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.

On 3 Jun 2005 00:17:53 GMT, (bordin) wrote:

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

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.

Unfortunately, XRCDs will also never offer a wide selection of music.
At the moment, there are more SACDs than XRCDs and that gap will only
expand.

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

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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