|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.85.221.254
Hi All,
Most of my home listening is done with my vinyl rig as the source. I also upgraded my redbook CD (a Rega Planet 2K) by adding a Rega DAC to the chain, and I'm pleased with the result. As a bonus, I can use the DAC along with my MacBook to listen to hi-res FLAC files.
For some reason I have an itch to try SACD as a format. So many interesting titles have been released and re-released on SACD, and many times the pricing is lower than on the vinyl counterparts.
So, my question is, is it worth dabbling in SACD if I'm going to start with a very entry level SACD player? Does the D/A converter in SACD matter as much as it does with Redbook sources? I've heard some very good SACD players, and I was pretty mesmorized by the sound.
Thanks, all.
Follow Ups:
You're not going to get any kind of SACD player that you're going to like nearly as much as your vinyl rig, and you'll walk away disappointed.
Plus, (IMO), any sub $5K SACD player doesn't do redbook worth a crap, and your REGA player will sound much better on regular CDs.
The value of SACD to all but a few classical fans is contingent on how well the player performs not on SACD, - but on Redbook.
Personally, I have about 40 SACDs mixed with pop rock jazz, and a few classical. Only 20 of those are any good. I am grateful to have those Peter Gabriel, Dead Can Dance, SACDs, but SACD on my player is, as it should be, an afterthought.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Sorry, I cannot agree with that.
Regards,
Geoff
Every SACD player that I've owned or even heard does CD at least fairly well. Some better then others sure, but $5k is a ridiculous floor.
+1
My SCD-2000ES does Redbook as well as / better than many CD players in my system, including some fairly expensive ones.
Harry
Just my opinion. Never heard a sub $5K player that isn't improved redbook by sticking a $2K DAC on the back to the digital outs. A clear test, ever try it?
SACD should be an afterthought, because there's no software. JMO, but I would also never have a SACD player that doesn't also DVD A & V. I've heard Sony's where plugging in a $950 Arcam CD player shatters the redbook section.
do the comparisons...
Sadly, there are no corners to cut, many of the elements that make up a good to great CD player, need to be present in a SACD player too.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I understand your point but to peg a dollar figure on it is tough.
When SACD was all the audiophile rage (about 10 years ago!), everyone on the bandwagon were in awe at how much better SACD sounded compared to redbook.
What they didn't understand was that the SACD player makers had a vested interest in ensuring that SACD sounded better. Intentional or not, the redbook capability of those players were an after thought making many redbook CDs sound pretty ho hum.
I think that there is not the best evidence, but it certainly seemed like Sony, et al, - purposely made redbook sound worse to highlight the wonders of SACD.
You're right, - it is tough to put a dollar figure on it, & I was perhaps being a bit hyperbolic to make the point.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I have an Oppo BDP-105 and Sony XA5400ES, both of which I use for their analog outputs. The XA5400ES does not do mch analog, but is superb for stereo SACD. The BDP-105 does mch analog. If you use HDMI output from the player, the resulting audio quality will depend mostly on the analog output of the device to which HDMI is sent. In my experience, high-quality SACDs played on either the Oppo or Sony sound remarkably similar to high-quality vinyl recordings played on my Thorens TD 124 with SME Series III arm and Ortofon 30H cartridge through a Parasound JC-3 phono stage. All 3 sources use the same JC-2 analog preamp.
db
I have a Sony DVD NS755V player that also plays multichannel SACDs to analog outputs. I bought it new for $250 in 2003 or 2004. It definitely boxed above its class for the day as far as the audio quality went. But It was easily outclassed by the DACs in more expensive equipment SACD playback equipment that replaced it (Denon 3805 AVR, Denon 3109 player). So yes, the DAC does make a difference.
As far as inexpensive SACD players go, be aware that many Sony BluRay players will play SACDs over HDMI to a receiver that can handle hi-rez signals. For more money, the Oppo 103 will play SACDs and will do a very good job converting to analog and implementing bass management. That's $499. I read about a new Yamaha universal player coming out soon that will also play SACDs to analog, also for $500. From that price point, I think the next jump is to about $1000, e.g., the Marantz SA-5004 or is it 5005 (haven't heard it)?
My only gripe has been in the titles available, either few selections in my preferred genre, price, and in some cases a very bad transfer process from the original source to the disc. Keep in mind that none of those are a fault of the format itself...and when I listen to a favorite recording that's properly mastered it's an incredible experience.
My favorite player has been a Sony 3100ES, but the recent Sony Blu-ray machines are also very good IF you use them in a multi-channel set up. I use an HDMI cable to send it to an AVR that can decode SACD over HDMI...not all of them can. I also use a two channel player in my audio-only system and I love that too. In short, a multi-channel SACD listening session with a good system is such a great way to experience music. I only wish there were more titles to my liking.
One of the attractions of SACD is MC capability. From your post, I gather you're a stereo guy like me. As much as I appreciate the addition of the rear and mid channels when I hear it, I feel a really good to excellent stereo rig can be more involving than any number of channels with crummy sound. With an entry level player, it's doubtful you will realize much of the increased resolution/higher fidelity SACD offers. Yes, the DAC in an SACD player is just as important as in redbook, but that is only one aspect of a player's performance. Even cheap DAC chips these days are better than most chips were a few years ago, so the DAC chip itself, while a factor, is no more important than the rest of the output stage. That is where better engineering and execution of design can pay dividends of improved sonics. Buy a cheap player, and you'll get an output stage that has every cost cutting strategy implemented, and you will not get much of the SACD magic other than extra channels you will probably not use. But if you can find a way to use the extra channels, it might be worthwhile to make even a small investment in hardware and software. If you like vinyl, you will like stereo SACD on a really good player almost as much, perhaps more. You will probably look at an entry level player as a waste of money for stereo only.
Peace,
Tom E
Buy the Sony 5400 ($1,500) I have an expensive vinyl set up but the Sony will give you access to new music. The SACDs usually do not sound digital and do not fatigue the way RBCDs usually do at least to my ears. Can be more dynamic with deeper bass than vinyl. Still vinyl is superior over all but SACDs are worth investigating.
I have hundreds of SACDs and CDs--I gave up on surface-noisy, cult-fetish LPs decades ago--and not a single CD sounds as good as the poorest SACD. The multichannel Classical SACDs sound so much better than 2-channel CDs or LPs, the latter aren't even close.
Multichannel Classical SACDs sound MUCH-more natural and spacious than any CD or LP could ever hope to sound.
So there's one reason, Drew. The other reason is overall resolution, with SACDs superior again.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
My post states at the end that going to mch would be worthwhile with even an entry level player, but probably not for just stereo. If one gets a better than entry level mch player, so much the better.
Settle down, man.
Peace,
Tom E
Is where you claim that NO CDs sound as good as ANY SACD. I have some CDs that provide absolutely top-notch sound quality. These are almost always HDCD encoded or use K2 or SuperBit technology.
Take a good listen to the Creedence Clearwater K2 CDs, the Santana Abraxas SuperBit CD, or almost any of the Grateful Dead/Other Ones HDCD encoded discs and see if you don't agree...
-RW-
But do understand that I spend my time listening to the music and NOT comparing the sounds of layers of my SACDs or different-disc versions of the same music.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
To each his own I suppose...
-RW-
/
Alban I can dig, Anton not so much. :-(
I saw your post in Music about Wozzeck!
All is forgiven!
Berg Violin Concerto is a personal Fav.
The Bach Chorale is a stroke of genius!
Currently streaming (Lossless FLAC from QOBUZ)
I totally agree, mch SACD is far more realistic than stereo whether LP or CD as for a SACD player I recommend Sony XA5400ES which I understand is still available only in the US, incidently it is also an excellent CD player.
Edits: 03/13/14
To fantja's good advice I'd add this: even if you're considering just "dabbling", take a lot of time to CD/SACD comparison-audition material that's typical of what you listen to and, preferably, are familiar with. Make sure, too, that you familiarize yourself with the dealer's listening environment and the electronics and speakers used in your comparisons. Finally, check the provenance of each "SACD" you audition to make sure it's not simply a remastered release based on a 16/44 source master (there are more than a few of those hanging around)--because if it is, you're not likely to hear much, if any, difference between the CD and the "SACD" version whatever the level--entry or otherwise--of the SACD player.
That's a good point.
My friend brought over his Come Away with Me "SACD" and I pointed out that it was a fraud. But I did compare it with my CD, and, through my Oppo BDP-83 analog outputs, there was slightly less glare w/ the SACD. But I had to listen very closely to tell the difference. I think that the difference between a "real" SACD and CD is much bigger and more obvious, once one gains some experience.
The Analogue Productions Norah Jones: Come Away With Me SACD has exceptional SQ. The Blue Note Records RBCD of the same recording although better than average pales in comparison for dynamics and body.
Len
The sound of SACD is too smooth in playback much of the time. like all the air you get with Lp is missing. The sound comes not from a room. but out of empty space. And i do not like it.
I own a Sony SCD777ES, and two other SACD players, I use them only for CD playback.
So if you buy a SACD player, remember you can still always use it for CD playback anyway.
I own say a few dozen SACD/CD discs... and I always play the CD portion.
With the output section and clocking that both jazzman and I have, CDs on our players sound better than SACDs prior to the retrofits. So good, in fact, that regardless of bit depth, they sound hi rez to me.
SACD does ot have the grain of cd and more information.\
Obviously a decent machine is needed, a Sony 5400 ES is excellent
at its price point.
I finally got a great redbook DAC and just play the CD layers also. So, don't bother with an entry level SACD player.
Drew-
if you have a local dealer/retailer that has an SACD player on the floor, check it out before you buy.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: