SACD questions

[Gary L]

I agree Heather! One of the things that boggle my mind and actually disgust me is all the changes where CD music is concerned.

I seriously doubt it is worthwhile to go out and buy a HQ CD/DVD player that can do it all because just about the time we do, a newer format will be introduced that it won't play.

One of the many reasons I still love my TTs and Vinyl!

Gary

[hjames]

Agreed - I basically got the new unit because it promised to upscale standard DVDs, did just about all the current formats (DVD, XVID, CD, HDCD, SACD, and a few more), and was dirt cheap ($105 shipped!). My old JVC DVD player did most of that (except the SACD and the upscale) and I wanted a spare DVD player. I don't think BluRay is enough of an upgrade to jump, especially with having to replace all my current media (thats not gonna happen soon!)

and yeah, I still have the vinyl and TT ...

I agree Heather! One of the things that boggle my mind and actually disgust me is all the changes where CD music is concerned.

I seriously doubt it is worthwhile to go out and buy a HQ CD/DVD player that can do it all because just about the time we do, a newer format will be introduced that it won't play.

One of the many reasons I still love my TTs and Vinyl!

Gary

[DaveV]

Having worked for an audio company that promoted and sold SACD technology along with their own products, here's how I saw it as an "insider" at the time:

SACD's can sound superior to CD's because SACD or DSD is a different recording technology than CD's or PCM and that's where the big improvement is. But better than analog?????????????
That being said, no SACD made from a PCM master is a real SACD recording as a digital master or digitally remastered LP isn't an analog LP.
To hear the real difference you have to have an SACD made direct to PCM or analog tape to PCM.
We've been through LP's, reel to reel, 8 track, cassettes and the big promise that all CD's are superior to all LP's so some people replaced their LP's with CD's and then along comes SACD and DVD-A and I think there was less of a rush to jump into yet another new technology.
The early SACD machines weren't cheap and Sony's expensive machine, SCD-1 I think it was called, turned out to be somewhat of a dog in the sonics dept although it was a masterpiece of "tank construction."
Then we had/have the "mobile generation" that wants portable music. CD's sounded fine to them because they never heard a good analog rig so it followed that MP3 and downloads were also acceptable to feed their need for fast on the go music.
It also seems that if they did hear a good analog rig they would still prefer the lesser sonics of "fast music" because they don't listen to music in a serious way so to be blunt, entertaining noise is noise.
For the "audiophile" seeking the analog sound but without the hiss, ticks, pops and alleged better dynamic range, there was a lack of true SACD titles coming to market and the majority of the general public didn't even know what the heck an SACD was and still doesn't.
Radio stations didn't have SACD players and most local music stores didn't have even one SACD to sell and the arguement that SACD's with layers so they could also play redbook or on CD player made them inferior to single layer is probably still alive and that made matters worse.
The cost to make 5000 of an SACD title was pretty cheap so it made me wonder how $1.85 each plus shipping translates into a $29.99 disc but I guess that's the same for LP's and CD's too.
At this point in time I think SACD is a dead issue because the demand isn't there and no doubt another new technology will come along anyway.
Bottom line to me is that analog is still the superior technology.
If they could make quiet and awesome sounding LP's in 1955 I don't know why it can't be done now without all the "audiophile hype" because I have old mono jazz LP's that sound better than many a new audiophile pressing on 180-200 gram vinyl. So what was more common then is now special?
In closing I'll toss another tidbit into the fire.
Some studies were done and claims were made that PCM or CD's upset the listener and quick shallow breathing was evident in some and a true SACD recording doesn't do that as analog doesn't.

[hjames]

Thanks for the heads up - I just got a copy of this Mobile Fidelity SACD
Cafe Blue - its SACD Stereo - not SACD Surround ...
That threw me at first when I didn't hear anything coming from the center, sub or rear surrounds - but the sound from LF and RF is quite nice - it IS a clean recording - one I'll have to listen to further when I get some time earlier in the day ...

Quote by Hjames:
I own just one SACD, Patricia Barber, Cafe blue and it sounds fantastic on my SACD player. I have played it on all of my other players and it plays fine but without the depth the SACD tracks add when played in the main system.

I suppose it is possible that some SACD recordings are specifically designed to play only on SACD players but this particular one says right on it, " Mobile fidelity Super Audio CD, Hybrid Stereo, Plays on all SACD and CD Players".
Gary

[speakerdave]

. . . . If they could make quiet and awesome sounding LP's in 1955 I don't know why it can't be done now without all the "audiophile hype" because I have old mono jazz LP's that sound better than many a new audiophile pressing on 180-200 gram vinyl. So what was more common then is now special? . . . .

Well, I've seen some discussion of this and wonder what actually is the source being used for all these numerous remasterings, viz. original session tapes, original master tapes, some kind of premaster two-channel mixdown, and (the worst rumor I've heard) a digital master? The new Aja! vinyl is being promoted everywhere as "all analog." Does this imply there is a lot of vinyl being pressed from sources that include a digital generation or is the Aja promotion positing a ghost?

Is anyone checking on this?

I don't think SACD will actually die, since the market segment that supports it (two channel stereo classical, classic jazz and rock and independent fine music labels making DSD originals) is already a boutique segment that will probably continue. But . . . . it, also probably, does not have a chance of displacing PCM, and for the reason you say, in most people's systems and listening styles, the surrounding equipment and context doesn't need it.

David

[Gary L]

Thanks for the heads up - I just got a copy of this Mobile Fidelity SACD
Cafe Blue - its SACD Stereo - not SACD Surround ...
That threw me at first when I didn't hear anything coming from the center, sub or rear surrounds - but the sound from LF and RF is quite nice - it IS a clean recording - one I'll have to listen to further when I get some time earlier in the day ...

Her style is not for everyone but I had listened extensively at a friends to the regular CD and liked it. He ordered it for me on the net and it came in the SACD format like you just bought.

If you want to hear the difference between regular CD recordings and SACD then see if you can find or play this one each way. First time I listened to the SACD I kept looking to see if my speakers had been moved to a better position!

Enjoy

Gary

[Ducatista47]

Whether they are surviving as niche technologies or limping into oblivion, I could not see spending my limited coins on a stand alone SACD, HDCD or DVD-A player (if the latter exists). The catalog numbers are simply not there.

Since I already have a really nice sounding redbook CD player with Burr-Brown chips and a tube analog output (and tube rolling does yield results there), I popped for a nice but reasonable Denon DVD player that also does SACD and DVD-A. It does DTS too. If you pick and choose, Denon still delivers great sound. I have a bunch of HDCD's, but I unfortunately may never hear their full potential. Yes, most of the aforementioned decisions were budget influenced.

Of possible interest is the fact that I have heard Japanese sourced CD's - with Obi - of very good recordings such as recent ECM titles, and they sound better to me than the SACD's and DVD-A's I have heard on the appropriate playback systems (not mine). Temper this with my love for two channel. The surround recordings I have heard really turned me off. That stuff coming from the other channels, especially the rears, is so processed sounding it sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, information is coming from illogical places. Realism was actually down as compared to stereo. The clarity of DVD-A was clear all right, but not realistic sounding, even in two channel. The one I am most familiar with is an AIX release and great pains were taken to get the most direct sound possible, including a direct simultaneous stereo capture, but the end result still sounds synthetic.

As for HDCD, Microsoft purchased the parent company years ago to acquire another technology and promptly let it rot on the vine.

I have both the original and the MFSL Cafe Blue on CD format, and the MFSL mix is at this point not nearly as much to my liking. Maybe I need to give it more time.

I have one VTL CD and it has a more realistic sound in some ways than anything else. It does present the experience warts and all and perhaps that also adds to the realism. The room it takes you to is not the greatest room, but you sure are there. The process of recording music tends to try to fix problems, but doing so takes you one more step from reality. I think Manley was on to something.

The 2.8 mhz signal capture of the Sony system does have possibilities, but other than producing very smooth live remote recordings I am still waiting for it to improve things overall. I would bet a well recorded analog master tape would put it to shame. Cut it to an analog media, skipping the entire digital thing, and you would really have something. Oh, right, vinyl.

Clark

[toddalin]

Heather, one of the very best DVD-Audio transfers I have come across is "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits. You gotta have good surrounds for "Money For Nothing" to really enjoy the opening pan sequences.

[Chas]

I love my Sony SCD-XA777ES (coupling caps bypassed) with SACD's. The only problem is that when I got it there were so few SACD's available. I ended up buying some discs for the novelty (i.e. that were SACD) rather than for the musical content.


SACD sound quality, it can be wonderfull, but so can vinyl and CD playback. As others have said, it is like anything else, it depends on the care in production. Funnily enough, my player is multichannel, but in the six or so years I have owned it, it has never been used that way.

Akira, you're welcome to stop by for a demo sometime, just PM me.

[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

[Ducatista47]

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

In fairness we were not talking specs but rather comparisons of the actual sound. I can safely say that most listeners have spent little or no time in front of a really good quality CD player with great sound. I am not aware of any that went for under $900 or $1000 US. Many in that range sound pretty bad too, but some are great.

See Ian's posts about DAC quality. Also, the analogue sections of almost all CD players are not nearly up to the job of outputing a quality signal. I am amused by audiophiles who pay automotive sums for a player, go on and on about the transport and settle for so-so analogue sections.

Clark

[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

[Hoerninger]

With this player, redbook CDs played through an external DAC are far superior to the analog SACD output.

For me this remark is just like adding fuel to the fire, as I compared today the DA-sections of my player Pioneer DV-575A with that of the receiver Panasonic SA-XR55.

The player has digital and analog outputs simultaniously and the receiver can be switched vice versa. The differences are small but the receiver outperformes the player (CD; Dolby 5.1). When playing my only DTS disc (Sting; Nothing like the sun) the difference is more obvious. When new I listened only via the analog section and I wondered why this disc was well appraised here. Using the digital connection and let the Panasonic do the DA conversion showed a very airy and clean sound (beside the music).

Unfortunately there can not be switched for SACD and DVD-A. So I am just preparing a PC with a redundant soundcard which has a digital output. The idea is to rip the CD layer of a hybrid SACD and play it from HD via a digital connection to the Panasonic and compare with the SACD analog performance.
Unfortunately sunday is over now, I will continue next weekend.
___________
Peter

[toddalin]

In fairness we were not talking specs but rather comparisons of the actual sound. I can safely say that most listeners have spent little or no time in front of a really good quality CD player with great sound. I am not aware of any that went for under $900 or $1000 US. Many in that range sound pretty bad too, but some are great.

See Ian's posts about DAC quality. Also, the analogue sections of almost all CD players are not nearly up to the job of outputing a quality signal. I am amused by audiophiles who pay automotive sums for a player, go on and on about the transport and settle for so-so analogue sections.

Clark

Bring it by and we'll take a listen. I've never been able to A/B a $5,000 SACD unit against a $1000 unit on the system that I listen to.

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? There may well be a difference, but am I going to need $20,000 power amps and $50,000 speakers to hear it? And do my half dozen or so SACDs that I usually listen to warrant the cost?

I would love to try it.