HDCD VS SACD

I have to make some strong dissenting view to what RCrerar mentioned.

1."good news is that most SACDs also include a standard Redbook layer that can be played back on conventional CD players. "This is not good news at all!!!Most single layer SACD sound significantly superior to the hybrid disc.

2."For now some of the very best Redbook players can offer performance that is virtually indistinguishable from even the best SACD players." This is utter nonsense!!!The very best CD player are Eons behind the top of the line SACD player.YES they are close if you compare both on redbook playback;but redbook versus DSD?no way!!!Just quickly compare Meridian highly rated 808.2 versus the SACD of dcs PUCCINI .No match,really......

3.To hear what SACD is all about you need:
A}To hear the SACD in dsd mode.There are many companies that 'cheat' and has their SACD layer in PCM ...these are craps.You can start with some STOCKFISH records stuff;very well engineered dsds......

B]You need to use wide bandwith amplifiers;that way the real advantage of dsd SACD are easily heard:wide headroom ,more details ,coherence,more bodies to instruments......

c]Once,heard it is very hard to go back to CD.Of course you do have good CDP like the dcs that makes the listening to CD less painful.

Fafafion, I personally prefer the pain of the dcs CD playback as opposed to the pain and suffering of losing my retirement account. You forgot to mention all the full range speakers needed for true SACD playback as well as the cost involved.

Kijanki,
According to my understanding, playing a HDCD disc through a non HDCD CDP/DAC would add a small amount of noise. Whether this noise is discernible I do not know.

ROD1957,

true to my Audiophile pedigree I indeed forgot to mention the cost;}BUT ,I assume we are discussing sound fidelity here,,,,,

Adding to the posts above I read a while back the HD CD format was encoded at 20 bit word lengths rather than the norm red Book CD words of 16. The sampling rates were identical. 44,100 Hz.

I have a few and when ripping to my hard drive so far the HD CD have a wee bit of fuzz to their playback thereafter.

Normal playback using whatever CDP doesn’t seem to produce that ‘fuzzyness’. It’s slight but noticeable. I suspect the differences in word lengths of the recorded vs encoded files speaks to those errors.

On a previous HD CD capable CDP/DVD player, the audio from the HD CD is quite analog like. Remarkably smooth and full sounding. Almost velvety. The disc I play and recall most often is the Ride with Bob HD CD by Asleep At the Wheel… the other’s escape me now.

Microsoft as I understand it bought the codec outright and now own it’s rights completely.

With increased word lengths and sampling rates, eg., SACd 32 & 105 in the Direct stream Digital domain, a substantial element of resolution has to be gained. Hyping either the word lengths or sampling rates usually account for steps up in overall resolution of the orig recording.

Fidelity on the other hand seems to be more a result of recording practices, production techniques, processing etc. one can have very resolute and not terribly high fidelity products in the final analysis. One can’t always count on high res recordings’ to have great fidelity.

Consequently, with higher rate and word lengths, one SHOULD have the potential to produce very good to excellent recordings that offer exceptional fidelity, over those of lower word lengths and sampling rates. BUT… the playback system and surely the source unit will play key roles in determining which recorded format sounds best… Red Book,, SACD, DVD, HD CD, or even DVDA, and as well, the disc type and mastering process itself.