Sacd Vs. Hdcd

univera

I found a great thread listing HDCD titles since there doesn't seem to be a compiled or showcased site for HDCD titles, and since it seems there are many titles recorded in this format that have no marking whatsoever on the disk:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=67082

EDIT: Just found this dedicated, Sweedish based site with a great compilation of titles:
http://www.hifimusic.se/hdcd/?p=home&lang=en


I became interested after discovering two recent purchases were HDCD titles, but weren't maked as such. John Lee Hooker/Don't Look Back and Mark Knoffler/Shangri-La. It makes no sense why companies wouldn't mark the more desirable sounding disks as such as they are obviously better quality recordings. I only discovered they were HDCD's when my Toshiba DVD player indicated so. Since I really love the sound of HDCD's and I haven't experienced nor do I own a SACD player, I have the following question:

After reading a good bit and educating myself on the differences between PCM, SACD, DVD-Audio and HDCD so that I understand the basics, I am curious what veterans of audio and those more technically inclined feel is theoretically or factually better sounding in TWO CHANNEL mode: SACD or HDCD? Is there even a discussion or is SACD far superior?

I discovered that very few DVD players are HDCD compatible, and many of those are high end models (my Toshiba is an earlier and unusual 2 disk player 3109 with dual trays), but I didn't immediately find info about availability on stand alone CD players (didn't really try.) Are many current CD players HDCD compatible? Does anyone care about HDCD?

I feel this is an interesting topic as all HDCD's are backwards compatible on any player and seem to cost the same as regular cd's. SACD's, on the other hand, cost more, and, if I understand correctly, are only backwards compatible if they are hybrids. For all I know, most SACD's are hybrid's anyhow? Again, I am strictly referring to two channel mode, fully aware that SACD has multi-channel capabilities that would give it an edge in that department. However, since many purists like strict two channel audio and may not have anything more, I was interested to know.

lomic

I've never done a listening test of HDCD vs. SACD since my player won't play HDCD - but in theory SACD is in a whole other league. However, because SACD's are probably mastered by different engineers, and in my experience not necissarily better engineers, SACD isn't a guarentee of quality.

When SACD is done right, I don't think anything else digital comes close.

DarqueKnight

lomic wrote:

When SACD is done right, I don't think anything else digital comes close.

I agree. A lot of people do not consider that a recording has to be well produced in the first place to take advantage of higher resolution formats.

I have seven CD's that were recorded in the HDCD format and I have a CD player that decodes HDCD disks (an Adcom GCD-750). Five of them were well-recorded and the other two are just "average" with regard to sound quality. The well-recorded HDCD's do not sound any better to me than well-recorded regular Redbook CD's. However, I do not have a Redbook and an HDCD version of the same CD that I can compare on the same player. My opinion of HDCD may very well change once I am able to do such a comparison.

I have been able to compare SACD and Redbook versions of the same CD on the same SACD player and, for well-recorded disks, the SACD is clearly better, but not so much better that I want to abandon Redbook and jump headlong into SACD. The trouble is that most of the recordings I would want to own on SACD were not recorded in a way that would optimally take advantage of SACD's higher resolution. This is even true of so-called "remastered" recordings. Another thing to consider when comparing the SACD and Redbook versions of the same CD on the same player is that, most, if not all, SACD players are (understandably) optimized for SACD playback and the Redbook playback circuitry is added in almost as an afterthought. In other words, the Redbook playback circuitry of a high quality SACD player is usually not of the same high quality as the SACD playback circuitry. This prevents fair evaluations of both formats on the same player.

Does anyone know of any high quality SACD players where the redbook circuitry is the same level of construction and parts quality as the SACD section? I don't.

aaharvel

I think SACD is head & shoulders above anything else with the exception of one area. Bass management. But that's also because my player isn't that good to begin with. It's got a fixed 100hz. system that I can't avoid unless I run my speakers on full-range, and that sounds even worse.

Still, it's a great listening experience.

F1nut

DarqueKnight wrote:

Does anyone know of any high quality SACD players where the redbook circuitry is the same level of construction and parts quality as the SACD section? I don't.

Musical Fidelity, Esoteric, Cary, Emm Labs, Wadia and Accuphase all have SACD/CD players that would be Class A redbook players alone.

schwarcw

My Sheng Ya does both HDCD and Redbook. I haven't sone a lot of critical listening to compare "side by side". I've found the HDCD to be a little better. However, most of the HDCDs were "remastered". So they will sound a little different. My ears could be telling me than different sounds better.

I don't know if the Sheng Ya has different circuitry for the redbook and HDCD sections of the player.

organ

It really depends on the recording and sound engineer. If it was poorly mastered, it will sound bad no matter which format it's on.

There are good and bad HDCD, DVD-A, SACD and redbook. I'm satisfied with my cd's.

reeltrouble1

SACD cannot help but be better than Redbook, it offer's quatization rates for dynamics in the millions as opposed to a few hundred thousand for Redbook whether HDCD or not.

SACD sampling rates are over twice as many CD.

Put those two together and SACD gets the nod, it does need to interpoleguess like regular cd to fill in the gaps between samples or quantization.

My favorite Redbook players are the Jolida and I heard a CEC that I liked alot. I like MF TriVista, NuVista and Cary for SACD but those players are pretty high end price wise. My Pioneer Elite has been a decent universal player and I had a Denon 2900 I liked very much, I would give the Denon the nod but more for ease of use than SQ.

I do agree that a dog is a dog as far as recordings on CD or SACD. As your system gets better so will its ability to expose bad recordings, their is a danger in getting gear that only sounds good with suberb recordings, good might be a bad word, things type rigs sound magical with great recordings but you cant hardly stand to listen to anything average or below.

RT1

Johncan

I have the Denon DVD-2910. It plays HDCD, SACD, DVD-A, and CDs. The redbook on it is very good. SACD is also excellent. It has a feature where you can shut off almost all the digital circuitry. This makes a noticable difference on Redbook and SACD. I also think others have taken it up a few steps with mods.

I like mine.