Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    153

    SACD disks, yes or no?

    Gents,
    Before I aim to buy some SACD for myself, I'd like to know if I'll be able to hear any sound improved, or perhaph, any diff from SACD compare with regular CD's sound. I have never heard its sound quality before, so those listeners already have listened to or owned SACD disks, please chim in with your thoguhts. Thankyou.
    FYI: My system:
    - New DVD Pioneer Elite DV-79.
    - New Anthem Preamp and Amp.
    - Old JBL speakers.

  2. #2
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    I have no idea whether or not you will be able to hear the difference. I certainly can, but it depends on what you find important in audio reproduction. I'm a big fan of prat and non-overly-compressed musics, and I have been getting more and more disenfranchised with what I call "digititis". If you feel that CD isn't the best sound possible, then yes, SACD will be an improvement, but I will echo the advice I heard in a similar thread: try to hear it if you can. You won't know right off what you're hearing, so make sure you can get some dedicated listening time. It's not like it's going to whump you over the head and say, "wow, that's different" -- like when you connect your second speaker, and the overall sound just got 6 db louder. It's basically the same, just better.

    That said, by all means, give them a chance, they are better.
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  3. #3
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373
    Are you going to be able to play back the multichannel DSD of the SACD or not?

  4. #4
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Yes, for various reasons

    Quote Originally Posted by gjpham
    Gents,
    Before I aim to buy some SACD for myself, I'd like to know if I'll be able to hear any sound improved, or perhaph, any diff from SACD compare with regular CD's sound. I have never heard its sound quality before, so those listeners already have listened to or owned SACD disks, please chim in with your thoguhts. Thankyou.
    FYI: My system:
    - New DVD Pioneer Elite DV-79.
    - New Anthem Preamp and Amp.
    - Old JBL speakers.
    I believe that SACDs sound better in general -- not necessarily every disk. There are three reasons for this as I see it.
    1. If you have or would ever consider a multi-channel setup, for sure buy by the M/C SACD version. M/C, properly done, provides a level of realism that stereo simply cannot.
    2. SACDs are usually produced with audiophiles in mind; the producers and engineers therefore strive to produce a better-sounding product. The better sound might or might not extend to the CD version of the recording or to the CD layer of the hybrid disc.
    3. To some ears and on some equipment, SACD's higher resolution advantage translates to superior sound, (even in stereo). To my ears and on my equipment, this is the least important reason to by the SACD version.
    I'm a classical listener and I always select an SACD version of large-scale orchestral and choral works. I do this primarily for the 1st and 2nd reasons above, even though I do 90% of my listening in stereo.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    153
    Thanks all,
    Hummm, so there is a slightly diff.between the two. THat's interesting. Such a close call but it'd probably be fun to find out.
    I've been spending hours and hours listen to one part of music when I tried to squeeze and squeeze to hear differences between my high-end Kimber Kable RCA interconnect and many other $2.99 to $20.99 ones. This is me: "Oops, was that high note hit 10Khz or 15khz? Let's hear it again." Yup, that's me....so, I shouldn't have problem spending time and play with it. Thanks guys.

  6. #6
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373
    Ummm, just out of curiosity...how do you plan to place multichannel with your current gear?

  7. #7
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852

    chiming in...

    I'm quite pleased with most, if not all, of the SACDs I own. On a very few titles can I not hear the difference and on a few I might just not like the engineering on the SACD mix. That said, I will invariably buy the higher rez format if it is available.

  8. #8
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373

    A few to stay clear from...

    Hey gang..

    Maybe we can list a few SACD's to be weary about...I know I have a few that were not necessarily that great...

    1. DANCES WITH WOLVES Soundtrack
    2. Any of the Eric Claptons
    3. O' BROTHER WHERE ARE THOU? Soundtrack
    4. THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY Soundtrack
    5. Any of the Creedance Clearwater Revival (unless 5.1 import)

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
    Ummm, just out of curiosity...how do you plan to place multichannel with your current gear?
    * I've never owned SACD before so I will have to play around with my Preamp. Because I currently love the sound sonic of the 2 channel analog RCA so who knows.... You ahve any suggestions for a rookie?

  10. #10
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    definitely go SACD!!!
    I am not familar with your speakers, but with Anthem preamp/amp, you definatly can pump out the sound!!!

    what Anthem equipment do you have?
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  11. #11
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373

    5.1

    Quote Originally Posted by gjpham
    * I've never owned SACD before so I will have to play around with my Preamp. Because I currently love the sound sonic of the 2 channel analog RCA so who knows.... You ahve any suggestions for a rookie?

    Well, your pre-amp or receiver needs to have the 5.1 analog inputs if you are going to do 5.1, otherwise you will only be able to do 2.0.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
    Well, your pre-amp or receiver needs to have the 5.1 analog inputs if you are going to do 5.1, otherwise you will only be able to do 2.0.
    * My DVD right now is set to play music either digital RCA or Toslink 2ch, or 5.1 ch, or a 2 ch analog. But after a massive of time tessting out, I chose to stay with analog RCA 2ch. I haven't tried to set up analog 5.1 but with whole bunch of RCA cables laying around here, I could probably give it a try.
    * Hi ROCK, my preamp is AVM-30 and the amp is A5. I'm tempting to replace my beloved, the old timmer JBL speakers, but I haven't found/audition ones that fit my taste and budget.
    Last edited by gjpham; 03-16-2007 at 12:02 AM.

  13. #13
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    I keep forgetting about multi-channel -- my answer was from the stereo perspective -- comparing stereo CD to stereo SACD.
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  14. #14
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373

    Whatchagonnado....

    Ok,

    It seems like the Anthem Amp/Preamp you have are very good, I have never actually heard them before, but based on the specs that I have seen and the raves they seem good. So what you will need to do is take the 5.1 analog outputs on your Pioneer Elite player (which means 6 RCA cables) and send them into the 5.1 analog inputs on your pre-amp/processor. Make sure you match up the correct channels. Upon doing so you will probably have to tell the pre-amp/processor to play the analog signal path and once doing so you will be rolling with SACD, of course you will need to play an SACD in the player and also make sure in the settings under the menu on the DVD player that you have Multi-channel selected if you want to play 5.1, otherwise you can choose SACD stereo or CD layer. Your pre-amp will also need to run to your amp through either the RCA outputs or the XLR outputs on the back of the pre-amp and then run a cable from the subwoofer out to your sub.

    Are you using JBL for all 5 of your speakers and sub?

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
    Ok,

    It seems like the Anthem Amp/Preamp you have are very good, I have never actually heard them before, but based on the specs that I have seen and the raves they seem good. So what you will need to do is take the 5.1 analog outputs on your Pioneer Elite player (which means 6 RCA cables) and send them into the 5.1 analog inputs on your pre-amp/processor. Make sure you match up the correct channels. Upon doing so you will probably have to tell the pre-amp/processor to play the analog signal path and once doing so you will be rolling with SACD, of course you will need to play an SACD in the player and also make sure in the settings under the menu on the DVD player that you have Multi-channel selected if you want to play 5.1, otherwise you can choose SACD stereo or CD layer. Your pre-amp will also need to run to your amp through either the RCA outputs or the XLR outputs on the back of the pre-amp and then run a cable from the subwoofer out to your sub.

    Are you using JBL for all 5 of your speakers and sub?
    I will keep this thread for future set up reference.
    All 5 JBL speakers? No, more like our United States country, All 5 diff brand, How sad.

  16. #16
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by gjpham
    * Hi ROCK, my preamp is AVM-30 and the amp is A5. I'm tempting to replace my beloved, the old timmer JBL speakers, but I haven't found/audition ones that fit my taste and budget.
    I built my system for multichannel sacd's, but it sounds very good with 2ch as well ;o)
    The A5 is a nice amp man! and I am wondering if I made a mistake waisting the money on the AVM50 for video compared to the 30 but what the heck, it sounds good...lol

    If you are looking at upgrading your speakers, I would suggest 5 like speakers for multichannel... This also is very nice for movies ;o)

    later
    Mike
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  17. #17
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Feanor nailed it with his response -- you may or may not hear a difference, and the degree of difference depends on whether you're listening in multichannel and how the engineer tweaked with the original master during the SACD transfer.

    Keep in mind that when you go with SACD, the higher resolution is only part of the difference you hear when comparing different versions. For one thing, many of the CDs out there were compromised during the mastering stage. They might have had the dynamic range compressed in order to boost the average levels, they might have had other processing applied during the transfer, they might have used a backup analog copy instead of the original master, or they might have incorrectly transferred a master source originally optimized for LP mastering.

    Lots of other variables to consider, but I would say that in general SACDs seem to benefit from greater attention to detail when compared to most CD versions. Multichannel will usually result in the most radical difference in sound quality, not just because the sound is remixed for 5.1 channels, but because older analog recordings are remixed from the original multitrack masters, which affords an opportunity to eliminate the processing and compression that might have been used to create the original two-channel mix. The degree of improvement with two-channel mixes will vary from disc to disc, but not necessarily result in quite as radical a change as the 5.1 mix because they are typically done from the same two-channel mix used in the CD version.

    As far as speakers go, the best match for the vintage JBLs on the market right now would probably be the Definitive Technology tower speakers. They're more refined than the vintage JBLs, but they retain the same aggressiveness and punch. I'm not a huge fan of that particular sound, but if you listen to a lot of classic rock, you might like the Def Techs. You might also want to look into Canadian brands such as Paradigm, Energy, and PSB. Many of JBL's specialty dealers switched to those brands, among others, when they started dropping JBL in droves during the 80s.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  18. #18
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Feanor's post was so spot on, I gave him rep points, whatever those are

    If you're going to dive into mc hi-rez, you will need to timbre match your speakers. There's just no way around this. Unlike movies, mc hi-rez actually use the surrounds quite a bit, enough that you'll notice the discrepency in the tonal balance between your front stage and everything else. Keep that in mind if you plan on making the jump.

    The difference between rbcd and sacd is subtle. In cases where the rbcd was well recorded, such as John Mayer's Heavier Things, the difference is almost impossible to hear. That particular dual disc had me going back and forth trying to pick up on certain cues. To me, the differences lie in the body of the music. Notes are more fleshed out and sound, uh...rounder? There's more information on the attack and decay of the note I guess. It's hard to explain...at least without sounding like a complete moron. Naturally, on mc mixes there is no comparison to 2ch rbcd.

    Bottom line, I'm glad I have a hi-rez player. I just wish there were more titles readily available.

  19. #19
    Demoted to Low-Fi Carl Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I believe that SACDs sound better in general -- not necessarily every disk. There are three reasons for this as I see it.
    1. If you have or would ever consider a multi-channel setup, for sure buy by the M/C SACD version. M/C, properly done, provides a level of realism that stereo simply cannot.
    2. SACDs are usually produced with audiophiles in mind; the producers and engineers therefore strive to produce a better-sounding product. The better sound might or might not extend to the CD version of the recording or to the CD layer of the hybrid disc.
    3. To some ears and on some equipment, SACD's higher resolution advantage translates to superior sound, (even in stereo). To my ears and on my equipment, this is the least important reason to by the SACD version.
    I'm a classical listener and I always select an SACD version of large-scale orchestral and choral works. I do this primarily for the 1st and 2nd reasons above, even though I do 90% of my listening in stereo.
    I haven't had the opportunity to check out SACD yet, but all the points listed seem reasonable. Though I do have a question about the first point:

    Does muti-channel playback actually have greater realism than redbook? I can understand saying that it is a more immersive experience or even just that it sounds better. IMHO Stereo is much better than Mono, so I can easily see Mutichannel sounding better than Stereo.

    BUT, how can mutlichannel sound more realistic, when you are having music played from all around you? I could understand if you had say 6 speakers set up in front of you, and each speaker was producing the sound from a different instrument or singer. That would probably be more like a live experience. But since I've never gone to a concert/live show and been seated somewhere in the middle of the band, I'm a bit confused as to how this sound could be more realistic.

    Please Note: This is not intended to be an attack on anybody. It's just something I've been wondering, since I've heard mutlichannel described as being more realistic several times.

  20. #20
    Demoted to Low-Fi Carl Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    First off, there are many ways to mix a multichannel recording. Just because an engineer can spread the musicians all around the listener, does not mean that he/she actually will. It's a misconception to assume that a 5.1 mix is supposed to aurally place you in the middle of the stage.

    For classical music, the surround channels are generally used to convey the hall ambience. In terms of realism, a two-channel recording does not adequately render the space around the listener that they would observe when actually seated in the audience in a concert hall. With the two surround channels, the listener has that hall ambience which is an integral part of what you actually hear in a concert setting.

    As an example, the San Francisco Symphony's ongoing and much acclaimed Mahler series sounds great in two channels. However, if you want an insight into how someone sitting in the audience would hear how the orchestra actually sounds inside Davies Symphony Hall, the multichannel mix is the way to go. I was in the audience when the SF Symphony recorded Mahler's Fifth, and as nice as the two-channel mix sounds, it does not capture how the sound reverberates inside Davies nearly as well as the 5.1 mix does. The multichannel mix can more insight into what happens to the sound as it leaves the stage area and interacts with the hall. For example, Davies Hall has issues with its acoustics, and the multichannel mix does not candy coat these issues.

    With studio recordings, the goal is not really about "realism" per se, since most pop albums are multitracked with individual parts recorded separately and then mixed together later on. A multitracked recording mixed down to two channels is every bit as artificial an environment as it would be mixed down to 5.1. With the better 5.1 mixes I've heard for rock/pop recordings, the surround effect is not designed to surround the listener with instruments popping out from all sides, but to use the surround channels to create a depth perception and solidity to the side imaging that two channels alone cannot accomplish.

    Keep in mind that in order to really hear what multichannel is capable, you need to have a properly calibrated and timbre matched system. This would include proper speaker placement, level matching, and delay timing. And unfortunately, the vast majority of audio retailers out there, including most of the high end stores I've visited, don't have their systems properly calibrated and positioned. But, once you've heard how multichannel is supposed to sound, it's easy to understand how it can render a sense of realism that you haven't heard from two channel.
    Thanks Wooch. That's exactly what I was trying to understand: The theory behind using multi-channel to provide greater realism.

    Hopefully, one day I'll hear a properly setup multichannel system, so I can decide if I want to take the plunge into SACD or not....

  21. #21
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Reid
    BUT, how can mutlichannel sound more realistic, when you are having music played from all around you? I could understand if you had say 6 speakers set up in front of you, and each speaker was producing the sound from a different instrument or singer. That would probably be more like a live experience. But since I've never gone to a concert/live show and been seated somewhere in the middle of the band, I'm a bit confused as to how this sound could be more realistic.
    First off, there are many ways to mix a multichannel recording. Just because an engineer can spread the musicians all around the listener, does not mean that he/she actually will. It's a misconception to assume that a 5.1 mix is supposed to aurally place you in the middle of the stage.

    For classical music, the surround channels are generally used to convey the hall ambience. In terms of realism, a two-channel recording does not adequately render the space around the listener that they would observe when actually seated in the audience in a concert hall. With the two surround channels, the listener has that hall ambience which is an integral part of what you actually hear in a concert setting.

    As an example, the San Francisco Symphony's ongoing and much acclaimed Mahler series sounds great in two channels. However, if you want an insight into how someone sitting in the audience would hear how the orchestra actually sounds inside Davies Symphony Hall, the multichannel mix is the way to go. I was in the audience when the SF Symphony recorded Mahler's Fifth, and as nice as the two-channel mix sounds, it does not capture how the sound reverberates inside Davies nearly as well as the 5.1 mix does. The multichannel mix can more insight into what happens to the sound as it leaves the stage area and interacts with the hall. For example, Davies Hall has issues with its acoustics, and the multichannel mix does not candy coat these issues.

    With studio recordings, the goal is not really about "realism" per se, since most pop albums are multitracked with individual parts recorded separately and then mixed together later on. A multitracked recording mixed down to two channels is every bit as artificial an environment as it would be mixed down to 5.1. With the better 5.1 mixes I've heard for rock/pop recordings, the surround effect is not designed to surround the listener with instruments popping out from all sides, but to use the surround channels to create a depth perception and solidity to the side imaging that two channels alone cannot accomplish.

    Keep in mind that in order to really hear what multichannel is capable, you need to have a properly calibrated and timbre matched system. This would include proper speaker placement, level matching, and delay timing. And unfortunately, the vast majority of audio retailers out there, including most of the high end stores I've visited, don't have their systems properly calibrated and positioned. But, once you've heard how multichannel is supposed to sound, it's easy to understand how it can render a sense of realism that you haven't heard from two channel.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  22. #22
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    More realistic, believe it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Reid
    ....
    BUT, how can mutlichannel sound more realistic, when you are having music played from all around you? I could understand if you had say 6 speakers set up in front of you, and each speaker was producing the sound from a different instrument or singer. That would probably be more like a live experience. But since I've never gone to a concert/live show and been seated somewhere in the middle of the band, I'm a bit confused as to how this sound could be more realistic.
    ....
    Wooch has stated very well and I can only reinforce that. As mainly a classical music listener, I evaluate MC in that context. Not all MC is equally good of course. Some classical recordings too put you in the middle of the orchestra -- not a position that I'm likely to experience in real life. On the other hand some do right and extremely well.

    I like to say the the good MC recordings move you from the back of the hall, or a doorway, into a good, 8th row seat. If you haven't experience this, you have a treat to look forward to.

  23. #23
    Demoted to Low-Fi Carl Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    285
    There's something wrong with this thread.

    I thanked Wooch for his response, yet my post appears (10 mins) before the post I'm responding to.....

    Anyway, In case it got missed.... That explaination is exactly what I was looking for.... to understand the Theory behind mutli-channel being more realistic......

    The idea of it reproducing the concert hall effect makes sense to me.....

  24. #24
    rockin' the mid-fi audio_dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ottawa, ontario
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Reid
    There's something wrong with this thread.

    I thanked Wooch for his response, yet my post appears (10 mins) before the post I'm responding to.....

    OK... who's been messin' with the space-time continuum again??
    _________________________________________________
    Jeeze... people still use sigs?!

  25. #25
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by audio_dude
    OK... who's been messin' with the space-time continuum again??

    Sorry, sorry...that was me. I thought I was hitting "Reheat" and hit that silly "Space-Time Continuum" button instead. These Apogee microwaves are an ergonomic nightmare.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •