Super Audio CD

[jimg0007]

LP's "warmer" sound is just lack of dynamic range and distortion i dont care what any one say, and SACD is also snake oil. who cares if i samples it 2,000 or whatever times a second you dont need that many samples only twice the top frequency bandwidth, audio is 20khz. cd does 44,100 all this is backed up by the nyquist's theory and math equations

[superaudiocdman]

The choice is ultimately yours for which format you prefer. However, if you haven't given a format like SA-CD a chance, then you are not actually making an informed decision. Don't worry about all of the fancy figures and stuff, just listen and decide for yourself.

[99Heet]

Well said! I would humbly add, that the results will be dependant upon the quality of the overall system itself. Listening to ultra high end components from point-source to sound will create nothing short of captivating musical audio. Can it be critiqued? ....Surely. However, I find it quite enjoyable being encapsulated in a virtual Zero db noise -floor and being able to hear the inner resolution of pristine, breathing audio.

[radicalsystems]

@jimg0007 jim..in a recording session so much is chucked away in order to make it all fit on CD..when they were thought up they relised the sample rate should be higher but were worried about cost..so it was all cut down to fit the CD capacity...and dont get me started on mp3 that makes a crap format worse..

[2taall]

The problem with CD's is that they simply do not sample enough info per second at a wide enough band to closely enough reproduce the natural analog soundwave, thus you get the relatively poor sonic charactoristics that make up CDs. CD technology is over 20 years old and is worse sonically than vinyl records, though more convenient. MP3s and the like are even worse than CDs for quality. I wish SACD would be pushed more by the industry as they sound very good w/ the convenience factor as well.

[radicalsystems]

@2taall thank you very much for that..pretty much as i said..CDs are a ripoff andif you pay for mp3 then you are being fleeced as most of the audio has been chucked away..

[threerandot]

When it comes to comparing the two formats, I personally couldn't say which is ultimately better, even if such a statement could be made. I can say though that after going to SA-CD, I don't buy many regular CD's any more. As for the masses, they prefer small and portable as opposed to a traditional Hi-Fi unit with large speakers, amp, etc. The industry didn't replace the regular CD because they simply made poor choices. Besides, big changes in consumer electronics were just around the corner.

[chilenoygordo]

In terms of quality, which is better: sa-cd or dvd audio?

If both of them are so great and magnificent, why didn't the industry replaced the ordinary cd (44.1 khz-16 bits) a long time ago? I'm feeling like an ignorat who would never be able to hear something decent in my living room. The same feeling about DAT's.

[acarlisl]

if that music was from a sacd, i couldn't hear a difference

[superaudiocdman]

In order to hear SACD in its full hi-resolution glory, you need an SACD player playing an SACD. A good quality speaker system is also needed. Only an SACD player can decode the audio stream.

[superaudiocdman]

And you won't. The audio has been converted form the high res format to a low res video. You need to have a hi-rez SA-CD playing in an actual SA-CD player to expereience the hi-rez playback.

[sophiegromit]

SACD, on a good system, is INCREDIBLE! It makes MP3's and conventional 'redbook' CD's pale in comparison. Everything sounds bigger, wider, and more detailed and realistic. You don't even have to blow thousands of dollars on a system. Just a great pair of headphones, and a good SACD player, and you're in audio HEAVEN!

[pcfxer]

I'm running Open Baffles, NAD C320BEE and Pioneer Elite DV-45A with triple two-channel Burr Browns...and I have this SACD.

My friend has a Sony SACD player for his car and Elite VSX-94VT (IIRC), Elite DV-54A...AWESOME!

[gorton8andy]

If you play a cd then play the same song on sacd, the sacd sounds fuller warmer more detailed and 3D - anybody can hear it if it is demonstrated to them.

The fault lies as ever with the major labels who deliberately produce inferior sounding product 'because the public don't know any better'.

[chilenoygordo]

do you wanna say that any cd is a sa-cd?? explain that!

[gorton8andy]

I mean that most recordings don't make use of the dynamic range available on a plain cd never mind the extended range of an sacd :(

[superaudiocdman]

SA-CDs have the added convenience of having two layers, much like a dual layer dvd. One layer contains the traditional CD layer. The other contains the high resolution layer which requires an SA-CD player for playback. You can therefore play your SA-CD on a traditional CD player for regular CD sound and play the hi-res layer on the disc on your SA-CD player. These discs are known as "hybrid" discs.

[johneymute]

how the hell a person can ever hear the difference between sacd and normal cd,s? since no human can hear above 22,5 khz.

most of them can,t even hear the difference between mp3 and cd.

so what,s the point about it,my hearing is allready probabely damage from over years listening to trance dance music, wtf!!!!

[Codegrinder]

Listen to a properly set up hifi. You will either wake up, trash your whole MP3 collection, go out and buy loads of SACDs plus your 5000$ hifi, OR you really are that stupid.

About those 22,5kHz - Music isn't just frequency. The higher dynamic range alone makes the recording sound even more breathtaking.

[audiofreeq]

so man is said to have an auditory bandwith of 20Hz-20KHz,if you put a band stop at these frequencys the music sounds flat,at the top of the band the ultrasonic harmonics give you realisum,as for the lower part of the band man is a tactile being so we feel infrasonic sound,so give me a pair or set of speakers with a bandwith of 5Hz-50KHz & an SPL of 136dB not forgetting a rise time of <7mS,then you can listen to real music....TS Audio Visual Electronics.

[SamuraiClinton]

None of the music I like has ever been released on SACD yet (e.g. dance music, old school hip hop, funk, etc.); besides, I don't even give a fuck about that since I mainly listen to that type of music in MP3 form since MP3 was designed for the average (non-audiophile) person, that's why MP3 players are so successful, and they purport to "kill ugly radio".

[1BLUE5]

this sony idea never took off i don,t see any sacds in the stores

[SamuraiClinton]

That's because people with the average ear are unwilling to buy the more expensive media, or the hardware that plays it since they cannot precieve the difference between normal CDs and SACDs.

[ripeco]

so only superman can notice the difference with his superear? because humans have all the same ear lol

[superaudiocdman]

Everyone hears and experiences things differently. Just check out the format if you can and decide for yourself. I personally found it superior to compact disc. Your mileage may vary.

[johneymute]

from my understanding the sacd stores audio in just only 1 bit deltamudolation but i guess it will be in average upsampled to 24bit 196khz,noise will be cutoff the rest of the noise will be in average sampled to a frequention wich we can,t hear.

[threerandot]

Have you stopped in at sa-cd dot net? The folks there would be glad to have you become a user.

[pcfxer]

SACD is so superior to DVD-A it isn't even funny. To win all SACDs should be hybrid (THAT'S RIGHT SONY!) and I think some advertising in mainstream magazines couldn't hurt either. I support SACD in it's infancy, absolutley incredible sound.

BTW, I have Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon. This is after two DVD-A albums, I now refuse to purchase DVD-A.

[DustyChalk]

I think all SACDs are hybrid, now.