I'm Getting curious ( SACD ) (1 Viewer)

[Joe Tilley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Rich Malloy]

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]

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]

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]

Rich said:

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.

 

[KeithH]

Joe said:

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.

As you may know, I too am a big fan of Sony ES SACD players. Unfortunately, you only have three choices right now if you want to buy new -- the SCD-XA777ES ($3000 retail, around $2000 by mail through authorized dealers), the SCD-C222ES ($500 retail, $350 by mail), and the DVP-NS999ES ($1000 retail, I haven't priced it by mail).

Go to www.crutchfield.com for more information on these players. You can also search this site and www.audioasylum.com . As for which one to choose, well it obviously depends on how much you want to spend. If you can swing it, certainly get the 'XA777ES. It's a wonderful player. Generally speaking, if SACD is your main concern, you should look at audio-only players (i.e., not DVD players). However, given that the 'NS999ES retails for twice as much as the 'C222ES, the 'NS999ES may be the superior audio component. Do you have any local dealers where you can demo these players?

On the used market, you should look at the SCD-C555ES, as it is an excellent buy. The 'C333ES is a very good player, and the original '777ES and SCD-1 are wonderful.

 

[Joe Tilley]

Well thanks for the help guys, I think I may start to look into getting something. I'm trying to get ahold of the Sony rep for my store since I work at CC, & see if there is any way I might be able to get a ES player through them & save a couple of bucks. I don't know if it will do me any good since we don't carry the ES line but ya never know what could happen.
Keith I remember just about anyone who is a Sony fan as it seams there is not many around. My intension on a player is audio only but its all gonna come down to the WAF & how much I can spend on a player. I hope I can work out a deal with a rep & get something nice.

 

[KeithH]

Joe, let us know how things go. I hope you land an SACD player soon.

 

[Matthew Anker]

Keith,

I haven't posted here for a while, but I think it's worth saying that the SCD-C222ES seems to be the superior player to the NS999ES. I know the 222ES's very well, and I have both look at the insides of the NS999ES and studied its circuitry. All the NS999ES is, is a DVP-NS755V with a fancier parts in the outputs.

The NS999ES has a separate video and audio output stage (separate boards), but the audio stage is nothing more than a NJM2114 opamp with a linear power supply feeding it. No special circuitry there. The DACs are mounted on the main board, and are driven by the switching power supply.

The 222ES has the advantage of a cleaner clock circuit, DACs powered by a linear power supply on a dedicated audio board, and the same NJM2114 opamp standard rather than extolled as a feature .

 

[Lewis Besze]

The biggest difference I've found between SACD and Redbook CDs, is dynamic range. SACDs kill CDs in range, IMO.

Yeah SACD is better in every way,but the fact that CD are recorded very compressed dynamically doesn't help it's case.
Once SACD becomes mainstream it could happen to it as well,hope that day never comes though[compressed recording],cross my finger.

 

[KeithH]

Lewis said:

In other words if you running a $1000/pair speaker with a $3000 dollar SACD player,you are seriously mis allocated your audio budget,and more likely you not gonna like what you hear.

Well, I have a Sony SCD-777ES ($3500 retail, paid $1500 brand new) paired with Totem Arro speakers ($1100 retail, paid $895 for a mint demo pair), and I don't like what I hear. I love what I hear. Of course, the '777ES is a stellar component, and the Arro is an exceptional value.

 

[ReggieW]

Lewis,

amen to that!!!!!!!! I couldn't agree more. It has always been my position that if you hear any really serious difference in components, it will be how they are matched with your speakers. I agree that the speakers will make or break any system. There's a guy on this board spreading stories on how the Marantz 8400 blows away the Denon 2900 for audio, to his ears obviously. Well, having heard both, I think the differences are subtle at best, and I certainly didn't hear the Marantz "blow" away the Denon on a B & W Cdm-1nt system powered by Rotel gear. I just upgraded my speakers from entry-level JBL-26's ($200/pair) to PSB Stratus Mini's ($1,100/pair) and I now like my SCD-C222es even more! I think that I would need a serious upgrade to "blow" away what I already have...and when I hear terms thrown about like "blow away," I expect the differences to be VERY sigificant, not merely subtle. I have been told that for the differences to be anything but subtle, I would have to go to something like a SCD-777es or SCD-1 or something else of that caliber coupled with better speakers.

Reg

 

[Dan Joy]

Joe,
I have a SCDC-222ES paired with a DA5ES
One advantage to the Sony pair is when you use both connections (digital for redbook and analog for sacd) the DA5ES automatically goes into the right setting,,, as opposed to my DVD-Audio player in which I have to manually put in analog mode for DVD-Audio listening and then switch to digital mode to watch dvds. To me this is a great feature because being that the 222 is a changer, you can easily mix cd and sacd listening without fumbling for a remote. However, if you use the 222ES dacs, this does not matter.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Yeah SACD is better in every way,but the fact that CD are recorded very compressed dynamically doesn't help it's case

Lewis,

I'm not sure if you are referencing the DSOTM redbook layer here or not, but these facts remain:

1. Many redbook layers on SACDs are an improvement over previous versions due to better mastering on newer equipment. Some redbook layers are compressed, but these often don't bother me since I buy the SACD to listen to at full resolution.

2. Super Audio two channel is a "step change" not an evolutionary step IMHO even on a middle of the road system.

3. Acoustic instruments sound better in high resolution (also on DVDA) in SACD due to more musical content which translates into two critical things (1) lower jitter which improves clarity and (2) better note transients. Add in the extra dynamic range of a good recording (and hopefully a flat transfer from the original analog tapes) and you are in sonic nirvana.

Rich's comment about rekindling the enjoyment of music is right on the mark...that was certainly the case for me.

4. Even a PCM digital source sounds better in hirez DSD, as most of the Chesky releases prove. This has a lot to do with mastering and the fact that approximations of approximations do improve the sound. Also DSD workstations that use PCM for editing do so at a level twice the normal rate of a 192K recording.

5. I find it dangerous to generalize about the correct amount of money that should be spent on speakers before the source and other things...I run $20+K of front end electronics into $1700 Maggies and the results are wonderful. Many $1K speakers are truly high end in sound due to improvements in enclosures, hi-tech drivers, better design and crossover, etc. Many audio critics will say that the source and the speaker are the top two things to look at, not just speakers alone.

6. The higher the resolution of your system, the bigger the impact of any hirez format.

7. 192K is better than 96K is better than 48K. I think as an engineer that DSD still beats them all, but at 192K you need a really fine system to hear the differences. The group of engineers I hang with think that DSD may have advantages in that sampling rate is faster at capturing note tranients, the little acoustic details we mentioned earlier that get the instrument tone and detail just right.

 

[Lam Nguyen]

can someone list some recordings that originate on DSD, I listen to vocal jazz. Is there a way of telling if a disc originate on DSD by looking at the back cover of the cd. Thanks

 

[Greg Johnson]

Lam,
Acoustic Sounds has a great selection of pure DSD SACD's here

Greg