What is the point of SACD?

[Macca]

The same applies to DVD-A as it does to SACD which is that the only additional benefit is the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ. Any obvious differences compared to the CD version will be mastering differences.

[surv1v0r]

The same applies to DVD-A as it does to SACD which is that the only additional benefit is the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 kHz. Any obvious differences compared to the CD version will be mastering differences.

I would suggest that the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ is ofpurely academic interest since it appears to be generally accepted that the human ear cannot detect frequencies above 20 kHz.

The human ear can respond to minute pressure variations in the air if they are in the audible frequency range, roughly 20 Hz - 20 kHz. (LINK)

There may be other issues related to difference in noise level between CDs & SACDs but I agree that the most important things are likely to be the quality of the original performance and the mastering - GIGO!

[Macca]

I would suggest that the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ is ofpurely academic interest since it appears to be generally accepted that the human ear cannot detect frequencies above 20 kHz.
!

There is a speculative theory that reproducing frequencies above that has an effect on audible frequencies. People who have compared identical masters on red book and 24/96 reckon there is slightly more 'air and space' on the 24/96 and I don't think subjective reports such as these should be dismissed out of hand.

As I posted earlier in the AES double blind no-one was able to identify any differences which would indicate that if there is an audible difference it is very, very small. Which leads me to logically conclude that those people reporting obvious differences between red book CD and 'hi rez' versions are without doubt listening to different masterings and not some sort of 'higher resolution' which the technology does not deliver in any case.

We should also take into account that any recording from before, say 1990, will not have any musical signal beyond 20Hz, so anything added by a 'hi-rez' formatting can only be noise. There is nothing on earlier recordings that cannot be reproduced 100% by the CD standard 16/44.1 - it is already as 'high rez' as it is possible to get.

[Clive197]

Martin

I think you make some fair points but a number of things still bother me.

Recordings made before 1990 don't have any content above 20Hz. I doubt they would go that high, 14-15Hz possibly anything else is probably harmonics.
HiRez 24/96 is not necessarily about hearing above the limit of human hearing, I think its about detail within the frequencies most of us can hear and that's a lot less than 20Hz.
Super Tweeters can produce sound way above the level of human hearing, we can't hear the real frequency but we are able to hear the harmonics of the higher frequencies. To extrapolate from that, 24/96 and higher resolutions can be heard due to these same harmonics.
I would conclude that HiRez does have an advantage even to those old analogue recording because we are not only listening to what was recorded but also the harmonics of that original recording.
CD cannot and does not match a well recorded analogue source as it is does not have the bandwidth to reproduce all the harmonics. Nothing to do with frequency extension.

[Audio Advent]

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.

Repeat the test for anything you yourself believe makes a noticable difference in your system; cable choices, differences between attenuators etc etc.. I bet there will be a similar blind test showing a 50/50 split in preference. Yet still people will hear differences as you yourself do.

There are SO many people hearing the differences in sound quality between CD and 24/96 or 24/192 etc on their own material with NO mastering other than level matching. It's hard to ignore..

[Audio Advent]

The same applies to DVD-A as it does to SACD which is that the only additional benefit is the ability to reproduce frequencies beyond 22 KhZ. Any obvious differences compared to the CD version will be mastering differences.

And another thing... (Sorry - I'm picking on your posts. Don't mean to particularly, just recognise the same points being made from another thread).

You've said that before on another thread and I'm sure there were many replies telling you that the advantages of higher resolutions are NOT about frequency response, maybe even from myself.

It's a shame when despite all the discussions people have on forums, in the main they fall by the wayside and people revert to exactly the same stance as they always had, as if those discussions never happened. Around and around we go!

[struth]

my hearing only goes up to 11khz now. I'd agree that the mastering will likely be different. I am upsampling my Pi to 24/192, but whether I hear any difference I have no idea but as the dac can do it and it sounds good then why not.

[walpurgis]

my hearing only goes up to 11khz now.

Mine's about the same I think or not much above. Doesn't seem to affect my ability to tell what sounds right though. I suspect the ear/brain still detect the correct structure of high frequencies from the harmonic shape. What younger people can people can hear higher up is to us what the supertweeter effect is to them. i.e., if it's missing you notice. Even if you can't hear it.

I have a Tannoy (would be wouldn't it) test CD with set tones and sweep tones and I've checked what I can detect.

[struth]

Not sure what your subconscious or body's nerve ends can detect but I wouldn't be surprised. Humans adapt pretty well to loss of sense in general. It I think makes me more sensitive to low freq as well, so there may well be part of your brain saying there is too much bass when you now cannot hear some of the HF.

[Macca]

And another thing... (Sorry - I'm picking on your posts. Don't mean to particularly, just recognise the same points being made from another thread).

You've said that before on another thread and I'm sure there were many replies telling you that the advantages of higher resolutions are NOT about frequency response, maybe even from myself.

!

My posts are there to be picked on so don't worry about it

You claim the advantages of hi rez are not about frequency response - but all the technology provides us with is extended bandwith and wider dynamic range (which is irrlevant for domestic playback. So please be specific as to what other advantage you think it provides? I honestly don't see how anyone who has a basic grasp of how digital audio works can make these claims, but I am willing to change my mind *if* a well -reasoned argument can be presented. If you think digital audio works the same as hi rez photography or hi-def video then probably best to bow out now since that is like saying that sight works the same as hearing.