SACD questions

[speakerdave]

. . . . What is the good in spending an additional $4,000 on an SACD player if I can't hear a real difference on what I listen to every day? . . . .

How did $2000 become $5000?

It seems to me it's too early to bring money worries into the discussion. If you don't think it's going to make any difference, then why bother even talking about it? I think part of the point of this thread is to try and show why some people have not yet heard a difference between SACD and CD. Nobody's trying to make you do anything. Go check it out! (It'd be nice if all of life's sweet things could be delivered to your door, but, really!) Unfortunately, you seem more interested in shooting down the idea of SACD because you fear your stereo is not up to it. I suppose it's possible it isn't. Is that what you want someone to tell you?

And, don't miss the subtle point that a decent player makes regular CD's sound much better as well. The truth is, the analogue outputs of most digital players suck eggs, and you are foregoing the full benefits of the money you spend on CD's until you have a good player. The music is being degraded with cheap IC grung. As for what it costs to get a good one, that is a problem I have not yet fully explored. I have settled for Denon mediocrity right now myself, since my good player broke and is unserviceable. But I seriously doubt you must spend $5000. Even on the Denon the difference between CD and SACD is quite evident, though it might leave a person wondering what all the fuss is about.

. . . . but am I going to need $20,000 power amps and $50,000 speakers to hear it? . . . .

I don't know. I didn't.

The most cost effective upgrade in digital playback might actually be to get an outboard DAC. Of course, you will be only able to play redbook digital through it, because SACD is not licensed for digital output except in very limited circumstances. Obviously this is not the answer for SACD, but I say this to tweak the SACD industry, if they're listening. They've allowed their silk to be enclosed in a sow's ear in order to try and gain a broader market. It hasn't worked. They should recognize that what they need to be about is quality and license quality players and quality recording channels only.

[toddalin]

How did $2000 become $5000?

It seems to me it's too early to bring money worries into the discussion. If you don't think it's going to make any difference, then why bother even talking about it? I think part of the point of this thread is to try and show why some people have not yet heard a difference between SACD and CD. Nobody's trying to make you do anything. Go check it out! (It'd be nice if all of life's sweet things could be delivered to your door, but, really!) Unfortunately, you seem more interested in shooting down the idea of SACD because you fear your stereo is not up to it. I suppose it's possible it isn't. Is that what you want someone to tell you?

And, don't miss the subtle point that a decent player makes regular CD's sound much better as well. The truth is, the analogue outputs of most digital players suck eggs, and you are foregoing the full benefits of the money you spend on CD's until you have a good player. The music is being degraded with cheap IC grung.



I don't know. I didn't.

What's got your panties in a bunch now?

I simply stated that I would like to hear a $5,000 unit on my system. I could have just as easily said an $8,000 Wadia. If I go into a high end store and listen on a $100,000 system in some perfect room, how can I relate that to the real world of sitting on the couch in my living room on a Saturday afternoon?

I never said that it wouldn't make a difference and only inquired as to whether I would hear a difference (and how much difference) on my system. My stereo is a $4,500 Yamaha RX-Z9 and you know what speakers I run in 7 channels.

As for fearing whether I would hear a difference and shooting down SACD, go back and read. I've had a Yamaha SACD/DVD-A/CD/DVD player since it came out, and a Pioneer before that. I've been a staunch supporter of the formats since day one even if they are dead. But I do it more for the multi-channel format and different mix, than the difference in sound quality.

I only asked if I would hear an audible difference between a high end player and what others refer to as "$1,000 garbage" on my system, and would that difference be worth the coin.

[speakerdave]

. . . . I simply stated that I would like to hear a $5,000 unit on my system. I could have just as easily said an $8,000 Wadia. If I go into a high end store and listen on a $100,000 system in some perfect room, how can I relate that to the real world of sitting on the couch in my living room on a Saturday afternoon?

I never said that it wouldn't make a difference and only inquired as to whether I would hear a difference (and how much difference) on my system. My stereo is a $4,500 Yamaha RX-Z9 and you know what speakers I run in 7 channels.

As for fearing whether I would hear a difference and shooting down SACD, go back and read. I've had a Yamaha SACD/DVD-A/CD/DVD player since it came out, and a Pioneer before that. I've been a staunch supporter of the formats since day one even if they are dead. But I do it more for the multi-channel format and different mix, than the difference in sound quality.

I only asked if I would hear an audible difference between a high end player and what others refer to as "$1,000 garbage" on my system, and would that difference be worth the coin.

I've been editing and adding, trying to clarify my point of view, while you were responding.

It seems to me your question reduces the discussion to the absurd, and so it is pointless and defeatist.

Everything in the reproduction chain makes a difference. Of course a serious dip in quality somewhere will mask everything good before it and the quality stuff after it will make the junk very audible.

But one of the points being made here, is that, yes, an improvement in the analog output of the average digital player will be audible, although whatever degree of resolution by which SACD excels your system will be lost. But then, isn't working on the weak link what this hi fi thing is always about?

What's got your panties in a bunch now? . . . .

Leave my panties out of this, please.

. . . . As for fearing whether I would hear a difference and shooting down SACD, go back and read. I've had a Yamaha SACD/DVD-A/CD/DVD player since it came out, and a Pioneer before that. I've been a staunch supporter of the formats since day one even if they are dead. But I do it more for the multi-channel format and different mix, than the difference in sound quality. . . .

Yamaha . . . hmmmm. Roughly in the same realm as Denon, I should think. According to what the Duke said he was told, we are both listening to highly compromised digital sources right now. And according to me ears, my Denon is a definite step down from the Phillips SACD1000, which nobody said was the ne plus ultra, but at least it was engineered to demonstrate the quality of the SACD technology and did that very well

[Hoerninger]

... we are both listening to highly compromised digital sources right now.

... and compromised hardware as well I presume.
I read about it and found it with Harman (and others do too for shure):

There are some receivers which perform another AD-DA conversion for bass management with SACD and DVD-A. Harman speaks of Triple and Quadrupel Crossover and Multichannel Digital Bass Management. It is for those cases where you must handle with different high-pass frequencies for the left/right, center and surround speakers.

Harman has incorporated it with DPR 2005, DPR 1005 and AVR 630. They do not name details about the AD converter. It is not clear how far the non bass signal is affected. But the circuit diagram indicates that all signals are involved.

[All six speakers the same makes this kind of bass management obsolete. Six times 8 inch equals round about two 14 inch with mono bass to all speakers.]
____________
Peter

[Mr. Widget]

My stereo is a $4,500 Yamaha RX-Z9 and you know what speakers I run in 7 channels.

I recently sold a mint Hafler preamp and amp together for around $200. I'd submit, if you turned off the extra speakers and used those two components instead of your digital receiver you'd hear a much greater improvement in your system than throwing thousands at a digital source... that said, once you had the upgraded electronics, it would likely be easier to hear the differences in digital sources.

His panties aside, I pretty much agree with Speakerdave's take on this topic.


Widget

[toddalin]

I recently sold a mint Hafler preamp and amp together for around $200. I'd submit, if you turned off the extra speakers and used those two components instead of your digital receiver you'd hear a much greater improvement in your system than throwing thousands at a digital source... that said, once you had the upgraded electronics, it would likely be easier to hear the differences in digital sources.

His panties aside, I pretty much agree with Speakerdave's take on this topic.


Widget

The Yamaha has the capability of running in CD Direct mode where all digital processing and on-screen displays are turned off and the signal passes directly through an attenuator then on to the amps.

So unless the amps are digital (and I don't see this in any of the literature or tests I've have/seen), you are mistaken.

(The Yamaha also has the capability to input a digital signal and process it internally though an i-link to reduce D-A-D-A conversions along the way.)

[Mr. Widget]

The Yamaha has the capability of running in CD Direct mode where all digital processing and on-screen displays are turned off and the signal passes directly through an attenuator then on to the amps.

All of the better model AV receivers have this feature... and yes they do typically sound a bit better in "Direct", or "Bypass", or whatever the specific brand calls their analog only option. The problem is that all of the mainstream AV receivers from Denon, Onkyo, Harman Kardon, Yamaha, etc. use mediocre quality IC chips for their line sections and even worse for their power amps.

If you don't believe me, buy a relatively inexpensive set of vintage components and do a comparison... be prepared to be impressed and then depressed... you simply can't get that level of quality in modern surround sound without shelling out really big bucks.


Widget

[toddalin]

All of the better model AV receivers have this feature... and yes they do typically sound a bit better in "Direct", or "Bypass", or whatever the specific brand calls their analog only option. The problem is that all of the mainstream AV receivers from Denon, Onkyo, Harman Kardon, Yamaha, etc. use mediocre quality IC chips for their line sections and even worse for their power amps.

If you don't believe me, buy a relatively inexpensive set of vintage components and do a comparison... be prepared to be impressed and then depressed... you simply can't get that level of quality in modern surround sound without shelling out really big bucks.


Widget

Again, you are comparing the up-scale equipment with the consumer-grade stuff.

The chip sets used in the top of the line Yamahas bear little sembalance to those used in their lesser equipment.

To say that the top of the line Yamaha equipment equates to the consumer trash is like saying that a JBL 4350 specs out like an L19.

[Mr. Widget]

The chip sets used in the top of the line Yamahas bear little semblance to those used in their lesser equipment.

That may be, but I have heard the Denon and Onkyo competitors of your Yamaha, and I have heard previous generation top of the line Yamahas, and they simply don't sound as good as a good old fashioned amp/preamp that was competently designed with discrete components.

To be fair, I have not heard your particular Yamaha, but no one I've talked to including the Yamaha distributors have said, "Oh my god! They have finally made an AV receiver that sounds really good. It is time to toss out your two-channel rig."

I am not saying that your receiver is junk, I am sure that it is a fine example of a surround receiver. However, if you want to hear nuance and detail, buy an inexpensive older amp/preamp combo and give it a shot. I think you'll be surprised.


Widget

[jeenie67]

I'm using an OPPO DV-980H disc player, $170 direct from the manufacturer. It runs firmware. Like some, I have DVDA's, DVDV's, SACD's, and CD's. For me it depends on what media is available, not the format. I do here a difference as to a finer quality, overall neutral balance of sound from the SA's over CD's [I am blessed, plagued ? (it costs me $$$) with a good ear]. I highly prefer my vinyl over any current digital equipment. All media is presented by this player direct into two Crown XLS 202 amps, bridged mono right and left, and terminating at Altec Model 14's. This player is the only one of a multitude that I have had the opportunity to audition that satisfies me in reproduction of material. I didn't research the player before purchase; bought it on price only. Later audiophile reviews I've read concerning the player have given the unit very high regards. I lucked out.

[hjames]

I'm using an OPPO DV-980H disc player, $170 direct from the manufacturer. It runs firmware. Like some, I have DVDA's, DVDV's, SACD's, and CD's. For me it depends on what media is available, not the format. I do here a difference as to a finer quality, overall neutral balance of sound from the SA's over CD's [I am blessed, plagued ? (it costs me $$$) with a good ear]. I highly prefer my vinyl over any current digital equipment. All media is presented by this player direct into two Crown XLS 202 amps, bridged mono right and left, and terminating at Altec Model 14's. This player is the only one of a multitude that I have had the opportunity to audition that satisfies me in reproduction of material. I didn't research the player before purchase; bought it on price only. Later audiophile reviews I've read concerning the player have given the unit very high regards. I lucked out.

Yep, a number of us have found those OPPO disc players to be quite the value - I got the DV981HD through a WOOT closeout last year - works quite well for movies and such, even the burned to disc DivX downloads of Doctor Who and Torchwood play well through it!

[jeenie67]

Hola, Your unit was an upgrade of mine. The video circuitry, in reviews and comment as I understood it, was accentuated some while the audio circuitry was degraded ever so slightly. Either way, these two units hold their own against the highly expensive players of various manufacture. I like the feature of upgradable down the road offered by its design. It also is the easiest component to operate and navigate that I ever owned. Enjoy the day! Jeenie.