CD vs SACD vs DVD-A

Systems

Fongolio wrote: »

Tom,
Although I agree with this statement as far as redbook versus SACD goes, my experience with DVD-A is that it is the equal of and sometimes better than SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound.

Yes DVD-A and SACD are both hi rez formats and capable of excellent sonics.The determining factor is the quality level of the data that actually gets imbeded into those little pits.

John K.

GV, yes I'm a member of the AES. Although I'm not professionally engaged in audio engineering, I've been a hi fi enthusiast for about 40 years, and I find that some of the materials available to me as a member help me personally in understanding audio principles, which I in turn can use to inform others about the realities in this area.

Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation. There's certainly no shortage of charlatans in audio manufacture and sales who've learned how handsomely profitable it can be to never underestimate the gullibility of some audiophiles who buy in to and propagate this misinformation.

One irony in this is that many of those espousing a philosophy of "Just trust your ears", reject(often with insults)the findings when the only way to accomplish this, i.e., a properly controlled double-blind test, indicates that there's no factual support for one of their pet beliefs. They appear to have about as much enthusiasm for such testing as a vampire has for sunlight.

shack

John K wrote:

Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation.

Pot...kettle...black...:rolleyes:

Systems

John K. wrote: »

GV, yes I'm a member of the AES. Although I'm not professionally engaged in audio engineering

Thats great John,my understanding is that you need to have engineering credentials for membership do you not?

I find that some of the materials available to me as a member help me personally in understanding audio principles...

Yes the journals are great resourses.I have access to them through a library and perodically get my read on with them.Some of the papers hold no interest, some are well beyond my knowledge base but others are downright educational.

Although the internet can be a wonderful resource for gathering information, unfortunately many audio discussions constitute a quagmire of misinformation.

100% agreed.

One irony in this is that many of those espousing a philosophy of "Just trust your ears", reject(often with insults)the findings when the only way to accomplish this, i.e., a properly controlled double-blind test, indicates that there's no factual support for one of their pet beliefs. They appear to have about as much enthusiasm for such testing as a vampire has for sunlight.

There certainly is a lot of diversity of opinion I will just leave it at that.:)

BlueFox

I have noticed in other areas, and it also applies to audio, is, for whatever reason, many people do not let the facts get in the way of their fantasy.

megasat16

Well, BullSh$T truimphs AES and IEEE!

F1nut

Of course, when one relies solely on the results from a highly flawed test procedure (who really believes that a $200 Japanese receiver sounds exactly like a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers?) aren't they the ones who are living out the closed minded, even ignorant fantasy of their pet beliefs? Why yes, yes they are.

Fongolio

Keiko wrote: »

I've ripped some vinyl and put it on CD that sounds better than a lot of factory redbooks, and can rival some of my hi-rez discs.

I have to agree with that having listened to some of Mike's vinyl rip cd's. I think cd's mastered from an analog source sound better than those mastered from a digital source most of the time.

People can make all the arguments they want for blind testing or what have you but your ears tell you what you like. For me sometimes that's redbook, sometimes sacd or dvda but my ears always prefer analog vinyl. The example of Donald Fagen's Morph The Cat was used earlier. I have it in redbook cd, dvd-audio and vinyl LP. In this order my ears prefer vinyl, dvd-audio, and then redbook cd. That said, the redbook cd is one of the best redbook recordings I've ever heard and blows away even some of my sacd or dvda recordings. A poorly recorded/mastered sacd or dvda is just that...poorly done, and all the high res in the world won't make it sound great.

I will play what my ears tell me to. No matter what the format.

BlueFox

Keiko wrote: »

Here's an excellent example of a well mastered redbook CD that just blows me away, and sonically sounds very close to as good as any well mastered SACD I own.

http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Geisha-John-Williams/dp/B000BJS4TO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1255237611&sr=8-1

Thanks for the tip. I loved the movie, and the soundtrack CD appears to be right in line with my current musical interest.

Face

F1nut wrote: »

Of course, when one relies solely on the results from a highly flawed test procedure (who really believes that a $200 Japanese receiver sounds exactly like a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers?) aren't they the ones who are living out the closed minded, even ignorant fantasy of their pet beliefs? Why yes, yes they are.

You didn't know that all amps and CDP's sound the same? Same goes for capacitors, resistors, etc...

Welcome to the world of meterphiles.

treitz3

Fongolio wrote: »

Tom,
Although I agree with this statement as far as redbook versus SACD goes, my experience with DVD-A is that it is the equal of and sometimes better than SACD in terms of dynamics and overall sound. Most of my DVD-A's are recorded in 24 bit 192 kHz giving them a resolution much much higher than redbook's 16/44.1. The resolution of DVD-A is much closer to that of SACD and in my ears equal. Therefore I conclude I "need" to see a hearing doctor.

Kelvin

Good morning Kelvin. I have all of the above formats including HDCD, XRCD and vinyl. While I can agree that DVD-A can come closer to SACD than any other format I might have, it is still not the same. I have observed this many times because I have a couple of reference songs/albums on most all if not all of the formats. I have played them all in the same player and I have also swapped players through the years.

Every one of the formats are recording/remastering dependent. Here's an example. Take the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms SACD and compare it to the XRCD version. At first, the XRCD sounds like it might be better than the SACD. At least this is what I thought when I first played it. Now, after about three or four minutes it became very obvious that the noise floor had increased and that some of the dynamics were WAY too hot. Put in the SACD and the noise floor all but disappeared and the dynamics went back to sounding more natural. Some may prefer the XRCD more than the SACD because they are possibly mistaking the loudness for better sound.

What I'm getting at is that with some formats, the sound may "sound" better, but at the compromise of sound. Ok, that made no sense. When I say that some folks aren't actually listening to the music, this is what I'm talking about though. When one compares a CD to DVD-A to an SACD, are they comparing apples to apples or are they "thinking" that the DVD-A or CD sounds better because of the loudness, or boost of certain frequencies?

When I listen, I compare ALL aspects of the recording. Every single aspect of the recording is criticized. I'm also blessed to have a very revealing rig which definitely helps define all of these aspects rather quickly. When all of the aspects of a certain medium are put into question and one just doesn't listen to the music off axis or while they are walking around the room, then SACD is the clear winner.

Systems

My personal expierience has been that the best of both DVD-A and SACD can offer excellent SQ.I would be hard pressed to declare one sonically superior to the other and I reinterate my previous statement that the quality of the original source has a huge influence on the results.

IMO given that they are encoded with excellent source data they both exceed CD quality by a comparable margin.For a true apples to apples comparison the same material would have to be encoded on disc's of each format.There are probably others but I can only think of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Frampton's Comes Alive that are available on both.However these are remasters not the 24/192k PCM or pure DSD masters that would be necessary to provide a level playing field and show both formats in their best light.

F1nut

Face wrote: »

Welcome to the world of meterphiles.

Yeah, really! :rolleyes:

ben62670

GV#27 wrote: »

My personal expierience has been that the best of both DVD-A and SACD can offer excellent SQ.I would be hard pressed to declare one sonically superior to the other and I reinterate my previous statement that the quality of the original source has a huge influence on the results.

IMO given that they are encoded with excellent source data they both exceed CD quality by a comparable margin.For a true apples to apples comparison the same material would have to be encoded on disc's of each format.There are probably others but I can only think of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Frampton's Comes Alive that are available on both.However these are remasters not the 24/192k PCM or pure DSD masters that would be necessary to provide a level playing field and show both formats in their best light.

I have been holding off till someone posted this. I think that many dual layer SACD's are recorded to make SACD shine. The CD layer IMHO is purposely encoded to make the SACD level shine. Am I saying that SACD isn't better than CD? No, but an apples to apples comparison would be nice. Personally I do not have the equipment to take full advantage of the SACD's resolution.
Ben

janmike

All I know is I am happy that I was introduced to SACD. End of story. Thanks Jesse.

LessisNevermore

ben62670 wrote: »

I have been holding off till someone posted this. I think that many dual layer SACD's are recorded to make SACD shine. The CD layer IMHO is purposely encoded to make the SACD level shine. Am I saying that SACD isn't better than CD? No, but an apples to apples comparison would be nice. Personally I do not have the equipment to take full advantage of the SACD's resolution.
Ben

Ben, I've done a head-to-head comparison of a standard CD, and the CD layer of the same titled SACD. No discernible difference between them, so I don't think there are any shenanigans at play. SACD is just that good.

skrol

When you refer to "AES" is that the IEEE AES?

vc69

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Ben, I've done a head-to-head comparison of a standard CD, and the CD layer of the same titled SACD. No discernible difference between them, so I don't think there are any shenanigans at play. SACD is just that good.

As have I. SACD is a clear winner in my opinion.

I am really astounded by the argument. Seems folks should quit effing around and just listen. It's not hard to hear the difference. Even on a modest rig. :rolleyes:

Systems

skrol wrote: »

When you refer to "AES" is that the IEEE AES?

http://www.aes.org/

BlueFox

One item I have noticed is with a hybrid if I compare the SACD track to the CD track played through the Benchmark Dac1 then the CD and SACD are very close to each other.

Systems

BlueFox wrote: »

One item I have noticed is with a hybrid if I compare the SACD track to the CD track played through the Benchmark Dac1 then the CD and SACD are very close to each other.

The DAC1 cannot decode an SACD (DSD)data stream,you will be hearing the redbook layer.

edit.Sorry I may have misread,did you mean using a separate SACD player vs the DAC1?

Systems

ben62670 wrote: »

I have been holding off till someone posted this. I think that many dual layer SACD's are recorded to make SACD shine. The CD layer IMHO is purposely encoded to make the SACD level shine. Am I saying that SACD isn't better than CD? No, but an apples to apples comparison would be nice. Personally I do not have the equipment to take full advantage of the SACD's resolution.
Ben

On the flip side ,apparently the SACD layer in a great many cases is sourced from lower res PCM masters so it's full potential may not be realized.

BlueFox

GV#27 wrote: »

The DAC1 cannot decode an SACD (DSD)data stream,you will be hearing the redbook layer.

edit.Sorry I may have misread,did you mean using a separate SACD player vs the DAC1?

Using the same SACD player, Sony 9100ES, and switching between SACD and CD layer. SACD is digital out over iLink to 7100ES and decoded into analog. CD is digital out to DAC1 to analog to 7100ES.

Danny Tse

vc69 wrote: »

I am really astounded by the argument. Seems folks should quit effing around and just listen. It's not hard to hear the difference. Even on a modest rig. :rolleyes:

My headphone system is extremely modest....Sony DVP-NS500V SACD/DVD/CD player connected to a Technics Dolby Pro-Logic receiver used (in 2 channel stereo mode) as headphone amp. Headphones are my 10 year old $69.00 Grado SR60s (not even the new "i" version). On a well-produced SACD such as Steely Dan's "Gaucho", the sound quality is just amazing.

vc69

BlueFox wrote: »

Using the same SACD player, Sony 9100ES, and switching between SACD and CD layer. SACD is digital out over iLink to 7100ES and decoded into analog. CD is digital out to DAC1 to analog to 7100ES.

You are not making a good comparison. You are using different DAC's. No?

shack

There are good SACD recordings and somoe not so good SACD recordings...then there are those EXCELLENT SACD recordings. An excellent SACD blows away an excellent redbook...PERIOD! There is no "conspiracy" to have a poor redbook version on a hybrid disc to make SACD sound better, because it isn't necessary. The SACD layer IS better...if done well.

BlueFox

vc69 wrote: »

You are not making a good comparison. You are using different DAC's. No?

Yes, you are right. The point I was trying to make is it possible to get good CD sound approaching SACD. Some day when I win the Lotto I want to get one of the $50K CD players with the pre-ringing filter which is suppossed to make CDs sound even better.

Danny Tse

treitz3 wrote: »

Every one of the formats are recording/remastering dependent. Here's an example. Take the Dire Straights, Brothers in Arms SACD and compare it to the XRCD version. At first, the XRCD sounds like it might be better than the SACD. At least this is what I thought when I first played it. Now, after about three or four minutes it became very obvious that the noise floor had increased and that some of the dynamics were WAY too hot. Put in the SACD and the noise floor all but disappeared and the dynamics went back to sounding more natural. Some may prefer the XRCD more than the SACD because they are possibly mistaking the loudness for better sound.

The SACD and XRCD versions of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" are 2 different animals.

The XRCD, which predated both the SACD and DVD-A versions, was commissioned by Hong Kong Universal Music and was intended to be sold in that city alone. While the XRCD was manufactured and remastered by JVC in Japan, the XRCD nonetheless reflected the sonic preferences of local audiophiles in Hong Kong. The "too hot dynamics" you mentioned is a giveaway to that sonic preference.

The remastering of "Brothers In Arms" for SACD and DVD-A, on the other hand, was done for a worldwide market. The SACD was never officially available in the US because Dire Straits was signed to a Warner Bros. label, which means any hi-rez releases would be on DVD-A (the DVD-A version of "Brothers In Arm" appeared on a DualDisc in the US). US Warner Music has since reversed itself and is now in support of SACD (witness the SACDs of Doobie Bros., the Band, etc. through Mobile Fidelity).

What I am saying is that you're comparing 2 different remasters on 2 different formats.

vc69

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes, you are right. The point I was trying to make is it possible to get good CD sound approaching SACD. Some day when I win the Lotto I want to get one of the $50K CD players with the pre-ringing filter which is suppossed to make CDs sound even better.

I think approaching is the operative word here.

Why can't all CD's sound like Steely Dan CD's?

BlueFox

vc69 wrote: »

Why can't all CD's sound like Steely Dan CD's?

Because Steely Dan sucks?