# SACD vs Blue Ray Audio vs 24/96 remasters



## jdcbr (Jul 21, 2014)

Am I the only one who is a little confused by all the audiophile formats that are being offered? One question I have - if an SACD is played on an SACD player in stereo mode, is there any sonic advantage over a 24 bit, 96 hrs remaster on standard CD? sACDs are marketed with 24/96, but then Blue Ray Audio discs are touted as being the "only way to experience true 24/96." So, are the 24/96 remasters on regular CD and SACD not "real?"
Another annoyance is the way Universal is packaging re-mastered CDs and Blue Ray Audio discs TOGETHER! Why should you have to buy one to get the other?
Comments?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I consider myself an amateur audiophile, even then, that might be a strong word. I just enjoy hearing my classical CDs in their original lossless quality. I have a FiiO X3 digital audio player which supports "_all five major lossless audio codecs at up to 192k/24b master tape quality_". For headphones, I have the Noontec Zoro HD (great entry-level audiophile grade headphones)

From what I've read on hifi forums, this statement seems to be the consensus on a regular audio CD, "_Audio CD spec is 16Bit...plain and simple_". No matter the remaster, the CD's physical limitations is 16-bit 44100 Hz. 
It's similar to playing a 1080p Blu-ray on your 720p HDTV, yeah, you may be able to play it but your HDTV will down-convert it to 720p. Same goes for a CD, its native format and capacity is 16-bit, not 24-bit.

From what I've read, Blu-ray audio disc is the best quality possible. DVD-A and SACD seem to offer the same quality, which is very very good.

PS. I am perfectly fine with CD level lossless quality, I feel no need to have 24bit-96hz instead of 16-bit-44hz. I doubt I'd be able to hear the difference when you're already that high in sound quality. I mean, there are tons of people who swear they can't hear a difference between a AAC 320 kbps, MP3 320 kbps and Lossless files. So imagine what difference you'll hear between Lossless and "Extra-Lossless", probably none unless you have golden ears.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I consider myself an amateur audiophile, even then, that might be a strong word. I just enjoy hearing my classical CDs in their original lossless quality. I have a FiiO X3 digital audio player which supports "_all five major lossless audio codecs at up to 192k/24b master tape quality_". For headphones, I have the Noontec Zoro HD (great entry-level audiophile grade headphones)
> 
> From what I've read on hifi forums, this statement seems to be the consensus on a regular audio CD, "_Audio CD spec is 16Bit...plain and simple_". No matter the remaster, the CD's physical limitations is 16-bit 44100 Hz.
> It's similar to playing a 1080p Blu-ray on your 720p HDTV, yeah, you may be able to play it but your HDTV will down-convert it to 720p. Same goes for a CD, its native format and capacity is 16-bit, not 24-bit.
> ...


A HDTV with 1080p capability and one of the latest Blu-ray players should take care of most viewers/listeners in an excellent manner. Though there's never any guarantee that a disc product will sound as good as its marketing insinuates. Such is life.:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The SACD 24 bit/96 kHz format is great. It is decoded in the player, and transmitted out via 5 RCA jacks, into your receiver. It is not transmitted digitally, and is not intended to be, in order to prevent digital file copies; that's why it is decoded within the player. The hackers have figured a way around this, I'm sure; but to play the copied file, you have to have an SACD player. I'm sure the hackers have figured this out as well, so you can play it in a computer.

There is also DVD audio, which is transmitted digitally, with optical or SPDIF coax. Be sure to use a digital coax cord, as they are a different impedance than a regular RCA cord. The "DVD audio" designation is an umbrella term which includes Dolby Digital and DTS. 
DTS is higher rez, and sounds fantastic.

As far as I know about it, Blu-ray is transmitted over the wide HDMI cable. I don't have an HD TV, so I have no need for blu-ray yet.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The primary difference between releases on various formats is mastering. Regular old CDs are capable of reproducing everything a human can hear in normal music listening conditions. The difference between CD sound and "hi-rez" formats isn't in the range that you listen to music in... for that it's exactly the same. The only difference is in the sound that is super low in volume. The noise floor is lower.

However in order to hear the difference in noise floor, you would have to turn up the volume to ear splitting levels... volumes high enough to incur hearing damage. There really isn't much point to hi-res formats, except SACD where multi-channel sound is supported. That actually does make a difference.

Most hi-res audio releases are just a callous marketing ploy designed to get you to buy your sixth or seventh copy of Dark Side of the Moon or Time Out.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The primary difference between releases on various formats is mastering. Regular old CDs are capable of reproducing everything a human can hear in normal music listening conditions. The difference between CD sound and "hi-rez" formats isn't in the range that you listen to music in... for that it's exactly the same. The only difference is in the sound that is super low in volume. The noise floor is lower....Most hi-res audio releases are just a callous marketing ploy designed to get you to buy your sixth or seventh copy of Dark Side of the Moon or Time Out.


There are such things as "alias" frequencies which exist up in the above-audible range, and produce artifacts in the audible spectrum. Also, bit-rate makes a lot of difference.

Also, most listeners can't hear the actual effect of resolution, which is only apparent in complex waveforms, and thus is necessary to get "placement" and individual clarity when lots of separate sounds are happening. This is a "gestalt" effect, and is only apparent in certain instances. For example, a solo oboe might sound fine by itself in lower resolution, but when the rest of the orchestra kicks in, the difference becomes obvious; in lo-rez it's harder to distiguish spatial placement, and individual instruments are not as clear or definable. Also, the resolution will effect low-level transients which are "around" the sound and give it its "space", such as the sound of the booth on a vocal track, or the 'room' sound present when an instrument is recorded.

Also, resolution or clarity must be listened for selectively; with pop records, it does no good to listen to the electric guitar or bass to hear resolution; the first thing to listen to is the voice.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> There are such things as "alias" frequencies which exist up in the above-audible range, and produce artifacts in the audible spectrum.


You're conflating two things there. Aliasing doesn't exist up in the super high frequencies. It's quantization error, and it creates the noise floor in the audible range of frequencies. But the volume level of the noise is just below the threshold of human hearing, and with dithering it's pushed down even further to well below any human being's ability to hear (-96dB). All high bitrate audio is dithered as it is bumped down to 16/44.1, so all CD sound has totally inaudible aliasing.

The high frequency concept you're talking about is when you play high sampling rate material with super audible frequencies, those high frequencies can cause artifacting in the audible range on stereo equipment that isn't designed to deal with it. A lot of consumer audio is ill equipped to deal with super audible frequencies and distort in the audible range when they are present. In these cases, standard redbook CD quality sounds *better* than high bitrate/high sampling rate recordings.

Usually, when someone says they can hear a difference between CD quality sound and high bitrate/high sampling rate sound, it's because their equipment is distorting when it plays the high bitrate/sampling rate material.

Now... as for resolution and "complex waveforms"... This is entirely wrong. The resolution of high bitrate recording is EXACTLY the same as the resolution in standard CD quality within the range of human hearing. The only difference between the two is the ability of high bitrate / sampling rate recordings to reproduce sound *outside* the range of human hearing... either too high a frequency or to low in volume to be heard at normal listening levels. CD sound was designed from the very beginning to cover the full range of human hearing with perfect resolution. The noise floor on a CD is at -96dB. In order to hear that quiet, you would have to turn the volume on your stereo up so loud you would incur hearing damage. Even the most dynamic recordings of music don't come close to taking advantage of that. I doubt if even the most dynamic classical recordings exceed 50 to 60 dB.

For the purpose of playing back music for listening, high bitrate / sampling rate recordings sound *identical* to standard CD.

It's actually a really good idea to research how digital audio works. A simple google search or browsing through Wikipedia can tell you a lot. Once you understand it, you can sort through the audiophool sales pitch and understand what really does make a difference and what doesn't. If any of this is confusing to you, I'd be happy to clarify.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

No ABX test has ever found an ability to distinguish 24-bit audio from plain old 16-bit CDs. This article will explain why.

On the other hand, if the thought of those extra bits gives you pleasure at a price you can afford, why not?


----------

