2. digital
  3. 1099535067

sacd,vinyl, and rebook....

Just to echo some common remarks:

"sacd is like vinyl without the clicks and pops"

"sacd is a marginal improvement, if any, over redbook"

"sacd is a smoke and mirrors ht campaign designed for multi-channel use and copyright protection agendas"

at any rate...which of the above best describes this format?
phasecorrect
stehno
1,453 posts
 
In my opinion, there's a lot of musical information buried in redbook cds that, once extracted, can make the differences of any format negligible.

I consider dedicating much time toward extensive vibration control, AC treatments, and line-conditioning to be a great equalizer in this regard.

-IMO
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
I hope everyone read the link cited by Albertporter (11/3).

Two things are obvious to me.

1. Digital PCM may be imperfect, but 24 bits are better than 16, and 96 KHz is better than 44.

2. SACD superiority is a snow job by Sony, and many audiophiles have been fooled.
rcprince
3,080 posts
 
I'm going to stay out of this for the most part (I've made my feelings known on other threads like this) except to correct a misstatement by Loon above which I think is misleading. The Stereophile article pointed out that the Norah Jones SACD was mastered from the same 16-bit/44khz master tape as the CD, not an analog, 24-bit or DSD master, that's a big reason why it sounded the same as the CD and something Marks pointed out specifically in that article and rightly kvetched about. His point is something I've always been concerned about with SACD, which is if a record company is going to release a digital recording in multiple formats, there is no way, unless the company states it on the label (which few do), to tell if the SACD (or DVD-A, for that matter, I guess) came from a 16-bit, 24-bit or DSD master. I view the Norah Jones SACD as an absolute rip-off by the record company; I could get the same effect they produced by playing the regular CD through my Audio Logic DAC, which converts pcm to DSD internally.
uppermidfi
277 posts
 
In my experience SACD is much better than Redbook, but only under the right circumstances. Old remastered junk thrown onto SACD is generally not very good, or marginally better than redbook.

SACDs that are mastered correctly, or those that are done specifically for SACD (not just another layer) can sound very good. True, there are not ticks and pops, but they also do not have the life of an LP. I don't know why SACD doesn't sound better than LPs, but I have yet to hear and SACD that sounds better than the same thing on vinyl.

I base these conclusions only on listening. I have had an SACD player for over three years now. I listen predominately to vinyl, even though in many cases I have the same thing on CD and SACD. I don't know why vinyl sounds better, I just know that it does sound better.
gaudio_eek
312 posts
 
Ivor Humphreys of the Gramophone Magazine in UK reflects on SACD and DVD-A on page 81 of the most recent issue (Awards 2004):
“Finally, a few thoughts on comparing SACD with DVD-A. Several technically secure hi-fi peers are insisting that SACD doesn’t rival DVD-A, yet most of the finest sounds I’ve heard have come from SACD. It’s tempting to blame the system for a lackluster sound, but with SACD and DVD-A, streets ahead of CD in terms of resolution, the key, I feel, is far more likely to be the microphone lay-out and/or mixing ahead of it. Get that wrong (and it’s very hard to get it right) and the carrier is practically immaterial. I’ve heard a few stunningly good sounds, and far too many indifferent ones on both.”
Well said, Ivor!
More to discover