|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
201.210.121.231
HelloI want a new CD player. Do you recommend me a CD player or buy a CD player/SACD ???
Follow Ups:
When I bought an SACD player, I compared my redbook audio through my outboard DAC vs the SACD player. My redbooks were vastly superior as the SACD could not be fed through the outboard DAC. The consensus back then from other members was that the DAC of an SACD player can ruin everything. If you are going to do it, you need to go big or go home. No sub $500 SACD player will match a $500 DAC with redbooks. And with redbook, there is freedom.Sorry, I keep looking back into SACD and I see it dying of a terminal disease. Sony isnt really interested in it IMO: the SACD website looks out dated, their release schedule is an afterthought. If you want an interesting read on differing opinions:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=769788&page=1
I liked the new plastic case design and on a Pioneer player sounds better than the CD equivalent sound. I could have gone for some more and would pay a few dollars extra with no problem, but like everyone says, they're hard to even find, being confined to a single vertical space at Best Buy. Hey, I got records -- for old recordings that is! I guess they lost us old foggies as I like to have a disk in hand and it should have been SACD by now!
CDs don't handle multi-channel: SACDs mostly do. On a good quality, well setup system and with a well-made recording M/C can provide a much more "live"-like experience than stereo. The only practical problem is the scarcity really good source material.As yet, there are relatively few recordings that fulfill M/C's potential, however there are more all the time. Look for recordings originally made with multi-channel in mind versus remasters of stereo recordings.
It depends if you find SACD to be tolerable. I personally use dedicated CD playback because SACD never sounded right to me.
I like the Marantz SA-11 for both. I see it can be modded by reference audio mods, but that's a big investment.
I woild suggest a very good CD-Playyer since most of us have more RBCD titles than SACDs. I own a Marantz SACD player and don't use it much since most SACD titles are poorly recorded and not worth the extra money.There are Non-Over-Sampling DACS and player that can enhance RVCD playback. Further, PHILIPS has a player (Europe only) that convets 44.1 PCM to DSD. Ultimately, it'your choice in the matter.
HowdyI couldn't let this pass. You are wrong. I have most SACDs and they do have some variability, but not nearly as much as CDs. As a whole the SACDs are much better recorded than my CDs.
I couldn't let this pass. You are partly correct Ted. We both know that you meant:"As a whole the SACDs are much better recorded than my CDs."
should be this:
"As a whole the SACDs are much better mastered than my CDs."
I'll disregard the differences between mediums as we all are realistic of CDs limitations.
HowdyPerhaps not, most of my SACDs are recorded and mastered better than my most of my CDs. This says nothing about any one elses CD collections. However since I have most of the available SACDs and a non trivial number of CDs I felt my statements justified.
I look at the tape made at the original session / recording as the master tape. Regardless of format, you are using that, whether it be digital whatever, 2 track at 30 ips... Provided the CD transfer wasn't from a second or third gen master that leaves us with the the mastering to the format as well as the format itself as possible points of altered sound, not the recording itself. So my point is that if they both use the same master tape, the master in and of itself is a moot point since they would both be using the same source, good or bad. A bad recording will not be improved by higher bit rates. Case in point "Jazz at Massey Hall." It sounds crappy on whatever medium you play it on: CD, SACD, LP... The performance however, Salt Peanuts.
HowdyI understand your point, it's the same as Todd's point down lower and I disagree (at least in my case.) My SACDs (which are more than representative of SACDs in general) are better recorded than my CDs (which may or may not be representative of CDs as a whole, I have pretty strange taste :) Most of my CDs are not that greatly recorded and they are, in general, not dupes of my SACDs.
Even with your (and Todd's point of view) my original point stands: "most SACD titles are NOT poorly recorded".
Ted, your missing my point. Provided that the CD and SACD of the same title are made from the same master tape, the SACD can never be a better "recording" since they are from the same original session / tape. For our practical purposes, the master is the recording. Or do the makers of some of your SACDs have access to a source tape that the rest of us do not? Mind you, this does not consider CDs made from 2nd or 3rd generation tapes of which there are many.Better ultimate sound for the SACDs versus the CD of any recording? Most probably yes. We'll both agree that SACD medium is a more transparent medium. That leaves us with the other variable. The fact that any SACD being put out most probably uses the original master recording and the uses the best available mastering facilities available for their project. These two variables are responsible for the better sound heard, not the original recording.
Legal disclaimer: These comparisons are only valid on the same playback deck and system.
HowdyI didn't miss your point, nor Todd's. I'm not sure that you understand my original point or the context in which I was trying to make it.
The context was a poster claiming "most SACD titles are poorly recorded" which is so clearly bogus that, as I said, I couldn't let it pass. I merely pointed out that I disagreed and since I had most SACDs and a fair collection of CDs it was clearly wrong in my case. I stand by that. The thing I know that almost certainly others don't is that my SACD and CD collections represent very different qualities of recordings (and performances, mastering, etc.) Anyway it doesn't matter if you get my point, it's not such a big deal anyway :)
The original poster has never heard an SACD, period. Even on an OK system, SACDs special qualities can be heard. That is unless the poster has only heard music like Toto IV, which absolutely sounds horrid, they have no case. The Friday at San Francisco disc sounds pretty tiny to me as well. Some of the early Sony SACDs should simply not have been. The jazz on the other hand, Uh Um.
Then the question is, have you heard great cd's???
As somebody else said, I also have late 50's early 60's recordings that are still my references when it comes to audio quality.
In most cases better than the so called audiophiles cd's.
jazz1
HowdySure I have heard great CDs. I'm not trying to debate formats here. I was (as the subject still indicates) disagreeing with the obvious misstatement that "most SACD titles are poorly recorded".
To my ear and on the better systems I've listened to when there is an SACD and CD from the same masters I like the SACD better. But there are many wonderful recordings available on all formats. I haven't sold my CD collection :)
My original point is that most SACDs are well recorded, not poorly recorded. I can say this with relative confidence since I own most of the titles available on SACD and have listened to many of them on at least a dozen different systems. My collection of CDs is much more mixed in the quality of original recordings, but I've never claimed that my CD collection is representative: tho I have thousands of CDs there are many more CDs that I don't have and I have no illusions that my selection represents anyone but myself.
In my 2000 + cds collection which includes quite a few SACD's none of them would be used for demonstration. as many non SACD sound much better.
At the end of the day it is not so much the format it is the recording itself.
jazz1
"In my 2000 + cds collection which includes quite a few SACD's none of them would be used for demonstration. as many non SACD sound much better."Many, but not most, do. OTOH, the majority of the discs I choose for demonstration are MCH SACDs...............unless the target of the demo is a traditionalist audiophile with expectations. ;-)
"At the end of the day it is not so much the format it is the recording itself."
Amen.
Regardless of CD, SACD, vinyl, or master tape, the big and telling difference is the recording.
"I have most SACDs and they do have some variability, but not nearly as much as CDs."I'd think higher resolution playback would increase the perceived variability amongst recordings.... Or in other words, the variables in recording at the studio would be more-noticeable off the high-rez format, hence perceived as more variable.
And conversely, there should be less perceived variance amongst MP3 recordings. For the differences at the studio are obscured even further by yet lower resolution media storage and playback.
HowdyYou are assuming that other things besides the format are not varying. But this isn't true, for example: the first SACD releases were definitely cherry picked and most companies released their best material...
I played Rosanna once. ONCE! My brother came down from New York over Thanksgiving. He wanted to hear how my rig sounded. He put on that masterpiece of you know what (Toto IV). Great music, horrible sound. He still does not know what my upgraded player can do. Bring on one of those 50s titles that you are referring to and his jaw would hit the floor. The Mingus is, so to speak: Uh Hum. Song # 2 is about a player that would have been 50 on the day I was born had he lived through 1959.
Depends on how interested you're in in SACD and how many titles you have. SACD is an awesome format when done right, and if you're into classical, more titles are being released everyday. Pop/rock titles are decidely more limited, but there are still a few. If I were you, I'd probably opt for a CD/SACD player that excels at both formats. Then, if you decide to explore SACD at some point, you're covered.
I would only buy an SACD player. For CD only playback I think a player is obsolete. I would use a PC and a DAC or Squeezebox for redbook. The only reason left to buy a dedicated player is that SACD and DVD-A won't play on anything else due to copy protection, but even that could change.Maybe wait for a blu-ray player that can play SACD and HD Audio, whatever that is.
It really depend on how good the \cd player you choose is.
Some cd only players sound better than some SACD machines.
It also depend on how much music that you like is available on SACD,
If I found a cd player that really sounds good and that I like I may
decide to go without SACD. (Especially if you have a big cd collection)
Nothing is simple.
jazz1
While I vasolate about the benefits of sacd versus hdcd and xrcd versus sacd, presently I am in awe of the soundstage and realism of the sacds. I do think that much depends on how well you system can reveal the benefits of sacd as well as your music tastes as mentioned by several other posters. Also if you have 450 sacds as I have you have a big software investment and need to be able to listen to it.
Hey Jamie,I think you need to look at the types of music that are being released in SACD and determine if they fit your musical tastes. It seems that a few Classical, Jazz, and World music lables will continue to produce SACDs and maybe some other types of music on audiophile lables. If you are into these types of music then I would consider a SACD player.
I am mainly into rock and blues and I haven't seen much come out lately on SACD. This bums me out because I love the way that SACD sounds. Lately I have been buying more Classical SACDs and have been realy enjoying them.
I am in the same boat as you though. I use a Denon DVD2900 universal as a digital source and it will not reliably read SACDs. I am trying to convince my wife that we need a dedicated SACD player. It is a tough sell because the Denon still plays cds and DVD-As, but I got to have my SACDs!
Merry Christmas,
I have a Sony SCAD/CD player and love it. But the great bulk of the SACD titles are and probably will continue to be classical music and, perhaps some "purist" jazz.If those genres aren't to your taste, there's not much point in paying extra for SACD. Even I will admit that the long-term future of the format is in doubt. The question is whether the volume of releases will continue sufficiently to incent manufacturers to continue to build the machines. Right now, everything is still riding on the initial momentum generated by Sony/Phillips' initial push of good machines into the market at attractive prices. These companies launched machines in two waves: the first wave were stereo-only machines and the second wave were multichannel machines. The hope was that, if the audible superiority of SACD wasn't enough to drive the product, then multichannel SACD would. However, multichannel audio still has yet to prove itself as a mainstream commercial product. So, we're back to the question of whether enough people will find SACD sufficiently better than redbook CD to justify buying those discs at a premium and, perhaps, to pay a premium for the extra capabilities of an SACD/CD player.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: