SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Of course SACD and DVD-A only offer subtle improvements. What piece of gear have any one of us upgraded to that had more than a subtle improvement? Sure, it may seem dramatic to us, but that is because we are all geeks. 99% of the people in the world wouldnt be able to distinguish a 20k system from a 100k system. What is nice about SACD is it gives a significant improvement (to my ears) for virtually no extra cost. The only commercially available format that betters SACD is vinyl, and you have to spend much more on a quality turntable than on an SACD player to get a marked improvement.

The DSOTM the moon SACD is worth it for mutlichannel alone, and the SACD sounds decidedly better than the redbook version.

A good example of remastering versus format is the recently released MoFi version of Los Lobos Good Morning Aztlan. I popped this in and was very pleased with the newer remaster, and glad I had spent the money on it. After listening to around 7 songs, I wanted to see how the redbook remaster compared to the SACD remaster. It was then I realized that I had been litening to the redbook layer. The SACD version was another order of magnitude better than the redbook remaster. This is one example that shows that the format does have something to do with the quality of sound. Of course the mastering plays a huge part, but here is an example of a remaster by MoFi on redbook and SACD of the same piece, and the SACD sounds better.

For the near term most SACD releases will not have been recorded in the DSD format, but will instead have been converted from analog or PCM sources. Very, very few recording studios have DSD recorders and even fewer (possibly less than 10 in the U.S.) have DSD processors (EQ, compressors, etc.) or editors. It is this lack of DSD processors that makes pure DSD recorders impractical for standard pop/rock recordings.

Most studios have only recently, if at all, upgraded to 88/96kHz PCM and they see little to no demand for DSD capabilites. With mastering studios the situation is different. DSD has firmly established itself with the top echelon of mastering houses. Artists typically send analog or PCM final mixes to be mastered and it's during this stage that the final consumer available format is determined.

Multi-format playback machines will make someones preference for PCM or SACD fairly irrelevant. I suspect that the situation will evovle in a way that mirrors the current movie distribution model. Larger budget films are distributed to theaters in multiple SDDS, dts and DD formats.

Ritteri, I'll do no such things that you ask. There is a popular saying that aetheists like to throw around in the heat of a philosophical battle, namely that "the burden of proof lies in the believer." Same applies here, it's actually a well established logical principle found in any introductory textbook. I don't have to disprove what you can't prove in the first place! Face it, you have no evidence to back up your posts. Anyways, thank you for playing, and have a nice day....

My wife doesn't know squat about audio and doesn't want to but even she thinks SACD sounds better than redbook!

Properly implemented Redbook 2 Channel I more musical and more interesting then SACD 2 Channel. It is not the fundamental advantage but the implemental. The properly done 16-bit is fairly rare (most of the people in here never heard it and never will) but it exists. The properly done SACD is not available yet and I do not know if it ever will be.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat