[turkey]

I haven't done a blind test.  It doesn't seem necessary to me.

So you have to know which is which to be able to tell them apart?

[turkey]

No offense, but if you can't hear the differences between a good SACD 2 channel layer and it's redbook layer then something else in your signal chain is bottlenecking it.  The differences in most 2 channel SACD is astounding; I would gladly take a $1000 double blind bet on my system.

I would suggest you read the posts that started this thread.

[werd]

First, I will say again:  Dunno why this SACD discussion is on a Bryston Circle and not over on (my  ) HiRez Circle.  We chat about SACD over there all the time.

Second, the above quote is inaccurate.  SACD (DSD) process is not 24/192k (and not referred to as the typo 196/24 as above...196k is not a sample rate) but a one-bit process that has a sample rate of about 2.822 megahertz (i.e about 15x of 192k) and is typically PCM-downsampled (when using players that have no DSD analog or HDMi 1.2 bitstream capability) to an even integer rate like 24/88.2 or 24/176.4.  But as DSD it ain't "196/24 everytime" at all. 

Finally, the Steve Hoffman mastered CCR SACD's are available as individual discs, too.  My fave of the collection, both musically and sonically improved,  are "Willy and the Poor Boys" and "Cosmos Factory".

Hello

I have to agree with Tedb. This is better suited discussion on his board.

[Laundrew]

"The differences in most 2 channel SACD is astounding..."

I would definitely agree with this statement 

Be well...

[ted_b]

I would suggest you read the posts that started this thread.

   As I said earlier, I run the HiRez Circle here at AC for a reason; I am dedicated to all things hi-rez, have significant experience in it (on my 8th or 9th SACD and/or universal player since it's inception in early 1999) and of course I've read this thread.  I've also asked that it be moved to my Circle where more SACD and DVD-A experiences can weight in.

I'm sorry you don't hear the differences.  In a way, you're ahead of the game by not having to pay the prices. 

[95Dyna]

I would suggest you read the posts that started this thread.

OK, hold on guys.  This is starting to degenerate into a pissing contest.  I don't care what the article at the beginning of the thread says, the technical differences between the formats or on whose circle this discussion should take place.  I know what I hear and SACD in my experience with my system sounds clearly superior to CD.  turkey, I'm not understanding your question "so you have to know which is which to tell them apart?"  Once again, I was 100% conscious of which format I was listening to, it was not a blind comparison and I will not be doing a blind comparison because it is not necessary.  I'll use the time I save to enjoy the music.

I agree with ted B that one's system can have the effect of minimizing the differences.

[Mag]

I agree when sacd is compared to standard redbook cd in MC to MC stereo it is clearly superior. However when I apply music enhancer to MC stereo played on the BCD-1, the cd is superior to sacd in detail and harmonics.

Without having a BCD-1 I would not argue the point.

[ted_b]

I agree when sacd is compared to standard redbook cd in MC to MC stereo it is clearly superior. However when I apply music enhancer to MC stereo played on the BCD-1, the cd is superior to sacd in detail and harmonics.

Without having a BCD-1 I would not argue the point.

What is "MC stereo"?  And what is a music enhancer?

[werd]

What is "MC stereo"?  And what is a music enhancer?

I know MC means multichannel but i am not sure what the music enhancer is, I think it is a function on his Yamaha HT preamp.

[turkey]

I'm sorry you don't hear the differences.  In a way, you're ahead of the game by not having to pay the prices. 

And I'm sorry you hear differences where none exist.

[turkey]

I know MC means multichannel but i am not sure what the music enhancer is, I think it is a function on his Yamaha HT preamp.

This page talks about it:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/technology/detail.html?CNTID=451121

[ted_b]

And I'm sorry you hear differences where none exist.

You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it.  But you empirically cannot say "where none exist".  The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period.  It's not debatable, it's a recording fact.  It's math. 

[Laundrew]

Mmm…mathematics 

Be well...

[95Dyna]

You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it.  But you empirically cannot say "where none exist".  The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period.  It's not debatable, it's a recording fact.  It's math.

Excellent point, Ted.  Now we can move the discussion as to why someone would not hear the empirically proven difference in the two formats.  You have suggested one that system shortcomings can minimize the difference.  It seems logical that a hi rez format would require a highly resolving system from top to bottom in order to hear its potential.

[werd]

You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it.  But you empirically cannot say "where none exist".  The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period.  It's not debatable, it's a recording fact.  It's math.

I can say that the BCD will outperform almost all SACD at its price point and less. It blows away my Pioneer with SACD. But with pieces like the Esoteric in SACD the output is going to be hard to beat by CD.

[turkey]

You can properly say you don't hear a difference, and debate it.  But you empirically cannot say "where none exist".  The DSD recording process is much higher resolution, period.  It's not debatable, it's a recording fact.  It's math.

Yes, you're right.

However, there is nothing much happening at the listening position above maybe 10-12 KHz, so the higher resolution of DSD is meaningless. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of us don't have hearing that could take advantage of such high frequencies even if they were present.

[James Tanner]

Hi Guys,

Should be interesting as well when the results from this study come in as it relates to Hi-Res formats.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72442.0

james

[turkey]

Hi Guys,

Should be interesting as well when the results from this study come in as it relates to Hi-Res formats.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72442.0

james

Yes, it will.

[ted_b]

    "With a Bryston BDA-1 I couldn't distinguish between 16/44 and 24/192"  is not exactly the tag line Bryston would want for the next ad campaign!

[95Dyna]

Yes, you're right.

However, there is nothing much happening at the listening position above maybe 10-12 KHz, so the higher resolution of DSD is meaningless. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of us don't have hearing that could take advantage of such high frequencies even if they were present.

turkey, I have to say that what you are engaging in here is telling people that they aren't hearing what they're hearing.  It's like telling me after I have run my car into a tree that I actually didn't because the brakes in the model car I was driving were designed to stop that car 30m before the tree.  The bark is off the tree and the front of my car is bashed in but there can't be anyway I hit that tree.