1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 196924-167033

CD vs SACD in STEREO

I started to listen to SACD to enjoy the 5.1 format. 

I thought SACD is exclusively used for that purpose.

Today read discussion about sound quality of new/modern/ "better" CD vs Streaming vs vinyl vs SACD, where the SACD apparently was referrung to STEREO SACD. 

On a 'numbers' basis, what is the difference between CD and SACD (assume same player, etc)?

kraftwerkturbo
larsman's avatar
larsman
3,126 posts
 

I could be mistaken, but SACD has never been about multi-channel as far as I know. On the other hand there is Dolby Atmos, which is. 

secretguy
1,981 posts
 

I'm not sure what "numbers basis " means. SACD does sound a bit better than Red books. Dependent on the recording, of course.

elliottbnewcombjr
7,705 posts
 

You must be young and use SACD for Videos with 5.1, all mine are Blu-Rays.

IN the Beginning, before you were born perhaps, SACD was the new great thing, using DSD rather than PCM, having 8 times the resolution, for 2 channel stereo.

Most are Hybrid 2 channel discs with two layers, a CD (PCM) layer, and a SACD (DSD) layer that only players with SACD lasers could read. Some have 5.1 channel SACD layer as well, I never heard one.

The most obvious difference is lower noise floor, thus the wider S/N signal to noise ratio.

Backgrounds so quiet, I sometimes find them un-natural.

Some players convert DSD to PCM, others read and send the DSD signal.

I created these two SACD discussions here

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/sony-sacd-player-scd-xa5400es-yay-or-nay?highlight=xa5400es%2Byay%2Bor%2Bnay

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/sacd-players-models-with-dsd-processor-used-and-new-not-dsd-conver?highlight=sacd%2Bdsd%2Bpcm

 

More to discover