# CD/SACD Audio Quality



## rigidwithfear (Nov 13, 2020)

I have a general question and a specific question about audio quality when listening to the CD layer on hybrid and multi-channel SACDs. I find this whole question confusing.
For example I recently discovered that the box set of Mozart symphonies recorded by the Mozart Akademie Amsterdam and Jaap Ter Linden has been remixed for Hybrid SACD with stereo and multichannel options. If I were to listen to these on a standard CD player could I expect to hear the remixed stereo version or might I find myself listening to the original CD layer as it exists on the original issue of this box set?
Ken


----------



## brahms4 (May 8, 2017)

I have quite a few SACD recordings and the only times I have heard an improvement of sound with the conventional,basic CD layer over the previous incarnation were with the RCA Living Stereo series.But that was because of an apparent remastering (NOT a remix)done by RCA.I have not encountered any remixing of the basic CD layer.For example,the Holst The Planets with Gardiner(DG) and Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique with Paray(Mercury Living Presence) SACDs have the exact same CD layer as before.I have done A/B comparisons-they sound identical.The remixing is confined to the SACD layers only.


----------



## rigidwithfear (Nov 13, 2020)

brahms4 said:


> I have quite a few SACD recordings and the only times I have heard an improvement of sound with the conventional,basic CD layer over the previous incarnation where with the RCA Living Stereo series.But that was because of an apparent remastering (NOT a remix)done by RCA.I have not encountered any remixing of the basic CD layer.For example,the Holst The Planets with Gardiner(DG) and Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique with Paray(Mercury Living Presence) SACDs have the exact same CD layer as before.I have done A/B comparisons-they sound identical.The remixing is confined to the SACD layers only.


Thank you. That's very helpful.
Ken


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

rigidwithfear said:


> could I expect to hear the remixed stereo version


Yes, you would be listening to the stereo remix.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

brahms4 said:


> .For example,the Holst The Planets with Gardiner(DG) and Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique with Paray(Mercury Living Presence) SACDs have the exact same CD layer as before.I have done A/B comparisons-they sound identical.


It is common for SACD's to not be remastered. This may be the case.
If so, there would be no differance just multichannel added.

If a SACD has been remastered, the CD track and SACD track are both remixed.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

If the remastered version was included on the CD layer, how would the record company be able to justify the premium SACD price, and why would anyone bother to get an SACD player?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

rigidwithfear said:


> I have a general question and a specific question about audio quality when listening to the CD layer on hybrid and multi-channel SACDs. I find this whole question confusing.
> For example I recently discovered that the box set of Mozart symphonies recorded by the Mozart Akademie Amsterdam and Jaap Ter Linden has been remixed for Hybrid SACD with stereo and multichannel options. If I were to listen to these on a standard CD player could I expect to hear the remixed stereo version or might I find myself listening to the original CD layer as it exists on the original issue of this box set?
> Ken


It depends on the release. When you buy a hybrid SACD you're essentially buying two albums at once. The CD layer _could _simply be a stereo downmix of the multi-channel SACD mix (this is the most probable situation), or it could be a wholly different mastering of the same recording (which has been altered in post production).

Think of it this way. When Mozart Akademie Amsterdam recorded the symphonies in 2002, they were playing in a space with multiple microphones peppered around them (looks like these were recorded in a church called Doopsgezinde Kerk, Haarlem in the Netherlands). All of those resulting digital audio files can be mixed any number of different ways. For this release, it was mixed as both a surround mix for SACD and a stereo mix for CD. But the recording is the same. So whether you perceive one as better will depend on whether you prefer stereo or multi-channel mixes. One mix or the other might bring forward aspects of the recording that you prefer, or it might sound better on one of your speakers than on another. But it won't be _different _captured audio. Now, a studio could alter the individual audio streams, running filters on them and so on, but this typically isn't done. If you gave people a hybrid SACD in which the two mixes sounded radically different, it is likely they would not be satisfied and would wonder if you screwed up one or the other.

I have a Blu-Ray audio of Karajan's 1977 Beethoven cycle. It has three mixes: Dolby Atmos, 5.1 channel, and Stereo. They all sound pretty much the same (they are all coming from the same analog tapes, each tape corresponding to a different microphone in the Berlin Philharmonie), they just play out of different speakers on my surround sound system. I ripped the Stereo mix to my Digital Audio Player for listening via headphones.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

AndorFoldes said:


> *If the remastered version was included on the CD layer,* how would the record company be able to justify the premium SACD price, and why would anyone bother to get an SACD player?


Why would it not be if they wanted to sell more CD's? And the record company does not sell SACD or CD players.
I really don't understand your logic.

Anyway, if the SACD has been remastered, the remastered product is in both the red book layer and the SACD layer.
If it is not remastered, all you get is higher bit rate.
You can't say remastered on the disc and place the old mix on the disc which is what you are suggesting is done.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> It depends on the release. When you buy a hybrid SACD you're essentially buying two albums at once. The CD layer _could _simply be a stereo downmix of the multi-channel SACD mix (this is the most probable situation), or it could be a wholly different mastering of the same recording (which has been altered in post production).


Correct. Or it could be as I said above, the same master tapes simply at a higher bit rate (SACD)


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

rigidwithfear said:


> I have a general question and a specific question about audio quality when listening to the CD layer on hybrid and multi-channel SACDs. I find this whole question confusing.
> For example I recently discovered that the box set of Mozart symphonies recorded by the Mozart Akademie Amsterdam and Jaap Ter Linden has been remixed for Hybrid SACD with stereo and multichannel options. If I were to listen to these on a standard CD player could I expect to hear the remixed stereo version or might I find myself listening to the original CD layer as it exists on the original issue of this box set?
> Ken


I have that set. You'll get the CD layer. I don't have the box available at present, but I'm not sure the recording was anything better than 16/44.1. Bear in mind the set was from Brilliant and was dirt cheap.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> It depends on the release. When you buy a hybrid SACD you're essentially buying two albums at once. (...)


A lot of hybrid SACD discs have three layers =>

stereo SACD
Multichannel SACD
stereo CD

This one for instance =>


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Entirely depends on the recording. Not all reissues are remixed/remastered to begin with. If they have been, most of them will include the new remix/remaster on the Stereo/CD side as well. Sadly, SACD is a dying medium, which really sucks considering multi-channel is so much better (for a multitude of reasons) than stereo.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

jegreenwood said:


> I have that set. You'll get the CD layer. I don't have the box available at present, but I'm not sure the recording was anything better than 16/44.1. Bear in mind the set was from Brilliant and was dirt cheap.


I've checked the box. The stereo recordings were made in 2001 and 2002, as far as I can tell by Brilliant. The very fine print goes on to say:

"The surround sound master was generated from original PCM recordings using SpatialSonics process which was analogically transferred to DSD using Genex and Pyramix systems. The audio was Spacialized and Mixed by Carlos de Andrade and mastered in Surround and Stereo DSD by by Luix Tomaghi at Vision Digital Studios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil."


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

jegreenwood said:


> I've checked the box. The stereo recordings were made in 2001 and 2002, as far as I can tell by Brilliant. The very fine print goes on to say:
> 
> "The surround sound master was generated from original PCM recordings using SpatialSonics process which was analogically transferred to DSD using Genex and Pyramix systems. The audio was Spacialized and Mixed by Carlos de Andrade and mastered in Surround and Stereo DSD by by Luix Tomaghi at Vision Digital Studios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil."


That's interesting. So the surround mix is artificial. I wonder what resolution the PCM digital recording was made in? If it was only subsequently transferred to DSD, my bet is that it's CD quality 16/44.1 - which of course is very likely the limit of human hearing anyway.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I own a ton of hybrid SACDs and, honestly, I've never heard any of my SACDs in their surround mixes. My current stereo setup is relatively "old school", but, to be honest, if the CD's standard red book layer sounds good, then I'm not too worried about hearing the album in surround.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> I own a ton of hybrid SACDs and, honestly, I've never heard any of my SACDs in their surround mixes. My current stereo setup is relatively "old school", but, to be honest, if the CD's standard red book layer sounds good, then I'm not too worried about hearing the album in surround.


There are a lot of benefits to surround sound. More direct (rather than reflected) sound; more dynamic range (you're usually more than doubling the number of speakers, so there's less stress on your fronts to produce all of the volume); more accurate spatial cues; etc. Well-recorded stereo can sound great but it's innately limited in ways surround sound isn't.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There are a lot of benefits to surround sound. More direct (rather than reflected) sound; more dynamic range (you're usually more than doubling the number of speakers, so there's less stress on your fronts to produce all of the volume); more accurate spatial cues; etc. Well-recorded stereo can sound great but it's innately limited in ways surround sound isn't.


While I share your appreciation of multi-channel recordings, I disagree with the assertion that dynamic range is increased with introduction of surround channels. Dynamic range is a measure of the distance between the lowest and highest decibels for a given frequency. A two channel soundtrack and two speakers can deliver the same dynamic range as a multi-channel reproduction. The bit depth of the recording determines the dynamic range potential. A 24 bit recording has more dynamic potential than the 16 bit red book CD standard in theory, but rarely is the potential realized.

In short, surround channels are typically implemented for the purpose of creating more ambience. Music played with surround channels should have an increased three-dimensional impact.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> That's interesting. So the surround mix is artificial. I wonder what resolution the PCM digital recording was made in? If it was only subsequently transferred to DSD, my bet is that it's CD quality 16/44.1 - which of course is very likely the limit of human hearing anyway.


My first guess was 44.1/16 (see above), but as the recordings were made in 2001/2, there's a reasonable chance they used a higher resolution. And I wonder what the term "analogically transferred" means. Does it means the originally PCM recordings were played back and re-recorded in DSD? I Googled SpacialSonics and couldn't find much.


----------



## Oakey (Nov 19, 2017)

The surround sound is one of the main reasons I still buy SACDs with classical music, as especially classical music benefits from the surround treatment to my ears. I know a lot of classical music lovers disgree, since in the concert hall, you are not sitting in the middle of the orchestra pit, but I like being surrounded by music.

I do not hear the difference in audio quality between a hi-res SACD and a standard-res CD in the same stereo mix and mastering. This experience has been substantiated by double-blind tests that never result in above-chance performances (ie determining whether it's the HD or SD recording one is listening to on the same equipment) by either professional musicians, music engineers or trained listeners.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There are a lot of benefits to surround sound. More direct (rather than reflected) sound; more dynamic range (you're usually more than doubling the number of speakers, so there's less stress on your fronts to produce all of the volume); more accurate spatial cues; etc. Well-recorded stereo can sound great but it's innately limited in ways surround sound isn't.


But if you take that same money for 5 speakers instead of 2 "better" speakers, won't you get better sound? And why would you have "stress" on your fronts in any case? 
I do not follow this at all.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

That Guy Mick said:


> While I share your appreciation of multi-channel recordings, I disagree with the assertion that dynamic range is increased with introduction of surround channels. Dynamic range is a measure of the distance between the lowest and highest decibels for a given frequency. A two channel soundtrack and two speakers can deliver the same dynamic range as a multi-channel reproduction. The bit depth of the recording determines the dynamic range potential. A 24 bit recording has more dynamic potential than the 16 bit red book CD standard in theory, but rarely is the potential realized.
> 
> In short, surround channels are typically implemented for the purpose of creating more ambience. Music played with surround channels should have an increased three-dimensional impact.


I was not referring to the dynamic range of the recordings/formats but the speakers. The more volume a speaker is required to produce, the more it will start adding distortion at higher volumes. Spreading that volume out over multiple speakers reduces this, thus giving you more clean dynamic range.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

eljr said:


> But if you take that same money for 5 speakers instead of 2 "better" speakers, won't you get better sound? And why would you have "stress" on your fronts in any case?
> I do not follow this at all.


Depends on how much better the two are than the five and your budget. Law of diminishing returns hits pretty early in audio. As for stress on your fronts, that will happen if you're trying to use small-ish speakers at loud-ish volumes, as many uninformed home listeners do.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Depends on how much better the two are than the five and your budget. Law of diminishing returns hits pretty early in audio. As for stress on your fronts, that will happen if you're trying to use small-ish speakers at loud-ish volumes, as many uninformed home listeners do.


You are talking about clipping I see. 
If your amplification, speaker sensitivity and speaker power handling ability are all taken into account this is a non issue. 

I agree about diminishing returns in audio equipment, in fact with things like Dacs, amps, pre amps, streamers... there can be very little differences with very big price differences. With speakers this is not as true. 

The thing to be careful about is that the electronics you buy can do what you want. Does your amp have the power you need? Does your pre offer the connections you need? Does your Dac decode the bitrate you want? Is your streamer compatible with the services you prefer? Can your cables handle the bitrate or you want?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The most idiotic thing I've seen get any traction is "audiophile-grade" network switches. Many of which appear shockingly similar to generic switches from TP-LINK with a new case built around it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

OK, maybe audiophile fuses, and "ground treatment" are dumber.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

fbjim said:


> The most idiotic thing I've seen get any traction is "audiophile-grade" network switches. Many of which appear shockingly similar to generic switches from TP-LINK with a new case built around it.


Seems I have been neglecting my audiophile sites as I have never heard of these. 

and yeah, it's not uncommon for the inside of some pricy equipment to be off the shelf guts.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fbjim said:


> OK, maybe audiophile fuses, and "ground treatment" are dumber.


This is the standard by which all audio-fool behavior is measured:


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I kind of make a distinction between the nutso stuff that's clearly a labor of love, and stuff that I suspect even the manufacturers don't believe the stuff they're selling. 

Slapping the innards from a cheap TP-Link ethernet switch into a fancy looking casing and saying it cleans up the bits or something is clearly the latter, in my book.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

these guys will spend $10,000 on a single interlink cable, and listen to their music on a belt drive turntable with worse speed accuracy than a cheap Audio-Technica direct-drive


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

fbjim said:


> The most idiotic thing I've seen get any traction is "audiophile-grade" network switches. Many of which appear shockingly similar to generic switches from TP-LINK with a new case built around it.


That brings back memories of something that happened about 13 years ago. Lexicon was selling their new $3,000 blu-ray player and touted it as the first THX certified player. One of the popular audiophile reviewers claimed that the Lexicon possessed better sound quality that his Oppo player. A claim that was regretted when it became known that the Lexicon was actually a rebadged Oppo. The Oppo cost about $1,000. It was also discovered that the Lexicon did not meet one of the THX certification standards.









Oppo on the Inside, Lexicon on the Outside


We discovered the Lexicon BD-30 is an Oppo BDP-83 Blu-ray Player with a $3k premium. We prove this with pictures, measurements and an official response from THX. Lexicon no longer sells this product.




www.audioholics.com


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

eljr said:


> You are talking about clipping I see.
> If your amplification, speaker sensitivity and speaker power handling ability are all taken into account this is a non issue.
> 
> I agree about diminishing returns in audio equipment, in fact with things like Dacs, amps, pre amps, streamers... there can be very little differences with very big price differences. With speakers this is not as true.
> ...


Not just clipping but all forms of distortion. Distortion rises rapidly at higher volumes (especially at lower frequencies) and smaller speakers have it worse than larger ones; doubling your speakers is the equivalent of doubling your amplifier power. I agree that if your amps, speaker sensitivity, and power handling are all taken into account it's a non-issue, but most people have no idea how to "take them into account," and most have neither the budget nor space for larger speakers and often end up trying to drive small-ish stereo speakers way too hard. Small-ish two-ways were not meant to reproduce full range orchestras at live volumes from 10-feet away! 

Even with speakers diminishing returns are reaching lower and lower price-points. Ever since the advent of spinoramas and research (especially by Toole et al.) on ideal on and off-axis frequency responses, competent manufacturers have been able to make great sounding speakers at lower and lower price points. Most of them are still in the thousands of dollars, which is expensive to most people, but I'd argue once you get to around the price of Revel F206s and Ascend Sierras (both in the $3000 to $4000 range per pair) you're already getting about the best money can buy and the only reason to spend more is if you need more volume (power handling/sensitivity) that bigger speakers provide; but supplement them good subwoofers, surrounds, and a capable of AVR with good room correction and you'll be doing much better than spending more to get slightly better speakers. 

I agree that buyers should be informed about their needs/wants, but most are not.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd argue once you get to around the price of Revel F206s and Ascend Sierras (both in the $3000 to $4000 range per pair) you're already getting about the best money can buy


This I can't agree with however. 

Peace


----------

