Ben, I have not heard the Stones sacd's so I can't offer any input on those, but the DSOTM sacd sounds much better than any prior redbook release including the mofi version when played on equal players.
Are you saying that the DSOTM sacd played on a cheap Sony sounds only slightly better than the other layer played back on a hi end redbook player?.... if so, then that about says it all about which is superior.
I have some sacd's such as Bob Dylans Blood on the Tracks that sound better than the redbook version but not to the degree that you will find on other releases. This is the original recordings limits that you hear whith any format.
Some people have raved about The Eagles Hotel California dvd-a and I find it to not only sound rolled off, but also sounds like some of the frequencys have been sucked right out of the recording. I actually prefer the dcc redbook version.
The point I am trying to make is, we hear what we hear but any fair comparison should be done on equal gear imo.
When I compare redbook to sacd, I do not compare sacd played back on a hi end player to a 500.00 redbook player but rather something more equal in price.
I guess your sore Rsbeck because you are the guy who has admitted some Redbook layers sounded better than SACD on the same disc. You are pretty close on my experience but not exactly right. I won't bore everybody with the details. Part of your problem is that you see a $750/£500 machine as low end-I think Sony will have sold vast quantities of machines below the $1000 many more than those players above it. The fact that a "lower" end machine doesn't highlight the differences doesn't matter to you because you are way at the other end of the scale,to me it is highly damaging to the format. It's also relevant to the original poster whom will probably be considering a lower end machine. Doesn't it matter that low end SACD machines don't show the format off? These forums are about opinions and experiences. You've stated that SACD is bettter than vinyl-some people don't agree. Shouldn't you be allowed to state that? My experience isn't as simplistic as you make out but if it saying that makes you happy then fine. However isn't your experience also limited because how many people in all reality can afford the Emm Labs equipment? I won't expect a reply to these points because you seldom actually reply to the facts. The crux of my argument is what happens on my Sony SACD player and NOTHING to do with my Ayre playback. It's that simple. Oh and now WOW I have had a real high end experience with the Linn Unidisk and it didn't do a lot for me. Keep smiling and try avoid getting this threads pulled by losing your temper.
By your own admission, you have extensive experience only with a high end Ayre CD player and a low end SONY SACD player --and you prefer the CD play-back on the higher end CD player -- versus your lower end player -- which should come as a surprise to no one. You've admitted that you were not able to audition a high end SACD player at the time of your purchase because they were not available where you live. So, you opted to buy a high end player without SACD capability -- that was *your* decision -- without auditioning high end CD/SACD players. Other than that, you are offering the experiences of others -- hearsay -- which seems to have the effect of validating your purchase of a high-end player without SACD capability.
Ears you will find one of the biggest SACD's supporters on these forums admit that some of The Stones discs sound better on the redbook layer of the SACD hybrids. He has the state of the art SACD set up. This of course doesn't disprove the overall theory, I admit that. DSOTM imho doesn't show much difference between the layers. I'm stepping out of this debate again but I want to make it clear I am a music enthuasiast-I do not recycle discs lighty and I do care about sonic reproduction. I'm only offering another set of experiences. To offer a true example here's a recent experience. I recently sold an interconnect on Ebay to a guy who stayed locally-he was a vinyl guy but with a lower end system. He liked the way my system sounded,he clearly knew his stuff and was impressed with the Ayre equipment which he'd never heard. He spotted my Sony DVD/SACD player and asked to hear some comparisons. First up he noticed the big drop in sound quality from the Ayre. But when he heard both Let It Bleed and DSOM on the Sony on different layers he found the performance between Redbook and SACD almost indentical. He thought LIB sounded very slightly better on Redbook and DSOM very slightly better on SACD.
Maybe it's my system-but a friend who has a Levison 39s and the cheap Pioneer multi-format machine-feels exactly the same. Let me finish by saying also I wish I could afford the like of Emm Labs equipment because I believe at that level you are very probably in a win win situation. Last words.
I have never heard a redbook version sound better than the sacd version but I don't listen to old dead guys either.
For those that want to hear what sacd is all about, check out DSOTM, Steve Earles Guitar Town, Allison Krauss Live or Joe Satrianis Strange Beautiful Music for starters. Compare any of these to there redbook version on even a midfi setup and you will have your answer. I have heard redbook and sacd versions of these on several 500.00 players,a 2k player and several modified players that cost even more. One thing remains consistent, and that is sacd is far more natural sounding whith greater resolution than the redbook versions by a large margin in every case. This repesents modern music from the 70's,80's and current releases. After listening to sacd versions and comparing, the redbook versions become coasters in every case. I just wish they would start releasing new material a bit quicker on the format.
I had just received an ASCD version of Beethoven symphonies 5 and 7, and did a direct comparison to a CD version that I already had and loved. But what a difference in the dinamic range. I had to lover to volume and still had cristal clarity during soft passages. I recomend to anybody who still doubts the superiority of SACD to listen to this recording.
Vinyl is great, but I gave it up and have not regretted it -- if I were just getting into this -- at this stage in the development of digital -- I would not get into vinyl -- just my opinion. I also think this starts a different thread -- the original poster only asked about the difference between CD and SACD.
While I'm also a strong proponent of vinyl (I've listened to almost nothing but since I returned 6 mos. ago), I don't think it renders the debate as moot since there is almost no decent vinyl available for recent recorded music. Even where vinyl is available, to my ear it is so digitally processed that it soulds no better than the CD in most cases or worse. I restrict my vinyl collection to pre 1980's stuff at the latest.
matchstikman, I am a strong proponant of vinyl, and I really think the labor issue is overblown. It takes time to get the original setup right, but after that there really isn't a lot to worry about, unlike some will indicate!
Get a little help from your friends, ultimately I think you will be happier with LPs. I could be wrong though.
Socrates I admire your review of the improvements SACD offer and find them to be acurate. However, I wish your jab at Ben had been left out. I've found over the past five years Ben to be consistant in his taste and his opinions. I believe there is room for both of you to be right here, which I believe you both are. For the entry level SACD may not have enough upside. This opinion is formed from reading others comments with lower end systems. My experience is only with high end systems, and I fully agree with Socrates. For my taste SACD is a vast improvement, and very addictive. Just my opinion, and that is what this poster asked for.
I have the Emm Labs Dac6, which is a top of the line redbook CD player -- best I've ever heard -- simply amazing -- yet -- its SACD play-back is still superior. SACD is a superior medium. Music sounds more natural -- you have to hear it to understand.
Matchstikman you really need to try and demo a SACD player in your own system. As regards the software SACD has a large slant towards Jazz and Classical-there are a few new rock/pop/alternative releases but not many. Of course there are quite a few rereleases-the most notiable being the Stones,Dylan and The Police. The double edge sword with SACD hybrid releases is that the Redbook layer is remastered too,I have found at my level (check my system)the Redbook layer is enough for me because my more expensive CD player is my best playback machine and these discs sound (mostly)great but also on my SACD player(a mere $750 list in it's day) the difference between layers is not noticeable to any great extent. It's long been my contention that SACD will survive probably only as an audiophille format and I think the releases so far pretty much reflect that. Sales are up on SACD but I do think this is due to the big name hybrid releases such as Floyd,The Stones,Dylan and The Police-all of which sound great on Redbook and the vast majority were probably bought for this. Try for yourself. Oh and I won't bother trying to get some manners out of some people on these discussions,they seem incapable of it.
Great stuff, Right now I have a ModWright Pioneer CDP that is making great music for me with my existing CD collection. I use the Pioneer as a tranport with a Bel Canto DAC, plus I use a Decware pre-amp and TORII amp. The sound is very good and getting better. I have a few DVD-A selections that were, frankly, disappointing. I hear so much about SACD that I have been wondering if it is that much better than redbook.
I would rather get into vinyl that SACD or DVD-A, but I am afraid that the maintence and upkeep required for vinyl is more than I could handle.
As it is, at the local music shops where I live, vinyl has a bigger presence that SACD or DVD-A. In fact, vinyl takes up an entire wall where SACD and DVD-A combined take up a little more than half a rack, if that. Also, I have alot of friends that have never even heard of SACD or DVD-A. One of them bought a Police SACD and was frustrated because he couldn't play it on his redbook player until he noticed the label that read "for SACD player only."
I think a music listener could stay with redbook and be happy for the rest of this century if they so desired, right?
I'm sorry for the confusion on my part. SACD is a vastly superior format than CD.
FWIW I have never been happy until the last year or so, with digital recordings and playback gear. After 20 years on the market CDs and CDPs are finally putting out good sound. The medium was flawed from the outset. But that's another arguement.
SACD is doing what CD pioneers claimed their original format would accomplish. The treble is not as harsh as redbook; the midrange is much more pure and natural than what we experienced before; the bass is deeper and fuller. The sound from top to bottom is more natural.
I will still say that I prefer the sound of vinyl, but SACD is getting to where digital should be! If the format lasts long enough and the improvement continues as it did in redbook CDPs the potential improvement is incredible. This time they will be building on a solid foundation, as opposed to the sand they built redbook CD upon.
I've heard redbook versions of CDs sound way better on a top-quality CD player (usually a 24/192 upsampler type)than the SACD version on an expensive SACD player. The format is of no advantage unless you have a truly good quality player to translate that data into MUSIC.
SACD surely has superior performance over Redbook. I have AB comp with several album (try Kenny G Live US Redbook against SACD Hybrid or Diana Karl). SACD gives you much better detail, depth and musical.
Even the DSD layer can win over Redbook.
SACD player in SACD player sounds better then playing its DSD layer over a decent Redbook CD player.
If you feel not trust worthy, try yourself and you will know.
Socrates it is a nonsense to both say I am the only dissenting voice and that I am anti-SACD. Try a search on the subject and see what it throws up. Even better still try and work out the extensive amount of SACD players and software available 2nd hand. I actively try to avoid the same old debate but apparently it is ok to make the same pro-SACD comments over and over again. I drive to give a balanced viewpoint-I DO NOT say I am right-I explain what my experience is. I ALWAYS state you should hear for yourself. Say the original poster only has a limited amount of money to spend on a SACD machine? Even those who are pro-SACD admit that at the lower end you will not hear a massive if any difference. Is my experience not valid? I actually saved a pro-SACD thread recently by making a post and getting the pro-SACD poster some answers. For me it's about music and SACD limits very much my choices in listening to music. I have to say I recently heard the Linn Unidisk playing SACD and I didn't hear anything to get excited about. Disagree with me by all means but please do not misrepresent what I have said in the past.
Here is what I found: A well-engineered SACD sounds better than a well-engineered CD. A well-engineered CD sounds better than a poorly engineered SACD. A poorly engineered SACD sounds just as bad as a poorly engineered CD. Percentagewise, 7 out of 10 SACDs I bought are well-engineered but only 1 out of 3 CDs are.
No question that SACD brings stereo to a whole new level. There is no comparison, the difference is akin to the superiority of good vinyl over redbook and it's completely addicting once you appreciate it. To be honest, I have a heck of a time analyzing the SACD side of good sacd players (I've heard many good and great ones, a few bad ones). I can pick apart the redbook side of any player in a few tracks, but SA-CD, after only a few seconds of listening, makes it near impossible for me to think about the equiptment; I get lost in the music, the ease, that naturlness, realness, coherence and life of the music. When I do force myself to compare, to listen to a redbook layer of a SACD, I in general will find that SACD is smoother, its more open, its fuller, its vastly more extended up top, it has better detail and clarity with a lower noise floor, it's simply more like real music...but I quickly forget about all the fluff and realize there is beautiful, life-like music playing in my room when playing the DSD side.... Like every other format it of course is recording quality dependant, yet I've heard things with good SACDs that my best CD's are completely lacking.
Every person I've let hear SACD in my system (strictly 2ch), even nonaudiphiles who don't care in the least about this hobby, have had no trouble picking up on the very differences I hear wrt the superiority of SA-CD, and this without any prompting from me. That's what amazes me and give me hope for the format, along with the flood of new titles finnally making it to shore and Sony promising to open the flood gate in 2004.
It's also worth observing that, as far as I can tell, Ben_campbell is the only person on this board, out of hundreds or even thousands of members, actively crusading against SACD at every turn. He can't hear the difference, as stated a hundred times now, which is fine; we all hear differently and we value different things in sound reproduction. However, do note that the fans of the format hugely outnumber the unbiased detractors, and likewise, appreciate that when I say I'm a "Fan" that is short for "Fanatic!"
The SACD data format is completely different from the PCM redbook format, so that theoretical comparisons are not easy. There is an argument, posted elsewhere, that SACD resolution for signals above 8000 Hz is actually inferior.
To my ears, and depending on the particular disc, SACD is better than CD. Perhaps this is because the frequency range below 8000 Hz is most important.
On the other hand DVD-A is easy to compare to CD. It's the same PCM code except with 24 bits instead of 16, and 96KHz instead of 44.1 KHz. It's what they would have done thirty years ago if the technology had been available.
Perhaps it would have been prudent to ask Matchstikman his budget and his system. There are others who think based on what they've heard on SACD that it DOESN'T make a very big difference on playback quality at all especially down at the entry level to moderate level of things. There are some of us who have heard inferior SACD discs in comparison to their Redbook versions. It is also rich imho to make such statements when some of the above have already admitted that on certain hybrids the Redbook layer is better. It also depends how you determine "superior"-are we talking technically,sonically or as a format? Redbook is still the superior format in my book since if I want to buy new music I can actually buy it and listen to it on Redbook. There's no doubt technically SACD is superior,I also respect those who have heard the improvements SACD brings to them on their systems-again other haven't. But it is a pretty complicated issue-I found SACD inferior as a format for several reasons and sold all my SACD discs but kept my hybrids for the Redbook layer.
Overall, I agree with others who have stated SACD is superior.
Of course, it also depends on the quality of the recordings. With that said, I believe that overall SACD playback generally has more warmth, depth, and a tad better resolution.
If I were to limit the improvements to one word, I would use the word 'richer'. As SACD playback seems to consistantly and distinctively have a 'richer' sound over redbook cd.
But you also have to ask, how much of the difference can be attributed to the SACD formatted recording and how much can be attributed to the component itself?
Matchstikman, the unswer is YES. Just like Nrchy said - the SACD has much higher resolution. The best way I can describe it as music sounds clearer and more defined.
Nrchy, thanks for the info, but I was referring more to the quality of the sound. Rsbeck is in the ballpark. My question, rephrased, is, all things being equal, what are the differences between 2 channel SACD and 2 channel redbook when it comes to the sound? Does the 2 channel SACD provide a better stereo reproduction than 2 channel redbook? In other words, you have two version of the same music; one on audiophile quality redbook and another on SACD and both are played in 2 channel. Will they sound the same or will one be superior to the other?
I have no interest at this time with a multi-channel setup; however, if SACD will deliver a better 2 channel experience than 2 channel redbook, I would like to go in that direction.
Redbook CD is the format that came out in the early 80's. SACD is a different format which is much higher resolution, and actually sounds good. So it has little in common with redbook CD! CDs can be played in an SACD player, but SACDs cannot be played in a standard CDP.
"Two channel" is merely indicating that is was designed to be used only in a stereo mode.
Unless I missed the mark AGAIN this is what you were looking for, was I wrong?
SACD two channel is superior to redbook two channel.
You do not need multi-channel to enjoy SACD. I have had multi-channel SACD players like the Sony SCD XA 777ES and now I have the Emm Labs Dac6, but I listen to them in two-channel and it sounds great. I'm not a fan of multi-channel when I listen to music -- I use my 5.1 system for movies only. The superiority of SACD comes through very clearly in two-channel.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
