SACD vs Standard CD

[Ein Heldenleben]

I’ve spent a half hour dazzled by the technical knowhow of those contributing to this thread and mentally window shopping a £20,000 system . Whilst doing so I’ve been listening the Furtwangler BPO live RIAS recording of the Pastoral by streaming from my iPad off Amazon Prime to a RAW Heavy Metal bluetooth speaker (I’m on hols ) and concluded that the performance is more important than the system. You never hear Beethoven played like this now....

[Stunsworth]

BTW, Audirvana (one of the best platforms for Qobuz) also offers a neutral/warm setting choice, in integer mode.

Technology is wonderful sometimes!

I’ve been using Roon for the last six months or so, and love the way it integrates Qobuz with my own music. In addition to providing excellent meta-data it also allows upsampling of PCM to DSD (providing you have a DSD compatible DAC of course).

As ever there’s a free trial. Most importantly Roon doesn’t update your existing music in any way, no updates to its directory structure or meta-data, so it’s easy to switch back if Roon doesn’t suit.

[Mal]

I have the Sennheisser HD600 headphones and will use those to listen to the Mozart and Strauss discs later today.

Great! They have the reputation of being slightly less warm, and a bit more dynamic, than the HD 650s so they should show up the problem with the CDs, if it exists. Update: I see that you did, in post #60, find the CDs problematic. Would you say this rules out listening to the CDs frequently, or are you prepared to put up with the discomfort to experience the genius of Bernstein & Karajan?

But now I'm thinking I might be the main problem! I've been feeling a bit ill the past few days, maybe a mild dose of flu:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/listening-to-music-during-after-a-cold-flu.142056/

But I listened to Perahia/Bach/Keyboard Concertos (SK 89690, Sony 2001, DSD, SBM...) right after the Bernstein and it sounded wonderful... as dynamic as the Bernstein, but without any of the pain. So I'm not absolving the CD completely. But just listening to Bernstein again, it did seem a bit less harsh today, *maybe* down to "bearable" levels. Is this because I'm recovering from the flu or because I'm getting used to the CD? I'll give it a full listen, again, when I'm feeling fully recovered.

[MickyD]

Nor do I. But love the F&S clip! And you such a mere child ...

Oh, you are too kind, Dougie! Yes, isn't that a wonderful bit of F & S, and to my way of thinking, still so true even today.

[MrGongGong]

Not only that but I understand that Spotify's "Normalize volume" setting also compresses the dynamic range which makes the whole thing even worse.
.

I don't use Spotify
BUT if it's compression then it's NOT Normalisation (or even Normalization )

[Mal]

... the DAC will make a difference in the higher frequencies especially.
My T&A has a "dual-quad" arrangement - that is, four 32bit x 352.8 Dacs per channel...... it is a very highly resolved design for both space and detail. And very clean up top.

T&A's own proprietary design. The Mozart sounds sweetest of all in fast-linear mode - better timing, improved spatial resolution... many recent DACs offer similar filter choices (The Audiolab M-DAC actually had 7 (playtime! ), which seems a bit OTT even to me...), and they really can rescue older digital recordings from back-of-the-cupboard rejection....

If you only have the one geometry in a player or DAC, it is bound to be selective to some degree. So some records will never sound good on them - which, yes, can be a specific vintage on a specific label. Probably a frequency-response-interaction thing.

(I've noticed in several recent HFN DAC reviews, if there is only one option it is often the early HF roll-off minimal phase one, doubtless intended to help out the pre-supposed early digital HF hardness etc).

BTW, Audirvana (one of the best platforms for Qobuz) also offers a neutral/warm setting choice, in integer mode.
!

Thanks Jayne, a lot to think about there! To start with, I'll gather my problem CDs together and take them down to Richer Sounds and see if they have your recommendations to try, or can come up with something else...

[johnb]

I don't use Spotify
BUT if it's compression then it's NOT Normalisation (or even Normalization )

Yes I know, but it is reported that Spotify additionally applies dynamic compression when volume normalization/normalisation is enabled.

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks Jayne, a lot to think about there! To start with, I'll gather my problem CDs together and take them down to Richer Sounds and see if they have your recommendations to try, or can come up with something else...

There's a good choice there - Arcam, Audiolab and Cambridge, or the mini-AQ Dragonfly according to budget - I lived happily with the previous Cambridge DacMagic (now the "Plus" model) for about 4 years until 2013. I couldn't bear to sell it - put it away upstairs as a supersub should the T&A ever need service.
Wonderful value, but you should find something to suit there. Try to get a home trial if possible...

[Ian_of_glos]

I didn't specify HD vs. standard.

They've performed the double blind experiment with CD sound vs. SACD sound and found no difference. They might be wrong, of course, and maybe you are hearing a difference. But I'd just like to put forward the possibility that you are suffering from a placebo effect.

Yes I recognise that, having just spent a large amount of money on a new CD player it is likely that I will be looking for improvements that are not actually there in order to justify my purchase. However, I am also highly suspicious of these double blind experiments. In a similar test apparently most people cannot even tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD, so it is very unlikely that they would notice any difference between a CD and an SACD.
What do we know about these experiments? Was the sample size statistically valid, and what type of music were they asked to compare? I think it is no coincidence that the SACD format has survived mainly with classical recordings where qualities such as ambience and timbre are particularly important. These are the very qualities I feel that SACD recordings are able to preserve.
What is most important is that we are able to enjoy the music we love, and if the hifi we have chosen enables us to do that the money we spent on it is justified.

[Stunsworth]

There's a good choice there - Arcam, Audiolab and Cambridge, or the mini-AQ Dragonfly according to budget - I lived happily with the previous Cambridge DacMagic (now the "Plus" model) for about 4 years until 2013. I couldn't bear to sell it - put it away upstairs as a supersub should the T&A ever need service.
Wonderful value, but you should find something to suit there. Try to get a home trial if possible...

i have to put in a word for the tiny Project Pre S2 DAC. It was designed by the same person who designed the DacMagic and Audiolab M-DAC. Terrific value for money at under £300.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes I recognise that, having just spent a large amount of money on a new CD player it is likely that I will be looking for improvements that are not actually there in order to justify my purchase. However, I am also highly suspicious of these double blind experiments. In a similar test apparently most people cannot even tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD, so it is very unlikely that they would notice any difference between a CD and an SACD.
What do we know about these experiments? Was the sample size statistically valid, and what type of music were they asked to compare? I think it is no coincidence that the SACD format has survived mainly with classical recordings where qualities such as ambience and timbre are particularly important. These are the very qualities I feel that SACD recordings are able to preserve.
What is most important is that we are able to enjoy the music we love, and if the hifi we have chosen enables us to do that the money we spent on it is justified.

Absolutely.
What is less often said, the "placebo effect" - belief conditioning perception - can work both ways of course.... an audio sceptic may be less likely to hear sonic advantages in high-grade equipment or hires files even when they are there....

A species of cognitive/confirmation bias.... not easy to escape from....

[johnb]

I'm a little confused about the SACD vs CD debate (I'm often confused by things).

If we take 2 channel audio, how are people listening to the SACD and CD. Are people listening via an external DAC? If so are they using RCA or Optical connections which (I understand) are limited to 48kHz sampling rate for SACD playback?

[Mal]

Yes I recognise that, having just spent a large amount of money on a new CD player it is likely that I will be looking for improvements that are not actually there in order to justify my purchase. However, I am also highly suspicious of these double blind experiments... What do we know about these experiments? Was the sample size statistically valid, and what type of music were they asked to compare? I think it is no coincidence that the SACD format has survived mainly with classical recordings where qualities such as ambience and timbre are particularly important...

Here's the key paper by Meyer & Moran:

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Interesting first paragraph:

"Since the standardization of the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD pulse-code modulation format, over 25 years ago, its quality as a recording medium has been the target of regularcriticism, both in the subjective audio press and among
audio professionals. The complaints typically focus on a perceived harshness, lack of depth, and/or a cold, sterile sound. However, blind comparisons of CDs against their source tapes have revealed these perceptions to be unfounded. To that extent, the CD standard was transparent, whether the original source was digital or analog."

On "what do we know about these experiments?"

"... 60 members of the Boston Audio Society and many other interested parties, a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were held over a period of about a year. Many types of music and voice signals were included in the sources, from classical (choral, chamber, piano, orchestral) to jazz, pop, and rock music. The subjects included men and women of widely varying ages, acuities, and levels of musical and audio experience;many were audio professionals or serious students of the art."

"The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers"

"We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music and specific program; type of high-resolution technology; age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have shown any correlation with the results, or any difference between the answers and coin-flip results."

"Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a
difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests."

So do you or other SACD supporters have links to equally comprehensive experiments that show SACD is noticeably superior to CDs?

[Mal]

Absolutely.
What is less often said, the "placebo effect" - belief conditioning perception - can work both ways of course.... an audio sceptic may be less likely to hear sonic advantages in high-grade equipment or hires files even when they are there....

A species of cognitive/confirmation bias.... not easy to escape from....

Yes, but double blind testing gets rid of bias in the audio sceptic as readily as in the audiophile.

[Bryn]

This might offer some relevant additional considerations re. hearing the difference between 44.1kHz sampling/16 bit quantization and higher audio resolutions.