Can cds sound better than sacds ? If so, how ? let the debate begin..
http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/Templates/cd77.htm This company makes a cd player which claims to exceed the performance of sacd. is this possible and if so, how ?
Johnney, They also claim to make a solid state power amp which does away with all of the problems of solid state power amps! I wouldn't believe everything you read.
Guess it all depends. A tried a cheapy £300 SACD player a couple of years back, and thought that my CDP at the time was just as good, though being fair it was three times more expensive. Frankly, who cares! With the limited availability of SACDs, and the fact that I'd rather maximise what I'm getting out of the 500+ CDs I already own, why bother with a new format. If you're going to play with a different format to CD, buy a record player.
There are all ready cd players that far out strip sacd performance, so nothing new there. Though I have to agree with Murray on this one, I take this with a pinch of salt until you clap ears on to one.
That may be so, but given the choice, I'm pretty sure most engineers would choose DSD or 24/192 over 16/44 as a recording/archive format. 16/44 has been around 15 years longer than DSD and benefits from far higher "engineering familiarity" (and availablity) and much higher dollar investment in related technologies. The situation isn't helped by the fact that there are very few studios using "pure" DSD mastering chains, and players that convert DSD>PCM (not that this makes a huge difference IMHO). Also, there is an extreme paucity of decently engineered SACD transport mechs and DSD decoding DACs available (basically limited to offerings from Sony). This is a massive problem and (imho) severely hampers SACD as a format. Sad thing is, it looks like Sony is pulling the plug on the format as a whole, and concentrating on Blu-ray/DXD going forward. Shame, as in my experience, it was a genuine improvement over 16/44, but never really got the attention it (rightly) deserved.... DT
What exactly is DSD? Most recording software I know, I thought, used PCM at least at 24/96, and 24bit it is definitely an improvement over 16bit but I'm not so sure about the sample rate making much difference.
DSD is essentially a single bit toggling at 2.8MHz. As such, it relies on heavy noiseshaping to make it work. Potentially greater bandwidth than 44.1Khz PCM, but has less dynamic range above 10Khz due to the way it works. Whether that matters is arguable. I'm with Mr Sukebe on its audible merits.
I just got my first SACD player, and on the disc I tried, SACD sounded much better, particularly treble and mids...
I think as in all formats it's the original recording and mastering that dictates which sounds better, often the SACD layer comes from different masters than the CD layer, So even switching between the two on the same player can be a red herring ! The transport in my Linn Unidisk 1.1 is a true SACD transport, and not bought in item.... Sony actual got Linn to design an "ultimate" player for them to show off the format...... That said some of the best sounds I've heard from it are on CD !!! the latest spec is a stunning red book player.... SACD is good but I struggle to find music I like on the format..... I also hear Sony music have given up on it....Shame it had potential....... To be honest I've not bother comparing the two layers much on the same disc.... if it's a SACD I just play that layer !!!.... perhaps I should
Hmmm, sounds like Linn's marketing department there! Why wouldn't Sony ask thier own (extremely capable) designers to develop & build the "ultimate sacd player"? The Unidisk is bloody expensive too - £6k, or thereabouts?!? DT
I think there is no doubt that SACD is technically superior to red book CD, whose technical specification (sample rate, bit depth) has always been considered too tight for good quality reproduction. I have an SACD player (Philips 963SA), and for me the best SACDs sound better than the best CDs, which I play on a Shanling CD-T80. Also, I would think that more classical SACDs are being produced than classical vinyl at the moment. As a quick test of that I just went to Amazon UK and got 75 matches on Beethoven SACD and 17 on Beethoven vinyl and all of the vinyl were in 'new and used'. I buy a lot of vinyl second hand in pristine condition, and it pretty well always sounds better than CD, but not always better than SACD. I find www.sa-cd.net is a useful site. I see that they have direct links to SACD vendors, saying that there are 3954 SACDs. The link to Amazon UK turns up 1198 SACDs. I think it is a real shame that CD, the main-stream medium, is so poor, and we have to struggle so hard to try to make it sound reasonable. I know that, for me, when I put vinyl on the room fills with music in a way it never does with CD.
