[drewm]

Not to stir the pot too much, but I've found this link to be very informative about Redbook vs SACD vs DVD-A which made my format decision easier:
http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Although the mastering is still the most important factor.

[Sam-fi]

Why should I believe this?

Sam

[FullRangeMan]

Seems this web page are a personal opinion state as truth.  So, my personal taste are to SACD, due the DSD format, which is very better than any PCM, even DXD.

I like the sweet analog like sound midrange/treble in the SACDs and an DSD recorded SACD are almost impossible to have bad sound, and the SACD bass are impressive, it have no end in the low registers.

PCM format for PCM format BluRay also is a PCM format, and it do not have the vinyl magic of a good SACD.
Said that, if one have a universal player the format may be irrelevant.

> Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a cat or dog from the street. On the streets pets live only two years average.

[Phil A]

Not to stir the pot too much, but I've found this link to be very informative about Redbook vs SACD vs DVD-A which made my format decision easier:
http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Although the mastering is still the most important factor.

Those opinions have been around for years and it is old news.  There's probably threads on Audio Circle.  I am not sure anyone can hear watermarking.  Theories are nice.  In theory, I guess a Bumble Bee can't fly.  Theories also change over time.  At one point the earth was flat, dinaosaurs were cold blooded, etc.  Mastering is indeed important.  I like good hi-rez regardless of format.

[Rclark]

Are these new Hi-Rez formats better than SACD?

[Phil A]

The mixing and mastering is very important.  Merely being in a particular format does not automatically make it better (or worse) than something else.  The advantage of one format over the other may depend on how the source material was recorded (i.e. DSD) as well

[FullRangeMan]

Are these new Hi-Rez formats better than SACD?

In my 2 cents opinion they are not, SACD are the best, due have a analogue like shape wave stream(non crackeled like PCM) and by the infinitely variable resolution, as a new vinyl, without wear of course.

The formats resolutions are:
Redbook CD: 65K levels of sound.
DVD: around 15 Millions of sound levels.
SACD: Rez infinitely variable.
LP: Resolution infinitely variable, on the first listening.

SACDs are encoded in DSD-64, but there are SONY documents that speak of DSD-512 .... So the domain of the DSD and SACD format are fully assured by the massive resolution it offer.

Also the PCM DXD (24/352) format are created by Sony too.
The best sound SACD I have are this IsoMike gem: http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/3957 It is even better than Opus3 DSD SACDs.

P.S.> The Resolutions are per second.

> Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a cat or dog from the street. On the streets pets live only two years average.

[Phil A]

That title is one I've been meaning to get for a bit - thanks for the reminder

[lonewolfny42]

Since this thread has gone into a SACD vs Hi Rez comparison....I'll be moving it to the Hi-Rez circle for further discussions....

[Sam-fi]

Since this thread has gone into a SACD vs Hi Rez comparison....I'll be moving it to the Hi-Rez circle for further discussions....

I hate it when a thread gets derailed.

Sam

[Pez]

I am currently moving away from all disc based hi Rez. I was an SACD advocate, but the format is dead. Sorry, it's the truth other than some boutique online jazz recordings and isomike stuff there is nothing new nor will there be. I did some comparisons between SACD and 24/96 and it was close enough that IMO it didn't matter enough, though I will say 24/96 sounded better with the gear I was using.

[ted_b]

I am currently moving away from all disc based hi Rez. I was an SACD advocate, but the format is dead. Sorry, it's the truth other than some boutique online jazz recordings and isomike stuff there is nothing new nor will there be. I did some comparisons between SACD and 24/96 and it was close enough that IMO it didn't matter enough, though I will say 24/96 sounded better with the gear I was using.

Pez's point about using your best gear is a good one, one that I try to make all the time with the SACD-to-Atlons HDMi de-embedder solution.  SACd spinning discs typically force you to use the player's less-than-perfect analog stage (rca or xlr outs) rather than your own dedicated DAC. 

Fullrangeman, I don't agree with all your stats; DSD rez is not infinite, it's 1 bit 2.6Mhz and is mathematically close to 24/192 (24/352 is called DXD and many say it is equivalent.  On my 32/384k DAC it is sublime).  And I'm not sure what "15 millions of sound levels" means.     DVD is limited to 24/96k, while DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray is up to 24/192k. 

SACD is still a great format, IMO, especially for multichannel surround.  And if you are primarily a classical music lover, then it is the go-to format of choice for hirez, although very good download sites (especially the boutique labels themselves like Linn, Channel and Chandos, etc) are delivering stunning classical music.   

Tip:  if you are looking for the best classical downloads, look first to the labels, as they often pull their stuff right off their PCM masters.  HDTracks is often offering to use SACD rips from Bruce Brown.  His rips are tremendous, but especially good if the master was done in DSD (SACD's own format).  If the master was PCM then it might make sense to buy it directly, without the PCM-to-DSD-to-PCM steps needed from PCM-based SACD rips.  My $.02

[FullRangeMan]

I am currently moving away from all disc based hi Rez. I was an SACD advocate, but the format is dead. Sorry, it's the truth other than some boutique online jazz recordings and isomike stuff there is nothing new nor will there be. I did some comparisons between SACD and 24/96 and it was close enough that IMO it didn't matter enough, though I will say 24/96 sounded better with the gear I was using.

Hi,
DVD-Audios and BluRay music looks both dead to me as there is no releases for months, but there is SACDs releases every week at SACD.NET site:
http://www.sa-cd.net/home they are 7049 catalogued titles in this site now, and some local Asian releases never will appear in this site.

Of course there is no a plethora of SACD releases as in the CD era of the 80 and 90 years, but today seems to me no one format will rule the market as in the LP and CD golden years.

Even vynil is not dead yet. Most NorthAmerica custumers see SACD format as dead why there is no more a SACD plant in USA, so the SACD price in this country have increased as it is a imported good.
The good news are one get used to it after some years.
Regards

> Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a cat or dog from the street. On the streets pets live only two years average.

[FullRangeMan]

Fullrangeman, I don't agree with all your stats; DSD rez is not infinite, it's 1 bit 2.6Mhz and is mathematically close to 24/192 (24/352 is called DXD and many say it is equivalent.  On my 32/384k DAC it is sublime).  And I'm not sure what "15 millions of sound levels" means.     DVD is limited to 24/96k, while DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray is up to 24/192k. 

Hi,
Yes, I confirm the SACD resolution is infinitely variable(not infinite resolution), this one of the best features SACD/DSD have, the levels of variation are infinite, as it is a one bit format, also a analogue tape and vinyl/LP have a rez infinitely variable.

As the possibility of variation(data combinations or sound levels) is infinite, in practice DSD/SACD becomes an analog format without surface noise/friction and wear.
A simple and elegant recording system. I am very picky and only SACD meets my needs.

The DSD64 sampling rate is the usual 2,822.400 times per second, DSD128 double it at 5,644.800 per second and so on with DSD512.

About the DVD Video/Audio Iam not sure how is the right Resolution value, over 15 or under 17 Millions sound steps per second, but it is no more than 17M I think.

I already listen music files and the result sound is very good really, due the low jitter and perfect hard-disk data reading; but to me I will no buy any music files, cause Iam not trust on hard disk storage for many years.
I work many years in this area and see various dramatic data loss.
Regards,


> Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a cat or dog from the street. On the streets pets live only two years average.

[Napalm]

Recommended reading about SACD:

http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf

Nap.

[FullRangeMan]

Hi,
I will not trust a guy named Lipshitz, but talking seriously now, I already see this doc before, as it is from 2001 AES convention.
In praxis these claims not happen as the SACD sound is better than any PCM, at least to my ears.

Many studio and pro-audio guys hate DSD/SACD as it is expensive, difficult to work, edit, equalize etc... and all about DSD belongs only to Sony, but as I not work in recording studio the hard work is not mine, I prefer SACD.
As is know BIS label from Sweden recorded in DSD until 2003, but regret and since then recording in Low Rez 24/44 and after made upsamplig, just not to use DSD !!  What to do? Patience...

I prefer rely on Mr.Mark Levinson> http://www.redrosemusic.com/essay.shtml
Regards

> Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a cat or dog from the street. On the streets pets live only two years average.