I'm going to strongly dispute this: as SY points out, a lot of SACD's "superiority" is due to the tracks being cooked during mastering, the engineers have been caught out quite a few times ... . Of course, the head honchos have said, ya gotta make sure the SACD sounds better, no matter what!
I've actually done some examinations of SACD material, and compared it to the CD version. And there is no difference, that can ever be audible, that is: the difference file is well over 90dB down, or it's true ultra-sonic material that has been captured by the mics. One thing too, SACD is very noisy at the ultra-sonic frequencies - there is pure random noise continuously through the track, nervous Nelly is taking a walk ...
I've done the exercise of taking a high quality SACD track, down-sampling to CD standards, then up-sampling the CD 2nd generation back up to SACD, the 3rd generation. And there is no audibly significant losses. Plus, I noted the comments of a number of audiophiles who sampled the results of the same exercise performed by a recognised, SACD mastering professional: they could not differentiate, in a blind test situation.
So what's going on? My belief, very strong belief, is that the actual moment of playback is when the damage is done: SACD by the very nature of how the electronics do their job are less prone to polluting their nest-- add unpleasant distortion -- than CD playback. On a level playing field there won't be audible differences ...
Frank
Get hold of the BluRay version of "Baraka", and watch on a decent screen. This will show you what's possible; in particular, check out scenes with huge numbers of people ...Maybe it's just me, but BluRay looks really weird to me, different than DVD but in no way better. Tang versus orange juice. The players and discs are inexpensive these days, but I can't justify them.
No, I haven't done a controlled test.
Frank
SY said:
With Hybrid SACD discs and it's easy to do a comparison.
SY said:
Maybe you should do a blind test?
In my opinion, Bluray looks much better than DVD. It's not hard to tell the difference at all. It should look better, cause Apple has this thing called a "retina" display and to my knowledge the Bluray doesn't approach that.
I am being careful when I say "very close". All I know is every time I mod my two DACs I reach higher levels of resolution. I listened to a dedicated transport at Harman Consumer that was built like a tank, and that unit with a Madrigal Proceed DAP was at a level that could slay the SACD giant. HOWEVER! I have never listened to a cost is no object SACD player.
The SACD and CD layers of many hybrid discs have been shown to be mastered differently.
I agree the difference between a new movie in BR vs DVD is very large. It's not "audio large" either. I can tell the difference right away using the movie Sunshine, for example, from 8 feet away with a 30" 2560x1600 LCD.
Last edited:
Well, a small anecdote.
A set of vinyl LPs
A set of CDs
Both from the same company. According to the liner notes everything matched. Date, venue, conductor, cast, orchestra.
Listening to it confirms this. It is a live opera recording and there are myriad clues that assure it.
I preferred to listen from the LPs. I enjoyed it more sound-wise.
I did my own transfer from the LPs to recordable CDs.
Listening to these recordable CDs I enjoyed it as much as the LPs.
(Now to which post above do I fit?
)Mr. Curl
What SY wants to convey, is the sad truth.
George
Last edited:
The Mercury Living Presence hybrids are probably pretty honest for comparison purposes (and often great music and sound).
Bluray players for DVD playback have an advantage over earlier DVD players, with modern 120 Hz refresh rate displays, because they can communicate in film-based DVDs' native 24 Hz frame rate, avoiding pull-up/pull-down trickery. A really nice Sony is a little over US$100. Picture connects to display digitally.
Thanks,
Chris
Bluray players for DVD playback have an advantage over earlier DVD players, with modern 120 Hz refresh rate displays, because they can communicate in film-based DVDs' native 24 Hz frame rate, avoiding pull-up/pull-down trickery. A really nice Sony is a little over US$100. Picture connects to display digitally.
Thanks,
Chris
Alas I have very few of the LPs, but most of the CDs. And they are pretty nice indeed, and wonderful performances. In fact the latter probably makes me more accepting of the sound. Having decried composers for frequent acceptance of spotlit recordings, I confess to being (or more now, having been) a composer myself.
This has been mentioned a few times around the traps, in part this is because the the tracks of the recordables are truly aligned correctly with the centre hole. With CDs it's a function of how sloppy or precise they were punching out that centre hole at the plant. If tracks are badly aligned to the the effective circular motion of the tracking laser, then the servos for the latter are working much harder, and the power supplies are given a more strenuous workout. Which ultimately pollutes the analogue side of things, or can do so.I did my own transfer from the LPs to recordable CDs.
Listening to these recordable CDs I enjoyed it as much as the LPs.
(Now to which post above do I fit?
Yes, of course it shouldn't be that way, but for a few hundred bucks to buy I'm sure the integrity of all the power supplies are of the highest level ...
Frank
How do I hear "depth" just as good, or better, in mono? Riddle me that Batman!
Thanks,
Chris
ps: Some folks say we should've stayed with 78's. Of course, aboriginal people first shown photographs are said to have been unable to distinguish them from real people. It's a big ol' world.
Okay, and they always master the CD worse because? If CDs can't be mastered well, then who needs them?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.