2 channel SACD: worth it? what player should I get?

[Macca]

Re the HF noise from SACDs - this should be filtered out. If it isn't then it can cause aliasing and also perhaps even damage to some kit.

Re more bits giving wider dynamic range - probably better to write "more bits gives the possibility of wider dynamic range". Many recordings have a deliberately narrower dynamic range because someone thinks that's a good idea - and depending on the type of music there may be some point to that. Impressions of loudness may at first sight be greater with a narrower dynamic range, and the volume levels turned up on the playback kit - but that can be very tiring to listen to. The motivations may be commercial and profit seeking, rather than purely musical. Both CDs and SACDs should be capable of a dynamic range greater than most people would really want.

yes, totally agree. CD spec is really overkill there was never a need for a playback medium with a higher frequency or amplitude capability than that.

[dave2010]

yes, totally agree. CD spec is really overkill there was never a need for a playback medium with a higher frequency or amplitude capability than that.

Very probably - yet there are I believe CD players which sound better than SACD players, and SACD players which sound better than CD players and so on. Then again, many people can't it seems hear the differences, but there are probably some who can.

Some years ago I used to think that all that was needed for a good experience was a good recording of a live orchestra or band - and the distribution media would make some difference, but hopefully not totally trash the master recording. More recently though I have discovered that the possibiilties of tinkering with the sound using processing in tools such as DAWs can make a significant difference. Reverb can be added, levels adjusted, and many of the processes are not "natural". There are so many ways in which recordings can be modified by a mastering engineer that often the characteristics of the original performance may be completely obscured. If the sonic tinkering is done subtlely this may enhance the original, but it may also completely change the nature of it with less sympathetic adjustments.

I can't really comment much on pop music, but someone may think that a recording would sound better with a degree of grittiness - so there are ways of altering the recording to provide that. Methods include layering different copies of an audio track together, adding distortion to some of them, maybe even panning them to different directions, or even applying pitch shifts to some. Then blend the whole unholy mess together and sure - it may sound "grittier" than before [i.e. worse!). You want throbbing bass - that can be done too.

For other types of music - such as choral or orchestral music - adding in reverb can be used for a few purposes. One is to provide additional ambience - which some may find "ethereal", while another more mundane one is that the performers actually didn't get the timing and precision exact enough - no problem - bang in some reverb and no one will notice. There is a lot of tinkering which can be done. Some of it may enhance a recording/performance, but it may also give a false impression of what the original sound was actually like.

To give an analogy, photographic "evidence" is now often considered suspect, as with modern tools it is relatively easy to change images. Similar problems arise with sound recordings.

One manufacturer in the past used to have slogans like "for the closest approach to the original sound" to sell their kit, but my point is that in many cases the sound as distributed on CD, SACD, streaming - whatever - may have been mangled so much that it isn't really a representation of the original sounds at all.

If that's what we, as a buying public want, so be it.

[Macca]

Very probably - yet there are I believe CD players which sound better than SACD players, and SACD players which sound better than CD players and so on. Then again, many people can't it seems hear the differences, but there are probably some who can.

Some years ago I used to think that all that was needed for a good experience was a good recording of a live orchestra or band - and the distribution media would make some difference, but hopefully not totally trash the master recording. More recently though I have discovered that the possibiilties of tinkering with the sound using processing in tools such as DAWs can make a significant difference. Reverb can be added, levels adjusted, and many of the processes are not "natural". There are so many ways in which recordings can be modified by a mastering engineer that often the characteristics of the original performance may be completely obscured. If the sonic tinkering is done subtlely this may enhance the original, but it may also completely change the nature of it with less sympathetic adjustments.

I can't really comment much on pop music, but someone may think that a recording would sound better with a degree of grittiness - so there are ways of altering the recording to provide that. Methods include layering different copies of an audio track together, adding distortion to some of them, maybe even panning them to different directions, or even applying pitch shifts to some. Then blend the whole unholy mess together and sure - it may sound "grittier" than before [i.e. worse!). You want throbbing bass - that can be done too.

For other types of music - such as choral or orchestral music - adding in reverb can be used for a few purposes. One is to provide additional ambience - which some may find "ethereal", while another more mundane one is that the performers actually didn't get the timing and precision exact enough - no problem - bang in some reverb and no one will notice. There is a lot of tinkering which can be done. Some of it may enhance a recording/performance, but it may also give a false impression of what the original sound was actually like.

To give an analogy, photographic "evidence" is now often considered suspect, as with modern tools it is relatively easy to change images. Similar problems arise with sound recordings.

One manufacturer in the past used to have slogans like "for the closest approach to the original sound" to sell their kit, but my point is that in many cases the sound as distributed on CD, SACD, streaming - whatever - may have been mangled so much that it isn't really a representation of the original sounds at all.

If that's what we, as a buying public want, so be it.

'The closest approach to the original sound' I believe refers to what is on the recording, not what happened in the recording venue.

The concept of 'High Fidelity' is one of high fidelity to the recording not to the original performance, this is often misunderstood.

For example if I want to record someone playing the piano, how do I mic it up? At a distance, close to the hammers, a mixture of both? If at a distance then what distance? ten feet, twenty feet, thirty feet? It will all sound different.

Added to which mics don't have totally flat frequency response so the very act of recording the piano will change the sound compared to 'being there.'

This why judging equipment by 'The sound of real instruments' is always a non-starter.

For playback we can only work with what we are given. If they chose to add some reverb to the piano, that's part of the recording, it's what was intended. The best we can do is reproduce what we were given as accurately as possible and that includes the artificial additives.

I've noticed many audiophile recordings which people use a benchmarks for 'real sound' have a ton of artificial reverb. It's the msg of recordings. It's added precisely because it makes it sound more 'real' than the actual reality.

[AJSki2fly]

I am potentially in the market for a SACD player but only have 2 channels (possibly will use a sub) and intend to keep it that way.
I have lots of SACDs/highbrid SACDs of classical orchestral music in particular, and would like to know:
What player should I get? 2nd hand ideally or under £1000 new
Will it make a difference in my system? I am not sure how I could demo and find out!
I am totally blind: am I going to have to fiddle with on screen menues or anything to make it play the SACD layer?

To try and answer your original question:--

You should get a good result with one of these,

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...-714688/review

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204455083...kAAOSwHHpk-zy9

There are one or two others on Ebay at the moment.

I have the bigger brother KA Pearl, but these are rare as hens teeth and usually sell for £1200-1500.

I have read the rest of this thread and I would offer this opinion. I more or less stopped listening to CDs as I found it rather flat and not particularly engaging, the odd CD stood out, however my f when listening to CDs with the Marantz KA Pearl at my friends I found the rendition pretty good, a more spacious soundstage and seemed to be more musical clarity/detail. When he upgrade I purchased his SACD. I now generally enjoy CDs when I listen to them, although the odd one is just poor, the same can be said of some vinyl pressings.

With respect to SACDs played on it, I find that some are actually superb, the closest that you could get to hearing the rendition on vinyl from and original master, maybe? Before I get shot down I will say this, yes the mediums are different and they each have their misgivings/issues, but I would highlight this, if either medium is used to render an original high quality recording that has been transferred/mastered and engineered in a good manner to SACD/CD or Vinyl then you will are likely to get to get a good rendition, obviously the system needs to be up to the job and correctly set up (especially for vinyl).

Can I hear the difference, in some cases yes, I have several copies of Supertramp - Crime of the Century and Pink Floyd - DSOTM, and a few others, on Vinyl, CD SACD , and hi-res streaming files. As others have highlighted are they from the same master? I know that some are the same and others are not, what has been done in the mastering to each format, in all honesty apart from the engineers involved at the time I have NO idea and I doubt others will know. However I have some newly produced SACDs that were originally recorded, that is in the last 10 years, so presumably fully digital hi-res mastering, and they are quite stunning to listen to.

As others have said and I think Dave explained digital issues pretty well, it really is a matter of luck as to which SACDs are great and those that are average or a CD is just as good.

[Macca]

Can I hear the difference, in some cases yes, I have several copies of Supertramp - Crime of the Century and Pink Floyd - DSOTM, and a few others, on Vinyl, CD SACD , and hi-res streaming files. As others have highlighted are they from the same master? I know that some are the same and others are not, what has been done in the mastering to each format, in all honesty apart from the engineers involved at the time I have NO idea and I doubt others will know..

It's complicated.

For analogue recordings there will be multiple master tapes of different generations, that is to say, copies of a copy. Each generation will be degraded compared to the previous i,e the noise floor will be twice as high each time.

There will also be a studio master which is the mixdown after mastering, there will be a mixdown tape or tapes, there will be tapes of the individual tracks prior to mixdown

Analogue tape degrades with time, this varies depending on the formula/brand. At some point a digital copy of a master will have been made. This will not degrade and will be an exact copy of whatever generation master tape they used, in the condition it was at the time.

So we already have some variables:

1) what was used to make the SACD? - was it the original mixdown, was it remixed from the individual track tapes, or did they just use an existing master? If so was it on tape or already digitised?

2) If they used a tape, what condition was the tape in at the time of making the SACD?

Then we have the process of re-mastering which, looking at the DR Database, we can see that this often (although not always) involves adding more limiting and compression, reducing the dynamic range. SACD releases often have lower DR than the original CD release.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily.

Original CD releases from the 1980s are often flat transfers which take advantage of the high dynamic range of CD. The problem with this is that played at domestically acceptable volume they can sound a bit flat and thin. They are designed to be played at the same volume as they were mastered, which will be at a high level. Then they will no longer sound flat and thin.

When CD was released many enthusiasts, in the UK especially, had 'flat earth' systems with low power amps and poorly engineered speakers. These systems did not have the dynamic range needed to play back early CD releases at the correct volume. Additionally these systems were balanced to counteract the sonic attributes of vinyl, particularly the steep roll off in high frequencies - this is why there was a vocal minority who complained that CD was thin, flat, harsh and shrill.

Adding some more limiting and compression (there will always be some as this is the main process in mastering) will reduce dynamic range but will add more 'body' to the sound when played back at lower volumes. Adding a lot will result in a sound which verges from uncomfortable to unlistenable. It can be a fine line. If you have ever listened to a mixdown recorded straight to a CD with no mastering step you will know why some limiting is used.

So there's many factors in what will make a good recording regardless of whether the format is vinyl, CD or SACD. To a great extent the format is totally subservient to these other factors in terms of the end sound quality.

If record companies were a bit more open as to the exact provenance of their re-releases we would have the info we need to choose. But they aren't as this would hurt sales of re-issues as in most cases the earlier releases will be better for the reasons described above. So we get things like the MoFi 'scandal' which was nonsense since using the digital copy of a master for a re-release of an old recording will almost always be better than using 'The original tapes'.

But of course most of their punters do not have any understanding and assume that original will always be better because it is analogue.

[Barry]

Excellent post there Martin. There is a lot of confusion and obfuscation regarding the analogue/digital debate.

For me it started with listening to the first CDs on a Phillips CD100 player and comparing the result in near real time with the LP version. The CD format compared badly, as it did when using the CD101 player. It was only when the CD104 player was released did I find the format acceptable.

Likewise when Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" was released, it was heralded the first LP for which digital techniques had been used. All the reviews were favourable, yet I found the SQ poor; especially the sound staging with the various instrumentalists appearing to pop up and down like the flags on an old-fashioned cash register.

Clearly digital replay has improved enormously and is now my main source for music, but the situation is made difficult with remastered disks - I do find most, but not all, to be inferior to the originals.

[Enossification]

what does 'higher resolution' actually mean?

Very good point which should also be asked of digital photography.

[Firebottle]

Re storing long lengths of zeros or ones an a storage medium, such as a rotating SACD disc, I can't remember - if I ever knew - whether these were digitally compressed to save space. Run length encoding works for long repeated patterns of bits, ....

There are limitations imposed by the capability of the photodiode used for reading that prevents long strings of 1's or 0's being used.
Eight to Fourteen modulation (EFM) is used to conteract this. Thus, in the final analysis, seventeen bits of disc space are needed to encode eight bits of data.

Also the 10 consecutive-zero maximum ensures worst-case clock recovery in the player.

[Jimbo]

So if you take an old analogue tape of a classic recording, say DSOTM and copy it digitally which gives you a perfect replica what happens then?

1. Is that copy transferred to whatever format SACD, CD, File (Streaming) without any changes applied?

2. Is it mastered according to what format it is intended for either Digital or Vinyl?

3. Is it re mastered which could mean absolutely anything - EQ changes, Loudness, Compression etc?


4. Is that perfect digital copy if transferred without any mastering going to sound exactly like the original vinyl/tape issue?


Once you get your hands on any format that has any of the above applied and is played back on your equipment with your DAC or Turntable is it going to sound like the original recording (first pressing)?

[Macca]

So if you take an old analogue tape of a classic recording, say DSOTM and copy it digitally which gives you a perfect replica what happens then?

1. Is that copy transferred to whatever format SACD, CD, File (Streaming) without any changes applied?

2. Is it mastered according to what format it is intended for either Digital or Vinyl?

3. Is it re mastered which could mean absolutely anything - EQ changes, Loudness, Compression etc?


4. Is that perfect digital copy if transferred without any mastering going to sound exactly like the original vinyl/tape issue?


Once you get your hands on any format that has any of the above applied and is played back on your equipment with your DAC or Turntable is it going to sound like the original recording (first pressing)?

1. Depends

2. Yes, mastering will be different for vinyl


3. (from Wikipedia):

Examples of possible actions taken during mastering:

Editing minor flaws
Applying noise reduction to eliminate clicks, dropouts, hum and hiss
Adjusting stereo width
Equalize audio across tracks for the purpose of optimized frequency distribution
Adjust volume
Dynamic range compression or expansion
Peak limit
Inserting ISRC codes and CD text
Arranging tracks in their final sequential order
Fading out the ending of each song
Dither

4. No, because any professional recording on sale to the public will have been mastered. A release that has been re-mastered will always sound different from the original release because otherwise what was the point in remastering? If you want to hear it without any mastering you need access to the mixdown tape or file.