Mainstream SACD has ALWAYS been about multi-channel, 5.1 or 5.0.
Source? You realize that most early SACDs and players were two channel and the same holds true today for most high-end SACD players.
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)?
- ...
- 89 posts total
i cannot think of any classical SACD (I have hundreds of them) that draws attention to particular speakers. Pop/rock is different - Brothers in Arms does seem to be remixed to, though! Dolby Atmos definitely does not draw attention to individual speakers. It maps 'flight paths' for sound sources, and it is up to the processor to map these flight paths proportionally to whatever actual speakers may be in the user's installation.
Not according to AI (my emphases though)
My 'home' acoustic is the Sydney Opera House Concert Hall, which has just gone through AUD$100-m on a refit to get this right! |
I think you will find that is a huge con played on the North American cohort! Not one of my hundreds of SACDs is only two-channel, and none of my player / transports has been. But if you have been conned into using I2S (which is inherently only two-channel) then who can blame manufacturers for charging a fortune to satisfy the market? Check out the 6,000+ SACDs on Presto where SACD is mainstream, not some quirky remastering for the audiophile market |
I need @lewm to translate the Japanese, but it cannot be a Redbook CD. There's no denying that silver disks can hold 24-bit PCM - Pure Audio Blu-ray can and Digital Versatile Disks should. But 24-bit is also a bit of a con, owing its existence to computers having pretty much standardised on 8-bit bytes. In reality, you would be lucky to find a dac that can resolve 21-bits. |
- 89 posts total