I recently noticed that a particular Classical CD in which I was interested was available in SACD format.
I don't have a SACD player; I believe that they tend to be significantly more expensive than ordinary CD players and my understanding is that no normal person is capable of reliably distinguishing between music from a CD or a SACD (unless listening to 5.1).
Why are people still producing SACD disks?
I don't have a SACD player; I believe that they tend to be significantly more expensive than ordinary CD players and my understanding is that no normal person is capable of reliably distinguishing between music from a CD or a SACD (unless listening to 5.1).
Why are people still producing SACD disks?
Hi,
SACD allowed Sony to introduce effective copy protection mechanisms without violating CD´s redbook standard.
Keep in mind there´s always Sony Music with their own interests in the background.
That´s basically all.
Everything else about ´better sonics´ and ´better resolution´ is marketing BS imho.
jauu
Calvin
SACD allowed Sony to introduce effective copy protection mechanisms without violating CD´s redbook standard.
Keep in mind there´s always Sony Music with their own interests in the background.
That´s basically all.
Everything else about ´better sonics´ and ´better resolution´ is marketing BS imho.
jauu
Calvin
Yes.. but on the other hand high performing sound cards are cheap and can easily be used capturing the analog out from a SACD-player and then up on pirate bay etc.
It's possible to rip the digital stream as well but a bit more complicated.
I drank the cool aid when the format came and then made listening tests passing the superior sounding SACD's thru a PCM loop and could not hear a difference. It was then I realised the masters often differes so not possible to make comparisons directly between a redbook CD and SACD.
If you bother to really listen to SACD and compare on a decent system you will find that it does offer an improvement. I have a decent quality SACD player and indeed the SACD discs present an improvement over regular CD's. However since 99.9% of discs are standard format it makes sense to optimize your system for those.
Bar the PS/3 hack is there any other way? The 5.1 uncompressed stream is only available on HDMI which is DRM laden.
I would like to experiment with 5.1 music at home, but baulk at the entry cost of anything to get the surround info off the disk. Not really bothered about 5.1 for movies tho.
I think you missed what I wrote in the post above your. ;-)
You can not compare a SACD to a CD. Only test that say anything at all is feeding the SACD output thru a PCM loop (ADC > DAC).
Also plenty of the SACD releases ARE old PCM masters with no information above 22kHz.
I also see no logic in optimizing a system for one or the other digital source. Perhaps you need slightly better designed amp with SACD or higher than 44.1kS/s PCM since there is a small risk of (audible)IMD with ultra sound.
Last edited:
SACD - don't remember where I saw the artile by some who did testing of the SACD in Europe, but what they found was that in the top frequencies there was a benefit that could sound better. BUT, at lower frequencies SACD was actually worse than the CD.
Believe the quality of the mastering matters far more that the SACD or CD format. IMHO.
Believe the quality of the mastering matters far more that the SACD or CD format. IMHO.
What you can do and what I have done on my multi disk SACD player is to play a regular disk of the same music and compare with the SACD version. It may not be the most scientific way to do this but in every case my ears tell me the SACD has a lower noise floor, more detail, more ambience, and brings me closer to the live experience. Of course as I said earlier 99.9% of cd's are not SACD so it makes sense to optimize one's playback system to get the most out of those. But bottom line is I don't agree that SACD is all marketing BS, however it does seem to be limited in what's available.
SACD has twice as many letters as CD, therefore it is twice as good. And it's Super. Seems obvious. 
Really it's just a way of delivering the DSD format on an optical disc, as well as multichannel uncompressed. There is something to be said for that. A lot of professionals say SAD sounds closer to the master tape than CD. Whether they are paid by Sony to say that, I don't know.
Really it's just a way of delivering the DSD format on an optical disc, as well as multichannel uncompressed. There is something to be said for that. A lot of professionals say SAD sounds closer to the master tape than CD. Whether they are paid by Sony to say that, I don't know.
WOW! I hadn't anticipated that I had walked into a minefield.
Reading here and elsewhere I now get the feeling that the true primary rationale behind the development of SACD was more robust copy protection / digital rights management.
Various people have suggested that use of SACD makes a modern, significantly more expensive setup essential and this is an advantage - as it would be with CD and stereo.
I accept that multi-channel (e.g. 5.1 & 7.1) may be a valuable feature in certain circumstances (e.g. Stockhausen, Quadrophenia, Tommy, Dark side of the moon, Moody Blues, etc.). However I have not been convinced that it makes a significant difference where stereo is concerned.
If it is true that the mastering for SACD is of higher quality than for CD, that is a very depressing situation.
Reading here and elsewhere I now get the feeling that the true primary rationale behind the development of SACD was more robust copy protection / digital rights management.
Various people have suggested that use of SACD makes a modern, significantly more expensive setup essential and this is an advantage - as it would be with CD and stereo.
I accept that multi-channel (e.g. 5.1 & 7.1) may be a valuable feature in certain circumstances (e.g. Stockhausen, Quadrophenia, Tommy, Dark side of the moon, Moody Blues, etc.). However I have not been convinced that it makes a significant difference where stereo is concerned.
If it is true that the mastering for SACD is of higher quality than for CD, that is a very depressing situation.
Sonys Bluray Players can convert the DSD stream to PCM (174.4 kHz/24 bit?) and send this signal over HDMI.
I think, this only works for stereo signals, not for 5.1.
Hi,
the clock frequency of DSD equals 64 or 128 times 44.1kHz.
That means, that if DSD were true 1Bit as claimed, the resolution would be just 6Bit, resp. 7Bit.
But marketing tries to convince everybody that DSD and high resolution are like siamese twins bonded to each other.
A true 1Bit system couldn't be dithered nor be mastered at all.
In playback systems no volume control or DSP-Filtering is possible.
Hence it is a multibit format only using less Bits than PCM.
Due to the grossly increasing noise with rising frequency quite sharp post filtering is required while with high-clocked PCM You may omit with analog post filtering alltogether.
In theory DSD would straighten/shorten the signal processing in the digital domain, but the complexity spared at one point is added at a different point and imho nothing is gained.
In summary is DSD just another multibit format offering as advantage mutichannel capability, copy protection and it guarantees Sony the License fees.
Btw: due to Licensing .... is there any producer of SACD drives left?
jauu
Calvin
the clock frequency of DSD equals 64 or 128 times 44.1kHz.
That means, that if DSD were true 1Bit as claimed, the resolution would be just 6Bit, resp. 7Bit.
But marketing tries to convince everybody that DSD and high resolution are like siamese twins bonded to each other.
A true 1Bit system couldn't be dithered nor be mastered at all.
In playback systems no volume control or DSP-Filtering is possible.
Hence it is a multibit format only using less Bits than PCM.
Due to the grossly increasing noise with rising frequency quite sharp post filtering is required while with high-clocked PCM You may omit with analog post filtering alltogether.
In theory DSD would straighten/shorten the signal processing in the digital domain, but the complexity spared at one point is added at a different point and imho nothing is gained.
In summary is DSD just another multibit format offering as advantage mutichannel capability, copy protection and it guarantees Sony the License fees.
Btw: due to Licensing .... is there any producer of SACD drives left?
jauu
Calvin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.