I'm Getting curious ( SACD )

Joe Tilley · 06-01-2003, 10:21 PM

Ok I have never been interested in Super Audio but I'm starting to get curious about it & have been tossing the idea around about trying it out. The question I have though is how much different or better is it?
From the little that I have heard myself I would say its pretty much the same as regular CD other than some offering up to 5.1 ch. But also I have never heard it on anything like I have at home, just smaller systems like Sony's Dream System

So by comparison if you was to compare the same CD title one being a regular CD & the other a SACD & just to be fair the SACD a 2ch track,how much difference would you notice or if any at all?
What really has my attion is multi ch being ava but if the sound quality really is that much better I may just be sold on the idea of getting one to try for myself.

KrisM · 06-01-2003, 11:16 PM

What kind of system would you be playing it on? I have a decent system(PSB Stratus Silvers/Marantz SR700) with a cheaper SACD player and I hear a difference. It is not a huge night and day difference(despite what some here will tell you), but it is an improvement and worth the upgrade. You could always buy a player with a few hybrid SACDs and if you didn't think it was worth it, return the player and keep the discs(since they will play in a regular CD player).
I think the biggest factor in going SACD, or DVD-A, is the titles. If there are enough discs to keep you happy, it is well worth the upgrade and there are players at all price points, so it is not all that expensive.

Regards
KrisM

KeithH · 06-02-2003, 05:24 AM

Joe, as I'm sure you can appreciate, the difference between CD and stereo SACD, depends on two basic factors: the quality of your system and the title you are comparing. With respect to the system, the more revealing (transparent) it is, the more noticeable is the difference. With respect to the title, it depends on the mastering on the CD and SACD. If the CD was mastered well, the difference may be somewhat subtle, but there will be a difference.

On my mid-range systems, I find the difference between CD and stereo SACD to be, on the whole, significant. CDs can sound quite good, but I nearly always find the corresponding SACDs to have a wider soundstage and to sound "deeper".

Rachael B · 06-02-2003, 08:27 AM

Joe, CD has a lower "ceiling" than SACD. SACD sounds better and better than CD as your equipment elevates. IMO, better SACD players are more imporant than better amps and speakers in this regard. Better sources make an existing amp and speakers go a bit farther, me thinks. If you get an SACD player, aim as high as possible. Best wishes!

Joe Tilley · 06-02-2003, 11:41 AM

Sorry I didn't think to list my equipment. Right now I am using a Sony DA 5ES receiver hooked to a Monster HTS 5100 power center. My speakers are all Polk RT55i's for the front, front surrounds, & rear surrounds, & than a CS400i center. I have thought about maybe selling my current speaker set up & going to the LSi series but I am pretty happy with what I have so that is just a thought for now.
Also I will be going to a separate amp in the future. I'm looking at the Outlaw 770 unless they offer something better before I buy, but that is a when I can afford to so it may be awhile yet for that jump.
If I do make this journey into SACD it will be something in the Sony ES line also since I'm a die hard Sony fan & I've heard there ES SACD players are pretty nice.

**HTF Ads**

Rich Malloy · 06-02-2003, 01:11 PM

The biggest difference I've found between CD and SACD is kinda hard to explain -- I don't have the technical expertise to put it into words. I'll try...

On CD, it seems like every instrument is "coated" in something I'll call "CD sound". I can still distinguish between instruments (a guitar can be told apart from a dobro, for example), but it seems that all timbres are slightly homogenized, or given a "CD sheen". Some of that essential acoustic character is missing or covered up.

On SACD, conversely, particularly for recordings that originate on DSD, there's a trueness of timbre that's simply startling. I used to say, with regard to excellently recorded CDs, that it sounds like "the musicians are in the room with me". I don't think there's a single CD in my collection that I'd say that about today. I've heard the difference. Now, when I listen to something like Alison Krauss+Union Station "Live" on SACD, I can hear what's been missing. There's an immediacy and trueness that sounds almost exactly like "reality".

The people behind SACD, the Sony/Philips consortium, believe they can fool anyone with DSD (the ol' "is it live or is it [DSD]?"). When they first introduced it to the public, they brought industry reps into sound room where two signals were being piped in: the direct soundboard signal of a band playing live, and the same signal recorded to DSD. Reportedly, no one could tell the difference. Of course, as mentioned upthread, a lot of this will depend on the resolving power of your system, but you don't need super high-end gear to easily hear the difference. My "budget only retailer" system is definitely mid-fi at best: a Sony C555ES SACD/CD player->Outlaw ICBM-1 Bass Manager->Outlaw 1050 receiver->Swans Diva speakers. I can easily hear the difference on my system.

Although everything I've said is true of two-channel SACDs compared to CDs, I'm also of the opinion that multichannel SACD (or DVD-A) recordings can present a sonic truth that two-channel stereo is utterly incapable of achieving (and no DSP can synthetically create). Specifically, multichannel can recreate the actual impression of the space in which the music was recorded. The rear reflections and reverberations you hear from a two-channel source have little to do with the space of the original recording, and are almost entirely the result of the space of your listening room. The more I hear well-recorded multichannel SACDs (stuff like Alison Krauss+Union Station's "LIVE" or Telarc's recording of Vaughan Williams "A Sea Symphony"), the more impressed I am by the potential of multichannel sound. I'm now convinced that it's as necessary as the higher sampling rates of the two hi-res formats for achieving that ever-elusive "musical truth".

To put it in very simple terms: SACD has allowed me to rediscover my love for recorded music.

Jeremy Tebo · 06-02-2003, 02:31 PM

I'm new to SACD, I've had mine for around 2 weeks now. I'd say it is defnintely worth the extra loot. I just got my 2nd SACD, The Police Greatest Hits SACD, and it sounds great. The multichannel sound is not as obvious as Pink Floyd DSOTM, but still very nice. IMO, it's a significant improvement over CD. I still haven't heard DVD-A.

Cliff Olson · 06-02-2003, 04:36 PM

The biggest difference I've found between SACD and Redbook CDs, is dynamic range. SACDs kill CDs in range, IMO. From the softest sounds to wide open - VERY wide open, SACDs sound more natural and undistorted.

KeithH · 06-02-2003, 06:23 PM

Rich said:

Quote:

To put it in very simple terms: SACD has allowed me to rediscover my love for recorded music.

That's what it's all about. Well said.