Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (1 of 234)
|
|
I posted the question below over a week ago in an effort to solicit good hybrid SACD demo material that I could use to see if I could hear any differences between 2-CH/Stereo SACD and the CD layer on that same hybrid disc.
That thread is here:
http://ww.sa-cd.net/showthread/46450
After looking at some of the suggestions (I could not go out and buy everything!), I settled on the following three, for reasons stated below:
1. Cannonball Adderley Quintet: In San Francisco
I chose this based on "sibelius2"'s recommendation which made a lot of sense to me. For reference, his post on that recommendation is here - http://ww.sa-cd.net/showthread/46450/46556/y#46556
2. Beethoven: String Quartets Opp. 18 No. 4, 130 & 133 - Fry Street Quartet
I chose this based on the fact that IsoMike hybrid SACDs have identical mastering for the CD and SACD layers.
3. Music of the Beatles: Cincinnati Pops/Kunzel
A quality Telarc release of very familiar (but different genre) music.
This is all music I like and listen to - jazz, classical, rock, etc. I'm very familiar with the music in #2 and #3, while #1 is music I was not familiar with, but in a genre that I do listen to. So these were my three selections.
I used an OPPO BDP-83 as the SACD player and listened primarily through a Benchmark DAC1 HDR headphone amp with AKG 702 headphones. For analytical listening, this was the way to go for me, and I don't know of a better way to be quite honest. My speakers don't do justice to the incredible fidelity of the AKG 702s and the amount of detail they can extract.
At first I just listened to the recordings mainly to get familiar with them - the mastering & production sound, and for the performance. I didn't A/B between the SACD and CD layers. I simply ran through the music w/o analyzing too much. I did this for 3 days via speakers and headphones. The goal was that when it came time to A/B, I would be somewhat familiar (not that in theory one needs to) with what was coming off the discs. I made some mental notes what to focus on, etc.
I then started the A/B demos, having my wife do the switching between the SACD and CD layers. Yes, she did put up with this amazingly! What I realized is that it's futile to try to do rapid A/B switching. So I would listen to one piece in SACD mode, and then in CD mode. But I didn't know which I was listening to. I can't say how scientific this method is, but enough for me. I don't know of another way of doing it with my equipment. If there were differences to be heard, I would hear them.
I did this pretty anally for several days, switching discs, pieces, etc. It didn't take long for me to say that I honestly could not tell any difference between the SACD and the CD layer of a particular piece. My guess rate was just average. Meaningless. One time I thought I preferred the CD and the next the SACD. I was hunting for things to hear, and it was hard. The fact that I couldn't tell means any differences (if they do exist), are so small, they are not worth arguing about. In other words, there was no "WOW!" moment, or anything close to that. As I said, I was hunting for things to hear. And sometimes I thought I heard them on the CD layer and other times on the SACD layer. Which again, means nothing.
So what is my conclusion? That for 2-CH/Stereo SACDs, I can't tell a difference between SACD and CD. Based simply on that, I would not buy SACDs if I could get the same music on CD at a cheaper price. The key here is "the same music". Because the main thing here is that all discs sounded fantastic. In other words, the production and mastering was superb. And this is where I think SACD shines and has value - in its production (recording, etc.) and mastering (engineering, etc.) quality. That is the main thing I got out of this. If a recording is produced and mastered in a quality way, whether it's transferred to DSD/SACD or PCM/CD is not important. In other words, music done right, will sound the same on SACD or CD. I came to the conclusion that it's not the medium, but the process. And for that reason, I will continue to buy SACDs. Not for DSD/SACD, but for the quality that goes into these releases. I do think CDs get a bum rap (many deservedly so) for bad production and mastering. SACDs are aimed at a different market, and more quality is placed on the production.
I really don't think DSD, 16/44 CD, or 24/192 PCM make any audible difference on *playback*. They extra bits are good for production (more dB headroom), as is a higher sampling rate (easier on the A/D converters). But for playback, I believe there is no difference that we can hear. I've read all the stuff before about very high frequencies we can't hear producing harmonics we CAN hear, extra dB/dynamic range, etc. I thought there may be something to it. But try as hard as I did, I could not hear it. Logically, I don't see how I'd even hear the dynamic range of a CD! A CD's 96dB of dynamic range sounds limiting compared to the 120dB that the human ear can hear, but is the softest note on a piece ever at 0dB? It's probably more like 40dB! And the frequency thing is a strange thing. While harmonics may result, it depends on microphone placement during recording. If the mikes grab the frequencies before they interact, then there is no overlapping frequencies to form these harmonics. It's a very tricky thing IMO. As far as analog recordings, the dynamic range of those is never more than 96dB - well under in fact. So I don't see the numbers adding up.
Having said all this, I do think SACDs are important. Because they allow for very high quality production of music. And of course for those that like multichannel music. The latter is obvious. So I hope they stick around. And I wish more artists would get such nice treatments. It's a funny thing. We want high quality audio to stay around and succeed. But at the same time the reason it's so high quality is because so much care is put in each release knowing the target audience is picky and willing to spend more for quality. If SACD or Blu-ray music 24/192, whatever, etc. were to go to the masses, the production quality would probably go down, negating the main effect we are seeking! It's a niche that must be kept that way. A funny thing if you think about it.
Anyway, these are some of my thoughts. As a former musician (classical/jazz piano and guitar), I appreciate well produced music and quality releases - SACD or CD. For me, and for my ears (which are pretty good BTW), the end medium makes no difference.
|
|
|
Post by emaidel December 3, 2009 (2 of 234)
|
|
I deleted my initial post, as you've since answered my question.
|
|
|
Post by Claude December 3, 2009 (3 of 234)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (4 of 234)
|
|
Sorry I hit post, and then saw the URL errors, and then figured it out but it took me a while to type out my thoughts. Now it's done! :)
|
|
|
Post by jakeroux December 3, 2009 (5 of 234)
|
|
Thanks for taking the time and sharing the thoughts - I’ve been looking forward to reading your findings. I would guess that you'll get some feedback in the coming days. While I'm not a musician and I use some pretty pedestrian gear, I had come to basically the same conclusion myself regarding stereo SACDs - no perceptible difference for me when compared to a well mastered RBCD, but they do often serve as a type of assurance that you are getting good production and mastering values (which as we all know, can often be a crap shoot with standard RBCDs). Of course, love ‘em or hate ‘em, MCH recordings are a different matter entirely, but for me they are an additional reason to purchase SACD.
And by the way, thanks too for the recommendation on the AKG K702s – I have a pair on order myself now.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan December 3, 2009 (6 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
So what is my conclusion? That for 2-CH/Stereo SACDs, I can't tell a difference between SACD and CD.
I copied your simple conclusion because it seems inconsistent with your further thoughts expressed in your post. After you conclude no audible difference between the two formats (based on the conditions of your listening tests) you go on to say that SACD is still valuable. Why? If you can't hear any difference, then you should get equal enjoyment from a release on CD and SACD. Thus, no advantage of SACD over RBCD. Should be end of story, right? Just logical based on your conclusion.
Disclaimer: my comments in no way reflect my own thoughts on SACD versus RBCD. They are just meant to point out the logical inconsistencies of the urbo73's post.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (7 of 234)
|
|
krisjan said:
I copied your simple conclusion because it seems inconsistent with your further thoughts expressed in your post. After you conclude no audible difference between the two formats (based on the conditions of your listening tests) you go on to say that SACD is still valuable. Why? If you can't hear any difference, then you should get equal enjoyment from a release on CD and SACD. Thus, no advantage of SACD over RBCD. Should be end of story, right? Just logical based on your conclusion.
Disclaimer: my comments in no way reflect my own thoughts on SACD versus RBCD. They are just meant to point out the logical inconsistencies of the urbo73's post.
I don't follow. I thought it was perfectly logical. The 2nd half of my post is spent describing why. Not sure I understand your post.
|
|
|
Post by Petrus  December 3, 2009 (8 of 234)
|
|
Spelled out:
The value of SACD is in its niche market segment. SACDs are recorded with more though and care and skill to get maximum quality. Quality comes form this professionalism, not the recording method or higher resolution. This makes them sound better than the average CD, also the CD layer. This is the quality advantage of SACD, SACD label is a stamp of "well done recording".
-------
my thoughts:
That CD and SACD layer on a well made SACD could not be told apart is no surprice to me.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 3, 2009 (9 of 234)
|
|
Petrus said:
Spelled out:
The value of SACD is in its niche market segment. SACDs are recorded with more though and care and skill to get maximum quality. Quality comes form this professionalism, not the recording method or higher resolution. This makes them sound better than the average CD, also the CD layer. This is the quality advantage of SACD, SACD label is a stamp of "well done recording".
-------
my thoughts:
That CD and SACD layer on a well made SACD could not be told apart is no surprice to me.
Sort of. I think the quality comes also from the recording methods that are used for sure. Again, using more bits helps in the recording and mastering process, but IMO not on playback. I agree this makes them sound better than the average CD, but not better than the CD layer. Like I said - I could not tell the difference.
But yes, the point is, the CD layer on an SACD recording is most likely better than the CD recording of a standalone CD of the same material. I say most likely, because I can't say if such a CD may or may not exist. I agree with the "stamp of approval". That's perhaps a good way of putting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It takes courage to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes in a room full of "seers." For that, I applaud you!
My observations have been a bit different, however. Also using high-resolution stereo headphone rigs (mostly AKG K701, Heed Canamp and Denon DVD3900), I have heard a definite difference (i.e. improvement) between CD's and SACD's of the same material. The SACD always sounds warmer to my ear. However, (and this is a big one), I've never compared the CD and SACD layer on a single hybrid disc. So my observations may be completely irrelevant given your approach. I'm going to duplicate your efforts, therefore.
Most of my observations have been between standard CD reissues of classic stereo jazz (Blue Note, etc.) and subsequent remastering on SACD issues. Even setting aside the obvious improvement one would expect on an Analogue Productions reissue, for example, I've found most of the Fantasy SACD releases to be superior to the CD ones. I know many disagree but, hey, that's how I hear it. Maybe it's all psychological!
In any case, thanks for doing these comparisons. I'm starting to suspect that your conclusions may be right on the money.
|
|
