SACD, worse than RedBook?

[Beat_Dominator]

I was poking around the internet when I saw this article. Has some interesting points,though no real measurements to back it up.

What do you think?

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

 

[lugano]

"Stereophile is an advertisement dependant paper and they are a bit careful to say anything negative about anything"

This guy has ceramica balls, finally somebody dares to write it down.

 

[Beat_Dominator]

yes, they didn't hold back many punches in there.

 

[risabet]

Though it makes interesting reading I find SACD to be light years better than RBCD. DVD-A is better IMO also. All of them come in second to good analog but that is for a different post

 

[enilsen]

I have read this post once before and find it interesting that the contents havn't been challenged to date. One might argue that new formats like SACD have little to offer other than an attempt to limit the advancement of competing formats like DVD-A.

Companies like SONY/Phillips will continue to put forth new forms of media encoding in the future and secure patent rights for others to lease. How many of us went out and bought a SACD player only to hear DSOTM re-mastered. Did the 2 channel track sound any better than the vinyl half speed master recording from MoFi?

 

[tonyc]

As with all things which is "better" depends on the quality of the recording, the mix and the particular player. On recordings that I own in both rbcd and SACD I almost always prefer the SACD. SACD is NOT better than vinyl.

 

[Jeff Zaret]

Interesting thread and since I now have a SACD player it has raised my curiosity. Personally I think it is an unfair comparison from the standpoint they are really different in sound presentation. Yes you can have the same music on both but the presentation is different.

I think if anyone has heard good Redbook recordings they will not argue they are very good at what they do and present the overall sound in a revealing and realistic manner while preserving the sound stage (sometimes).

All things being equal, the difference in SACD and I am sure DVD-a is similar, is the overall presentation of the aural experience of the "CD". Ok, that was a bit dry and analytical and now I sound like a magazine reviewer. I find SACD and I dare say, the few quad recording which were any good back in the day, compelling and involving. What they do, if it is done correctly, is draw the listener in to the performance. I would say this is definitely more in "classical" high-brow music. This is not to say it can not be with jazz, rock or pop styles but it is more prevalent with "long-hair" styles. It would be fun to hear a good rock recording but there are few. I know I will get blasted but DSOM is musically not that great. I also do not want a debate about this either. I have never been a Pink Floyd fan. While appreciate there attempt at some kind of style it is not for me. I guess I either did not take the right drugs or not enough.

Now vinyl is an altogether another matter and should not even be compared to these because it can not do what SACD or DVD-A can but then they can not do for the soul and over pleasure vinyl can do.

Just some thought on an early Sunday morning while I am work.

Jeff

 

[MiTT]

As with all things which is "better" depends on the quality of the recording, the mix and the particular player. On recordings that I own in both rbcd and SACD I almost always prefer the SACD. SACD is NOT better than vinyl.

Tonyc and Jeff - my experience echo's yours to a tee. I clearly hear differences between redbook and SACD on my Esoteric player, and almost ALWAYS prefer the presentation in SACD. Vinyl still beats all others, sometimes by a surprisingly large measure.

 

[Jeff Zaret]

Mitt,
Thanks
I am glad in my semi-comatose state at work I made sense.

Jeff

 

[DTB300]

SIGH.... Here we go again with this endless topic, just like everything else in our hobby.

First let me say, recorded music will not be able to sound like live music. Every form of recorded music has its own sound signature - good or bad.

Remember, all formats are out there for our enjoyment, and to stand up and say "this is the best" is just not correct. Our statements should read: "this is what I like best". We each need to decide which one we enjoy the most.

Vinyl, Tape, and Digital all has its plus and minuses. We are talking in terms of what they can do or cannot do: limitations like compression, dynamic range; what they "add" to the recorded music: groove noise, tracking, brick wall filters, OpAmps; what they remove from the music - they all remove something as it will never be live.

With regards to the original post: Redbook when done correctly can sound VERY good, and the same applies to SACD. But when listening to a well recorded Redbook and well recorded SACD, SACD is better. Now when you add in MCH SACD - and when the MCH layer is done correcly (proper ambience, not sitting in the middle of the band) it takes it to a completely other level.

Here is a link to a post from Michael Bishop talking about recording issues which he has seen over the years from Lacquer Masters to the latest recording techniques of DSD.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=231499

I will end my reply to this post saying: Enjoy the format you prefer for the music it provides you and remember it will never be live. So get out and hear some live music to enjoy it the way it was played.

Dan

 

[Beat_Dominator]

...and we have touched upon my basic issue with HiFi. If the majority of the recordings that I want to listen to are of "poor" quality..... does it make any sense to spend the hundreds of thousands on state-of-the-art gear? Does it make any sense that one could buy this gear but only play a few dozen different recordings to get the most out of their equipment?

It just makes me sad how HiFi is at the mercy of the record companies.... who do not give a crap about "quality" They just want to churn out junk as fast as they can

 

[amey01]

I don't really care for specifications because they are based on science - and 2007 science is not complete.

For me, SACD is well ahead of redbook. Who knows, maybe next year we'll have a measurement that proves why, but for now the proof has to be in the listening.

 

[Audiophiliac]

There are some studios and even some artists that are putting out well produced albums. Whether is Mobile Fidelity or Telarc....or artists like 3 Doors Down, or Red Hot Chili Peppers...Norah Jones....etc....some people care about how their stuff will sound. Unfortunately, I listen to a lot of hard rock/heavy metal....Metallica, Godsmack, Tool, System of a Down, etc.....and although some of these albums do have remarkable quality, overall, its not what your average "audiophile" considers reference material.

Here is what I think......there are "audiophiles", and there are "enjoyers of music"...the latter sometimes get improperly labelled as the former. Audiophiles tend to be so analytical and critical of the gear, the cables, room treatments, THD, measurements, what the rest of the audiophiles think...that they can miss out on the musical experience. Whereas people who simply listen to music because they like it....they dont have to worry about reviews, measurements, the technology behind their gear, or anything else besides sitting there and listening and having an experience. They can find a decent pair of speakers and a nice amplifier, and a CD player or a turntable, or even an iPod, depending on their preference, and not think twice about how to make it "better"...as long as they enjoy their music, thats all that matters.

Now there are probably lots of people who fit into both categories. I have noticed it here a lot actually. I wont mention any names, but there are individuals, who, although they aspire to have the next best thing...or to squeeze the last drop of performance from their audio systems, and can appreciate the science behind it, and always be looking for ways to improve things, they can also sit back with their existing system, put on their favorite album, close their eyes and lose themselves in the magic of music and not think twice about "maybe those other interconnects sounded better"....or "I wonder what a different set of tubes could do"...or "I just think it could sound better".....none of which are bad thoughts....but when they get in the way of the music, its pointless.

End rant.

 

[Beat_Dominator]

Here is what I think......there are "audiophiles", and there are "enjoyers of music"...the latter sometimes get improperly labelled as the former. Audiophiles tend to be so analytical and critical of the gear, the cables, room treatments, THD, measurements, what the rest of the audiophiles think...that they can miss out on the musical experience. Whereas people who simply listen to music because they like it....they dont have to worry about reviews, measurements, the technology behind their gear, or anything else besides sitting there and listening and having an experience. They can find a decent pair of speakers and a nice amplifier, and a CD player or a turntable, or even an iPod, depending on their preference, and not think twice about how to make it "better"...as long as they enjoy their music, thats all that matters.

Now there are probably lots of people who fit into both categories......

What am I to do! I LOVE technology and pretty/shiny things.... AND music!

Such is the life of the Semi-Audiophile?