SACD/DVD A v. CD

[Tom in RI]

I came across this on another forum. The authors' conclusions about high resolution recordings are pretty interesting.

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

[jazzbo]

Ah, engineers!

[Spontooneous]

I don't buy it.

Many misgivings about the way the study was done.

They'll have to pry my SACD player out of my cold, dead fingers.

[Claude]

If the conclusions of the authors were that on an entry level hifi system, most people can't hear a difference between CD resolution and high resolution, I would agree with them.

The article doesn't list the hardware used and the music played, nor does it say if people could use their own system and favorite recordings. I think I would have a problem detecting small differences in sound in a room with unfamiliar acoustics and with music I hadn't heard before.

My personal experience with SACD and high resolution files (24/96) is that it requires high end hardware to really benefit from hi-rez, and that the difference is more audible with some types of music, but rather negligible with others. Classical orchestral music benefits much more from the added clarity than small group jazz, pop or chamber music.

Because I listen a lot to classical music, I wouldn't want to miss SACDs. But it is clearly a high end medium, and because so few people are interested in high end audio (unlike high quality video), SACD could never have become a mainstream format, unless the industry decided to add the feature for free (hybrid SACDs instead of CDs).

BTW, the authors would probably have gotten the same result with a CD / MP3 (320kbs) comparision.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Claude

[jazz1]

If the conclusions of the authors were that on an entry level hifi system, most people can't hear a difference between CD resolution and high

Because I listen a lot to classical music, I wouldn't want to miss SACDs. But it is clearly a high end medium, and because so few people are interested in high end audio (unlike high quality video), SACD could never have become a mainstream format, unless the industry decided to add the feature for free (hybrid SACDs instead of CDs).

BTW, the authors would probably have gotten the same result with a CD / MP3 (320kbs) comparision.

I have been asking myself the question many times, does SACD sound better than RBCD?

My conclusions are that yes in most cases they do sound better, but the reason I could accept is that maybe more care is taken

by the recording and mastering engineers because it is SACD?? I like SACD's but sometimes I find them a little bland, it seems less colorful than lp's for example.

I also have quite a few RBCD's than sounds as good as most of my SACD's

One evening I had a few audiophiles around and we played mostly SACD's except for 1 RBCD which everybody tought sounded the best, they did not know it was a RBCD! I certainly do not buy the music because it is on a SACD. My system is I would imagine quite "high end" (20000$)

[Tom in RI]

Its true the article doesn't specify the equipment used although they do characterize it as decent in several places. The only piece of equipment I recognize is the cd player in the last picture, which is an HHB Burnit (which I recognize only because I have one). I think Claude's observation is spot on that the test would carry more weight if people had been able to select music with which they were already familiar.