What is the point of SACD?

[Spectral Morn]

Thanks for that Chris. I know that the new issues sound very different to my original vinyl copies when I had them way back when. The level of detail on these new SACD's is incredible. I also love the way that Steve Hackett's guitaring is very much more prominent. I love the SACD version of 'Trick of the Tale' the best but also quite like my all time fave Genesis album 'Selling England' on SACD.

Agreed love Trick of the Tale on SACD


Regards Neil

[HackneyRF]

I agree that the level of detail particularly on SEBTP on SACD is stunning and for that reason I really like it a lot. I always liked the original recording but always wished that it sounded less 'muddy'. I got my wish. But it's apparently not to everyone's taste. Fair enough. I've not heard the other Genesis albums on SACD. Not fussed about Nursery Chryme, and anything past Wind and Wuthering but I guess you guys would recommend the other albums?

Cheers

Loz

[daytona600]

Dozens out every week & they make most sense on a good sacd player designed for the task not a universal player
or other means usually in PCM not DSD & ideally from a analogue source as DSD was made for achiving analogue tapes by sony

Most are actually mastered in double or quad DSD these days & as a audiophile format that will not die great care & attention usually paid to the mastering & sound quality in 2ch only
have 100s myself & love them to bits or love them in 1bit

recent examples like analogue productions Amused to death are just stunning
soundstage , clarity & dynamics are just world class - long live sacd

[surv1v0r]

WOW! I hadn't anticipated that I had walked into a minefield.

Reading here and elsewhere I now get the feeling that the true primary rationale behind the development of SACD was more robust copy protection / digital rights management.

Various people have suggested that use of SACD makes a modern, significantly more expensive setup essential and this is an advantage - as it would be with CD and stereo.

I accept that multi-channel (e.g. 5.1 & 7.1) may be a valuable feature in certain circumstances (e.g. Stockhausen, Quadrophenia, Tommy, Dark side of the moon, Moody Blues, etc.). However I have not been convinced that it makes a significant difference where stereo is concerned.

If it is true that the mastering for SACD is of higher quality than for CD, that is a very cynical and depressing situation.

[Macca]

WOW! I hadn't anticipated that I had walked into a minefield.

.

If it is true that the mastering for SACD is of higher quality than for CD, that is a very cynical and depressing situation.

It is not so much a minefield as perhaps a wilfull ignorance on behalf of some to actually understand how it works and to assume that it is the technology delivering the improved sound quality rather than better mastering. Although move away from the 'gi res' debate for a minute and no enthusiast or audipophile will deny that the better the mastering the better the sound, regrdless of format.

That SACDs only technical benefit is that it has extended bandwith compared to red book CD is neither here nor there. Some insist on thinking that it works like digital photography, that there are somehow 'more pixels per frame' - but in a musical sense. Sadly the big corps like Sony have done nothing to contradict this basic misunderstanding.

[daytona600]

get hold or borrow a PS1 or any Sacd player or even a new for about £150
play the cd layer the the dsd layer or visit a dealer & hear the difference ( 99% are dual layer hybrid discs )

then repeat with a Real Sacd player - esoteric , dcs , marantz etc

[Andrei]

get hold or borrow a PS1 or any Sacd player or even a new for about £150
play the cd layer the the dsd layer or visit a dealer & hear the difference ( 99% are dual layer hybrid discs )

then repeat with a Real Sacd player - esoteric , dcs , marantz etc

That's exactly right Scott. If you don't have a good player (and associated equipment as well for that matter) then you will not get the full benefit of the extra resolution. As you say it is easy enough to make the comparison by asking your player to play the CD layer and then you can play the DSD layer. Another benefit is the ability to have 5.1 channels if you have the speakers. One point though, to be pedantic: most SACDs have three layers: Two channel PCM (the CD layer), two channel DSD, and 5.1 channel DSD.

[Macca]

How is this 'extra resolution' being created? Can you explain the process?

If there is a big difference then it is a different mastering since the addition of frequencies above 22Khz can at best make a tiny difference ( and as far as established psycho-acoustic theory is concerned can make no difference at all) to what you can hear.

What is the difference between my Pioneer SACD player and an Esoteric that means the Esoteric produces the 'extra resolution' and the Pioneer doesn't? The decoding process is exactly the same in both players.

I hate appeals to authority but you should take a look at this:

In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better than that of CD. For example, one supplier claims that "The DSD process used for producing SACDs captures more of the nuances from a performance and reproduces them with a clarity and transparency not possible with CD.[38]
In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[39] When the level of the signal was elevated by 14 dB or more, the test subjects were able to detect the higher noise floor of the CD quality loop easily.[1] The authors commented:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[1][40]
Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests

a b c Meyer, E. Brad and Moran, David R. "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". AES E-Library 55 (9): 775–779.

[Clive197]

Dozens out every week & they make most sense on a good sacd player designed for the task not a universal player.................

I must beg to differ. I play my SACD's on a universal player (OPPO BDP-105D) set to output from the DSD layer. An acknowledged match if not better than a lot of dedicated SACD players.
Most of my discs sound better from the DSD layer than the standard PCM layer but at the end of the day, the mastering is key. I have a few SACD's mainly on the Columbia (Sony) label that are no better than standard CD's

[Clive197]

.......As an extension to this discussion I would ask if anyone has noticed a difference between HiRes PCM and DSD. I have just been listening to a couple of DVD-A's 24/96 tracks which sound superb and noticeably better than the standard CD, but I have no way I can compare SACD with DVD-A.