SACD vs CD's

CD / SACD Discussion
User avatar
TNRabbit
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 13360
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:53 am
Location: TN Native Languishing in VA
Contact:

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by TNRabbit » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:34 am

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

What Tom said.

Add to that the superior dynamic range, among other things. Again, if it's a shitty recording in the first place, no advantage.
TNRabbit
Image

From FrankieD's lips to your ears: Sunfire - a quiet box of endless power.

Sunfire TG-IV/400~7 Amp
Carver SD/A-360 CDP
Benchmark DAC-1
Sony SACD/DVD-A
Active bi-amp: Ashly XR-1001 & 2 Rane PEQ-15s
Main: HotRodded AL-IIIs
Sub: Klipsch RT-12d
Center: Sunfire CRS-3c
Surround: Sunfire CRS-3 (x 2)

OconeeOrange wrote:"Gary likes to play it 'loud' as do I. His system begs you turn it up until you die"

RIP WIlliam B. Dibble, 1948-2012. I'll miss you my friend.

User avatar
Rainman
SILVER-7t
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:19 am

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by Rainman » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:52 am

TNRabbit wrote:=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

What Tom said.

Add to that the superior dynamic range, among other things. Again, if it's a shitty recording in the first place, no advantage.

To take the Rabbit's statement even one step further:
If it's a shitty recording in the first place being played on a shitty system in the second place, DISADVANTAGE! ](*,)

Rainman :D
Question: Do you know why turds are tapered on the ends? Answer: So your asshole doesn't slam shut..

Carver- SDA490t, SDA450, 2 TFM45's, TFM15, CT23, CT28v, CT27v, Linn Kaber speakers, Sunfire crm2's, PS Audio Statement speaker cables and I/C's, A.P.C. power

User avatar
BillD
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 7126
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: The west's most mid-western town, Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by BillD » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:07 pm

That link requires some searching to find the article. HERE is the link to the smallish, unannotated article. I think the author has a thing to prove. Anyway, I don't buy it. Just listen to DSOTM in SACD and Redbook.
It should sound like it isn't there!
There is a difference between hearing and listening...
Making life enjoyable through expensive electronics.
_________________
Carver: C-4000 & C-1 preamps, PSC-60 preamp/tuner, TX-11a tuner, M-400 (2), C-500, M-500, M-500t, M-500t Mk.II, A-500x, AL-III loudspeakers (2 pr.)
Sunfire:Theater Grand III processor, Ultimate Receiver, Cinema Grand Signature 400 ~ seven, True Subwoofer Mk. II, D-10 Subwoofer

robotczar
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by robotczar » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:42 am

I did say that "it sounds better to me" is not going to be very convincing to me.

treitz3 could very well be reacting to an excellent recording -- which matters a lot, unlike other things of interest to listeners.

Beyond not trusting what other people's ears (or brains) tell them, I will also question the value of comparing the two formats on the same CD/SACD player. The makers of the SACD players have strong motivation to "let" the SACD version sound better (usually louder). Yes, I am impugning the makers of SACD players in regard to how they reproduce the standard red book compared to the SACD playback.

The link I provided provides evidence beyond peoples feelings and opinions for those who care to get such information. If a listener prefers the "sound" of the SACD recording medium, fine. But, that is simply not reliable evidence. Red book CD was designed to deliver playback performance that exceeds human hearing abilities. Why would more bits matter? And, if they do, why can't that be clearly demonstrated in a controlled test?

User avatar
treitz3
"Julian"
"Julian"
Posts: 7809
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: The tube lair in Charlotte, NC

It's a subjective hobby, not science that has to be proved

Post by treitz3 » Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:31 pm

robotczar wrote:I did say that "it sounds better to me" is not going to be very convincing to me.
Ok, let me ask you this? Do you think for one minute we give a flying fuck about convincing you one way or another? It's obvious that your mind is made up and now it seems as if you are trolling the subject. A dollar says that you are gonna link that damned Roger Russel link in a future thread telling us that wires don't matter, followed by some demanded test that proves to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that scientifically and unequivocally that SACD's aren't any better than CD's and that CAT5 is the same as an MIT cable.

Get lost. I like discussing audio 'till the sun comes up but I do not like trolls that just spew diarrhea out at the mouth for shits and giggles. Tell you what? You want evidence? Take all of the empirical evidence and shove it where the sun don't shine Scooter.
In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence.

The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to a good analogue reproduction.

User avatar
BillD
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 7126
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: The west's most mid-western town, Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by BillD » Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:41 pm

C'mon Tom, tell us what you really think. :lol:
It should sound like it isn't there!
There is a difference between hearing and listening...
Making life enjoyable through expensive electronics.
_________________
Carver: C-4000 & C-1 preamps, PSC-60 preamp/tuner, TX-11a tuner, M-400 (2), C-500, M-500, M-500t, M-500t Mk.II, A-500x, AL-III loudspeakers (2 pr.)
Sunfire:Theater Grand III processor, Ultimate Receiver, Cinema Grand Signature 400 ~ seven, True Subwoofer Mk. II, D-10 Subwoofer

robotczar
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by robotczar » Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:40 pm

"Ok, let me ask you this? Do you think for one minute we give a flying fuck about convincing you one way or another?"

Oh no, I don't for a second think that. People are most people are pretty entrenched in their beliefs are not going to change their mind based on logic or evidence, let alone what I say. They cannot be "convinced".

I have said that I am not going to change my mind because what what people claim to hear. I am stating my reasons for believing what I do, and I think those reasons are more convincing (to some) than reports of what people feel they hear. I am more than willing to change my mind provided reasonable evidence is cited. Are you? There are some people who are on the fence and they might want to hear information beyond what people think they hear without proper controls. People believe all sorts of things. How closed they are to changing their mind is not some sort of support for their position. Maybe somebody reading this forum will have some information beyond uncontrolled reports of what people hear. I could change my beliefs based on such evidence.

I will ask that you not the word "we" unless you are royalty. Who are "we" and why do you get to speak for them? I seek to discuss, not argue. Can you say why you are reacting so strongly?

User avatar
TNRabbit
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 13360
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:53 am
Location: TN Native Languishing in VA
Contact:

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by TNRabbit » Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:50 pm

Wow; shades of londonbarn...
TNRabbit
Image

From FrankieD's lips to your ears: Sunfire - a quiet box of endless power.

Sunfire TG-IV/400~7 Amp
Carver SD/A-360 CDP
Benchmark DAC-1
Sony SACD/DVD-A
Active bi-amp: Ashly XR-1001 & 2 Rane PEQ-15s
Main: HotRodded AL-IIIs
Sub: Klipsch RT-12d
Center: Sunfire CRS-3c
Surround: Sunfire CRS-3 (x 2)

OconeeOrange wrote:"Gary likes to play it 'loud' as do I. His system begs you turn it up until you die"

RIP WIlliam B. Dibble, 1948-2012. I'll miss you my friend.

User avatar
BillD
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 7126
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: The west's most mid-western town, Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by BillD » Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:36 pm

Well, robotczar, you were the one who made it clear that what you read was unequivocal proof of what you believed. I don't believe that, so there you are. You brought it, apparently needing validation and got none. So, go away.
It should sound like it isn't there!
There is a difference between hearing and listening...
Making life enjoyable through expensive electronics.
_________________
Carver: C-4000 & C-1 preamps, PSC-60 preamp/tuner, TX-11a tuner, M-400 (2), C-500, M-500, M-500t, M-500t Mk.II, A-500x, AL-III loudspeakers (2 pr.)
Sunfire:Theater Grand III processor, Ultimate Receiver, Cinema Grand Signature 400 ~ seven, True Subwoofer Mk. II, D-10 Subwoofer

elgrau
SILVER-7 TUBE AMP
Posts: 2933
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by elgrau » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:14 pm

Robot,
These fields have been plowed here adnausem. The "debates" will lead to no resolution. The issues are not important. Live and let live best summarizes one's beliefs re this "issue". I 2nd Billd: please drop it and or go away (but feel free to stick around otherwise!). It's an issue (like religion) that has no resolution and will only lead to bloody, stupid, pointless "religious wars" with 100% gaureentee that no one will change there position on this issue after all of the "bloodshed".
FR: 400 disk changer with PS Audio Digital Link III DAC; Technics SL-1100A TT. QED Quenx1 IC's from DAC & TT to Adcom GTP-602 preamp/Tuner. AudioQuest King Cobra IC's from preamp to M1.0t mk-II opt2. QED Silver Spirals 4M wires to EPI 1000’s.
LR: AudioEngine wireless link from family room preamp to Barcus-Berry 2002R Sonic Maximizer to GlowPower Zyxt IC's to Sunfire 300x2 to Nordost 6M bi-source wires to AOS 28" MDF spherical speakers using six 6.5" woofers and eight 1" dome tweeters symm. arranged around the surface.
SS system: CX-995V DVD to AV-634x 3-4 channel amp (center/rears) & M1.0t mk-II opt2(fronts).
Garage: 300 disk changer to Entech 202.5 DAC to MXR150 Receiver (pre) to TFM-42 to EPI 400 speakers.

User avatar
BillD
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 7126
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: The west's most mid-western town, Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by BillD » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:44 pm

Kinda like the Sunni and Shia.
It should sound like it isn't there!
There is a difference between hearing and listening...
Making life enjoyable through expensive electronics.
_________________
Carver: C-4000 & C-1 preamps, PSC-60 preamp/tuner, TX-11a tuner, M-400 (2), C-500, M-500, M-500t, M-500t Mk.II, A-500x, AL-III loudspeakers (2 pr.)
Sunfire:Theater Grand III processor, Ultimate Receiver, Cinema Grand Signature 400 ~ seven, True Subwoofer Mk. II, D-10 Subwoofer

User avatar
treitz3
"Julian"
"Julian"
Posts: 7809
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: The tube lair in Charlotte, NC

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by treitz3 » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:49 pm

robotczar wrote:........I am more than willing to change my mind provided reasonable evidence is cited. Are you? There are some people who are on the fence and they might want to hear information beyond what people think they hear......
Am I? I'm willing to listen to the end result of anything in person. I'm about the most open person you'll ever meet when it comes to audio.

Ok, I have one answer for you. Get your ass to Carverfest and don't give me some lame ass excuse like you don't have enough vacation, or the wife won't let you or you are too poor. :-({|= You want proof? Get your ass there. Period, end of story. The end.

There is no way in hell I or anybody else can "prove" to you that my system sounds like ass or it beats the hell out of a multi-million dollar system over the computer. Get that through your brain if it's possible.

You dig? In the meantime, just STFU about "proof". You want proof? You know where the fuck to find it.
In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence.

The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to a good analogue reproduction.

User avatar
F1nut
SILVER-7 TUBE AMP
Posts: 4496
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:31 am
Location: The Mars Hotel

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by F1nut » Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:53 am

If a listener prefers the "sound" of the SACD recording medium, fine. But, that is simply not reliable evidence.
There is no better evidence than that heard by the ears, none.

Red book CD was designed to deliver playback performance that exceeds human hearing abilities. Why would more bits matter? And, if they do, why can't that be clearly demonstrated in a controlled test?
Well for starters, CD is a 16 bit format while SACD is 1 bit, which is the complete opposite of what you believe. CD has a sampling rate of 44.1KHz or 44,000 samples per second while SACD has a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz or close to 3 million samples per second and that is why SACD sounds better.

As for contolled tests the following sums it up pretty well.
Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless.
As for the idea that SACD/CD players are made to make the CD sound worse......well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Last edited by F1nut on Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political Correctness...defined

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.



Make America Great Again

User avatar
Rainman
SILVER-7t
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:19 am

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by Rainman » Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:12 am

Don't worry too much about this guy. It's quite obvious that he is just trying to anger people. He seems to be one of those people who told you he can't see any difference in the t.v. picture when comparing analog t.v. to High Definition t.v. After this you decide to pay him a visit to see what his fuss is about, and when you pull up to his place he is being led down to his mailbox by a seeing eye dog! Ignore it and it will go away.......


Rainman
Question: Do you know why turds are tapered on the ends? Answer: So your asshole doesn't slam shut..

Carver- SDA490t, SDA450, 2 TFM45's, TFM15, CT23, CT28v, CT27v, Linn Kaber speakers, Sunfire crm2's, PS Audio Statement speaker cables and I/C's, A.P.C. power

robotczar
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by robotczar » Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:22 pm

elgrau wrote:Robot,
These fields have been plowed here adnausem. The "debates" will lead to no resolution. The issues are not important. Live and let live best summarizes one's beliefs re this "issue". I 2nd Billd: please drop it and or go away (but feel free to stick around otherwise!). It's an issue (like religion) that has no resolution and will only lead to bloody, stupid, pointless "religious wars" with 100% gaureentee that no one will change there position on this issue after all of the "bloodshed".
Thanks for your measured response. You are quite correct. And, I believe I have indicated that I do not expect anyone to change their mind because of discussions in a forum like this (or for any reason, actually). I have no interest in a debate. While I do think the religion analogy is somewhat accurate; I also think that some beliefs (mine for example) are not of the same type as others that may be labeled "religion-like". I provided a reference to evidence (an article with data) and a logical reason (i.e., Redbook was designed to exceed human hearing ability). That is a significant difference which is not the same as a religious (i.e., superstitious) belief that does not resort to evidence, testing, etc. No counter evidence is being offered (probably because there isn't any), but I am not interested in debating this issue.

It is healthy (I think) for someone to point out the emperor has no clothes. People new to this issue are not getting correct information (not getting both sides, if you will) from what has been said in this forum to date. As is often the case, profound differences are merely asserted and assumed due to whatever the writer wants to attribute them to. I am interested in giving information to help someone who has not made up their mind to help them reach a reasonable conclusion (and perhaps spend their audio money more wisely).

The title of this thread is SACD vs. CD. One might assume that the information I provided is germane to that topic. I assure you I won't engage in yet another pointless debate with those who have already made up their minds.

Post Reply

Return to “CD / SACD”