SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

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.

My experience, and from what I read from others, is that even the cheapest DVD-A player sounds a lot better than CD, but to get good results from SACD requires a relatively expensive player. So the answer is: yes...SACD is superior to CD but only if you can afford an expensive player (which probably makes the CDs sound better also). So I don't give a lot of credit to the media. (Sorry Sony).

Ritteri...The dreaded science card!

You may be right about SACD resolution not being all it's cracked up to be. I read an analysis on another site that claimed that above 8000 Hz, SACD is inferior, and any improved sonics must be the result of the most important musical content being below 8000 Hz. (I didn't completely follow the argument...does anyone else have thoughts about this?)

Resolution of a CD or SACD or DVD-A depends on how much dynamic range you want to have. If you compress the loud peaks, the LSB can have better resolution, for any kind of disc. A 16-bit CD could be better than a 24-bit DVD-A, but it would trade off dynamic range. For rock music that is loud all the time this is a reasonable thing to do.

One thing is certain: the 44.1 Hz sample rate of CD's is very marginal. The Nyquist criteria of communication theory says that to capture an analog signal without loss of information, the digital sampling rate must be twice the highest frequency of interest. Thus many people think that 44.1KHz is OK for audio. However, the Nyquist criteria applies to sine waves. Music is not sine waves. The increase of sampling rate to 96KHz (or 192KHz for stereo DVD-A) and (if you believe Sony) similar improvement for SACD, is technically appropriate, although not everyone's ears can appreciate the sonic benefits. I prefer to call CD's "low resolution" and SACD and DVD-A "OK resolution".

little milton...FWIW, there is considerable audiophile interest in DVD-A if you look outside the USA. The DVD-A protocol permits great flexibility in how the data space on the disc is allocated. So, for example, we have the MMG label using what they call a 2+2+2 multichannel speaker configuration instead of 5.1. If super stereo is your objective you can have 192 KHz sampling instead of 96 KHz. There is much more oportunity to tweek DVD-A than SACD, and tweeking is an audiophile thing to do.

IMHO...Disc mastering and playback equipment is by far the most important factor for all formats,DVD-A, SACD, and CD. Some DVD-A and some SACD are worse than the best CDs. However, the best DVD-A and the best SACD can't be matched by a CD. As to SACD vs DVD-A...it's too close to call. And who cares? Enjoy both.

Ritteri....Check out www.apa.org/pubinfo/anger.html

Nrchy...Mr Nyquist's rule says that a 22KHz SINE WAVE can be recovered without error if the sampling rate is 44KHz.
Do you listen to sine waves? 96 KHz is probably just barely adequate for music.

Don't give Ritteri a hard time. The poor guy is obviously deaf.

Nrchy...Error correction encoding of a digital data transmission is not an admission of a problem. It is a way to operate the transmission at a higher bandwidth. Correctable errors are intended to occur. By accepting this the hardware can be run at a much higher frequency, so that in spite of using some bandwidth for data redundancy the net bandwidth is increased.