Hybrid SACD - Is the CD layer usually as good as a CD for quality?

[IronWing]

There is an album I want to buy that comes in CD and hybrid SACD formats. The SACD version is half the price of the CD version. Should I expect any difference in should quality between the two when played on a normal CD player? When ripped to iTunes?

 

[Ross Ridge]

There is an album I want to buy that comes in CD and hybrid SACD formats. The SACD version is half the price of the CD version. Should I expect any difference in should quality between the two when played on a normal CD player? When ripped to iTunes?

Probably not. Audio CDs use a fixed 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo PCM format, so presumably it's the same raw data on both.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The CD layer of a hybrid SACD may be superior to the conventional CD version.
While it's likely the CD layer is merely a duplication of the conventional CD release, I have read that in some cases, after remastering the album for the SACD version, the engineers have reconverted the new master to 16-bit 44.1 KHz for the CD layer.

edit: What album? I don't recall seeing any album cheaper as a hybrid than as a regular CD.

 

[Ronstang]

The CD layer of a hybrid SACD may be superior to the conventional CD version.
While it's likely the CD layer is merely a duplication of the conventional CD release, I have read that in some cases, after remastering the album for the SACD version, the engineers have reconverted the new master to 16-bit 44.1 KHz for the CD layer.

edit: What album? I don't recall seeing any album cheaper as a hybrid than as a regular
CD.

If the music is "remastered" then it is likely inferior to how it was originally available, if the music is more than a decade or so old at least. Very few people actually remaster in a positive manner as the trend these days is to simply turn the gain up and make everything louder....which is way inferior. You end up with lots of digital clipping and an overall terrible sound compared to the original. I just don't understand young people thinking louder is always better.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

If the music is "remastered" then it is likely inferior to how it was originally available, if the music is more than a decade or so old at least. Very few people actually remaster in a positive manner as the trend these days is to simply turn the gain up and make everything louder....which is way inferior. You end up with lots of digital clipping and an overall terrible sound compared to the original. I just don't understand young people thinking louder is always better.

although i can't deny sound engineers have been abusing the dynamic range, IMO there is still a huge increase in quality when going from early generation CDs to new remasters. for the first 10 years or so, CDs were based on the cassette masters, guaranteeing the worst of both worlds.

i would be shocked if the CD section of a hybrid SACD were anything other than a 2 channel, 16 bit copy of the SACD material. i can't see a record company paying to restore and re-mix the same album twice for 1 disc.

 

[Smoove910]

I prefer the SACD or DVD-A formats regardless... they just sound sooooo much better!

What disc are you thinking of getting?

 

[CallMeJoe]

although i can't deny sound engineers have been abusing the dynamic range, IMO there is still a huge increase in quality when going from early generation CDs to new remasters. for the first 10 years or so, CDs were based on the cassette masters, guaranteeing the worst of both worlds.

:thumbsup: Anyone remastering for SACD is going to expand the dynamic range, not compress it, else there's no reason to have done an SACD in the first place.

i would be shocked if the CD section of a hybrid SACD were anything other than a 2 channel, 16 bit copy of the SACD material. i can't see a record company paying to restore and re-mix the same album twice for 1 disc.

They could conceivably just copy an existing CD mix, though any engineer I know would make a fresh CD version from his new SACD work, if only for pride.