2. digital
  3. 1386513403

A Possible Reason for SACD to be Superior

I have recently been trying to compare the SACD format to Redbook on my system and have discovered that the SACD layer on the disk seems to always be recorded at a lower volume making an A/B comparison extremely difficult because while switching layers on the disk isn't too difficult, matching relative volumes is and comparing the sounds at the same volumes is key to any comparison.

What I did realize, however, is that this means that the SACD signal isn't as attenuated (is that the right word?) as much by the preamp to obtain the same volume. Shouldn't this be preferred? If I understand my EE friend correctly, and I often misunderstand him, the ideal situation is for the signal to pass through the preamp without attenuation which means 0 db on a piece of equipment that give volume readings in -dB. From this perspective it seems that SACD should have the advantage.
mceljo

Showing 2 responses by mceljo

mceljo OP
1,357 posts
 
Jmcgrogan2 - Touché. I keep thinking that I should apply the theory that the best cable is no cable at all, but for some reason that doesn't seem right either...I did actually do this with the subwoofer in my home theater rig, but my wireless printer stopped working.

Aplhifi - Great information, thanks. I'll have to see if my Sony blu-ray player, that handles SACD, make this correction or not. I suspect that it does. My Pioneer Elite SACD player definately does not.

Going back to part of my original question, if two recordings were identical with the exception of the output level, would it be expected that the one with the lower output would sound better when played at an equal volume?
mceljo OP
1,357 posts
 
Kijanki - So why do you think it is that something like SACD, that from a technical aspect should be superior like other high resolution formats are considered to be, doesn't seem to be supported much in the audiophile world? Neither of the audio store locally do anything with SACD.
More to discover