1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 196572-176929

SACD vs. 24/192 stream

I recently acquired a Innuos ZENith Mk3 streamer, replacing my Bluesound Node.  I've come to appreciate what the Mk3 adds--more low-level detail, clearer soundstaging, slightly better bass.

I repeated a comparison I did with the Node--comparing "The Priest" from Joni Mitchell's Ladies of the Canyon via MFSL SACD vs. Qobuz 24/192.  The latter should provide higher resolution sound than an SACD, according to this article: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/.  I played the SACD on my Cambridge Audio CXU universal disc player, which uses an HDMI cable to feed a Geerfab D.BOB that sends a DSD signal to my Denafrips Venus 15 DAC.

The result this time was similar to my previous comparison.  The SACD revealed greater soundstage depth of Joni's guitar, and her vocal was more realistic (marvelously so) than the hi-res stream.  

Given that I'm using a very good streamer and just a mid-level sort of disc player, I would conclude that I prefer the sound of DSD to PCM. The article I reference above suggested that an R2R DAC (like mine) should sound better with its native PCM than DSD, whereas Delta Sigma DACs sound better with DSD.  I'm not so sure that's true with my system.

So this gives me reason to continue to use SACDs and keep an SACD player in my system.  Generally, I find that high-res streaming is superior to Redbook CDs.  That was evident even with the Node, which I think punches way above its price, especially when upgraded with a good linear power supply.

What have others of you found when comparing hi-res discs with hi-res streaming?

drmuso
richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,391 posts
 

A couple of things to be aware of.

Many SACDs have been originally recorded in high-res formats so are not true Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recordings.  This conversion is not lossy - but it has to interpolate extra timing information.  I am thinking especially of Chandos.

Many DACs to not natively process DSD - they convert to high-res to feed R2R or similar architecture converters.  This conversion is lossy - it loses timing information

If you really want to explore the differences, visit 2L.no.  Many of their recordings come as packages with both SACD and Pure Audio Blu-ray disks.  The Pure Audio disks typically include several high-res formats, including 9-channel and Dolby Atmos.  The SACS include a CD layer, plus 2-channel and 5.x channel DSD.

audphile1's avatar
audphile1
7,952 posts
 

Master matters a lot. But let’s set that aside for a minute - the 192/24 is clearly a different master. The Innuos Zenith Mk3 however should be able to at least be on par with SACD and possibly beat it. 
It needs supporting elements to do it but it’s possible. 

big_greg
6,821 posts
 

And then... was the 24/192 stream originally mastered at 24/192, or upsampled?  And if so, does it matter?  There are many rabbit holes where digital is concerned. 

Some of my favorite DSD recordings were made before digital was a thing, but they sound incredible.  And in most cases I _might_ be able to tell a difference between 44.1 and 24/192, but would probably be hard pressed to identify which was which in a blind test.

It's impossible to say one format is universally "better" than another, but I am in agreement that SACDs often sound better than other digital versions.

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,391 posts
 

@big_greg 

I was able to tell within a couple of minutes that there was something seriously wrong with my Reavon universal player, when playing SACDs.through its analogue outputs.

Turns out it down-samples DSD to 44.1 CD quality for its internal dacs.  It is fine as a transport with digital outputs over HDMI

More to discover