Not another POLL SACD vs CD

[Norton]

I have several hundred JVC XRCD's from Japan and think they outperform many of the DSD's I have. K2 and XRCD show just how good 16/44.1 can be. I enjoy them immensely.

 

Interesting, I'll look into these. Can I ask where you buy from and can you get complete lists of releases (classical for me)? Presumably they can be ripped and replayed in full glory just as per normal Cd?

[Teresa]

"Norah Jones-Come Away With Me" is one such example that is also available as a dual layer disc.

IIRC, the same master is used for both layers.

 

You recall correctly. That was the originally released SACD. It was a complete ripoff because the DSD layer was nothing more than a conversion of the 16/44 Redbook master. I may be wrong, but I believe that a true dual layer SACD, i.e. one with a properly mastered DSD layer produced from the original master tape, has been released since that time.

 

Yes, if one gets the Blue Note SACD version the DSD stereo program should sound the same as the CD version as a 16/44.1kHz copy was used for both, as you and Alex stated. The Analogue Productions SACD and the high resolution downloads are said to go back to the original analog master tape.

[beerandmusic]

Yes, if one gets the Blue Note SACD version the DSD stereo program should sound the same as the CD version as a 16/44.1kHz copy was used for both, as you and Alex stated. The Analogue Productions SACD and the high resolution downloads are said to go back to the original analog master tape.

 

Yea, i heard the norah jones is one of several SACDs ripoffs where they didn't use analog recordings...what a shady market. I heard you can use sacd-net website to ensure the good sacd's used analog masters for true dsd/sacd quality.

[Teresa]

SACD is my favourite digital format. Providing the original recording was analogue or DSD, I've never heard a RBCD/layer that equals or betters the SACD. I would concede though that the superiority of SACD may be less marked when original recording was PCM.

 

SACD is also my favorite format, and I generally agree with your post.

---

Beer and Music, I voted SACD 64 sounds better and I will explain why.

 

I’m not good at blind tests, everything I try to compare with switching back and forth sounds like utter crap. I have to listen long term and it takes me a long, long time to discover what I like. In other words comparing for me is utter hell. I like listening to music instead, my new purchases are based on my music listening history. If I like a format or label I tend to purchase them in the future.

 

That said, I enjoy my “audiophile” SACDs way more than my “audiophile” CDs. As a group “audiophile” SACDs sound smoother, have more inner detail, have warmer, more realistic bass than my “audiophile” CDs. This only applies to “audiophile” recordings as I abhor the sound of most major label commercial recordings in any format.

 

In the case of audiophile recordings I don’t believe in any grand conspiracy to make “audiophile” SACDs sound better than “audiophile” CDs, because audiophile labels such as AudioQuest Music, Channel Classics, DMP, fonè. Groove Note, Opus 3, PentaTone Classics, Reference Recordings, etc. produce the best sounding recordings they can, in any format they release in, their reputation as an audiophile label depends on it. Also Telarc recordings made before they were purchased by Concord Records and fired all of Telarc's recording staff and now outsource the engineering and production of the new recordings on Concord's group of labels, including Telarc.

 

There could be a conspiracy to make major label commercial SACDs sound better than major label commercial CDs, I don’t know as I can’t stand the sound quality of major label commercial recordings in any format made from about 1980 on.

 

Edit: This picture shows how many recordings I have in both physical formats and computer downloads from each recording companies I have 6 or more of.

 

[beerandmusic]

it amazes me that some few people will still think a cd sounds as good as a sacd (if recorded from original analog master)....sometimes i think that they would rather debate than being honest.

[beerandmusic]

SACD is also my favorite format, and I generally agree with your post.

---

Beer and Music, I voted SACD 64 sounds better and I will explain why.

 

Thanks for the share...and i agree and it makes perfect sense that some "audiophile cd" recordings may sound better than some "mass produced sacd upsampled recordings". That is why i suggested that same quality major recording lab used high quality analog recording to make both.

 

There is a planned direction with this, but i was going to wait for more input. I believed that even the "dsd nay sayers" would agree that an sacd would sound better than a 44.1 (non-upsampled) cd. Their arugment might be that when they play them they are upsampled with their upsampling pcm dac, and then it would make sense possibly that the cd sounds better.

 

To continue IF we can have a concensus that native 64DSD sounds better than native 44.1CD, then we can move on to the next question.....why.

 

My logic tells me that the reason why is because "more data, more information, more music" is why...and this would lead to the next logical conclusion, that if a native 64DSD does have more music than a 44.1CD, upsampling cannot bring back lost music. It may make it sound better than nos cd, but it is less accurate as having less "accurate information" than the DSD. It will always make sense to have the highest resolution recording as possible, and i am sure that we are headed in that direction for those that truly want the best, rather than just a debate.

[Teresa]

I have several hundred JVC XRCD's from Japan and think they outperform many of the DSD's I have. K2 and XRCD show just how good 16/44.1 can be. I enjoy them immensely.

 

My experience has been different. While I think my 4 JVC XRCDs sound good, in my system they don't sound as good as my Reference Recordings HDCDs (decoded), much less audiophile SACDs.

 

Here are the 4 JVC XRCDs I have:

 

1. Nancy Bryan: Lay Me Down
   
2. The Johnny Griffin Quartet: The Kerry Dancers
   
3. The Steve Miller Band: The Joker
   
4. Bennie Wallace: The Old Songs
   

I bought them all on sale for $10 or less from Elusive Disc, perhaps these are not among the best sounding ones? You have several hundred JVC XRCDs so it sounds like you were luckier than me. Also, there is not a way I would pay the regular super high price for XRCDs, when I can get SACDs for much less.

[sandyk]

it amazes me that some few people will still think a cd sounds as good as a sacd (if recorded from original analog master)....sometimes i think that they would rather debate than being honest.

 

Why the hell did you start all these stupid self serving polls if you already had made your mind up ?

It seems that all you are interested in is getting confirmation of your own views from those who agree with you ! Quite a few find the higher out of band noise from SACD annoying. That isn't a problem with present DSD formats though, because noise is shoved much higher up the spectrum than with SACD. A friend of mine prefers the RB CD layer of the Norah Jones dual disc.

I prefer the RB CD version of "Dire Straits-Love Over Gold" via a better than average LPCM player or rip, over the SACD version, as HF detail although a little more prominent, appears to be etched with low level noise/grit to my ears. IIRC, another member said something similar about SACD quite recently. It reminds me a bit of the "gritty" background you can get via USB audio without a Regen etc. Barry Diament also says something similar about SACD.

 

 

To continue IF we can have a concensus that native 64DSD sounds better than native 44.1CD, then we can move on to the next question.....why.

 

Dream on !

As usual, it depends on the calibre of the LPCM player and how well it is implemented. You appear to have heard only sub $2K players.

[sandyk]

My experience has been different. While I think my 4 JVC XRCDs sound good, in my system they don't sound as good as my Reference Recordings HDCDs (decoded), much less audiophile SACDs.

Hi Teresa

I have "Jheena Lodwick-Feelings Vol.2" on HDCD, and even when ripped and played without decoding ,it's well above a typical RB CD. We often use this for reference material. The bonus instrumental track "Sumiyaki Coffee" when played via a better than average DAC sounds better than most high res recordings. Unfortunately, it's impossible to get these days unless you pay >$100 for a 2nd hand copy on ebay.

Regards

Alex

[JW Audio]

it amazes me that some few people will still think a cd sounds as good as a sacd (if recorded from original analog master)....sometimes i think that they would rather debate than being honest.

 

What the hell is wrong with you? I don't care to debate at all. I just said what I felt was the truth. And now I'm going to say what I feel again. You are the most ignorant person I've ever had the displeasure of knowing on any forum on the internet.

[beerandmusic]

 

Dream on !

As usual, it depends on the calibre of the LPCM player and how well it is implemented. You appear to have heard only sub $2K players.

 

What do you mean by LPCM player? are you talking about a cd transport?

My poll stated assume same high quality transport that plays both cd and sacd.

Or if you are talking about dac, I said playing native cd44.1 and native sacd64 on same dac.

You say best implementation..i am not sure what you mean by that..i am not talking upsampled...just native.

 

I am trying to see if there is a concensus that without upsampling if "most" (there will always be a few "nay-sayers") people will agree that under these circumstances will sacd64 sound better than cd44.1.

[beerandmusic]

What the hell is wrong with you? I don't care to debate at all. I just said what I feel. And now I'm going to say what I feel again. You are the most ignorant person I've ever had the displeasure of reading on any forum on the internet.

 

I am being sincere. why am i being ignorant? because i believe that most people will agree that given criteria, that most people will agree that SACD64 will sound better than CD44.1 (natively non-oversampled)? I just find it difficult to believe that anyone has spent a lot of time comparing and wouldn't agree. Is that being ignorant?

 

Are you one that believes native cd44.1 (non-oversampled) will sound better than SACD64 recorded from same analog master (not recorded from digital). And if so, please share what you have actually compared? If you can give me an actual example of something you have compared intently meeting this criteria, i will try it, and if i can't say for 100% that the sacd does sound better, then i will admit ignorance.

 

As an outsider, it does seem that there are "camps" of beliefs.

 

I am not trying to be ignorant, or come off as offensive, and not sure what i am doing wrong? Maybe i am just mental? I believe I am following logic...but i am novice. I don't know what i am missing...just trying to figure this stuff out.

[JW Audio]

I am being sincere. why am i being ignorant? because i believe that most people will agree that given criteria, that most people will agree that SACD64 will sound better than CD44.1 (natively non-oversampled)? I just find it difficult to believe that anyone has spent a lot of time comparing and wouldn't agree. Is that being ignorant?

 

Are you one that believes native cd44.1 (non-oversampled) will sound better than SACD64 recorded from same analog master (not recorded from digital). And if so, please share what you have actually compared? If you can give me an actual example of something you have compared intently meeting this criteria, i will try it, and if i can't say for 100% that the sacd does sound better, then i will admit ignorance.

 

You being ignorant because you said my and others perspective is dishonest. Also because you don't have the capacity to see how offensive saying such things can be. Just because someone doesn't agree with what YOU think, does NOT make them dishonest. I will never grace one of your threads again.

[beerandmusic]

I also find it interesting that in most of these polls most people will say dsd sounds better or they sound the same, but few or none say cd sounds better. Why don't some people think native 44.1 cd without upsampling sounds "better" than native sacd64?

[sandyk]

I am being sincere. why am i being ignorant? because i believe that most people will agree that given criteria, that most people will agree that SACD64 will sound better than CD44.1 (natively non-oversampled)? I just find it difficult to believe that anyone has spent a lot of time comparing and wouldn't agree. Is that being ignorant?

 

Most people wouldn't even know what SACD64 is ,and they never will because it's a dying format, but just about everybody knows what CD is, and most older people all know what an LP is.

For that matter, most people wouldn't even know what a DAC is, and it's far too late for DSD to become any more than a niche format. Schiit appears to realise that too, after the flop of their only pure DSD player.

[beerandmusic]

You being ignorant because you said my and others perspective is dishonest. Also because you don't have the capacity to see how offensive saying such things can be. Just because someone doesn't agree with what YOU think, does NOT make them dishonest. I will never grace one of your threads again.

 

I didn't say dishonest, i said like to debate. Maybe they haven't done intensive testing....

 

Ok, i re-read...i did say rather than being honest. my bad.

I admit ignorance....time to quit.

[esldude]

I am being sincere. why am i being ignorant? because i believe that most people will agree that given criteria, that most people will agree that SACD64 will sound better than CD44.1 (natively non-oversampled)? I just find it difficult to believe that anyone has spent a lot of time comparing and wouldn't agree. Is that being ignorant?

 

Are you one that believes native cd44.1 (non-oversampled) will sound better than SACD64 recorded from same analog master (not recorded from digital). And if so, please share what you have actually compared? If you can give me an actual example of something you have compared intently meeting this criteria, i will try it, and if i can't say for 100% that the sacd does sound better, then i will admit ignorance.

You have asked in a half dozen ways if SACD DSD is by consensus better than CD PCM. You seem by your statements very intent that DSD is better while denying that. Clearly despite your wishes it should be abundantly clear there is no such consensus. That is why are getting no definitive answer to your question. There is not one.

 

So you have two DACs to try both formats out. Reach your own conclusions and you don't need someone else to decide for you. I and others have told you the dramatic differences are in the recording not the format. Even plain old CD can sound excellent if the recording is.

[beerandmusic]

Most people wouldn't even know what SACD64 is ,and they never will because it's a dying format, but just about everybody knows what CD is, and most older people all know what an LP is.

For that matter, most people wouldn't even know what a DAC is, and it's far too late for DSD to become any more than a niche format. Schiit appears to realise that too, after the flop of their only pure DSD player.

 

I agree. I am just trying to learn....and doing a very poor job at that. My old brain must be giving out on me.

[sandyk]

You have asked in a half dozen ways if SACD DSD is by consensus better than CD PCM. You seem by your statements very intent that DSD is better while denying that. Clearly despite your wishes it should be abundantly clear there is no such consensus. That is why are getting no definitive answer to your question. There is not one.

 

So you have two DACs to try both formats out. Reach your own conclusions and you don't need someone else to decide for you. I and others have told you the dramatic differences are in the recording not the format. Even plain old CD can sound excellent if the recording is.

 

+1 , as I said in a reply to Teresa.

However, for many members who have large numbers of SACDs , the quest is to extract their contents and upsample them to overcome some of the format's limitations.

[Melvin]

You have asked in a half dozen ways if SACD DSD is by consensus better than CD PCM. You seem by your statements very intent that DSD is better while denying that. Clearly despite your wishes it should be abundantly clear there is no such consensus. That is why are getting no definitive answer to your question. There is not one.

 

So you have two DACs to try both formats out. Reach your own conclusions and you don't need someone else to decide for you. I and others have told you the dramatic differences are in the recording not the format. Even plain old CD can sound excellent if the recording is.

 

+1 .. besides, if you're simply looking for some validation, there are quite a few members here that are huge fans of DSD, seek them out .. commiserate .. find DSD versions of Kumbaya .. whatever. You will still find NO consensus in audiophiledom at large.

[beerandmusic]

You have asked in a half dozen ways if SACD DSD is by consensus better than CD PCM. You seem by your statements very intent that DSD is better while denying that. Clearly despite your wishes it should be abundantly clear there is no such consensus. That is why are getting no definitive answer to your question. There is not one.

 

So you have two DACs to try both formats out. Reach your own conclusions and you don't need someone else to decide for you. I and others have told you the dramatic differences are in the recording not the format. Even plain old CD can sound excellent if the recording is.

 

I am getting older, and i just want to end up with the "final system" I am not going to want to tinker anymore, once i am done with this project. I won't continue my livelihood here on CA once i finish making my final system. If there is no consensus, i am just going to go with what "my best logic" suggests to me. I believe software, recordings, and other things will continue to improve, and just want the right hardware. Yes, i am trying to convince myself.

[beerandmusic]

You will still find NO consensus in audiophiledom at large.

 

The concensus that i have concluded is that most people will say that an SACD sounds better or little difference...few will say that a non-upsampled cd44.1 sounds better than a SACD (given same recording company from same analog master). similarly for native nos dsd vs native nos pcm.

 

majority says dsd is greater than or equal to pcm, "relatively" few will say a cd or pcm is greater.

although agreed good majority still say little difference.

even with that, it seems to make sense to go with something that supports quad DSD, especially in light of the analog convergence with quad dsd.

[Melvin]

snip .. even with that, it seems to make sense to go with something that supports quad DSD, especially in light of the analog convergence with quad dsd.

 

You seem to have found your answer then! Perhaps a new poll is in order asking if your conclusions are correct ;-D

[sandyk]

You seem to have found your answer then! Perhaps a new poll is in order asking if your conclusions are correct ;-D

 

Shhhh !

[Solstice380]

Interesting, I'll look into these. Can I ask where you buy from and can you get complete lists of releases (classical for me)? Presumably they can be ripped and replayed in full glory just as per normal Cd?

 

A good source with a great selection of the Japanese discs (of all varieties) is cdjapan.co.jp.

 

You should also check out some of the Blu-Spec, SHM, platinum (instead of aluminum or gold) CDs. The Japanese are meticulous about mastering! They also offer some flat transfers to RBCD of masters used to make SACDs of re-issues. The Dire Straits mentioned before has had some HORRID remasters, SACD and LP included. The Japanese CD is sublime!

 

Japan is a haven for SACDs as well, they are really into them.