 24bit SACD.


(3) SOME PEOPLE JUST DONT CARE!
As I think you were touching on, a lot of people are happy with their MP3 downloads, 320k Spotify accounts and the like and you know what, they are absolutely right.
Enjoying the music is what its all about.

Different people hear differently and have different priorities in life, so I think there is no black and white, one size fits all answer to "Is SACD better".
TECHNICALLY it has the potential to be a lot better than 16/44 CD, but its a moot point whether that even matters.
The final result is dependant on so many factors, including the person listening themselves, so like most areas of this hifi hobby what works for one, wont work for another.

WILL THIS CHANGE IN THE FUTURE?
Interestingly with the likes of Pono, Tidal, Qobuz and other "high res" streaming services there seems to be a bit of swing towards higher quality music, which personally I think is cool.
Will it last?
Imo...Naa.
Historically, the history of hires formats (audio and video) dying a death in the face of convenience and good marketing shows how things are really.

SO:
SACD isn't a "golden ticket" to hifi nirvana, but like all technology depending on how its implemented it potentially can be.



For those who can be arsed...
(Opinion pieces, forum discussion, no empirical measurements supplied...)

Why SACDs Didn't Supersede CDs...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm

Has anyone tested SACD vs. CD of same album, e.g. for dynamic range?
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/in...howtopic=99765

[Macca]

I never suggested that...



For those who can be arsed...

Why SACDs Didn't Supersede CDs...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htm

Has anyone tested SACD vs. CD of same album, e.g. for dynamic range?
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=99765

Both your links go to the same article?

And in that article this is very doubtful (and no source quoted):

II. CD backlash

When CD premiered in 1983 the majority of listeners were thrilled with CDs ease of play, lack of noise, distortion, and audible wear. However, audiophiles complained of CD's strident, over-etched and uncomfortable sound quality; especially compared to LPs, reel to reel tapes, and live music. Thus CD equipment manufactures begun to steadily improve their products to satisfy these critical listeners. However, upon hearing what was possible with SACD and DVD-Audio, CD equipment manufacturers engaged in a mad race to try to make their products sound as close as they could to the realistic and comforting sonics of these new digital formats... and all with varying degrees of success. This prevented even more people from adopting SACD and/or DVD-audio as CDs were finally getting good enough (and that the selection of music in the CD format is usually less expensive and more abundant when compared to SACD or DVD-Audio).

Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers - there has been no improvement of any note.


In addition whilst your point about re-mastering is correct: taking old analogue tapes and remastering with 24 bits to hand will help. But only in the production process, not in the playback. You can use the same process and issue a normal CD the benefit of the 24 bit mastering will still apply. The extended frequency response won't help since there will not be any frequencies higher than - at a push 18Khz - on the master tapes and you can't put in what wasn't there to begin with.

If there is a sound quality benefit with SACD it is not a direct effect of the higher bit rate or the higher sampling frequency. This is pretty much fact.

Having re-visited my SACDs recently with a new SACD capable player I am inclined to say there might be an additional smoothness, a 'DSD signature' if you like - to the sound. But for me this is a character to the sound rather than any sort of quantative improvement over the CD layer. Although if you prefer it then it is an improvement subjectively I suppose.

[Gazjam]

Both your links go to the same article?
Weird...now fixed.

And in that article this is very doubtful (and no source quoted):
Hard to find "sources" on Subjective opinion on sound quality (and reports on same) which is other than just that?

II. CD backlash

When CD premiered in 1983 the majority of listeners were thrilled with CDs ease of play, lack of noise, distortion, and audible wear. However, audiophiles complained of CD's strident, over-etched and uncomfortable sound quality; especially compared to LPs, reel to reel tapes, and live music. Thus CD equipment manufactures begun to steadily improve their products to satisfy these critical listeners. However, upon hearing what was possible with SACD and DVD-Audio, CD equipment manufacturers engaged in a mad race to try to make their products sound as close as they could to the realistic and comforting sonics of these new digital formats... and all with varying degrees of success. This prevented even more people from adopting SACD and/or DVD-audio as CDs were finally getting good enough (and that the selection of music in the CD format is usually less expensive and more abundant when compared to SACD or DVD-Audio).

Anyone who has heard high end players from the early Nineties/late Eighties knows this is cobblers - there has been no improvement of any note.

Hasn't there? I've heard those players too and not sure I'd agree.
Who saying there's been no improvement, and according to whom?


In addition whilst your point about re-mastering is correct: taking old analogue tapes and remastering with 24 bits to hand will help. But only in the production process, not in the playback. You can use the same process and issue a normal CD the benefit of the 24 bit mastering will still apply. The extended frequency response won't help since there will not be any frequencies higher than - at a push 18Khz - on the master tapes and you can't put in what wasn't there to begin with.
Agreed, but something is making it sound different/better and it has to be the mastering.
...the improvement with better remastered CD's cant be heard on playback?

If there is a sound quality benefit with SACD it is not a direct effect of the higher bit rate or the higher sampling frequency. This is pretty much fact.
Never said it was?
What's your take on it Martin?

Having re-visited my SACDs recently with a new SACD capable player I am inclined to say there might be an additional smoothness, a 'DSD signature' if you like - to the sound. But for me this is a character to the sound rather than any sort of quantative improvement over the CD layer. Although if you prefer it then it is an improvement subjectively I suppose.

Quantative improvement or Qualitative....both are improvements.
Subjective is 90% of the hifi game I'd say.

(All replied to in the best possible taste)

[Macca]

Ah Cupid Stunt! We really didn't appreciate Kenny enough while we still had him around.

The article states it as a fact that CD player manufacturers upped their game when 'hi-rez' emerged. I have my doubts that they were at all concerned and in any case they all made SACD or DVD=A capable players for a time at least. A quote from one of the big manufacturers (since they do all the R&D the little fish just buy it in) stating they did this would at least lend some credibility. Otherwise it is a wild and slightly illogical claim.

Old players are better - well not necessarily but I have yet to hear anything that can match the high end Technics and Sony players of 20=25 years ago. Probably because they were taken to extremes in terms of quality of the analogue output stage and the power supplies: the expensive bits. Compared to that mucking about with different chips and bamboo caps and what have you is tinkering around the edges but makes for good marketing copy.

Those older players do 2 things - very low noise - that mush or hash in the sound you only notice when it is gone, and a sense of weight and authority to the sound (nothing to do with frequency response).

That is not to say that there are no contemporary players around that can do what those old players do but they will be good for the same reasons as the old high end players - and will be expensive.

[Gazjam]

Your right Martin, I think the manufacturers realised they were on to a hiding for nothing and slowly let production slip away, Linn being the classic example when they went solely over to digital streaming.

Shame really, the CD12 was a nice bit of kit for a "5K" player.

I feel Linn let CD players die as they realised the market was saturated, from a Business sense the opportunity to make money had expired...so they looked to the future and went DS.
Kind of illustrates how what is successful technology wise is dictated market wise rather than sound quality wise?

I think unfortunately us audiophiles are a minor bunch, and what sells to the masses will always win out.
If there's enough of a niche market then a technology will survive in a reduced form, like SACD for the Classical market maybe.

How many failed technologies that are technically better are they?
V2000 videotape, DCC...Minidisk?

Is this the road that SACD will take, despite being technically better than CD?

[Macca]

No, I think SACD has been around long enough to survive as a niche format for the foreseeable at least. A bit like vinyl in the '90s when the clubbers kept it alive, SACD is still supported and bought by a lot of classical music enthusiasts.

Of course it is hard to see how far ahead the future is foreseeable. I think only a tiny minority of the currently under thirty-year-olds will ever graduate to a proper separates system playing physical media, whereas in our day it was a sizeable minority.

[surv1v0r]

No, I think SACD has been around long enough to survive as a niche format for the foreseeable at least. A bit like vinyl in the '90s when the clubbers kept it alive, SACD is still supported and bought by a lot of classical music enthusiasts.

Of course it is hard to see how far ahead the future is foreseeable. I think only a tiny minority of the currently under thirty-year-olds will ever graduate to a proper separates system playing physical media, whereas in our day it was a sizeable minority.

I agree with part of what you say - "niche format for (rich) classical music enthusiasts" and "Digital 30-year olds".

To take the easy part first, I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of people under 30 will go Digital, via the Internet and will probably never own any physical media at all.

I think that the significant difference between Vinyl and SACD is that Vinyl had matured over decades and never really had any competition until CD came along. People used Compact Cassette Tapes for Piracy and to listen in the car. Once CD came along, most people migrated it to it for reasons of simplicity and convenience. Quite why Vinyl is making a bit of a comeback today is a mystery - I suspect that it is a fashion flash in the pan and doubt that the resurgence will last for long.

The problem with SACD is that it simply doesn't offer enough to persuade a commercially significant number of people to move to it. This is compounded by the existence of alternative formats such as DVD-Audio, Pure Audio Blu-ray and High Fidelity Pure Audio. It has been suggested that all of these formats are actually a solution to a problem that nobody much cares about, a business model relying on ignorance and scamming gullible people.


Digital streaming and downloads are the future . . . for all of us. MP3 are fine in the car and for easy listening; if you really care, you can always opt for FLAC

[eisenach]

"niche format for (rich) classical music enthusiasts"

How dare you ! I'm not rich ! Wish I were !

SACD's great by the way ! Maybe I'll just settle for the over 30 part.

[agk]

"What is the point of SACD?"

Dire Straits Brothers in arms 20th anniversary SACD.