Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SACD v.s. XRCD : No Debate ?
Hi,
My stereo system has sounded excellent until I bought some XRCD24 albums. I did A/B comparion of Opus Test CD 4, the original CD v.s. XRCD24 versions. The XRCD version made me thrill !! I have Rotel CDP-1072 which is a top-of-the-line product. My friend owns an SACD player, and he tries to convience me SACD is better, i.e. it is the "future", as far as sound quality is concerned. From information about SACD v.s. CD debates, about XRCDs and title selections availble, I draw a few conclusions: 1) Good mastering process determines sonic quality, not the formats 2) Good albums/releases are not cheap 3) SACDs are cheaper than XRCDs and have more titles (around 2000), compared to 100+ of XRCDs (not including good re-mastered CDs) One of my concerns is that whether I should be an SACD convert ? This means not only I need to get a new CD player, but also to know about what good SACD titles are. Good albums mean better in sonic quality. I don't know whether it's right if I put some propositions as follow: 1) If every hybrid SACD disc sounds good, as well as its redbook layer (due to good mastering process), then I should buy ONLY SACD discs. So, I can play them with any player of choice. 2) If good SACD players can produce sounds as good as of good CD players, then I should buy an SACD player. If No 1 is true, then my decision is simple. If No 1 is true, then don't worry about No 2. The logic could be reversed. If I own a good SACD player, then don't worry about NOT buying SACDs. It is simply a matter of whether I decide to buy an SACD player. :-)) My problem is that I have one good CD player already. The decision then would be based on the sonic quality of SACDs. In addition, XRCD makes me afraid of SACD hype. Unfortunately, XRCDs will be rarely produced in mass production. I can't find SACD v.s. XRCD debate. XRCDs, actually standard CDs, sound better because of the elimination of errors in the signal and on the disc itself by using super high quality CD materials and equipments. Then, the digital copy is near-flawless, and there is very low jitter (through CDP circuitry) when play-back. FIM Impression Music explain that their CDs have very low Block Error Rate (BLER), only 20 compared to 220 BLERs of the industry standard. It is why their CDs sound great, but more expensive. SACD, instead, doesn't employ PCM encoding of the ordinay Red Book CD. This makes SACD higher tollerance to defective CD pressing process, so it is cheaper for SACD mass production ?? I know in the past music CDs were very expensive due to production yield was low (pricing had to cover loss). This might be true for XRCD today. It comes to a question if SACD is "better" and *cheaper*, why not ? :-)) Any suggestion or thought ? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
bordin wrote:
Hi, My stereo system has sounded excellent until I bought some XRCD24 albums. I did A/B comparion of Opus Test CD 4, the original CD v.s. XRCD24 versions. The XRCD version made me thrill !! I have Rotel CDP-1072 which is a top-of-the-line product. My friend owns an SACD player, and he tries to convience me SACD is better, i.e. it is the "future", as far as sound quality is concerned. From information about SACD v.s. CD debates, about XRCDs and title selections availble, I draw a few conclusions: 1) Good mastering process determines sonic quality, not the formats 2) Good albums/releases are not cheap 3) SACDs are cheaper than XRCDs and have more titles (around 2000), compared to 100+ of XRCDs (not including good re-mastered CDs) One of my concerns is that whether I should be an SACD convert ? This means not only I need to get a new CD player, but also to know about what good SACD titles are. Good albums mean better in sonic quality. I don't know whether it's right if I put some propositions as follow: 1) If every hybrid SACD disc sounds good, as well as its redbook layer (due to good mastering process), then I should buy ONLY SACD discs. So, I can play them with any player of choice. 2) If good SACD players can produce sounds as good as of good CD players, then I should buy an SACD player. If No 1 is true, then my decision is simple. If No 1 is true, then don't worry about No 2. The logic could be reversed. If I own a good SACD player, then don't worry about NOT buying SACDs. It is simply a matter of whether I decide to buy an SACD player. :-)) My problem is that I have one good CD player already. The decision then would be based on the sonic quality of SACDs. In addition, XRCD makes me afraid of SACD hype. Unfortunately, XRCDs will be rarely produced in mass production. I can't find SACD v.s. XRCD debate. XRCDs, actually standard CDs, sound better because of the elimination of errors in the signal and on the disc itself by using super high quality CD materials and equipments. Then, the digital copy is near-flawless, and there is very low jitter (through CDP circuitry) when play-back. FIM Impression Music explain that their CDs have very low Block Error Rate (BLER), only 20 compared to 220 BLERs of the industry standard. It is why their CDs sound great, but more expensive. SACD, instead, doesn't employ PCM encoding of the ordinay Red Book CD. This makes SACD higher tollerance to defective CD pressing process, so it is cheaper for SACD mass production ?? I know in the past music CDs were very expensive due to production yield was low (pricing had to cover loss). This might be true for XRCD today. It comes to a question if SACD is "better" and *cheaper*, why not ? :-)) Any suggestion or thought ? Get a universal player, which will play SACD, DVD-Audio and CDs. Some formats may be discontinued so it doesn't make sense to get a specialized SACD only player. CDs are not expensive to produce and never have been(exept in the *very* beginning), this urban myth has been invented to justify the elevated prize tag. There have been a lot of claims that certain CDRs are "better", my own experience is that all CDRs make exactly the same copy bit for bit, even at 52x speed. All differences disappear when you do not know which CD is playing. XRCDs are standard redbook CDs, just more care has been taken when recording and mastering. Their resolution is still 16bit, 44.1kHz. They show what is possible with the normal redbook format, actually *all* CDs should sound like that. Many people say the new higher resolution and sampling rates are not needed. The layman is easily impressed by numbers, the computer business has spoiled the normal reasoning for a race to more and faster. This is beneficial for the computer market, but doesn't apply to audio. When CDs were invented, the necessary resolution and sampling rates were tested extensivly and they still hold truth now, because the human hearing has remained the same. :-) The only advantage of those new formats is the multichannel ability for HT setups. If you are not into that, stick with the CD format, it will survive SACD and DVD-A . -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ...
Oh, and btw, when I have compared them with the same program material (some with the same mastering and some not), the SACD wins almost all the time. Kal From what many people reported, SACD players produce inferior sound when playing redbook CDs. So, if you compare the same material (hybrid SACDs) on the same player, you may find the CD layer is not as good as SACD's. This is one of my concerns. :-) How did you do the comparison ? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ban said:
"The only advantage of those new formats is the multichannel ability for HT setups". 1) I have a dozen or so XRCDs. They are, on the whole, for whatever reasons, superior to the vast majority of other CDs that I own. However, I rate XRCD sound quality, as a whole, to be distinctly below that of any randomly selected group of SACDs that I also own. 2) Multi-channel ability is not the sole fiefdom of "HT setups". Many others and I have stellar multi-channel systems with no video capability whatsoever. True, I may some day add video capability to the mix but the video component will always be of lesser importance and will not interfere with the audio capability, which is the very first priority. 3) You say that the "only" advantage to the new formats is multi-channel. Well, it has been my experience and the experience of many that a correctly setup multi-channel system with well-engineered software is a *huge* advantage over CD. True, I'm speaking largely from a classical music perspective, for which I believe that multi-channel, at least the option, is a no brainer. I have not yet drawn conclusions about some other forms of music for which I have not experienced as much. But some of the ones that I have experienced remind me so much more of live concerts I attended of say, the Isley Brothers, and Earth, Wind, and Fire, than merely sitting in front of two speakers in the conventional way. In the concert venue the last thing these artists had in mine was a “two speaker” experience. They were reaching beyond that. Clearly, when properly executed, multi-channel music (not HT) achieves much of which two-channel has promised, but not completely delivered, for the past 50 years. Robert C. Lang |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Posted 6-12-05 Rec.high-end.audio
I have two SACD players connected to my system. One is the Sony SCD-1; the other is the EMM Labs DAC6 e and CDSD Transport combo. Both of these are noted for their stellar Red Book as well as SACD playback. The EMM Labs adds multi-channel playback capability. Informal listening with these players over the years (in the case of the SCD-1) I have found that my experience has been very similar to Kal's. That's is, XRCDs are almost always superior to other Red Book. In turn, SACDs are almost always superior to XRCDs. Robert C. Lang |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RobertLang wrote:
Posted 6-12-05 Rec.high-end.audio I have two SACD players connected to my system. One is the Sony SCD-1; the other is the EMM Labs DAC6 e and CDSD Transport combo. Both of these are noted for their stellar Red Book as well as SACD playback. The EMM Labs adds multi-channel playback capability. Informal listening with these players over the years (in the case of the SCD-1) I have found that my experience has been very similar to Kal's. That's is, XRCDs are almost always superior to other Red Book. In turn, SACDs are almost always superior to XRCDs. Robert C. Lang But then, as Bordin suggested in a previous post, the reason the SACD may sound the best in your system is because you're playing CDs in an SACD player, of which both of your players are. My experiecne has been similar to what Bordin says. I have never listened to an SACD or DVD-A yet, but I did buy the Pioneer DVD 563 multi-format player. I compared it to my Panasonic S-35 player. The Panasonic always sounded considerably better playing CDs than the Pioneer did playing CDs. I could not enjoy the Pioneer playing regualr CDs at all. CD |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry to be snide but neither of those players can play a doughnut (or
any other circular object) as well as the EMM or Sony SCD-1. Kal On 14 Jun 2005 00:07:01 GMT, Codifus wrote: RobertLang wrote: Posted 6-12-05 Rec.high-end.audio I have two SACD players connected to my system. One is the Sony SCD-1; the other is the EMM Labs DAC6 e and CDSD Transport combo. Both of these are noted for their stellar Red Book as well as SACD playback. The EMM Labs adds multi-channel playback capability. Informal listening with these players over the years (in the case of the SCD-1) I have found that my experience has been very similar to Kal's. That's is, XRCDs are almost always superior to other Red Book. In turn, SACDs are almost always superior to XRCDs. Robert C. Lang But then, as Bordin suggested in a previous post, the reason the SACD may sound the best in your system is because you're playing CDs in an SACD player, of which both of your players are. My experiecne has been similar to what Bordin says. I have never listened to an SACD or DVD-A yet, but I did buy the Pioneer DVD 563 multi-format player. I compared it to my Panasonic S-35 player. The Panasonic always sounded considerably better playing CDs than the Pioneer did playing CDs. I could not enjoy the Pioneer playing regualr CDs at all. CD |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What Bordin said was:
"From what many people reported, SACD players produce inferior sound when playing Redbook CDs." For the purposes of the discussion I did not dispute what was reported to him even though I am not familiar with those reports as being the norm for SACD players. I then gave examples of two players I own, the Sony SCD-1 and the EMM Labs DAC6 e/Transport combo, that are recognized in the high end audio community as being top tier CD players (as well as top tier SACD players). That is, these two players are recognized to play CDs as well as most other dedicated CD players in the market place. In other words, these two players do not "produce inferior sound when playing CDs". (Actually I found that they do as well a job playing CDs than most other players that I have listened to). That has been my personal experience. I then said that based on my casual listening experience with these players over the last several years (and with other dedicated CD players, of course) that I have found that XRCD's generally sound better to me than most other Red Book CDs. I then stated that based on my listening experience that my SACDs, in general, are sonically superior to my XRCDs in my system. Of course, in order for you to accept this as reasonable you would need to accept that my two players, the Sony SCD-1 and the EMM Labs combo, don't "produce inferior sound when playing Redbook CDs". To me and to many others in the audio community they produce a quality of CD sound among the best available including sound in a some instances that exceed some SACDs in my system. (Not all SACDs sound good; not by a long shot) And then when you add a well-recorded multi-channel SACD to the mix there is really no comparison in sound quality. Two-channel CD (including XRCD) and two channel SACD simply can't compare quality wise. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Sorry to be snide but neither of those players can play a doughnut (or any other circular object) as well as the EMM or Sony SCD-1. I'd bet they all play donuts pretty much indistinguishably in a level-matched time-synched blind comparison. And that goes CDs too. But if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'm all eyes. Kal On 14 Jun 2005 00:07:01 GMT, Codifus wrote: RobertLang wrote: Posted 6-12-05 Rec.high-end.audio I have two SACD players connected to my system. One is the Sony SCD-1; the other is the EMM Labs DAC6 e and CDSD Transport combo. Both of these are noted for their stellar Red Book as well as SACD playback. The EMM Labs adds multi-channel playback capability. Informal listening with these players over the years (in the case of the SCD-1) I have found that my experience has been very similar to Kal's. That's is, XRCDs are almost always superior to other Red Book. In turn, SACDs are almost always superior to XRCDs. Robert C. Lang But then, as Bordin suggested in a previous post, the reason the SACD may sound the best in your system is because you're playing CDs in an SACD player, of which both of your players are. My experiecne has been similar to what Bordin says. I have never listened to an SACD or DVD-A yet, but I did buy the Pioneer DVD 563 multi-format player. I compared it to my Panasonic S-35 player. The Panasonic always sounded considerably better playing CDs than the Pioneer did playing CDs. I could not enjoy the Pioneer playing regualr CDs at all. CD -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Well, you could simply use the objectivist argument and state that no
one has demonstrated that universal players are any inferior to (or distinguishable from) regular CD players. ;-) Kal On 14 Jun 2005 23:46:56 GMT, "RobertLang" wrote: What Bordin said was: "From what many people reported, SACD players produce inferior sound when playing Redbook CDs." For the purposes of the discussion I did not dispute what was reported to him even though I am not familiar with those reports as being the norm for SACD players. I then gave examples of two players I own, the Sony SCD-1 and the EMM Labs DAC6 e/Transport combo, that are recognized in the high end audio community as being top tier CD players (as well as top tier SACD players). That is, these two players are recognized to play CDs as well as most other dedicated CD players in the market place. In other words, these two players do not "produce inferior sound when playing CDs". (Actually I found that they do as well a job playing CDs than most other players that I have listened to). That has been my personal experience. I then said that based on my casual listening experience with these players over the last several years (and with other dedicated CD players, of course) that I have found that XRCD's generally sound better to me than most other Red Book CDs. I then stated that based on my listening experience that my SACDs, in general, are sonically superior to my XRCDs in my system. Of course, in order for you to accept this as reasonable you would need to accept that my two players, the Sony SCD-1 and the EMM Labs combo, don't "produce inferior sound when playing Redbook CDs". To me and to many others in the audio community they produce a quality of CD sound among the best available including sound in a some instances that exceed some SACDs in my system. (Not all SACDs sound good; not by a long shot) And then when you add a well-recorded multi-channel SACD to the mix there is really no comparison in sound quality. Two-channel CD (including XRCD) and two channel SACD simply can't compare quality wise. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Sorry to be snide but neither of those players can play a doughnut (or any other circular object) as well as the EMM or Sony SCD-1. Kal On 14 Jun 2005 00:07:01 GMT, Codifus wrote: RobertLang wrote: Posted 6-12-05 Rec.high-end.audio I have two SACD players connected to my system. One is the Sony SCD-1; the other is the EMM Labs DAC6 e and CDSD Transport combo. Both of these are noted for their stellar Red Book as well as SACD playback. The EMM Labs adds multi-channel playback capability. Informal listening with these players over the years (in the case of the SCD-1) I have found that my experience has been very similar to Kal's. That's is, XRCDs are almost always superior to other Red Book. In turn, SACDs are almost always superior to XRCDs. Robert C. Lang But then, as Bordin suggested in a previous post, the reason the SACD may sound the best in your system is because you're playing CDs in an SACD player, of which both of your players are. My experiecne has been similar to what Bordin says. I have never listened to an SACD or DVD-A yet, but I did buy the Pioneer DVD 563 multi-format player. I compared it to my Panasonic S-35 player. The Panasonic always sounded considerably better playing CDs than the Pioneer did playing CDs. I could not enjoy the Pioneer playing regualr CDs at all. CD I just read the article in stereophile archive reviwing the SCD-1. They observed that the CD sounds almost but not quite as good as SACD, and also that the CD sometimes sounded better on their other system, a dCS 972/Elgar, than when playing a CD on Sony's SCD-1. I cannot help but be suspicious of a Sony multi-format player since we all know that Sony wants CD to die, SACD to flourish, and DVD-A to go away CD |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
will sound improve with a sacd player? | High End Audio | |||
Any SACD Experience to Report? | High End Audio | |||
XRCD? What do you think? | High End Audio | |||
Sony Digital Amps (and SACD) vs. Sony Analog Amps | High End Audio | |||
Is the war over yet? DVD-audio vs SACD | High End Audio |