SACD vs. HDCD?

Malaka

Many of my HDCD discs sound just as good as SACD! What gives? Am I going deaf, or is this possible?

vc69

I have heard some SACD's that sounded like crap. But I have never heard an HDCD that sounded "as good" as a well done SACD. I think there is a tendency among labels releasing HDCD's to take proper care in the entire process. They sound good not because they are HDCD, but because they are well recorded/mastered. Just my opinion really...

Norm Apter

Wouldn't it depend on whether your player is SACD and / or HDCD compatible? (or are you comparing the hybrid redbook layers of HDCDs vs. SACDs)?

pitdogg2

vc69 wrote: »

I have heard some SACD's that sounded like crap. But I have never heard an HDCD that sounded "as good" as a well done SACD. I think there is a tendency among labels releasing HDCD's to take proper care in the entire process. They sound good not because they are HDCD, but because they are well recorded/mastered. Just my opinion really...

Well said hit it right on the mark...

but you need a player that will see the HDCD layer and a Reciever to decode it. My Denon 2900 universal player didn't see the HDCD layer so my Denon 3805 little HDCD light never lit up until i bought a Denon 3910 universal player and finally the little HDCD light lit....:D
Another one of the music industry's secret...at the very least poorly marketed.

vc69

Norm Apter wrote: »

Wouldn't it depend on whether your player is SACD and / or HDCD compatible?

Yep.

Norm Apter wrote: »

(or are you comparing the hybrid redbook layers of HDCDs vs. SACDs)?

Nope

Windows media player will decode a HDCD too.

Norm Apter

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Well said hit it right on the mark...

but you need a player that will see the HDCD layer and a Reciever to decode it. My Denon 2900 universal player didn't see the HDCD layer so my Denon 3805 little HDCD light never lit up until i bought a Denon 3910 universal player and finally the little HDCD light lit....:D
Another one of the music industry's secret...at the very least poorly marketed.

Agree on HDCD being poorly marketed. When I put CDs in that I've had a while and the green light goes on I'm shocked because I never was aware of the fact that they were HDCDs when I bought them.

But here is one interesting thing...its my understanding that when you rip and burn SACDs you can not create copies with the SACD layer.

I bought CDP that is HDCD ready about 6 months ago and it too has a little green light that goes on when it identifies HDCDs. Now, a couple of months ago I put in a burned copy of Phish's Farmhouse, which came in 2000. Though it is a CDR my player recognized it as HDCD. I've never bothered to check whether the original was indeed HDCD, but I'm assuming it is and that my player has not mistakenly identified it as such. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that even CDRs can carry and have recognized the HDCD sound.

vc69

SACD drives are not available for the PC (AFAIK). Not to mention the software required. Hence no ripping and burning. DSD is a proprietary (Sony) format.

Bubinga99

re: software, is this the type of thing you're looking for:

http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/products/discwelder01000.html

and for DSD recording:
http://www.tascam.com/products/dv-ra1000hd.html
and
http://www.korg.com/Product.aspx?pd=417

vc69

Bubinga99 wrote: »

re: software, is this the type of thing you're looking for:

http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/products/discwelder01000.html

and for DSD recording:
http://www.tascam.com/products/dv-ra1000hd.html
and
http://www.korg.com/Product.aspx?pd=417

Wow. I had NO idea that existed. Has anyone successfully ripped DSD?

Edit: I see...no ripping, just conversion/creation. Interesting but not relevant in this context. Thanks for the links though!

danger boy

Malaka wrote: »

Many of my HDCD discs sound just as good as SACD! What gives? Am I going deaf, or is this possible?

its not possible.

Ern Dog

My current and previous cdp were HDCD, so I'm accumulating more HDCD's and love 'em. The Reference Recording label has 90% of their inventory as HDCD titles.

My favorite classical cd of all time is from them: Rachmaninoff- Symphonic Dances. This hdcd was Grammy nominated 2003 as Best engineered Classical cd. It's a must.

My next cdp will be an SACD player

Systems

pitdogg2 wrote: »

but you need a player that will see the HDCD layer...

HDCD is an encode/ decode process but there isn't a separate layer for HDCD, its the same data stream as the standard redbook.The difference is that an HDCD compatible player or DAC will have a special digital filter that will unlock (decode) the extra 'bits" of resolution that were encoded in the mastering stage.

dudeinaroom

No, it's not hard to believe that HDCD can sound better than SACD. Don't get me wrong I have Boston's Boston on LP, CD and SACD. I do prefer the SACD over the CD(non HDCD as far as I know) But the top end is about in the same ball park as cd, and the LP buries them both from top to bottom.

Here's a nice little read for you LINK.

Cpyder

vc69 wrote: »

I have heard some SACD's that sounded like crap. But I have never heard an HDCD that sounded "as good" as a well done SACD. I think there is a tendency among labels releasing HDCD's to take proper care in the entire process. They sound good not because they are HDCD, but because they are well recorded/mastered. Just my opinion really...

I'll agree with this. In most cases it's not the format, but how much care was put into the recording process - and usually more care is put into high-def formats.

An SACD recording of a 128kpbs mp3 will not sound better because it's SACD.

mantis

I have a fee HDCD's that sound as good as SACD 2 channel but multichannel SACD is incredible when done right. As good is good but it's not better.

JVC years ago made XRCD which in my opinion was as good as HDCD and SACD 2 channel. I had a hard time finding any of them in local stores. Online seems to be the only place anymore to buy any higher quality recordings.

CoolJazz

I agree that the XRCD are really good!!

A reason that the SACD might not leap out as better is because often the source material they use for it comes from the PCM masters. So you've effectively got them taking a CD kind of quality and dropping it onto the SACD.

A SACD is going to be at its best when they have a DSD source.

CoolJazz

danz1906

mantis wrote: »

I have a fee HDCD's that sound as good as SACD 2 channel but multichannel SACD is incredible when done right. As good is good but it's not better.

JVC years ago made XRCD which in my opinion was as good as HDCD and SACD 2 channel. I had a hard time finding any of them in local stores. Online seems to be the only place anymore to buy any higher quality recordings.

Agreed 100%

BB3

Thank You Guy's For All Of Your Insight On This Subject. Very Informative.

Thank You Again.

---

BILL(BB3)

Systems

CoolJazz wrote: »

A reason that the SACD might not leap out as better is because often the source material they use for it comes from the PCM masters. So you've effectively got them taking a CD kind of quality and dropping it onto the SACD.

A SACD is going to be at its best when they have a DSD source.

CoolJazz

Bingo.

dudeinaroom

SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter.

The problem with SACD can be shown by theoretical calculations, measurements and by listening. I have done lots of all these three and every one of them points clearly in the same direction: SACD has not more resolution than CD above 10kHz. Our early estimations some years ago have now been confirmed by measurements and listening, made both by us and others. Today, many studies have been done, for example by Stereophile who has tested SACD players several times and confirmed our estimations.

the one-bit converters used in CD-players usually have higher resolution than DSD, which only samples 64 times faster than CD-system sample rate (i.e. DSD sampling rate = 2.8 MHz). The low sampling rate in DSD is used because of the systems ineffective coding and lack of storage space. By packing the information it becomes a bit more effective but it still is ineffective compared to PCM.

One-bit converters for CD-players often use sampling rates between 11 and 50 MHz. The best one-bit converter probably is JVC's PEM-DD and it is much better than DSD. This said with reservation, I might have missed some even better one-bit technology than PEM-DD. But as far as I know this is the technology that comes closest to true multi bit technology in resolution.

A one-bit converter (i.e. the DSD system) cannot regenerate a short pulse with stringent form. It will change form from moment to moment. Every identical recorded pulse will show up with a new form.

just some snips from the link I posted above. It is a sacd vs dvd-a but has lots of comparisons to the cd system which is lower res than the hdcd

vc69

So dude...

You posted all that, but it is just a copy and paste from the article you linked?

Not sure why that was necessary, we are all obviously capable clicking on a link.


I have a problem with articles that try to convince me that what I'm hearing is clearly wrong because the math doesn't add up. What is your position?

.02

I have one release in every disc format (CD - DVD-A - SACD). The SACD format sounds best to my ears and I know for sure that the same mixes (both 2ch and 5.1) were used as masters for the DVD-A and SACD releases (NIN- TDS). It is a title I am intimately familiar with on many systems. The SACD is clearly superior to my ears. I am not certain, but I may be able to pick the SACD out blind. All I know, is that I trust my ears.

I can believe that inferior DAC could play a big part in why one format, on a given system, could sound inferior. I think if you give each format a fair chance to be it's very best, that differences become rather negligible. But SACD is the best digital format I have bought with 24/96 PCM being almost exactly as good. I believe that the DSD encoding on TDS was done from 24/96 masters.

/.02

F1nut

I have a problem with articles that try to convince me that what I'm hearing is clearly wrong because the math doesn't add up.

Agreed!

As far as XRCD is concerned, I have noticed that the highs tend to be more forward, which to my ears is not a good thing.

Comparing the XRCD of BIA to the SACD issue proves to my ears that the SACD is clearly superior with a more natural high end and considerably better bass.

dudeinaroom

Like I stated in my OP I have cd,sacd, and lp of Boston's Boston. The sacd does sound better than the sacd, but not leaps and bounds. I think the real big difference is the sound stage, the sacd wins over the cd, but the cymbals sound more real on the cd than the sacd. I love the way the album sounds, but prefer the convenience of the cd/sacd. Yes F1, I agree the bassis a hell of a lot better on the SACD than the CD. As fas as HDCD goes, I have no clue. I should throw the cd in the computer to see if it is HDCD or not, even if it does this computer lacks the resolution of all of my mid-fi components