IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Has anyone tested SACD vs. CD of same album, e.g. for dynamic range?, [moved from General Music Discussion]
Mikkel
post Mar 4 2013, 17:03
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 4-March 13
Member No.: 107014



Hi everyone,

Just registered because I have a pressing question, which I think only can be answered honestly here at hydrogenaudio. I hope you would be so kind as to help me find an answer.

I have been searching for answer on the question i raise in the topic description: has anyone tested the difference of dynamic range between the two versions of the same album?

I read the double-blind test results from THIS thread. But as far as I can see it concerns 44/16 vs 96/24 and not the difference between the same album but in different distributed formats.

From different places I often notice a comment that says high resolution versions often are mastered differently (and better) than the corresponding CD version. These comments are never substantiated with any kind of measure.

I could of course buy a downloadable album and compare it (yet I haven't). Searching for either SACD or 96 at http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ does seem to indicate that SACDs (when it comes to dynamic range) does not necessarily translate to better dynamic range when mastering the album. Heuristically, neither does my own collection of CD-only albums to have worse DR-rating than the SACD albums (I listen only to classical music, which may or may not have a bias towards better DR).

Anyway, this is of course no proof of anything. So therefore my question whether any of you know of places that have actually compared different versions of the same album?


Best regards,
Mikkel

This post has been edited by Mikkel: Mar 4 2013, 17:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
db1989
post Mar 6 2013, 22:45
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



I hope not, seeing as he was replying to a post that quite rightly stated that technical potential is not limiting in either case and therefore is not genuinely relevant.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mikkel
post Mar 7 2013, 08:39
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 4-March 13
Member No.: 107014



QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 6 2013, 22:45) *
I hope not, seeing as he was replying to a post that quite rightly stated that technical potential is not limiting in either case and therefore is not genuinely relevant.


To quote myself:
Surfing different fora one runs into the idea that SACDs are better mastered than their CD counterparts. I never see any references to any tests, though... perhaps because mastering quality is a highly subjective topic, I don't know.

Anyway, at least one can compare the dynamic range, which in many cases is a good quality indicator. And comparissons of dynamic range between CDs and their higher resolution counterparts is what I'm searching for.

So:
1) Yes, blind tests to evaluate subjectively perceived differences in mastering quality between the media would be required but that is not what I am looking for.
2) I limited my question to the use of dynamic range as a quality-indicator. That is: whether SACDs are mastered with better dynamic range than their CD-counterpart; *not* whether one can hear differences between the two masters. This is a relevant question if one has to choose between buying high-res vs. "normal"-res albums (if dynamic range is taken as the only quality indicator, which it clearly isn't. But it is one of the more easy things to test).
3) The dynamic range-testing does not require any blind tests, except if I was interest in perceived quality differences between albums with numerically better or worse dynamic range, or if interested in the issue in point 1 above.

I hope it is clear, what I was asking for. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.


Best regards,
Mikkel

This post has been edited by Mikkel: Mar 7 2013, 08:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Mikkel   Has anyone tested SACD vs. CD of same album, e.g. for dynamic range?   Mar 4 2013, 17:03
- - knutinh   I believe there are ample anecdotal evidence of ...   Mar 5 2013, 12:49
- - AndyH-ha   Even if SACD has a greater potential dynamic range...   Mar 5 2013, 21:35
- - Dynamic   I haven't tested myself, but an old thread men...   Mar 6 2013, 03:48
- - saratoga   QUOTE (Mikkel @ Mar 4 2013, 11:03) Search...   Mar 6 2013, 07:10
|- - Mikkel   QUOTE (saratoga @ Mar 6 2013, 07:10) QUOT...   Mar 6 2013, 12:26
- - AliceWonder   I will have to look for it but I read a paper with...   Mar 6 2013, 11:33
- - Mikkel   @ AliceWonder: Thanks for your post. I think the ...   Mar 6 2013, 12:17
- - Kohlrabi   The point is that technologically Redbook CD is su...   Mar 6 2013, 14:47
|- - Mikkel   QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Mar 6 2013, 14:47) The ...   Mar 6 2013, 17:07
|- - knutinh   QUOTE (Mikkel @ Mar 6 2013, 17:07) Exactl...   Mar 6 2013, 22:32
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (knutinh @ Mar 6 2013, 16:32) QUOTE...   Mar 6 2013, 22:38
- - greynol   In some cases heavily compressed audio mat actuall...   Mar 6 2013, 17:31
|- - Mikkel   QUOTE (greynol @ Mar 6 2013, 17:31) In so...   Mar 7 2013, 08:43
- - db1989   I hope not, seeing as he was replying to a post th...   Mar 6 2013, 22:45
|- - Mikkel   QUOTE (db1989 @ Mar 6 2013, 22:45) I hope...   Mar 7 2013, 08:39
|- - knutinh   QUOTE (Mikkel @ Mar 7 2013, 08:39) 2) I l...   Mar 7 2013, 14:03
|- - Mikkel   QUOTE (knutinh @ Mar 7 2013, 14:03) QUOTE...   Mar 7 2013, 14:31
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (knutinh @ Mar 7 2013, 08:03) QUOTE...   Mar 7 2013, 14:50
- - _if   I think you'd have to take it on a case-by-cas...   Mar 8 2013, 23:25


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 22:19