Why SACD failed

BlueFox wrote: »

Of course the SACD player can also flake out. At least having duplicate files is trivial. Try copying your SACDs to have backups.

yes of course it can, but you still have the physical media to play. just having a DSD file of it if it goes for the most part its gone. buy it again. I still have CD's from their inception my kids want to borrow all the time. I tell them I'll make you a copy you are not getting the CD it CAN'T be bought again in most cases. Of course you can get the remastered "maybe" but they I have found are just not the same and for the most part not a better rendition of the original.

look for Peter Gabriel Shaking the Tree it has some gems very well done as are all of his. They're out some a lot more plentiful than others.

I have a UFO Obsession

F1nut wrote: »

So, they admit the test was rigged. Thanks Ray, I don't need to read any more of it.

No, no, no. They did not admit to the test being rigged. They just wanted everyone to know that there were devices available that can water down the resolution of SACDs to CD level.

Why are you so mistrustful of "science"? :'(

Danny Tse wrote: »

I still haven't invest in an expensive SACD player. My best performer is the Pioneer Elite DV-79DVi DVD/SACD/CD player. Its MSRP was $1000.00 but it was being cleared out at $150.00 new because it doesn't do Blu-ray. I am saving it just for playing SACDs.



Today, you can pick up a Sony Blu-ray player that can do SACD for $100.00.

Some, maybe a lot of, inexpensive universal players do not have a true SACD DAC stage. They transcode the SACD DSD bit stream to PCM before it is sent to the DAC stage. I wouldn't expect any sub-$200 universal player to have a true SACD DSD DAC stage.

Your DV-79Dvi is a true SACD player.

OMG! So bit depth has an advantage. So like, remove the advantage and the stuff sounds the same! This is starting to sound the same as "cables don't matter."
I'm sure they think they mean well.

OMG, it's too early for my brain to comprehend this, but this is what I picked out.

They picked well mastered music to put the cd/sacd music to the test. Well DUH, we all know that it starts with the mastering, if a crappy job is done, it will sound lousy no matter what the format is.

Excellent mastering = excellent sound/playback no matter what the format is.

After listening to all the responses, this is what I notice. We all have our various preferences for music, but the crux of the matter always comes back to the quality of the recording. Many of us here have heard quality recordings on redbook cd that can equal if not surpass some on SACD.

Now, finding the various music you like, with a decent recording of it, can spread across many formats. So...you need a TT to play those great recordings on vinyl, a SACD player for those great recordings, a standard cdp, a blu=ray player for those concert discs, and a digital system for those higher rez recordings also and all that entails.

You have music spread out across many formats that requires a good investment in front end electronics too. Doesn't make sense to me. Do you switch speakers too because xyz recordings sound better on one pair over another ? Well, leftwinger does, or used to....lol.

I get it though, many of us already have the physical media we own across many formats, why buy it yet again. Digital in my view, at least has the potential to bring all those formats together in one file that will sound just as good as any of them separately.....IF....the recording studio masters to it. That's a big if, I know. It would appear to me that starting with a piece of gold, and having to downmix to silver for other formats would be more beneficial than starting with lead and trying to make Gold out of it. Know what I'm saying ?

K_M wrote: »

Read it using my explanation of it and it all makes sense.

@K_M

The authors claim to provide a scientific report on the sound quality differences between SACD and CD. A scientific report must be clear, concise, and scientifically valid with repeatable results by other independent researchers. You noted that the conclusions were oddly worded, and you are reaching and searching "between the lines" to make sense of what they said. Therefore, the scientific criteria of clarity and lucidity were not met.

Many details of how the test were conducted were left out, such as what were the stereophonic performance parameters evaluated, how long were music samples listened to, and how experienced and proficient the test subjects were in evaluating the spatial and quality aspects of images in a stereophonic sound field.

K_M wrote: »

@Your comments about the test. They made the test extremely simple, to eliminate the variables you mention as being a more realistic test.

If you think that degrading a source signal and sending signals through a switch box with questionable transparency is realistic, I must question how you listen to music at home.

By the way, that ABX switch box was a product that was developed and offered for sale to the public. It was a commercial failure.

K_M wrote: »

If they used separate CDs and SACD discs, then one would question if they were mastered the same or not, or some other difference, then try to use that to discredit the validity of how the test was run.

It would not have been too difficult to find SACDs and CDs that were produced from the same master tapes and produced by the same production team, and...RESIDING ON THE SAME DISC! For example, the 1997 hybrid SACD release of Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" had a CD layer and an SACD layer mastered by the same production team from the same master tapes:

"This CD is a hybrid Super Audio CD that has two distinct layers. One layer contains a newly remastered stereo mix that plays on any CD Player. The other layer contains a high-resolution Super Audio CD (SACD) version and a 5.1 Surround version of the same repertoire that work on SACD-compatible players. Both layers have been remastered from the original tapes to deliver significant improvements in sound quality for all listeners. © 1997 Sony Music Entertainment Inc."

https://www.discogs.com/The-Dave-Brubeck-Quartet-Time-Out/release/2980812

It is interesting to note that this hybrid CD/SACD disc was released in 1997, two years before SACD players became generally available. I wonder if Sony had originally planned to release its high end SACD players in 1997, but they were delayed for some reason until 1999. Sony did release two SACD-only versions of "Time Out" in 1999: a 2 channel disc and a 2 channel/multichannel disc.

Another well known hybrid SACD example is John Coltrane's "Blue Train" released in 2003. The original recording session and the CD and SACD layers were produced by the same person, Rudy Van Gelder:

"Recorded By, Mastered By, Remastered By – Rudy Van Gelder."
"SACD and CD mastering by Rudy Van Gelder at the Van Gelder Studios, Englewood Cliffs, NJ."

https://www.discogs.com/John-Coltrane-Blue-Train/release/1528284

At the time of this report (2007) there were many hybrid SACD titles to choose from across different musical genres. There was no need to degrade an SACD output to CD resolution because CD versions of SACD titles ON THE SAME DISC, MADE BY THE SAME PRODUCTION TEAM, were conveniently, immediately, and abundantly available.

K_M wrote: »

I am betting worrying about the actual switch box is a red herring also.

That is a bet you would lose. I find it bizarre that you would think that concern about the sonic transparency of a switch that test signals pass through is an insignificant point.

Designers of high end, high performance audio equipment try to avoid the use of any type of mechanical switch in the signal path because of the electrical noise such switches cause when contacts are made and broken. In the case of a mechanical switch passing two stereo signals, there is also the possibility of crosstalk to deal with. Low noise mechanical switches, and particularly low noise multichannel mechanical switches, are very expensive.

The designer of my Pass Labs XP-30 preamp chose to avoid the use of a mechanical switch as the volume control. He custom designed a low noise electronic volume control.