SACD questions

[Akira]

I am totally uneducated in the arena of SACD and have a few questions.
1) I have heard that some CD players can read the super audio format?
2) How much does a disc cost and what is the availability for classic rock?
Carly Simon, Pink Floyd, Joni Mitchell, Stealy Dan, 1972-77 etc.
3) Is the quality that much better, different. Hey this is audio after all
and we are all familiar with the $5,000. RCA audiophile cables.
Thanks

[Hoerninger]

3)
The theoretical achievable quality I can not judge. But SACDs are very often more carefully produced. So even old recordings may sound nice.
SACD may be produced in multichannel, some are very delightful.

2) Prises are comparable to those of CDs, at least for my point of view.
Search at Amazon, for example "Pink Floyd SACD".

1) Others may know.
I am using a Pioner DVD player which "eats" all sorts of disks.
__________________________________________________ _
And than there are Audio DVDs with higher technical performance and multichannel.
__________________________________________________ _
And then there are audio disks with DTS.
I own "Sting ... nothing like the sun" in 5.1 multichannel. (My player eats. )
Who has more details about DTS?
___________
Peter

PS: A cheers for the Denon!

[hjames]

I have a Harman Kardon CD changer - it plays conventional CDs plus the HDCD format discs.

HDCDs can play on regular CD players in normal mode, and can play in HDCD
players with a fuller sound. Not all HDCD discs are marked, so you may have an HDCD and not even know it unless you put it in an HDCD decoder enabled player. (K.d.lang's Invincible Summer is one I have)

SACDs will not play in conventional CD players - they require special SACD units and cannot play in anything else even in lesser mode (apparently Sony and Pioneer and the big brands for that). I had Roxy Music "Avalon' in SACD and just gave it away because it would not play in anything I owned.

DVD-A
These are DVDs that play in (usually) Audio only mode in DVD players only - they have one or more multi-channel audio tracks encoded for surround sound (Either Dolby or DTS mode, or maybe both depending on the disc).

After reading TiDome's description of DVD-A Nothing like the Sun, I recently
bought "Brand New Day" (DTS version) - its a very rich full surround environment and is a lot of fun - We also own the Beatles "Love" and its also a lot of fun in DTS.

My experience is that DTS sounds better for most movies and the small bit of music I have than the corresponding Dolby. Of course, your receiver needs to have a chip to do DTS sound for this to be true - not all do!

3)
The theoretical achievable quality I can not judge. But SACDs are very often more carefully produced. So even old recordings may sound nice.
SACD may be produced in multichannel, some are very delightful.

2) Prices are comparable to those of CDs, at least for my point of view.
Search at Amazon, for example "Pink Floyd SACD".

1) Others may know.
I am using a Pioneer DVD player which "eats" all sorts of disks.
__________________________________________________ _
And than there are Audio DVDs with higher technical performance and multichannel.
__________________________________________________ _
And then there are audio disks with DTS.
I own "Sting ... nothing like the sun" in 5.1 multichannel. (My player eats. )
Who has more details about DTS?
___________
Peter

[speakerdave]

SACD technology is inherently better than the earlier ("redbook") technologies because the sampling rate is much higher (2.8M vs. 44.1K). The 44.1K technology is a highly compromised technology that was settled upon for reasons external to the concern for audio quality. This was foreseen by the engineers at the BBC who felt that if the early digital storage technology was done right a five inch disc could hold 8 minutes of music. The industry wanted 70 minutes, to be more than an LP, and they wanted a five inch disc that could fit into a car stereo like a cassette. That's where the sampling rate came from.

SACD, like a DVD, is a later technology that is capable of storing much more information on a given size disc (remember the 1 foot digital movie laser discs?)

Execution bringing it to market has had its problems.

It takes a high quality player to bring the benefits of SACD to your amplifiers, speakers and ears. Consumers are often reluctant to pay for quality. Most CD players engineered and marketed to the price points people will pay, because of poor quality construction and electronics--especially the analog output sections which usually use cheap IC's--don't even capture the quality potential of regular CD's.

Cheap CD players that supposedly play SACD's often down sample to redbook BEFORE the DACS!!! Thus they do not really play SACD. If someone plays a SACD on one of these players and doesn't hear a difference, naturally they don't get what SACD is about.

There also can be similar problems in the recording chain that in effect compromise the true quality of SACD.

However, SACD's with a clean recording chain (this can include a conversion from an analog master tape, which is why so many SACD's are reissues of great recordings), played on a real SACD player with quality analog electronics for the output are a revelation. I would characterize them as almost like vinyl without its inherent problems of noise, compression and inner groove distortion.

The majority of SACD's produced today are in fact hybrid discs that have completely separate programs encoded, one for SACD and one for regular, and the pricing is very little higher if at all. However, there are premium quality SACD's, just as there are premium quality regular CD's and vinyl records, that are priced higher.

SACD's are not necessarily multichannel, and most are not. A multichannel SACD can also have a two channel SACD and/or a redbook layer and most do, so they can be played in SACD two channel or redbook CD. Just read the labels when buying.

So if you go into SACD, do some research, plan on spending up a little for a genuine player with good quality analog electronics for the output (that will probably also reveal more of the quality of your regular CD's).

This has all been discussed on the forums before, and of course there is a great deal of information on the internet.

David

[SEAWOLF97]

This was foreseen by the engineers at the BBC who felt that if the early digital storage technology was done right a five inch disc could hold 8 minutes of music. The industry wanted 70 minutes, to be more than an LP, and they wanted a five inch disc that could fit into a car stereo like a cassette. David

I have read...(Stereo Review, I think)....that the target of 74 minutes of CD music storage was calculated by the fact that Beethoven's 9th Ode to Joy took up exactly 4 LP sides (18 minutes each) and they wanted to get the whole piece on a disc without spilling onto a second.

Most MiniDisc's are 74 minute storage also.

[speakerdave]

I have read...(Stereo Review, I think)....that the target of 74 minutes of CD music storage was calculated by the fact that Beethoven's 9th Ode to Joy took up exactly 4 LP sides (18 minutes each) and they wanted to get the whole piece on a disc without spilling onto a second.

Most MiniDisc's are 74 minute storage also.

Well, if that's true, their hearts were certainly in the right place!

[Ducatista47]

It takes a high quality player to bring the benefits of SACD to your amplifiers, speakers and ears. Consumers are often reluctant to pay for quality. Most CD players engineered and marketed to the price points people will pay, because of poor quality construction and electronics--especially the analog output sections which usually use cheap IC's--don't even capture the quality potential of regular CD's.

Cheap CD players that supposedly play SACD's often down sample to redbook BEFORE the DACS!!! Thus they do not really play SACD. If someone plays a SACD on one of these players and doesn't hear a difference, naturally they don't get what SACD is about.

I agree to a point. I think you also need a quality DAC, that said, most of the contemporary digital stuff is far superior to that which was made a number of years ago. Once the signal leaves the digital domain a high quality analog section seems to elude most designers. I am not sure if it is skill or cost, but most players I have heard short of the mega-buck variety just don't float my boat.

I don't think it needs to be tubed, but the analog section needs to be of high quality or the sound is simply acceptable and the magic is lost. I believe that if more SACD players had been sold with an excellent analog section, that format wouldn't be in the dire situation that we find it in today.

I was researching this yesterday at a place with more resources than my personal listening room. I asked about this at Electronics Diversified, the audio gear and music shop I hang at.

The consensus was that any SACD player up to at least $2000 they had heard sounded terrible when compared to the good quality CD players rendering the hybrid layer of the discs. These are true SACD discs with a hybrid layer for CD playback.

The SACD players included the Sony and the CD players mentioned were what they carry, the JoLida JD 100 tube output unit and the Rega Apollo, Planet, Saturn, Jupiter etc.

They also noted that even pretty great DVD players rendered the SACD layer even worse than the SACD player did.

So, I guess, it is in descending quality of playback, 1) Unknown super quality SACD player, 2) hybrid layer with a good CD Player, 3) most SACD players, and 4) DVD players.

Clark

[toddalin]

I was researching this yesterday at a place with more resources than my personal listening room. I asked about this at Electronics Diversified, the audio gear and music shop I hang at.

The consensus was that any SACD player up to at least $2000 they had heard sounded terrible when compared to the good quality CD players rendering the hybrid layer of the discs. These are true SACD discs with a hybrid layer for CD playback.

The SACD players included the Sony and the CD players mentioned were what they carry, the JoLida JD 100 tube output unit and the Rega Apollo, Planet, Saturn, Jupiter etc.

They also noted that even pretty great DVD players rendered the SACD layer even worse than the SACD player did.

So, I guess, it is in descending quality of playback, 1) Unknown super quality SACD player, 2) hybrid layer with a good CD Player, 3) most SACD players, and 4) DVD players.

Clark

My $1,100 Yamaha SACD/DVD-Audio has EXCELLENT SACD specs. It's too bad that the DVD-Audio is not up to the SACD, though one is hard pressed to actually hear a difference in the real world.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hd-...yer-page2.html

[Mr. Widget]

They also noted that even pretty great DVD players rendered the SACD layer even worse than the SACD player did.

So, I guess, it is in descending quality of playback, 1) Unknown super quality SACD player, 2) hybrid layer with a good CD Player, 3) most SACD players, and 4) DVD players.

...and this unfortunately is what has pretty much killed this amazing format.

I have a former top of the line Sony DVD/SACD player. With this player, redbook CDs played through an external DAC are far superior to the analog SACD output. That said, when comparing the analog CD output with the analog SACD output, the SACD is slightly better with more air and three-dimensionality.

All of these comparisons though are only really accurate if you listen to stereo in the sweetspot with a decent system... if you enjoy a wall of sound type system, you use your system as a background music system, or even if you sit off to one side of the room on a couch... I doubt you would notice much of a difference between a $75 Panasonic DVD player and an $8000 Wadia.


Widget