What exactly is SACD?

[ProAc_Fan]

Is this new CD format SACD applicable only for 5.1 surround sound? I can buy a new Sony SACD player for $249 CAN but would it make any sense for me? I'm NOT into HT and I run everything in stereo mode. What is supposed to be the benefits of SACD?


Mike

[Drybasement]

Hey Mike,

SACD stands for Super Audio Compact Disc. The format appears to be picking up some steam, mostly among serious audiophiles. SACD recordings are supposedly the best in digital recordings. I did not think they were recorded in 5.1 but, I have no first hand experience with these anyway.

So lets see, we have:

CD
HDCD
DVD-A
SACD
MP-3

To many formats. All my money is invested in CD's. Some of my CD's were recorded in HDCD but my players do not decode that format. HDCD's are High Density recordings that some say have better sound quality than standard CD's and require a special player. They are usually recorded in dual layers. The extra layer makes it possible to play on normal CD players without the benefit of HDCD sound.

I have a DVD player that I use for movies. DVD-A is recorded in such a way as to provide 5.1 sound.

Anyway, my money is staying put. Too many players to buy and I do not want to start another collection of something. IMO it is more of a novelty thing at this stage anyway.

Well, I hope I helped some. Take care.

[Walt]

Ok this is what I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) ...

Traditional redbook format encodes using PCM (pulse code modulation), which is 16 bit sampled at 44.1 KHz (44,100 samples per second).

SACD is encoded using DSD (direct stream digital) which is sampled at 2,822.4 KHz (2,822,400 samples per second).

Additionally the DSD technology involves less use of digital filters which means that more of the original source is retained and encoded.

So, the obvious conclusion is that it is technically a superior format, but it it really that useful to the average enthusiast?

Well the jury is still out on that one ... I believe there are around 1-2k titles available in the format, which will deliver you 5 ch "stereo" if that is what you desire. But do you really want to hear the source coming from out of your rear speakers? And I believe that the studio engineers aren't exactly optmising their mixes to cater to the strengths of SACD at present because it is still in it's infancy.

And does the extra sampling really matter? Well some people would think so (see link at bottom ...)

Thor on the other hand would disagree - as MP3's sampled at 128 kps seem (around 1/11th the sampling frequency of redbook) to be as good to his ears.

I note that back at AU, one of the guys (Max Greece) recently sold his SACD player and went to vinyl - so some it seems have been there and have concluded that analogue is really best at present.

Others on the other hand will swear by it, but for my own part I would be reluctant to go into SACD until:

a) it becomes clear which format will be the winner (redbook vs SACD vs DVD-A)

b) there are more titles available, particularly some of the older stuff ...

c) the cost of the players comes down to the cost of a regular CDP

You choose


http://www.anstendig.org/CDandDig.html :)

[ProAc_Fan]

Hey Walt the cost factor is already there. I can but a SACD player from Sony for $199 CAN or about $125 U.S.


Mike

[Walt]

Yep, fair enough it is ... I guess I'm just a tightwad then ... :D :D :D

[GeniX]

Well on the note of 5.1 chann for music - while one can say that audio engineers are still getting the hang of it, a friend brought around a 5.1 mixed DVD he has on which the material is supposed to have been completely remixed for surround sound.

I didnt like the type of music, but I must admit - it sounded very cool. The surrounds not doing too much but playing some good driving guitar. They still used the mains for the 'main soundstage' with vocals and some of the instruments playing melody. The artist was some rock / metal artist. Alice In Chains or something, eh??

Also he had a live DVD which did a real good job of putting the crowd through the rears - gave one quite a good feeling of atmosphere while watching them thrash around the stage...

--

So yeah - I never used to be, but I reckon Im keen for them to bring on 5.1 music...

.
.

As for SACD.. well CD's are now so entrenched in the market, I dont forsee SACD taking over anytime soon... always remembering that the extra frequencies given by SACD is going to waste if your amp is 20-20 and/or your speakers are 20-20...
true - the normal range may be better quality (but can we hear it??) however you might find that for music you'll be wanting a sub when titles are being properly mixed to take advantage of SACD.

[frostyra]

Mike,

The supposed best advantage of SACD is that it sounds more like the original sound than CDs, so those who prefer analog to digital are likely to like SACD also. For those who do their own recording, the Alesis MasterLink also can get VERY close to analog, as it can record at (your choice of) 16, 20, or 24 bits, and 44.1, 48, 88.2, or 96 KHz sampling rates -- for around $1K street price.

If the music isn't good and the recording and editing aren't good, then NOTHING is going to make a music source sound good, whether it's MP3, cassette, FM, CD, vinyl, or SACD.

[hotrod]

SCAD will probally be sony's nest betamax.
Rod