What's better HDCD or SACD?

[m500]

What's better HDCD or SACD?

I been looking into it and HDCD is by Microsoft and SACD is by Sony. SACD from the connection side looks just like DVD_Audio and HDCD uses just the R/L connector as regular CD. So, I'm assuming that if I run a Stereo system then HDCD will be what I need then.

Am I right? What's the major differencts in sound quality beside one is surround?

[Feanor]

What's better HDCD or SACD?

I been looking into it and HDCD is by Microsoft and SACD is by Sony. SACD from the connection side looks just like DVD_Audio and HDCD uses just the R/L connector as regular CD. So, I'm assuming that if I run a Stereo system then HDCD will be what I need then.

Am I right? What's the major differencts in sound quality beside one is surround?

I'm not an expert but I belive the following comments are valid.

Standard audio CD is referred to as "Red Book CD", (RBCD), after a standard devloped by Sony & Philips I believe. RBCD is PCM, (pulse code modulation), at 16 bits x 44.1 kHz. The 16 bits record the amplitude of the signal. HDCD is an "augmented" CD format that is backwards compatible with standard RBCD, but which, with the right equipment, extends the effective bit count to 20 from the standard 16. Don't ask me how this works. :confused5:

SACD is the distribuition format associated with DSD, ("Direct Stream Digital"), invented by Sony. It is a different concept from PCM; it consists of 1 bit X about 2300 (I think) kHz. The single bits are either + or - meaning increasing or decreasing amplitude.

In terms of total bits per second, DSD = ~2300 kbps is much higher than PCM 16 x 44.1 = 705.6 kbps, (and for that matter 20 x 44.1 = 882 kbps), so inherently it is higher resolution. (But note that that it is lower rez than the DVD-A standard that is PCM 24 x 96 = 2800 kbps.)

SACD discs virtually all have layers for both multi-channel, up to "5.1" channels, and two channel stereo. Hence SACD is quite relevant to stereo as well as multichannel. (Most discs also have a standard, RBCD, layer, and are referrred to as "hybrid" discs.)

Does SACD sound better than CD and HDCD? IMO, 98+% of the sound quality depends on the quality of the recording process, that is, the record producer and recording engineer, rather which of the three media is used. I have never heard HDCD but as between CD and SACD in stereo, I certainly could not reliably tell the difference in double-blind test, (DBT). Multi-channels is entirely another matter: m/c is inherently capable of much greater realism, though this isn't always achieved in practice.

[kexodusc]

I'll keep my answer shorter than Feanor's well detailed, thorough response:
I'm all for using DBT's in audio to arrive at conclusions, but IMO SACD makes HDCD sound broken. It's that much better - throw in MC audio and it's a wash...
I am of the opinion I can tell the difference (quite easily) betwen SACD and redbook. All my hybrid SACD's sound better in DSD than the CD layer, or even straight CD's (I can't tell the difference between the CD layer of a hybrid disc and a separate CD however, though some people claim to). Whether that's the format or the studio mixing job (no doubt a good mix of both quite often) doesn't matter to me. It's just better. So I'm happy.
HDCD's generally sound a bit better than Redbook to me. SACD's are at another level though.

[Dusty Chalk]

It depends what you look for in sound. Me -- I prefer SACD over HDCD. Both DSD and high-res PCM are far superior to redbook CD, and HDCD is only incrementally better than CD.

Oh, and the statement "HDCD is by Microsoft" is misleading -- HDCD is currently owned by Microsoft, yes, but they just bought the technology when they bought out Pacific Microsonics. They didn't develop it.

[m500]

I guess the new question for me is that would SACD sound significately better in 2 channel stereo mode then red book CD?

[Dusty Chalk]

It does to me.

[Feanor]

I guess the new question for me is that would SACD sound significately better in 2 channel stereo mode then red book CD?

Their hearing likely better than mine -- I'm an old guy and really don't hear much above 10 kHz. So I don't hear much difference between the SACD and CD layers on my system.

Nevertheless I usually buy SACD versions of recordings when there is a choice, especially for large scale orchestral or choral music, (I'm a classical fan). The reason for that is multi-channel. Even though my 2 channel system is much better, I sometimes go listen to SACDs on my HT system -- like I said, multi-channel is a whole other realm. Even if you don't have multi-channel today, you might someday, then you'll be glad you bought SACD.

[spasticteapot]

Eh. I'm a fan of weird music by musicians who can't afford to get anything near SACD.

Also, unless you've got a killer DAC, the difference is not that big. Worry about the DAC first.

[paul_pci]

It depends what you look for in sound. Me -- I prefer SACD over HDCD. Both DSD and high-res PCM are far superior to redbook CD, and HDCD is only incrementally better than CD.

Oh, and the statement "HDCD is by Microsoft" is misleading -- HDCD is currently owned by Microsoft, yes, but they just bought the technology when they bought out Pacific Microsonics. They didn't develop it.


Does Microsoft ever develop anything theirself?

[Dusty Chalk]

Does Microsoft ever develop anything theirself?Yeah, I think they developed all the non-compatible Java "extensions" to their version of Java.

[Dusty Chalk]

Eh. I'm a fan of weird music by musicians who can't afford to get anything near SACD....or don't care to. I listen to quite a bit of that myself.

[PeruvianSkies]

With the proper setup and equipment you will instantly notice a difference between 2-channel SACD and 2-channel CD or HDCD. All of the replies on this page thus far have nailed it on the head in terms of the technical explainations and they obviously have the equipment to readily tell a difference. For me the difference is lightyears. CD and SACD are not even in the same galaxy in terms of resolution, refinement, sonics, etc etc. HDCD and CD are close, but there are still some subtle differences with HDCD being a bit better, but hardly at the level of SACD.

[Woochifer]

Feanor is 100% correct -- the answer to your question will depend a lot more on how well it's transferred during the mastering process. The playback format doesn't mean squat if the master feed gets compressed and EQ'd to death like many pop recordings do. Nowadays, the common practice is to master CDs with the levels set high. Problems with this approach is that the original source signal needs to have dynamic range compression applied in order to avoid distortion.

Unless you know for sure that the transfers and HDCD encoding were done under otherwise identical conditions, then you have no basis for concluding that the format itself has any differences in the sound quality.

SACD (and to a lesser degree HDCD) has a wider dynamic range available, but it doesn't mean anything unless the transfer is done at a lower level without compression (of course, the CD version can also sound better with less dynamic range compression). Alternately, it is entirely possible to have a CD that sounds better than a SACD version, if the CD gets a more optimally done mastering job or uses a higher quality playback setup during the transfer.

SACD has more of an upside because of its greater resolution, and more extended frequency response, but any sound quality improvements are a case-by-case proposition simply because EVERY disc out there has a lot more variability than just the playback format. From my listenings so far, the biggest audible benefits of SACD have been when the original recording uses the same 1-bit DSD format that underlies the SACD format (16-bit PCM is used with CD audio, and 24-bit PCM is used with DVD-Audio). This basically gives you a bit-for-bit transcription of the original master recording with no signal alteration or downsampling. Unfortunately, DSD recording is not very commonly used (most SACDs are transferred from PCM and analog sources), so these SACDs are few and far between.

[Woochifer]

Does Microsoft ever develop anything theirself?

Well, they did invent Microsoft Bob! :cornut:

I don't think anybody else would have considered this an improved or more intuitive version of the familiar computer desktop screen!

http://toastytech.com/guis/bobhome2.gif