Thread: SACD vs. CD (my conclusion/opinions after a week long test)

Posts: 234
Page: prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24
Post by carledwards January 4, 2010 (231 of 234)
zeus said:

Which is worse? A belief that a few metrics tell you all there is to know about the sound, or believing your own ears?...
Both are pretty risky, I'd say. Metrics can only suggest specification-driven performance and ears are easily fooled by eyes and psychology as the brain interprets what we hear. And we hear what we want to far too often!

Given the purely subjective nature of how we each hear audio/sound, the only thing that really matters is what we like. Or more precisely, what we believe we like.

So a combination of science and human reception seems to be the best approach. And it will vary wildly by subject, hence, the great disparity of opinion on what sounds good, bad or indifferent.
Post by Paul January 4, 2010 (232 of 234)
When I got my first (and only) SACD player, I had my wife play RBCD and SACD versions of discs I had; some were separate discs, others, layers. I did not know which was which and was able to tell which was SACD every time, for six different artists, ranging from jazz to rock to classical. In each case it sounded less harsh to me, more natural sounding.

Now, whether that is due to better mastering or to an inherent difference in formats I cannot say. I can say that like many others here, listening to RBCD for long periods of time, particularly at elevated levels, made my ears irritated. SACD does not do that, for whatever reason.

Quick reference for my system: Sony SCD-1 into Odyssey Tempest pre into monobloc Odyssey Stratos SE amps which power speakers I built using Lambda Acoustics Unity horns with two 15" Lambda mid-basses, and two 15" PRs. Exceptionally good speaker drivers, very good pre/amps, and a solid SACD player, in my opinion. Better yet, they all play well together, very neutral presentation.
Post by jullepoika January 4, 2010 (233 of 234)
carledwards said:

ears are easily fooled by eyes and psychology as the brain interprets what we hear. And we hear what we want to far too often!

Given the purely subjective nature of how we each hear audio/sound, the only thing that really matters is what we like. Or more precisely, what we believe we like.
The only way to really say if the difference we hear is real or imagined is to perform a (double) blind test. The problem is that setting up a precise one is difficult or even impossible. Next problem is that many audiophiles do not want to take part in one because unwanted results would undermine their credibilty and take away the enjoyment in their hobby. For many the hobby is really just gear collection and (vain, inefficient, ignorant and costly) quest for perfection, not so much the enjoyment of music.
Post by carledwards January 4, 2010 (234 of 234)
jullepoika said:

The only way to really say if the difference we hear is real or imagined is to perform a (double) blind test. The problem is that setting up a precise one is difficult or even impossible. Next problem is that many audiophiles do not want to take part in one because unwanted results would undermine their credibilty and take away the enjoyment in their hobby. For many the hobby is really just gear collection and (vain, inefficient, ignorant and costly) quest for perfection, not so much the enjoyment of music.
Man, you are so right! Thanks for your points. I totally agree.
Page: prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24

Closed