2. analog
  3. 1409955877

SACD... can you hear the difference?

I'm fairly new to SACD as it's only been a month since I purchased my first player that takes advantage of the format. Some say even on a good system which is set up properly that they can not notice a difference between SACD and standard CD.

For example my Wife is a huge James Taylor fan. A couple weeks ago I found 2 original master recording SACD disks from a company called Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Both James Taylor just as she has on CD. I dialed them in perfect and OH MAN! To me the difference was like night and day, but she couldn't tell the difference in sound quality.

So either I'm imagining things or I'm able to pick up on musical pitch and clarity much better than her. I'm sure of what I'm hearing with no doubt, but she thinks I'm crazy.

Can anyone here notice how much better SACD sounds on their system verses a standard CD.
pigchild
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"09-06-14: Stringreen
I use an Ayre C5xemp which plays both CD's and SACD (and DVD's too)...anyway, I've come away with the view that both are good and there is little to distinguish between them. Really depends on how it was produced."

Interesting comment. To be honest, I'm a little surprised. If I had to pick a system to judge CD vs SACD, it would be pretty much exactly what you have. I've read some comments by Charles Hanson where he was being critical of Sony and SACD. I really didn't think much of it, because if I remember correctly, it was in a thread like this and he seemed a little PO'ed at the time. Given your setup, you must have compared CD's and SACD's to DVD-A's. Are they any better?
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
1,368 posts
 
Yes I can hear the difference. A well recorded and mastered SACD sounds better than a well recorded and mastered cd. I hear more depth to the soundstage and a sense of ease or flow with SACDs, for instance. There are cds that sound better than poorly done SACDS though.

I think that we could see greater improvements in sound quality with improvements in recording and mastering than with improvements in playback. We probably all have favorite recordings that sound much better that run of the mill efforts.
stringreen's avatar
stringreen
5,112 posts
 
ZD....as I said in my original post, the way the recording is produced has a marked effect on the sound. I have a Jamie Johnson (my favorite country and western guy) recording on Redbook CD....I also got the LP version for a hoped for sound improvement... (I have a very good phono set up) ....the CD kills the vinyl. Just shows to go ya....
buconero117
2,311 posts
 
Sometimes, it all depends on the type music and how the SACD was mastered. In most cases mastering is different from the the red book version. I have Miles Blue in every media format ever released, including R2R. Sadly, Blue was never released on Blu-Ray so what could have been the end all of media differences, must await. In my opinion the best sounding version I have is one on R2R, two track, 7.5 ips. Shall we say it is just more musical, yes.
mrmb's avatar
mrmb
249 posts
 
I concur with Toncr6:
Yes I can hear the difference. A well recorded and mastered SACD sounds better than a well recorded and mastered cd. I hear more depth to the soundstage and a sense of ease or flow with SACDs, for instance. There are cds that sound better than poorly done SACDS though.

Redbook vs the same SACD, the you-are-there at the studio/hall illusion is better with SACD (DSD).

And yes Dweller, differences are more & less pronounced with different equipment. Imagine that, different equipment produces different results?!
More to discover