High Res Downloads vs SACD - General Thoughts

Relatively new to the High Res Music scene and had a few questions for those who have been at this and have more comparative experience. I've actually had an SACD player for a number of years but only ever had a handful of SACD's because all my media has been utilized via network or on the go. With my recent discovery of ripping SACD's, I've been sparked back into high res music and now the ability to purchase downloads has grabbed my attention, which is also something because I wasn't looking for, didn't know existed.

So with that background, when I do buy SACD's I convert them to 88/24 flac and for the most part have been happy with that. I am probably going to do a little experimenting with going up on the sampling rate as in a couple instances I'm not convinced I don't hear the difference with the SACD. However, we're not talking about notable differences and I haven't compared back and forth directly so in all I've been pleased with 88K files.

So the questions I have looking at high res downloads are:

1. What is the source they use for creating the high res files? Some of them aren't even available on SACD. Are they being mastered specifically for the download market?

2. Do you think there is any quality difference between a SACD, and a downloaded 96/24 or 192/24 flac file? Is it really different for each album? Given I'm ripping them anyway, is there any reason to start with the original SACD?

3. For music with the option of both a 96 and 192 download, has anyone actually compared these and is there a difference? is it worth the extra $5 ish per album?

Thanks for any info, much appreciated.

Hi rez files usually come from 96/24 masters. Some audiophile labels have 24/192 or higher masters. Then there are the 44/24 and 44/16 files that are just up-converted you have to watch out for.

The very best hi rez music are native DSD recordings like what you can find from Channel Classics, NativeDSD, etc. In order to gain the real benefit from DSD the DAC has to be able to decode DSD natively -- the vast majority of SACD players do not use native DSD decoders. If the DAC converts DSD into PCM internally much of the benefit from DSD is lost. DSD that is created from a PCM master also will not fully realize the benefits of DSD.

In my experience, 96/24 is only slightly better than 44/16. 192 is significantly better and DXD (352) is even better. Native DSD64 (SACD) is better still and DSD128 recordings are amazingly good.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

2. Do you think there is any quality difference between a SACD, and a downloaded 96/24 or 192/24 flac file? Is it really different for each album? Given I'm ripping them anyway, is there any reason to start with the original SACD?

 

Yes. Providing you have the equipment to do so, I would recommend keeping your SACD rips as DSD and playing back on a DSD capable DAC. A ripped SACD should be identical to the same item where also available as a DSD64 download, and often a lot cheaper.

Often different resolutions may come from different masters. If that's the case, the best recording and mastering far outweigh any difference in resolution.

In the (actually rarer than you'd think) event the masters are the same, there are two ways you can look at it:

- Getting a native resolution means fewer conversions before the file comes to you.

- Getting the highest resolution means fewer conversions in your DAC or software player.

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Thanks to all of you for the feedback.

At the moment I don't have a networkable DAC capable of playing DSD/DSF files. I'm doing this one of two ways.

- Stereo flac can be played via my Plex server, which is preferred since the rest of my media resides and is streamed from there. (for those of you familiar with Plex, no it is NOT transcoding anything for audio).

- As plex won't play multi-channel wav or flac correctly, I'm using the Pioneer SACD player (same one I use to rip SACD's) to access multi-channel flac files via a DLNA server.

EDIT: For either of these options, the audio is set to pass through to my Marantz AV7702mkii to handle the audio processing. The Plex or the Pioneer should be just passing it through.

So until I either buy a new player that can work wtih the DSF files or someone comes up with a Plex client that can handle them... I"m pretty much using flac for storage and playback.

That being the case what do you (all) think about the difference in quality between the flac files you can download vs, staring with the original SACD and doing the conversion myself? I've seen both positive and negative comments about the downloadable flac files, more + than -.

I hear and understand the comment about the mastering being the bigger component, but where can you find out about the different mastering for these different options? How do you find out if the DSD, SACD, or Flac had the better mastering production?

Once again, thanks in advance.

My 2 cents here:

First of all, my DAC doesn't do DSD, so on the handful of native DSD files I have, Audirvana+ converts on the fly to 24/88.

In my, admittedly only upper mid-fi system, the biggest jump (and big is relative, I'd say it's less than 10% in absolute) is from redbook to any 24 bit or 1 bit format. The jump between e.g. 24/96 and 24/192 is really minor to my ears.

Overall, I follow Jud's logic here as well and if I buy new music try to get as close to the original master format as I can. Who knows, in future system upgrades, I may be able to perceive stronger differences and really would like to avoid having to repurchase the same material again in the future.

I guess this could be a rather general guiding principle for buying music in 2017. How much of a premium one is willing to spend over redbook is a personal decision. my personal level of tolerance usually doesn't exceed the equivalent of $5 more, until it really is a must-have album.

Now, whether the SACD or 24 bit flac version is better, really depends on your system. Some DACs that play DSD natively even benefit from on the fly conversion from 24bit to DSD, which several software players now offer. So in a nutshell, take any advice you read here with a grain of salt, as it may not apply to your current system. And I echo the comments above, mastering tops file format any time.

And to your final question, how to find the best mastering, well, either check dedicated forums like Steve Hoffman, or simply ask here. For most music, you'll get feedback. And try the search functions, many classic albums have already been discussed.

Some of them aren't even available on SACD.

And that's an increasing number of new album releases in DSD.

If you check the "DSD Exclusively available as DSD download (Never available on SACD)" button on the NativeDSD search page, there are over 230 Stereo DSD64 album downloads and over 80 Multichannel DSD64 albums in that category to date.

https://www.nativedsd.com/new_browse/#

As for DSD128 and DSD256 downloads in Stereo and Multichannel, those are by definition not available on SACD since an SACD only has the data capability for DSD64.

Some nice listening ahead....

So the questions I have looking at high res downloads are:

 

1. What is the source they use for creating the high res files? Some of them aren't even available on SACD. Are they being mastered specifically for the download market?

 

2. Do you think there is any quality difference between a SACD, and a downloaded 96/24 or 192/24 flac file? Is it really different for each album? Given I'm ripping them anyway, is there any reason to start with the original SACD?

 

3. For music with the option of both a 96 and 192 download, has anyone actually compared these and is there a difference? is it worth the extra $5 ish per album?

 

Thanks for any info, much appreciated.

1. For older albums, some are converted from tape. Some more recent were recorded in hi-res (or at least in 24 bit of some type). Some are upsamples, but that is rare nowadays. Sony/Columbia, for instance, converted most of the legacy material to DSD at one point for archive purposes. So those can be a source for hi-res.

2. No simple answer. It depends what the source was and how the file was produced. Generally, the "original" digital version sounds best. Sometimes by quite a bit, sometimes you can't tell much of a difference.

3. Again no simple answer. Also depends on your ears and your system. For me it also depends on the source. If the album was recorded in 192, I'm more likely to buy the 192. If is electronic or acoustic music? If electronic, I don't think I'll hear any difference. If it's a string or a jazz quartet with acoustic instruments, I might hear a difference.

Thanks to all for the input and thoughts

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

On 1/29/2017 at 12:09 PM, TODDCA said:

Relatively new to the High Res Music scene and had a few questions for those who have been at this and have more comparative experience. I've actually had an SACD player for a number of years but only ever had a handful of SACD's because all my media has been utilized via network or on the go. With my recent discovery of ripping SACD's, I've been sparked back into high res music and now the ability to purchase downloads has grabbed my attention, which is also something because I wasn't looking for, didn't know existed.

 

So with that background, when I do buy SACD's I convert them to 88/24 flac and for the most part have been happy with that. I am probably going to do a little experimenting with going up on the sampling rate as in a couple instances I'm not convinced I don't hear the difference with the SACD. However, we're not talking about notable differences and I haven't compared back and forth directly so in all I've been pleased with 88K files.

 

So the questions I have looking at high res downloads are:

 

1. What is the source they use for creating the high res files? Some of them aren't even available on SACD. Are they being mastered specifically for the download market?

 

2. Do you think there is any quality difference between a SACD, and a downloaded 96/24 or 192/24 flac file? Is it really different for each album? Given I'm ripping them anyway, is there any reason to start with the original SACD?

 

3. For music with the option of both a 96 and 192 download, has anyone actually compared these and is there a difference? is it worth the extra $5 ish per album?

 

Thanks for any info, much appreciated.

On 1/29/2017 at 1:10 PM, GUTB said:

Hi rez files usually come from 96/24 masters. Some audiophile labels have 24/192 or higher masters. Then there are the 44/24 and 44/16 files that are just up-converted you have to watch out for.

 

The very best hi rez music are native DSD recordings like what you can find from Channel Classics, NativeDSD, etc. In order to gain the real benefit from DSD the DAC has to be able to decode DSD natively -- the vast majority of SACD players do not use native DSD decoders. If the DAC converts DSD into PCM internally much of the benefit from DSD is lost. DSD that is created from a PCM master also will not fully realize the benefits of DSD.

 

In my experience, 96/24 is only slightly better than 44/16. 192 is significantly better and DXD (352) is even better. Native DSD64 (SACD) is better still and DSD128 recordings are amazingly good.

 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

On 1/29/2017 at 2:16 PM, Jud said:

Often different resolutions may come from different masters. If that's the case, the best recording and mastering far outweigh any difference in resolution.

 

In the (actually rarer than you'd think) event the masters are the same, there are two ways you can look at it:

 

- Getting a native resolution means fewer conversions before the file comes to you.

 

- Getting the highest resolution means fewer conversions in your DAC or software player.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Assuming that both

https://www.hdtracks.com/#/album/5df1427d0bee25c09bc163fd

 and

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/95588/The_Beach_Boys-Pet_Sounds-Hybrid_Stereo_SACD

sourced the same first generation A/D (Pacific Microsonics?) or latest first generation A/D conversion

(which ?? ADC) of the original analog tape masters, will the high-res download and SACD sound equally as good or not?

2 hours ago, nxrm said:

 

 

 

Assuming that both

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/#/album/5df1427d0bee25c09bc163fd

 and

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/95588/The_Beach_Boys-Pet_Sounds-Hybrid_Stereo_SACD

 

sourced the same first generation A/D (Pacific Microsonics?) or latest first generation A/D conversion

(which ?? ADC) of the original analog tape masters, will the high-res download and SACD sound equally as good or not?

 

No clear answer. You might think they do, and others might not. It depends on how your system plays back and your personal taste. Some systems sound slightly better with one or the other; some don't. Some people seem to have a clear preference for one or the other. 

On my system it doesn't make a big difference. If forced, I'd probably say PCM sounds possibly a bit better. 

14 hours ago, nxrm said:

 

 

 

Assuming that both

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/#/album/5df1427d0bee25c09bc163fd

 and

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/95588/The_Beach_Boys-Pet_Sounds-Hybrid_Stereo_SACD

 

sourced the same first generation A/D (Pacific Microsonics?) or latest first generation A/D conversion

(which ?? ADC) of the original analog tape masters, will the high-res download and SACD sound equally as good or not?

 

My personal preference (which is all I can vouch for) is the 2012 Mark Linett mastering. See whether you can confirm that. If both come from that mastering, then like Firedog I prefer higher resolution PCM to low resolution DSD (SACD is DSD64, the lowest DSD resolution commonly used for recording).

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

My personal preference (which is all I can vouch for) is the 2012 Mark Linett mastering. See whether you can confirm that. If both come from that mastering, then like Firedog I prefer higher resolution PCM to low resolution DSD (SACD is DSD64, the lowest DSD resolution commonly used for recording).

12 hours ago, firedog said:

No clear answer. Some people seem to have a clear preference for one or the other.  On my system it doesn't make a big difference. If forced, I'd probably say PCM sounds possibly a bit better. 

Your preferences are reassuring, especially if before a stereo DAC like the Halo May I may want to pursue a 3.3 system and use a DAC like the Merging Hapi-but with the cheaper non-DSD DAC only card. I just wish there more MCH DAC alternatives with the Hapi's higher output voltage levels. I even thought of something like the 24 year old Lavry six channel Blue DAC, but don't know how its sound quality compares. 

4 hours ago, nxrm said:

I even thought of something like the 24 year old Lavry six channel Blue DAC, but don't know how its sound quality compares. 

I believe the Lavry was an ASRC (asynchronous sample rate conversion) DAC.  ASRC was an earlier and somewhat less effective means of minimizing jitter than the asynchronous USB input that is common in DACs today.

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I believe the Lavry was an ASRC (asynchronous sample rate conversion) DAC.  ASRC was an earlier and somewhat less effective means of minimizing jitter than the asynchronous USB input that is common in DACs today.

Here on p. 2 they talk about when jitter does (issues with the internal clock) and doesn't become part of the recording (digital end of the A/D converter module feeding the pc). But is the pc to DAC clocking connection likewise immune to such inaudible jitter?

https://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-lavryblue-manual.pdf

8 hours ago, nxrm said:

But is the pc to DAC clocking connection likewise immune to such inaudible jitter?

That's why async USB input is generally more effective - the clocking is done in the DAC, as close as possible to digital to analog conversion. Then generally synchronous sample rate conversion and modulation are done to a mHz frequency signal before final conversion to analog. In an ASRC DAC it is done by means of a phase locked loop (PLL) between PC and DAC, then that signal is converted to some non-synchronous sample rate frequency by the DAC (something that isn't an even multiple of 44.1k or 48k, in Lavry under 100kHz if I recall correctly) before the rest of the process.

ASRC DACs had a reputation for not sounding as good as DACs with async USB input, though whether that reputation is deserved is a subject on which I'm no expert.

10 hours ago, Jud said:

...but don't know how its sound quality compares. 

I think it's wise to recognize the difference between bus jitter and DAC clock jitter.  In the past, incoming DAC data streams were susceptible to clocking issues on the USB bus itself that connects the data storage device and the playing hardware (DAC and its clock, etc.) since there wasn't an effective buffer between the DAC and the incoming USB bus. 

DAC clock jitter has always been the performance parameter to pay attention to--along with the analog output sections of the DAC itself, and the effects of diaphragm movement of your loudspeakers (i.e., direct radiating loudspeakers).  The effects are the same: side-band-inducing modulation distortion--which is audible.

Chris