SACD in Stereo

[nightflier]

OK, here's a question: will a good quality SACD player connected to a preamp with stereo RCA cables only, have better sound that a standard CD player? If so, how does this compare to HDCD?

The reason I'm asking is because I have an average (well I would like to think above-average) surround sound setup mostly for watching movies. It's the family room and it gets a lot of use. I also have what I would consider a mid-fi 2-channel (stereo) setup that I am constantly upgrading. It's sort of my pet project. I would prefer moving our SACD player to that room so that I can use it with the higher quality seperates, but I would be giving up surround sound.

Any thoughts?

[corwin99]

This would depend mostly on what SACD and CD players you are comparing. I feel SACD has the potential to be very good and exceed the performance of many if not most CD players, but a mediocre SACD player will not perform better than a good CD player.

[N. Abstentia]

If you're comparing CD vs. CD with the players you probably won't hear a difference.

However SACD vs. CD should be quite an improvement.

[Dolby]

I have a cheap SACD player (Sony DVP-NS955v) and a more expensive CD player (MArantz CD17 MKII KI). I feel an SACD played on any price SACD player sounds better than a CD on a decent CD player. I must admit though, all my SACDs are multichannel and that may be the reason I prefer them.

[Feanor]

OK, here's a question: will a good quality SACD player (#) connected to a preamp with stereo RCA cables only, have better sound that a standard CD player? If so, how does this compare to HDCD?...
SACD is better in principle, all else equal. But not necessarily in practice. A cheapo universal player playing SACD (stereo) might not sound as good as high quality CD player.

However I must say that the quality of the recording & mastering is far more important than the the distribution medium. The best quality recordings on CD are indistinquishable in sound quality from SACD (stereo) to my 60 year old ears.

[nightflier]

Feanor (as in the Silmarillion, I presume?),

Generally speaking though, SACD's are geared to the higher-end market just because it is a format that is not mainstream right? So one would expect most SACD's to be high-quality recordings.

Now I've heard some remasters that I wasn't impressed with like the Rolling Stones remasters, that I wasn't very impressed with, but I attribute that to their attempt to do more with it than what the master tapes were originally designed to do. Everything else I have, particularly Classical music is quite stunning, quality-wise.

My hope is that it will sound better in stereo on my higher end equipment than it does in surround on CC-level stuff.

[Feanor]

See my comments in-line ...


Feanor (as in the Silmarillion, I presume?), Yep!

Generally speaking though, SACD's are geared to the higher-end market just because it is a format that is not mainstream right? So one would expect most SACD's to be high-quality recordings. Yes, I think the producers expend more effort to make a good-sounding SACD that a CD -- prehaps this is especially true of pop music.

Now I've heard some remasters that I wasn't impressed with like the Rolling Stones remasters, that I wasn't very impressed with, but I attribute that to their attempt to do more with it than what the master tapes were originally designed to do. Everything else I have, particularly Classical music is quite stunning, quality-wise. Yes, could be; also, see above.

My hope is that it will sound better in stereo on my higher end equipment than it does in surround on CC-level stuff. I certainly think this will be the case.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, I think the producers expend more effort to make a good-sounding SACD that a CD -- prehaps this is especially true of pop music.


Actually we spend more time on the CD than we do the SACD. The CD is created from the original DSD data stream(if it was originally recorded in DSD), so it is sometimes requires just a little tweaking here and there. The CD is played in many different media forms, so it must sound good in mono and in stereo, through big speakers, and through small speakers, so there is much more tweaking to do for a CD release.

If we are creating a remaster from a analog source, then both the SACD and CD usually require the same amount of time to tweak.

[Feanor]

Actually we spend more time on the CD than we do the SACD. The CD is created from the original DSD data stream(if it was originally recorded in DSD), so it is sometimes requires just a little tweaking here and there. The CD is played in many different media forms, so it must sound good in mono and in stereo, through big speakers, and through small speakers, so there is much more tweaking to do for a CD release.

If we are creating a remaster from a analog source, then both the SACD and CD usually require the same amount of time to tweak.
Of course, what you do as a practitioner might be best-practice whereas someone else might cut corners. In any case, though the "effort" for the CD version is as great, the result might be relatively compromised on account of the medium, e.g. purposely compressed in dynamic range, or the like. What can you tell as about that?

[nightflier]

I'm still not clear on what is really happening to the signal.

- Does the SACD player down-convert a 5 channel mix back to stereo (assuming a non-hybryd disk is being played)?

- Is this signal coming out of those L/R channels still of higher quality than the signal that would be coming from a good CD player? For example will it have the promissed over-22KHz. frequencies and the extra 96-120 dB of dynamic range?

- Presuming, that a good quality CD player can still transmit (play) those higher frequencies and extended range, does a well recorded CD even carry these signals?

- Providing I'm using good quality RCA interconnects, a good pre-amp, good amp, and good speakers who's specs all support the higher quality sound, then I should be able to get the higher frequency output, right? (which I probably can't hear anyhow, but that may explain why the neighbor's dog howls all the time)

With both DVD-A and SACD all the hoopla has been about the surround sound, and that may be impressive, particualrly when listening to live recordings, but I've always felt that the 5-channel sound distracts me from actually listening actively for a noted improvement in sound quality. Assuming that we are comparing a good DG recording of Beethoven's 5th with the Telarc SACD version (I know they are not the exact same recordings, but bear with me here), then I really want to hear for myself what the difference is, rather than reading about it in a magazine. Everything up to now, for me at least, has been an "impression" or a "feeling" that it sounds better.

[Feanor]

See my remarks in context ...


I'm still not clear on what is really happening to the signal.

- Does the SACD player down-convert a 5 channel mix back to stereo (assuming a non-hybryd disk is being played)? From what I know, all SACD come with a stereo layer -- the packaging generally tells you what's on the disc.

- Is this signal coming out of those L/R channels still of higher quality than the signal that would be coming from a good CD player? For example will it have the promissed over-22KHz. frequencies and the extra 96-120 dB of dynamic range? Yes; the stereo version is true SACD quality and doesn't differ from the multi-channel in this respect.

- Presuming, that a good quality CD player can still transmit (play) those higher frequencies and extended range, does a well recorded CD even carry these signals? No, it cannot.

- Providing I'm using good quality RCA interconnects, a good pre-amp, good amp, and good speakers who's specs all support the higher quality sound, then I should be able to get the higher frequency output, right? (which I probably can't hear anyhow, but that may explain why the neighbor's dog howls all the time) Ha! Yes, the dog might hear but you won't -- at least not on a consious level; some say that there is a level of perception where these higher frequencies count. I'm extremely skeptical: at my age I don't hear (conciously) much over 10kHz.

With both DVD-A and SACD all the hoopla has been about the surround sound (http://forums.audioreview.com/newreply.php#), and that may be impressive, particualrly when listening to live recordings, but I've always felt that the 5-channel sound distracts me from actually listening actively for a noted improvement in sound quality. Assuming that we are comparing a good DG recording of Beethoven's 5th with the Telarc SACD version (I know they are not the exact same recordings ... that's for sure ... , but bear with me here), then I really want to hear for myself what the difference is, rather than reading about it in a magazine. Everything up to now, for me at least, has been an "impression" or a "feeling" that it sounds better.
Like I said earlier, the quality of the production will always be more important than the medium. From where I sit, SACD sounds better on average than CD but that's because they have been better produced. The very best CDs, for me, are virtually indistinguishable from SACD.

[nightflier]

... From what I know, all SACD come with a stereo layer -- the packaging generally tells you what's on the disc.

So a non-hybrid multichannel SACD has both a hi-res stereo track and an hi-res multichannel track?

Also, since my Beethoven isn't going to work, are there any SACD's of the same recording as a previous CD that you know of (preferably classical)? I would really like to do a true comparison.

[Feanor]

So a non-hybrid multichannel SACD has both a hi-res stereo track and an hi-res multichannel track?

Also, since my Beethoven isn't going to work, are there any SACD's of the same recording as a previous CD that you know of (preferably classical)? I would really like to do a true comparison.
The "hybrid" aspect refers to the standard CD layer on the SACD disc, not to whether is has hi-rez stereo and as well as multi-channel SACD layers. Most SACDs being issued today are hybrid. SACD-only discs were mostly the earlier ones and, interestingly, many were not multi-channel.

If you want to compare CD and SACD sound directly, simply compare the CD layer to the stereo SACD layer of new issues, that is, not SACD remasters of older recordings. The reason for that the latter are not always good for comparison is that the CD layer is just the old CD-only production, i.e. not a version remastered and, presumably, improved for SACD issue.

[Geoffcin]

OK, here's a question: will a good quality SACD player connected to a preamp with stereo RCA cables only, have better sound that a standard CD player? If so, how does this compare to HDCD?

The reason I'm asking is because I have an average (well I would like to think above-average) surround sound setup mostly for watching movies. It's the family room and it gets a lot of use. I also have what I would consider a mid-fi 2-channel (stereo) setup that I am constantly upgrading. It's sort of my pet project. I would prefer moving our SACD player to that room so that I can use it with the higher quality seperates, but I would be giving up surround sound.

Any thoughts?

And it is noticably better than CD in most direct comparisons in my system. My DVD-A player is not of audiophile grade though, so I assume that DVD-Audio could be even BETTER. A point that I had proven to me when I got to listen to the Meridian Reference player, playing an AIX direct-to-digital recording.

My opinion is that in any decent system, you WILL be able to hear a difference between SACD & CD.

[Mark of Cenla]

I have a two channel system in my living room that I use for all TV sound, including DVDs. When I bought my Panasonic DVD recorder, I discovered it plays DVD Audio discs, so I went out and bought two. One was the Yes album Fragile . When I heard the opening to "Roundabout" I was shocked because my Hafler preamp and power amp with my Boston Acoustics tower speakers that I have had since the mid 80s never sounded so good. I later did a direct comparision between the DVD Audio disc and a CD with the same tune. The difference was quite noticeable: the DVD Audio disc had better bass and much better overall resolution; it was just much clearer, with great separation between the instruments. I hope this helps. Peace.

[nightflier]

I have a two channel system in my living room that I use for all TV sound, including DVDs. When I bought my Panasonic DVD recorder, I discovered it plays DVD Audio discs, so I went out and bought two. One was the Yes album Fragile . When I heard the opening to "Roundabout" I was shocked because my Hafler preamp and power amp with my Boston Acoustics tower speakers that I have had since the mid 80s never sounded so good. I later did a direct comparision between the DVD Audio disc and a CD with the same tune. The difference was quite noticeable: the DVD Audio disc had better bass and much better overall resolution; it was just much clearer, with great separation between the instruments. I hope this helps. Peace.

Mark,

Was the recording the same recording as well (i.e. was this the same Yes album available in DVD-A and RBCD)?

[Mark of Cenla]

The redbook CD version was from The Best of Yes . I don't have Fragile on CD. Peace.

[kingdaddykeith]

The Yes Fragile DVD-A also has a DTS 5.1 track, which is probable what you are playing, unless you have the 6 analog outs of the player connected to the Processor. I have that disc as well but don’t have a DVD-A player (just SACD) and it is far superior to the Redbook CD

[Mark of Cenla]

The Yes DVD-A is playing in two channel stereo. First, I only have two speakers. Second, this Panasonic DVD recorder (DMR-E55) only plays DVD Audio dics in stereo (according to the owners manual). Peace.

[carneymatt]

The quality of the DAC is one of the most important factors in determing sound quality. Even the cheapest SACD player will sound better than any inexpensive CD player because it will have a better digital to analog converter. Most CD players and many receivers use cheap 1 bit DAC's but an SACD player has to have a 24 bit DAC in order to be compatible with SACD. This means that even a regular CD played on an SACD player will sound better and an SACD will simply blow it away. Granted humans may not be able to hear some of the high frequencies that SACD is capable of reproducing but the recording process in general for SACD is vastly superior to regular CD. I have a cheap Pioneer universal player and I can clearly hear the difference between a CD played on that and a CD played on my Sony 400 disc changer. As far as an SACD there is no comparison. The amount of warmth and detail that is missing from a CD becomes obvious to me. Of course a really high end cd player will likely have an excellent DAC and will make your CD's sound fantastic but a high end SACD player will sound even better. In order to gain the benefits of the SACD player's DAC when listening to a CD you will have to make sure your receiver is set to the analog inputs otherwise it will probably play the signal from the digital connection by default.

[hifitommy]

i learned that lesson long ago. keep everything. mc can be derived from DPL on the 2ch sources. i am surrounded with dynaquad passive surround only. all sources surround me, even the fm. i did not buy a 6ch pre/pro to accommodate sacd. nor will i.

if i pulled the 8track wollensak out of the garage and lubed and re-belted it, i would be surrounded by that too. sometimes technology outdoes itself, mch is one of those areas. the need for LF (bass) management is a good example.

i have numerous duplicate recordings in different format and am not dumping ANY.

[krabapple]

The redbook CD version was from The Best of Yes . I don't have Fragile on CD. Peace.

This comparison tells you *nothing* about teh sound of DVD-A vs. CD as formats. You have no way of knowing whether what you hear is due all, or in part, to different mastering. Different mastering choices in EQ and level *are* likely to be audible. No well-controlled study has ever demonstrated that the same is true for DVD-A or SACD vs Redbook as playback formats.

Having compared waveforms from various versions of Fragile (including the DVD-A , captured at high sampling/bitrate from the analog output, though not 'Best of Yes') , I'd suggest that the Fragile DVD-A is mastered rather differently from all but the most recent CD version -- it's louder, for one thing.

You can't even be sure the mastering of the DVD-A vs DTS versions on the same disc are the same (or that your player will ouptut them at the same levels).