Thread: The inherent superiority of the SACD medium

Posts: 29
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by emaidel March 3, 2009 (1 of 29)
I'm quite thankful for this site, as the members here, like myself, are staunch supporters of the SACD medium, and believe, as I do, that it's (to quote a former Telarc engineer) "the best thing out there."

When I listen to a new BIS or Ondine SACD, I simply marvel at how good they sound, and how much better my entire system sounds too. I've been an audio enthusiast for most of my 64 years on this planet, and spent over 30 years in the consumer electronics industry. I've been around for most of the "latest, "best" and "improved" technologies for decades, yet none come close to the quality of a well engineered SACD.

I tried posting this belief elsewhere in cyberspace, and was all but eviscerated by other site members who not only don't believe the SACD medium is better than the "redbook" CD, but believe that many CD's are better than SACD's! One member actually stated that since his CD's, when played on his $3,700 CD player, sound better than SACD's played on his $400 SACD player, therefore SACD's simply aren't any better to begin with! Most of these members' beliefs largely are that it's the time and care of the engineering that make the difference, and not the medium. My opinion (and, apparently that of others at this site) is that, all else being equal (that is to say that extreme care has gone into the recording in the first place) the SACD layer on a hybrid disc will ALWAYS sound noticeably better than the CD layer on that same disc when played on a decent system.

There are those who, because they don't like classical music, refer to the SACD catalog as "a joke," and dismiss the format entirely as a result. Then too, there is still a large contingent who still believe that vinyl has never been surpassed, and that digital recording - regardless of the medium - is, and always will be, inherently inferior to analog.

This is a strange hobby/business, and will always generate strong and opposing opinions. At least here, those opinions are mostly in agreement regarding the sonic superiority of an SACD, and the reasons for it. A good friend of mine, who is, aside from a gifted musician and professional tenor, a Grammy-winning recording engineer for his work on the St. Matthew's Passion on Teldec, bristles with anger whenever I mention the anti-SACD feelings posted elsewhere. AS far as he's concerned, nothing's better, and never was.

It's nice to be amongst folks who feel the same way for a change. Hopefully, our combined voices may help save the SACD from extinction.

Post by Shakespear777 March 3, 2009 (2 of 29)
There are so many reasons why until a truly superior medium becomes available, I wouldn't even think of buying anything except SACD. The only exception is to please my wife who has a large vinyl collection and I might consider upgrading our phono for this reason. Otherwise the main portion of my entertainment dollar goes to new discs and I don't find any special affection for vinyl. I know it a good argument but its not my preference to use vinyl.
The reason is crisp, clean, clear, lifelike sound. I don't understand why the rest of the listening public doesn't get it. But I only heard of SACD about six weeks ago and bought three weeks ago. I'm someone who searches for better music and I didn't get it until recently.
I might write some more again but that is the jist of it. I'm sold on SACD because it sounds great. Its also convenient because a disc is likly to hold nearly seventy minutes of music and it sounds great.

Post by AELK March 3, 2009 (3 of 29)
Shakespear777 said:

There are so many reasons why until a truly superior medium becomes available, I wouldn't even think of buying anything except SACD. The only exception is to please my wife who has a large vinyl collection and I might consider upgrading our phono for this reason. Otherwise the main portion of my entertainment dollar goes to new discs and I don't find any special affection for vinyl. I know it a good argument but its not my preference to use vinyl.
The reason is crisp, clean, clear, lifelike sound. I don't understand why the rest of the listening public doesn't get it. But I only heard of SACD about six weeks ago and bought three weeks ago. I'm someone who searches for better music and I didn't get it until recently.
I might write some more again but that is the jist of it. I'm sold on SACD because it sounds great. Its also convenient because a disc is likly to hold nearly seventy minutes of music and it sounds great.

Dear Shakespear777,
The guilty of this situation ( users misinformed or in full error ) is SONY & PHILIPS, SP should make advertisements leting clear SACD/DSD is the best music media avaliable for Hi-End users.
SP should free a press release informing this, at least, ( the cost is zero, nothing, nada ).
Also SP should announce the removal of the regular CD of the market in the near future due money loss by CD ilegal copies, but nor did this SP do for his own SACD format.
Regards, Alan

Post by audioholik March 3, 2009 (4 of 29)
emaidel said:

I'm quite thankful for this site, as the members here, like myself, are staunch supporters of the SACD medium, and believe, as I do, that it's (to quote a former Telarc engineer) "the best thing out there."

When I listen to a new BIS or Ondine SACD, I simply marvel at how good they sound, and how much better my entire system sounds too. I've been an audio enthusiast for most of my 64 years on this planet, and spent over 30 years in the consumer electronics industry. I've been around for most of the "latest, "best" and "improved" technologies for decades, yet none come close to the quality of a well engineered SACD.

I tried posting this belief elsewhere in cyberspace, and was all but eviscerated by other site members who not only don't believe the SACD medium is better than the "redbook" CD, but believe that many CD's are better than SACD's! One member actually stated that since his CD's, when played on his $3,700 CD player, sound better than SACD's played on his $400 SACD player, therefore SACD's simply aren't any better to begin with! Most of these members' beliefs largely are that it's the time and care of the engineering that make the difference, and not the medium. My opinion (and, apparently that of others at this site) is that, all else being equal (that is to say that extreme care has gone into the recording in the first place) the SACD layer on a hybrid disc will ALWAYS sound noticeably better than the CD layer on that same disc when played on a decent system.

There are those who, because they don't like classical music, refer to the SACD catalog as "a joke," and dismiss the format entirely as a result. Then too, there is still a large contingent who still believe that vinyl has never been surpassed, and that digital recording - regardless of the medium - is, and always will be, inherently inferior to analog.

This is a strange hobby/business, and will always generate strong and opposing opinions. At least here, those opinions are mostly in agreement regarding the sonic superiority of an SACD, and the reasons for it. A good friend of mine, who is, aside from a gifted musician and professional tenor, a Grammy-winning recording engineer for his work on the St. Matthew's Passion on Teldec, bristles with anger whenever I mention the anti-SACD feelings posted elsewhere. AS far as he's concerned, nothing's better, and never was.

It's nice to be amongst folks who feel the same way for a change. Hopefully, our combined voices may help save the SACD from extinction.

Great post emaidel,

SACD is the best format available, but the misinformation comes from the top, and people on the forums just repeat what their local CD player dealer said about high resolution SACD format or what they read in the magazine... take a look for example at stereophile magazine, they promote low resolution CDs, they promote vinyl, and they promote hi-rez PCM downloads which are 24bit/96kHz PCM files...but hardly ever speak anything about SACD, and even when they speak about SACD it's 99% chance it will be something presenting SACD in negative light, just read latest Stereophile SACD player review http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-marantz-sa-11s2-sacd-player-review.html

they will promote PCM 24bit/96kHz downloads (of linn records or hdtracks.com) when even Morten Lindberg knows that DSD is better than PCM 24/96kHz...

Post by emaidel March 3, 2009 (5 of 29)
I purchased the Marantz SA-8001 SACD player largely due to the review it received in Stereophile. I had been interested in a 2-channel SACD player, but only if it also upgraded the sound of my substantial collection of CD's, and the Stereophile review basically said that the 8001 certainly was the ticket.

Still, the overall emphasis of their review is not on how good SACD's sound (that feature is regarded more of a frill than anything else) but how good the CD playback of the unit is, and how the unit's built in DAC's compare so well to using the 8001 as a transport along with the highly acclaimed Benchmark Audio outboard DAC. That DAC alone costs almost twice what the 8001 does, or did, and that's quite enthusiastic praise.

Still, SACD playback was regarded as a minor feature, just as the latest review of that $3,500 unit is (even though the review does state that SACD's sound best on it). And to use Bob Dylan as a standard by which to evaluate such a piece of equipment is down and out ridiculous. Had Stereophile used any of the BIS or Ondine classical SACD's for evaluation, perhaps their review would have been more enthusiastic, but then, and this is a sore point of mine for the last several decades, most audiophiles simply don't listen to classical music. Pity.

Post by wolf359 March 3, 2009 (6 of 29)
There are those among us who remember the anti cd controversy expounded by Linn because it threatened the sale of the Linn Turntable and yet now Linn now happily embrace CD SACD and downloads. Many magazines are anti SACD because it threatens thier livelihoods ,after all if your magazine depends on its survival from advertising revenue gained from companies who are threatened by the existence of SACD you are going to try to kill it off arn't you. Similarly you are not going to publish anything about it unless it negative or at best none committal. The average person is not intrested in SACD because of this blatent lack of knowledge of the format perpetuated by everyone from Sony/Philips through the record companies who got cold feet and pulled out aided and abetted by a negative and indifferent music press. Those that come new the the format without preconcieved notions are simply staggered. Most of the posters on here are classical music fans and the wide range of music appeals.This would not be of any intrest to the majority of the younger generation but do as I did play them some Floyd, Moody blues Dead can Dance or even Carpenters. It amazes them that music can sound this good and because of their youth they have much better hearing. A young friend of mine after being exposed to a good part of my sacd collection now wants a player for her self has bought several SACD's rather than the RBCD versions realises that MP3 is rubbish and is widely complaining about the lack of SACDs by her favourite artists. It is my belief that by building up a groundswell for the future amongst younger people can SACD grow. We the people who frequent this site as posters and the visitors who read but don't otherwise contibute are already aware of the advantages of SACD but we need to make others aware at every opportunity

Post by braver March 3, 2009 (7 of 29)
The most recent challenge is not vinyl but tape:

http://tapeproject.com/

As one of the founders, Paul Stubblebine, is an accomplished SACD engineer, it's very interesting they say nothing comes close to the master tapes copied as they do. They do 15 IPS stereo on a Technics RS-1500 with replaced electronics.

I went and proposed an SACD vs Tape challenge, but so far it mostly demonstrated certain limitations in the folks' understanding of SACD.

http://www.tapeproject.com/smf/index.php/topic,829.0.html

Post by audioholik March 4, 2009 (8 of 29)
braver said:

I went and proposed an SACD vs Tape challenge, but so far it mostly demonstrated certain limitations in the folks' understanding of SACD.

I'd say huge limitations... they say that SACD is flawed format, when even Morten Lindberg (from 2L) said clearly on sa-cd.net: "I prefer DSD over PCM 24/96" so if a PCM guy prefers Direct Stream Digital to PCM 24bit/96kHz how can these clueless audiophiles say that SACD is flawed :/

Additionally as far as I know all hdtracks.com or linn records hi-rez downloads are 24bit/96kHz Flac files, so they are worse than DSD, and the reason why hdtracks is selling pcm 24/96 is because 99% of audiophiles (and I'm not talking about people in general, as some people don't even hear the difference between 16/44 and SACD or PCM24/96 :embarrassed: ) I'm talking about audiophiles who hear the difference between low and high resolution, but can't hear the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 so they (hdtracks.com, linn records) are just saving the bandwidth.

I must say that I love my RCA Living Stereo SACD's -they sound great! but I can occasionally hear some distortion(tape hiss), it's a transfer from tape after all so although it sounds really great and sound engineers did great job transferring these original master tapes into DSD (making these recordings forever) pure DSD recording from Channel Classics or Pentatone sounds just better.

it's sad they think that making COPIES of master tapes is better than DSD master files recorded on SACD discs, but it's not surprising to me, as people on vinyl forums prefer vinyl records (de facto created from DSD or PCM 24/96 but copied into the vinyl) with all limitations of vinyl, limited dynamics, distortion... to real DSD master file recorded on an SACD disc.

on general audio forums people say that CD 16/44 is better than SACD too, probably on mp3 forum they also claim mp3 is superior to high resolution SACD

they claim that

mp3 > DSD
CD > DSD
vinyl > DSD
copy of a copy of original master tape from the '50s> DSD
FLAC 24/96 > DSD

but pure DSD recording is just better than all of the above mentioned options.

Post by dobyblue March 4, 2009 (9 of 29)
Vinyl and DSD are all that interests me, but if I had to settle for 24/192 PCM recordings I would gladly do it over CD.

Clearly DSD is the most accurate representation of analog that we've been gifted with, just look at the first picture in this article:

http://www.merging.com/2002/html/pyradsd.htm

The 24/192 comes close to analog, but only the DSD looks like a direct representation.

Post by RWetmore March 4, 2009 (10 of 29)
dobyblue said:

Vinyl and DSD are all that interests me, but if I had to settle for 24/192 PCM recordings I would gladly do it over CD.

Clearly DSD is the most accurate representation of analog that we've been gifted with, just look at the first picture in this article:

http://www.merging.com/2002/html/pyradsd.htm

The 24/192 comes close to analog, but only the DSD looks like a direct representation.

What this shows is the digital representation, which you don't actually hear. What matters is what the wave looks like after conversion back to analog.

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed