2. misc-audio
  3. 1165361396

SACD and an audiophile question


I recently bought a DVD player that is also an SACD
player. Denon 1930CI. It has some nice features, including one called Direct digital. It basically turns off everything not needed, display etc.
I ordered a 2 channel single layer SACD. Boston's first album. I compared it to the normal CD you would buy at any walmart. I can hear a difference, but its very little difference.
First thing that came to mind is my system isn't really an "audiophile" system: The Denon mentioned above, Anthem TLP-1 Pre-amp, and Rotel RB960BX Dual mono 60w/ch amp, currently using Paradigm Studio 60's V3(stereophile class B rated)(Have a Linn Genki CD player, being repaired, and Magnepan 2.7's as well, not currently hooked up.)
While some would snub their nose at this system, it's still leaps and bounds better than anything you buy at BB or CC type stores. If I had $50k to spend on an audio system I would, but I'm married with children..enough said there...
I read sterophile and other mags about audio, and I noticed that they test equipment with really old CD/LP that I've never heard of. I always have wondered, Why do audiophiles test equipment with recordings from 1945 and 1964 etc. Recording techniques couldn't possibly be as good as what is possible today. Why would you not want the Best recording possible when doing a critical listening test. Seems to me you would be able to tell a piece of equipments limit if you had a recording that would expose those limits. Since the Boston CD was originally recorded in 1976, is it the recording a factor in only hearing minute differences or is my system so crappy that I "should" have a hard time telling the difference between a normal CD and a SACD?
audio_ala
tvad
9,467 posts
 

12-06-06: Mrtennis
gentlemen, ask kevin halvorsen of muse what he thinks about sacd. it may surprise you. you may want to rethink the assumption that sacd is preferable to cd.

With due respect to Mr. Halvorsen, why is his opinion any more valid than the opinions of those who support SACD?
tantra
31 posts
 
If you listen to a good acoustic recording with no over-dubbing, the difference between SACD and RB-CD is dramatic. The soundstage is way more three-dimensional on a good SACD recording. If you like jazz, listen to the SACD and CD layers of "Way Out West" by Sonny Rollins on your system. Then come back and tell us what you think.
shadorne's avatar
shadorne
7,333 posts
 
Talking strictly two channel....the recording and mastering have a much bigger impact on what you hear than the actual format, CD, DVD-A or SACD.

IMHO, the industry is struggling to find a compelling reason to drive people to another music format and away from CD's. This problem is exemplified by the iTunes success with lossy 128 Kbit AAC files; unfortunately the CD format was more than good enough for many people and now slightly inferior compressed files are widely accepted.

In theory, only the recording studios need the kind of resolution and Signal to Noise available with these newer formats....as they play with gains in a serious way and have long audio chains in the production process....just my two cents.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
kevin halvorsen is a recording engineer and digital designer. i think his resume gives him credibility on this subject. oh yes, he is a major proponent of dvda.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
12-06-06: Mrtennis
kevin halvorsen is a recording engineer and digital designer. i think his resume gives him credibility on this subject. oh yes, he is a major proponent of dvda.

Indeed. My point...made obliquely...was that there are others with qualifications equal to that of Mr. Halvorsen (those who record, produce and release SACD discs for example) who undoubtedly would have opposing viewpoints. Both are valid and worthy of attention, but neither is necessarily more significant than the other.

Sadly, we are discussing dinosaur formats in SACD and DVD-A. Both will be relegated to a tiny niche of music loving audiophiles.
More to discover