SACD vs Standard CD

[jayne lee wilson]

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

But that isn't how we usually listen to music is it? Especially if the methodology is to switch between brief excerpts of the same music. (This can really mess up your audition - I usually get so quickly fatigued doing A/B or ABX, even with a friend to help, I soon haven't got a clue what I'm listening to or for, or what to think of it....
...a specific problem with SACD replay is that not all such players process the DSD discretely; some effect a compromise with PCM & don't have a separate decoding path (much simpler with DSD);not to mention so many SACDs being derived from PCM masters; so it would be very important to ensure the specific DSD source & dac geometry for any tests.)

When I was trialling things I would usually put the new kit in, let it warm up for a bit, then providing there were no obvious compatibility problems, live with it in place for a few days before switching back to the resident gear. It certainly didn't always produce the result I might have wished for, as I said...

But it always put your system in a new perspective...
Think about your view of a landscape - say a very familiar one like your own garden; away from it for a few weeks, you see it anew.....but if it's only a day....
Defamiliarisation always works for me....

Anyway, off to get some air & settle down for the Bruckner 4 soon...

[richardfinegold]

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.

I think the only listening test that is meaningful is what your own ears tell you. You can look to others for guidance, but you are the ultimate arbiter

[Dave2002]

But that isn't how we usually listen to music is it? Especially if the methodology is to switch between brief excerpts of the same music. (This can really mess up your audition - I usually get so quickly fatigued doing A/B or ABX, even with a friend to help, I soon haven't got a clue what I'm listening to or for, or what to think of it...)

A lot of the "scientific" tests are actually no good at all. One problem which is hardly ever addressed is that the parts of a piece or recording which may really send shivers down your spine, or tingles in your head probably don't occur too often, so statistically they are not too likely to occur in music chosen at random. Another problem is the type of music which is often used for tests. If it's pop music or rock music the perception may be very different. I do know of some specific recordings where there are sections which do show up a terrific difference between different kit. One such is the last movement of Rachmoninov's 2nd symphony - Ashkenazy - Decca - there is one passage which sounds very different on some systems (and much more involving), whereas 99% of the time there won't be much to choose between different systems. Any test which involves statistical averaging is unlikely to spot differences of this sort. Some people may say it's not worth spending £X000s just for a few seconds of extra thrill, but I submit it probably is, and the benefits will probably show up in other parts of many recordings too.

[Beresford]

There is a current Hifi camp who say that ordinary CD files converted to DSD (basically the same as SACD) and resampled at up to 8x the data rate of DSD, requiring a very powerful computer, sound significantly better than the original CD files. But many disagree. I have no experience of this, but would be interested to know if anyone else here has.

Then there is the Glenn Gould story - his recording engineers were astounded when he could distinguish which of two top class and supposedly equal studio tape recording decks had been used during his recordings.

[richardfinegold]

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?

SACD playback doesn’t require Multichannel.
Most SACD players have their own DAC that is capable of decoding higher resolutions including DSD. When I listen in 2 channel, my Oppo 105 player is capable of outputting DSD over HDMI, and my DAC, Bryston DAC3, has HDMI inputs

[Stunsworth]

There is a current Hifi camp who say that ordinary CD files converted to DSD (basically the same as SACD) and resampled at up to 8x the data rate of DSD, requiring a very powerful computer, sound significantly better than the original CD files. But many disagree. I have no experience of this, but would be interested to know if anyone else here has.

I’ve been trying this recently and have found it to sound very good. Is it better than leaving everything in its native resolution? I tend to think there’s an improvement, but I’m quite willing to accept that I’m possibly fooling myself.

Using the HQPlayer software to do the resampling puts a lot of strain on the processor on the Mac Mini I’m using, the same resampling can also be done natively in Roon, and I find this needs much less processor power than HQPlayer.

[Sir Velo]

Then there is the Glenn Gould story - his recording engineers were astounded when he could distinguish which of two top class and supposedly equal studio tape recording decks had been used during his recordings.

Well he had a 50:50 chance of getting it right.

[Beresford]

Well he had a 50:50 chance of getting it right.

Five (independent) times in a row would have given him only a 1 in 32 chance.

[Ian_of_glos]

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?

Proving that I prefer SACDs to CDs is not important to me. The only thing that really matters is that I enjoy listening to the music on the equipment I have.
However I would not really regard myself as an SACD supporter. When my old CD player stopped working it gave me the opportunity to buy an SACD capable player so I could listen to the hybrid SACD recordings that I already had in my collection. Each time I was pleasantly surprised at how good they sounded.
In my opinion there is a harshness to all digital recordings. It is particularly apparent with MP3 recordings, less so with CDs and almost non existent with SACDs.
Then there is the question of detail. All digital recordings are stored as a series of bits and it seems logical that some of the detail in the original recording will be lost as the file becomes smaller. Although you can still hear the tune, I find that it is the subtle details that are more apparent with SACDs than with CDs and MP3 files. It is these details that create the impression of actually being there at the concert or in the recording studio and this adds to my enjoyment. How can this be a bad thing?

[Ian_of_glos]

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?

Having just read the document through to the end, I am particularly interested in the comments in section 4 - "Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them."
I don't really understand this, but is it saying that the SACD recordings were downgraded to CD quality? If so then it is not surprising that the two sounded the same. Why didn't the experiment compare the original, unmodified SACD recordings with CD?

[MrGongGong]

Are SACD's 16 bit 44.1 ?

[Stunsworth]

Are SACD's 16 bit 44.1 ?

No - though most have a 16/44.1 layer to provide compatibility with CD players.

[MrGongGong]

No - though most have a 16/44.1 layer to provide compatibility with CD players.

So (I don't use them myself) what bitrate / sampling rate are they ?

[Stunsworth]

So (I don't use them myself) what bitrate / sampling rate are they ?

1 bit 2.8224 MHz (note MHz not KHz).

[MrGongGong]

1 bit 2.8224 MHz (note MHz not KHz).

Thanks