Interesting SACD vs 24/192 observation

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

I think people waste far too much time and money phutzing around with sources and "accessories" that would be far better used on speakers and amplification.

I agree to a point, but "everything matters" and adding an well built, linear power supply to my source made a subtle but very, very noticeable improvement as did cableing, power cables, isolation, etc. But if what you are saying Steve is, one needs a good foundation to begin with, then I agree.

I have the speaker and amplifier catagory covered and the pre-amp too as well as dac, again "everything matters" then it's about choosing gear that is compatible with each other. By that I mean don't buy a $3000 amp to use with $150 source and $500 speakers. I use the $$$ as illustration not to imply more $$$ always = better gear, but you get what I mean.

Then it's finding that all elusive synergy within compatible pieces of gear.

Could I find something that improves upon my heavily modded Adcom dac, sure, but I'm not prepared to spend that kind of money, nor do I necessarily feel it's needed. But, yes there is better out there, but then I start to feel like the extra money spent may not be equal to the improvements in sound.

H9

unc2701

steveinaz wrote: »

I think people waste far too much time and money phutzing around with sources and "accessories" that would be far better used on speakers and amplification.

I'd like to add the room treatments to the list of things that surpass most, if not all, "accessories".

However, speaking of sources, comparing redbook to SACD/ high-res PCM, you can immediately tell on most recordings I've compared, if you know what to listen for.

This was a pretty big shock for me the first time I did it, but it was crystal clear: And none of the "more airy, veils lifted, deeper impact" BS, either. You can clearly hear softer parts of the music breaking up on a CD when accompanied by a louder transient, whereas this simply doesn't happen on the higher resolution formats. Something you don't notice until you've heard it the right way.

quadzilla

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

I've always found the harmonics issue interesting, especially since that seems to also be one of the things tube afficionados bring up a lot by way of explaining their preference. I can totally imagine some people being more attuned to that than others, like some are "supertasters" with way more tastebuds than the rest of us.

This is a pretty wild thread, all things considered... the Sony assertion that SACD is supposed to be totally transparent in a way that PCM apparently can't be versus the Doug Sax assertion that SACD actually introduces sonic anomalies. Plus Schnee expressing a preference for physical media but not vinyl... weird.

The difference is odd-order harmonics which are generally perceived as harsh, and even-order harmonics which are generally perceived as "musical". I'm sure that, like anything else, some people are more sensitive to one or the other, and find one or the other more, or less, pleasing than the other.

I think we'll get to a point where DACs produce no perceptible odd-order harmonics at a "reasonable" price point. The tech is already there, but the costs for one now are outside my range of what I call reasonable. This is especially true when, again, I can put an entire nice vinyl rig together for a 1/4 of what a digital rig that I would consider it's equal in terms of sound would cost. But also, again, I seem especially sensitive to odd-order harmonics.

FTGV

quadzilla wrote: »

My point being, and this is one of the few times I'll bring up measurements as the first criteria for elimination in an audio product, but the last set of tests comparing digital systems to vinyl, it took at $10,000US DAC to get to a point where the primary form of harmonics is not odd-order.

It would depend on the design of the analog stage,ie. there are some inexpensive DAC's that use tubes to buffer their outputs ,these will have a dominate 2nd order THD.Otherwise any DAC with a competently designed analog stage will have vanishly low levels of both even and odd order THD within the audio band.

unc2701 wrote: »

I'd like to add the room treatments to the list of things that surpass most, if not all, "accessories".

I have found this to be true for the most part.

schwarcw

There are some of you here in the Forum that have heard my SACD vs vinyl demo. As I stated each have their advantages and disavantages. It you like the full side to side 180 degree of more SDA affect, SACD does not come close to the vinyl. I have tried this over and over with MOFI versions of both. The vinyl has much more weight on the lateral SDA projections. I don't know why, but to my ears and Forum members who have been here will concede to the vinyl everytime. Does vinyl have it's problems with surface noise, convenience, cleaning, etc. absolutely. But I have found it a small price to pay. Don't get me wrong, I love SACD and I own a tone of it. I listen to it frequently. But I have a larger variety of vinyl available that if well recorded sounds ecellent and give me the SDA jolt that pure SDA lovers love. For the smaller bookshelf people, this may not be as big a factor. Music servers are cool. I think ripping vinyl to a 24/192 file is a format that is going to get hot. My $0.02.

treitz3

schwarcw wrote: »

As I stated each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Ed Zachary.

Face

schwarcw wrote: »

There are some of you here in the Forum that have heard my SACD vs vinyl demo. As I stated each have their advantages and disavantages. It you like the full side to side 180 degree of more SDA affect, SACD does not come close to the vinyl.

It sounds like there's something wrong with that SACD player.

erniejade

"To audiophiles SACD, vinyl, redbook and 24/96 are all good formats if they are recorded well. There are good and bad in all of them. Go with what you like best."


I love that quote!!!

dkg999

I'm always amazed at how good a really well recorded, mastered, and produced redbook CD sounds. I guess my amazement is in part because of how few and far between that scenario occurs.

cnh

Amen to that Dougie!

But what makes vinyl aficionados think that a lot of the early vinyl they have does not 'also' suffer greatly from the limitations of 'recording' during that period, i.e., thin sound, less dynamic range, less bass, etc. Can a 2000 dollar cartridge and an equally overvalued TT save such a recording because vinyl has some 'magical' properties that protect it from 'bad recordings', of which there are many many many.

cnh

steveinaz

Like many things in this hobby, I think the difference between well produced media in SACD vs Redbook is GREATLY exaggerated.

BlueFox

steveinaz wrote: »

Like many things in this hobby, I think the difference between well produced media in SACD vs Redbook is GREATLY exaggerated.

It is true that a well recorded CD can sound really good, but there is no way it can compete with a well recorded SACD. It is technically impossible. The SACD is a better recording format that is able to capture more musical detail. Whether that falls into the greatly exaggerated category or not I do not know.

Anyway, the point of this thread was that two recording engineers are saying that 24/192 recordings are (slightly) better than SACD recordings. However, I wish they had been more specific as to what were the deficiencies in SACD.

steveinaz

"...no way it can compete..." Really? My experiences tell me different--but everyones definition of what constitutes the "level" of differences varies.

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

It is true that a well recorded CD can sound really good, but there is no way it can compete with a well recorded SACD. It is technically impossible. The SACD is a better recording format that is able to capture more musical detail. Whether that falls into the greatly exaggerated category or not I do not know.

Anyway, the point of this thread was that two recording engineers are saying that 24/192 recordings are (slightly) better than SACD recordings. However, I wish they had been more specific as to what were the deficiencies in SACD.

Well the media is certainly capable of better resolution but that doesn't mean every piece of hardware is able to extract it at the same level. Hardware varies A LOT, so just because the storage media is capable of such great things doesn't mean the end result (what hits our ears) is equally capable in every instance.

That's why I have never believed just because something is able to decode SACD's means it's automatically better than a really remarkable redbook piece of hardware. I still contend you can take a bottom of the line of SACD capable piece of hardware and compare it to a TOTL redbook piece of hardware and the redbook will sound better. The attention still needs to be paid at the analog section, just like regular redbook.

Just because it's hi-rez or SACD, doesn't automatically mean it sounds better. Hi-rez and SACD is thrown around like it's this panacea of sound and every time you hear it, it's automatically better because of the format......in real use, that's not always true, nor should anyone ever expect it to be.

H9

erniejade

heiney9 wrote: »

.

Just because it's hi-rez or SACD, doesn't automatically mean it sounds better. Hi-rez and SACD is thrown around like it's this panacea of sound and every time you hear it, it's automatically better because of the format......in real use, that's not always true, nor should anyone ever expect it to be.

H9

Right! and remember the mastering of the music has a lot to do with it. Prime example, Beatles remastered cd's sound way better then the original cds... same format, played on the same equipment, just different mastering.

( actually i think the new remasters of the beatles sound better then the original LP also)

nspindel

Interesting that you bring up the Beatles, I intend to do some 16- vs. 24-bit analysis there. The Beatles remasters are one example where you have standard and hi-rez versions of the same master. It's very difficult to compare vinyl to sacd and come to a verdict on which one is "better" because you're listening to the two through different equipment, and the masters (even though both are MFSL) may be different.

With the Beatles remasters, I can listen to the 16- and 24- bit versions, through the same transport (Squeezebox Touch), dac, etc. These are the types of tests I'm interested in - same masters, same equipment, only difference is 16 vs. 24 bit.

Now all I need is some time to do the listening!

erniejade

I brought up the Beatles because non MFSL I have both the original release cds and the new remastered cd's and LP. so not counting the LP, cd on cd, to me the mastering difference is day and night.

nspindel

Yup, the Beatles remasters are superb. My point was only that they're a great test for 16 vs. 24 bit, because you can keep all of the other variables constant.

nclh7

My love affair with SACD ended abruptly when I noticed the digital outputs on my Oppo were deactivated due to "copy protection."
Stupid at best.

BlueFox

nclh7 wrote: »

My love affair with SACD ended abruptly when I noticed the digital outputs on my Oppo were deactivated due to "copy protection."
Stupid at best.

Stupid yes, but they all do that. Which is why you need a good player with a great DAC; i.e. it will cost a few dollars.

nspindel

Therein lies the reason I never got started with sacd. I refuse to pay for two high end dacs.

F1nut

I noticed the digital outputs on my Oppo were deactivated

Why would you want to use the digital out, analog out is so much better and allows you to try different cables to get the most out of your music.

I refuse to pay for two high end dacs.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no stand alone SACD DAC's.

FTGV

F1nut wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, there are no stand alone SACD DAC's.

Not many, I believe the ultra hi end dCS does but I think you need their transport as the data transmission interface between them is proprietary.

BlueFox

BlueFox wrote: »

Stupid yes, but they all do that. Which is why you need a good player with a great DAC; i.e. it will cost a few dollars.

Just to be clear, I was referring to the internal DAC in a SACD player.

FTGV

BlueFox wrote: »

Just to be clear, I was referring to the internal DAC in a SACD player.

Yes but IMO the analog section(within the player) following the DAC chip(s) is of even more importance.

LessisNevermore

heiney9 wrote: »

Well the media is certainly capable of better resolution but that doesn't mean every piece of hardware is able to extract it at the same level. Hardware varies A LOT, so just because the storage media is capable of such great things doesn't mean the end result (what hits our ears) is equally capable in every instance.

That's why I have never believed just because something is able to decode SACD's means it's automatically better than a really remarkable redbook piece of hardware. I still contend you can take a bottom of the line of SACD capable piece of hardware and compare it to a TOTL redbook piece of hardware and the redbook will sound better. The attention still needs to be paid at the analog section, just like regular redbook.

Just because it's hi-rez or SACD, doesn't automatically mean it sounds better. Hi-rez and SACD is thrown around like it's this panacea of sound and every time you hear it, it's automatically better because of the format......in real use, that's not always true, nor should anyone ever expect it to be.

H9

You are right, but in your example, you're also handicapping one, while giving the other a large advantage. What if you had a high end sacd player and compared the two formats on that, since they are generally cd capable?

Also, while correct about a sacd version automatically sounding better than the cd, I do believe that the sacd or hi-rez FORMAT are better sounding ones than cd.

BlueFox

FTGV wrote: »

Yes but IMO the analog section(within the player) following the DAC chip(s) is of even more importance.

True. I need to be more precise in my speech. In my mind that circuitry is part of the 'A' in DAC.

nspindel

F1nut wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, there are no stand alone SACD DAC's.

Well, that's what I mean. I already own a high end dac. I'm not going to buy into the sacd format that won't allow me to use the dac of my choice. I'm not up for buying an sacd player with it's own high end dac. I can afford a lot of hdtracks downloads for what that player would cost me.

F1nut

nspindel wrote: »

Well, that's what I mean. I already own a high end dac. I'm not going to buy into the sacd format that won't allow me to use the dac of my choice. I'm not up for buying an sacd player with it's own high end dac. I can afford a lot of hdtracks downloads for what that player would cost me.

That's the great thing about a high end SACD player, you get excellent Redbook and SACD DAC's in one box.......two boxes in the case of dCS.

FTGV wrote:

I believe the ultra hi end dCS does but I think you need their transport as the data transmission interface between them is proprietary.

That's correct.

headrott

nspindel wrote: »

Well, that's what I mean. I already own a high end dac. I'm not going to buy into the sacd format that won't allow me to use the dac of my choice. I'm not up for buying an sacd player with it's own high end dac. I can afford a lot of hdtracks downloads for what that player would cost me.

You could always do what I did and "tap" the SACD (DSD) output before it gets sent through the D/A converter in the player and/or encrypted making it unusable except by another compatible "decoder". That way, you can send it to any DAC you want with any analog stage you want (as long as you have an RJ45 jack that is installed (or you install yourself). I am in the process of installing the RJ45 jack in my DAC right now and have already "tapped" the DSD siganl from the player. If it works correctly (which I am sure it will) it should be some of the best fidelity that I personally have heard. I will report back about it when I have completed and tested it. It should be in the next day or two. Just a suggestion about SACD and using the DAC you want. It takes some work, but I believe the payoff will be great. I'll let you know.

Greg