2. misc-audio
  3. 1165361396

SACD and an audiophile question


I recently bought a DVD player that is also an SACD
player. Denon 1930CI. It has some nice features, including one called Direct digital. It basically turns off everything not needed, display etc.
I ordered a 2 channel single layer SACD. Boston's first album. I compared it to the normal CD you would buy at any walmart. I can hear a difference, but its very little difference.
First thing that came to mind is my system isn't really an "audiophile" system: The Denon mentioned above, Anthem TLP-1 Pre-amp, and Rotel RB960BX Dual mono 60w/ch amp, currently using Paradigm Studio 60's V3(stereophile class B rated)(Have a Linn Genki CD player, being repaired, and Magnepan 2.7's as well, not currently hooked up.)
While some would snub their nose at this system, it's still leaps and bounds better than anything you buy at BB or CC type stores. If I had $50k to spend on an audio system I would, but I'm married with children..enough said there...
I read sterophile and other mags about audio, and I noticed that they test equipment with really old CD/LP that I've never heard of. I always have wondered, Why do audiophiles test equipment with recordings from 1945 and 1964 etc. Recording techniques couldn't possibly be as good as what is possible today. Why would you not want the Best recording possible when doing a critical listening test. Seems to me you would be able to tell a piece of equipments limit if you had a recording that would expose those limits. Since the Boston CD was originally recorded in 1976, is it the recording a factor in only hearing minute differences or is my system so crappy that I "should" have a hard time telling the difference between a normal CD and a SACD?
audio_ala
Post removed 
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
you raise a lot of points.

from my own experience, i don't necessarily believe that newer recordings are better than older recordings.

a very good, or excellent recording is in my opinion, not a good test of a stereo system. i prefer an "average" recording, to reveal the flaws in a stereo system.

a great recording will be evident when played on any stereo system.

i also believe your stereo system has sufficient resolution to reveal differences in recordings.
warrenh's avatar
warrenh
2,299 posts
 
As you can read, not all SACDs (audiophools) are created equal. A good one/great one, is worth the expense for me. I only have a few DVD-As. Not a loser in the pack. Wonderful sound.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
SACD has the technical potential to be better than CD, and, of course, it also offers multichannel which, when properly implemented with good speakers all around, is a leap forward. However, not all SACD discs are well mastered, and may sound inferior to well done CDs. IMHO, if you don't go multichannel SACD isn't worth the trouble and expense.

DVDA potential for quality sound is at least as good as SACD. I also note that my very best discs are DVDA. Is this just chance? In addition to quality multichannel sound DVDA often include a lot of video which is interesting to watch once or twice.

In summary, the audio quality improvement from SACD and from DVDA is real but small. The important payoff is multichannel, and between the two DVDA wins.
dopogue
1,773 posts
 
I heard that Boston SACD last week on a friend's really fine-sounding system. Pretty dreadful recording. That said, many SACDs -- rock or otherwise -- show little improvement over comparable CDs (and especialliy, LPs). But some are truly excellent by comparison, e.g., the Abko-remastered Rolling Stones discs, unfortunately now hard to find.

As others have noted, you're wrong about newer recordings being inherently better-sounding than older ones. Some are, but many aren't. Depends on the skill of the recording engineers as much as anything else.
More to discover