In Reply to: The Clear Superiority of SACD in the Digital Class posted by O'Shag on August 13, 2006 at 23:30:06:
Its important not to write off the technology based on a poor disc. Even vinyl can sound awful with many records because of poor recording techniques, and it can sound absolutely stunning with good recordings. The same holds true for SACD. Yes 96/24 DVD-Audio is excellent but that is a high-res format and not 'redbook' CD. I think that SACD does have the edge over DVD-Audio in sound quality though. The SACD disc spins much faster and retrieves more information at at higher sampling rate ergo higher resolution and more micro and macro detail.Some hybrid SACDs don't have full resolution for their two-channel mixes but many do. In many cases listening in multi-channel is not neccessary to hear the superiority of SACD.
FYI here are some SACDs that have great sound quality in two-channel: BB King - Reflections, Oscar Petersen - Exclusively for my friends, Diana Krall - When I look in Your Eyes and The Look of Love, The Conga Kings - Jazz Descargas, Jamie Cullum - Twenty Something, San Fran Symphony Orchestra/ Michael Tilson Thomas - Mahler Symphony #6.
You put any of the above on a reasonably good DSD SACD player even in two channel the sound should eclipse anything CD can do. If it doesn't then there might be something wrong in your system.
I agree about multi-channel mixes. Some of them are mixed too heavy in the rear. But the ones that are not, with a really good multi-channel processor/amp, multi-channel can produce sound quality that redbook CD can only dream of.
O'Shag
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is...42
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: The Clear Superiority of SACD in the Digital Class - O'Shag 13:06:51 08/14/06 (0)