In the world of video, there is an empirical difference between DVD, Blu-Ray, and 4K, a demonstrable difference to the human eye achieved with each higher level that earlier formats did not achieve. But eventually there will come a time when a level of video is reached where the human eye cannot detect the difference as it would exist on such a microscopic level, and while be technically “better”, it would not effectively be better.
With CD vs. SACD (and other higher level formats), there are people that argue that the latter are the Blu-Ray and 4Ks of the audio world in that there is a level of detail hearable detail and richness that CD cannot attain, and then there are those that say CD was already the “4K” of the audio world in that it allegedly reaches the highest level of detail the human ear can experience, and that new formats are going beyond what you can hear and are marketing superior remaster quality as higher audio fidelity.
So the question is not “is SACD technically better and more equivalent to something like 4K and Blu-Ray?”, because that’s tangibly true. The question is: can the human ear hear that difference, or are the superior mastering processes used for SACD releases making people think the format is better, when in fact a redbook CD would sound just as good if mastered in the same way?
Have experts weighed in on this? I hope I worded it right. Thanks for any polite answers.
Read about the Nyquist Theorum. Basically it comes down to sample rate (which is essentially the same thing as resolution). As long as the same rate is high enough to reproduce the highest frequency you can hear, there is no noticeable benefit to a higher sample rate. So 20khz being the highest freq humans can hear, 40khz sample rate (CD is 44.1khz) is all you need. Audio doesn’t have the same storage and processing challenges that hi-res video does. So we were able to jump right to full quality audio reproduction as opposed to waiting for technology to catch up like with video.
It gets a bit more complicated with SACD format because they use a different type of audio encoding (DSD). So its not directly comparable with CD that uses PCM encoding. But the theory behind digital audio is the same.
It should be noted that DSD is a Sony creation and as such it is heavily marketed as being “better” than other alternatives. That does not mean that it is.
Thank you. So basically if I have a CD and good speakers to play it on, I’m not missing out on too much?
Not enough to worry about. Once you stop listening to the equipment and tune in to the sound.
That point can and will be argued for the rest of time among audiophiles lol. But the short answer is no you aren’t missing out on anything with that kind of setup.
Missing out on nothing. CD format is perfect sound forever, everthing else is features other than sound quality or marketing.
The only areas you might miss out on:
You’d be better off worrying about having the best quality recording/best version of whatever you are listening to.
Great post, I think that the rule of thumb for sample rates is twice the highest frequency. Which is why we use 44.1khz and not 22.05 or 20.
If I remember my audio engineering classes correctly, I believe 44.1 was chosen for technical reasons. Like ease of transferring between popular equipment at the time or something. It was also Sony who came up with that standard and there was some back and forth on exactly what they would use. 40khz is really all you need. 44.1khz was chosen more for convenience rather than a necessity.