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)?
@richardbrand "Multichannel Support: The format was designed to support both high-quality stereo and multichannel surround sound (e.g., 5.1 surround). Multichannel SACDs provide a more immersive listening experience with discrete back and center channels.". - Chat GPT ChatGPT is wrong. I suspect it's getting confused with DVD-Audio. |
No, I suspect you are the one getting confused. To settle the debate, all you have to do is read the Scarlet Book but that costs money!
Amazing 'cos the SACD defining document was only released in '99. I suspect you are based in North America whereas SACD is a European / Japanese invention primarily designed for classical music. |
SACD was always intended to support multiple formats, 5.1, PCM and Direct Stream Digital 64 imprinted in multiple layers on the disc which is why it immediately superseded DVD audio which I believe is only 96Khz PCM which also supported 5.1. I have a couple examples of those, Pet Sounds and Hotel California from when I had a Denon DVD player that supported the format. Much rather listen to them on vinyl! Single layer SACD is also available of which I have a few Steely Dan Japanese SHM that are only mastered in stereo. |
@richardbrand you "read it in a book that ’costs money?’ You do realize that sounds like, "I read it on the internet." Right? Well I was among the first of those in the technologically ignorant "North America" to be trained by the distributors of and sell the first SACD player, the Sony SCD-1 in 1999. An impressive piece indeed. Definitely only two channel unlike it’s competition from Technics (which I also sold and purchased) The DVD A10. |
