Looking for good SA-CD Player Info (1 Viewer)

[PaulDA]

I can only speak for myself, of course, but on my current setup, the difference between SACD and CD has been like the difference between a well recorded cassette tape, in the first few playbacks (before physical erosion and magnetic build up set in) and the original source material (well maintained LP or a CD). It isn't usually dramatic (though it has been, on occasion) but I notice it and I find it a worthwhile improvement. I can only expect the difference to be more noticeable when my main system is set up. As for multichannel, I haven't had the chance to try that at home yet, so I can't say. I will say that I consider myself a critical listener, or at least, a serious listener. By that, I mean I sit down and actively listen to music. Not all the time, of course, but frequently. If music was just something in the background while I did something else, I wouldn't bother with hi-res two channel formats. For multichannel, I will have to reserve judgement.

A couple of examples of how I find the sound better with SACD over CD in my current setup:

On Alison Krauss and Union Station Live, I find that I can more easily pick out different overlapping instruments whereas on the CD layer I find the guitar, banjo and dobro tend to smear a little.

Similar experience with Diana Krall's The Girl in the Other Room. A larger sense of space and more articulate detail than on the CD layer.

Greater detail, followed by a larger sense of space, have been the two elements I've noticed in general in SACD vs CD comparisons so far. As I said, not dramatic in most cases, but desireable nonetheless.

Hope this helps.

 

[PaulDA]

I can only speak for myself, of course, but on my current setup, the difference between SACD and CD has been like the difference between a well recorded cassette tape, in the first few playbacks (before physical erosion and magnetic build up set in) and the original source material (well maintained LP or a CD). It isn't usually dramatic (though it has been, on occasion) but I notice it and I find it a worthwhile improvement. I can only expect the difference to be more noticeable when my main system is set up. As for multichannel, I haven't had the chance to try that at home yet, so I can't say. I will say that I consider myself a critical listener, or at least, a serious listener. By that, I mean I sit down and actively listen to music. Not all the time, of course, but frequently. If music was just something in the background while I did something else, I wouldn't bother with hi-res two channel formats. For multichannel, I will have to reserve judgement.

A couple of examples of how I find the sound better with SACD over CD in my current setup:

On Alison Krauss and Union Station Live, I find that I can more easily pick out different overlapping instruments whereas on the CD layer I find the guitar, banjo and dobro tend to smear a little.

Similar experience with Diana Krall's The Girl in the Other Room. A larger sense of space and more articulate detail than on the CD layer.

Greater detail, followed by a larger sense of space, have been the two elements I've noticed in general in SACD vs CD comparisons so far. As I said, not dramatic in most cases, but desireable nonetheless.

Hope this helps.

 

[ross ish]

You can pick up a Philips 963a which has received outstanding reviews for sacd playback. Unlike other DVD players, it also received high marks for cd playback---equivalent to high end stand alone cd players. it also will upsample cd to 192. It also received praise for its video as it has the dcdi processor. check audiogon, there is a new in box one there.

 

[ross ish]

You can pick up a Philips 963a which has received outstanding reviews for sacd playback. Unlike other DVD players, it also received high marks for cd playback---equivalent to high end stand alone cd players. it also will upsample cd to 192. It also received praise for its video as it has the dcdi processor. check audiogon, there is a new in box one there.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Denon is currently working on the approval from Sony to get the 5900 to pass the "SACD" signal through the Denon link,however that player will convert DSD to PCM at very high conversion rate so the essential DSD decoding still happens in the player.So even if Sony approves[most likely]there will be a conversion to PCM,now if that is a matter to anyone is entirelly a personall choice.It is most likely, that future Denon players with Denon link will follow suit,unless a unified connection method accapted by all parties.
The current Sony ES uses Ilink and it keeps it in DSD till it's decoded by their receiver.The 2 components cost around $7000.00 though.

 

[Rob Kramer]

Yes, That would be iLink.

Now used by Pioneer, Onkyo, Integra, Yamaha, and a dozen other "upper end" manufacturers.

 

[Shane Martin]

IMHO Yes. I would look at the selection of SACD titles first to determine if that is what you want to start to invest in.
If it is then its worth it to me to spend more on a nicer player. IN fact I'm going to do that and hopefully pick up a 3910 when they come out.

 

[Danny Tse]

For the most updated list of available SACDs around the world, check sa-cd.net

Now approaching 2,200 titles

 

[Lewis Besze]

Yeah,are they all pass DSD? Are those priced so most of us can afford them?

 

[Rob Kramer]

If you cant afford them then I would guess that you would NOT be able to tell the difference between DSD and PCM on your system.

Kris (of Secrets) has stated (often) that he is unable to hear the difference between the two on his system. And Im sure that "his system" aint scraping the bottom of the budget barrel.

 

[LanceJ]

IMO the biggest reason either hi-res format sounds better than CD is because many (most?) hi-res titles were REMASTERED and/or fully REMIXED using modern equipment.

Though the mix itself sucks, the surround mix on Yes' Fragile dvd-audio disc-which was put together using the original multitrack master tapes-sounds much better than the included original stereo mix (1973) in 96kHz/24bit hi-res PCM form, which in comparison sounds murky, dull, and lacks bass. And the kicker is, all that new-found clarity on the surround track is very clearly audible on the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks......and these are lossy/compressed audio formats!

The cost of the system to hear all this: @$1400.

The dvd-audio stereo tracks did sound very slightly smoother than the CD version's tracks but this was nothing mind-blowing. In other words folks, this listener no longer gives a rat's ass about the sampling rate a digital recording uses.

 

[Lewis Besze]

What a condescending load of crap!Most of us can't and won't lay down several grand on equipments that maybe obsolite in a year or less,due to the the ever changing of minds regarding these connections ans specs.The fact that the data transmitted digitally shouldn't make 'em expensive.Obviously this is a marketing decesion,and wan't to position these gears as "high end" even from mass market brands like Pioneer and Sony [even with their ES, Elite badges the company remains as such].However I don't think they even suggests that anyone who isn't wealthy enough to afford these right now are "compromised" to enjoy the benefits of a widely accepted digital connection can bring to the table.BTW you not only missed me with your dumb "guessing" but other enthusiasts who's in the same boat as I'm.
You're on the other hand.................

 

[Lewis Besze]

Well that's his opinion,and others might form a different one.Just to clarify my position. I endorse neither DVD-A or SACD over one and other, I think both represent an evolutionary step from CD.However any digital connection for these formats should keep the signal in it's native format,otherwise what's the point to record them that way? Second, the major benefit comes from the ability to perform BM and TA in digital domain,which certainly can be appreciated by many here.

 

[Rob Kramer]

Again, SACD in pure DSD at the analog outs vs SACD converted to PCM at the analog outs. And true this is one person, but the DSD vs DSD-converted is a tired argument of theory vs theory. But here is one well respected person that says conversion is fine in actual use.

I am not part of a "why dont manufacturers include ilink on all equipment" or an analog vs digital discussion.

Direct your anger elsewhere. How about toward Sony. Its their greed that has caused all this. Denon too. They are also going against the standard all in the name of $$.

 

[PaulDA]

While I don't want to get into the debate over expenses and equipment, in order to do BM/TA in DSD, it's not clear that the format allows for it to happen without conversion to PCM. A number of threads here and at AVS have discussed the fact that Sony/Phillips have not issued any papers to the AES, unlike many manufacturers who've discussed a number of issues regarding PCM (just going by the threads, I'm not an engineer myself), explaining what goes on inside the chips when BM/TA is applied. It has been suggested, by Kris Deering, I believe (among others, and if he didn't suggest it, I apologize for my misremembering) that the DSD signal could be converted to PCM within the chip, subjected to BM/TA, and then reconverted to DSD. If I recall correctly, there is no proof that this is what's happening, but in the absence of any word from Sony/Phillips, there is no proof it's NOT happening either. I don't have enough expertise in this area to experiment, nor I am trying to impugn either Sony/Phillips or the DSD/SACD format (I have several discs and enjoy their sonic superiority to redbook CD). I am merely pointing out that in these still early days of hi-res audio, the DSD to PCM conversion issue might not be aurally discernible with the sophisticated equipment on hand to do the conversions, particularly since the vast majority of SACD releases were recorded/re-recorded in PCM at some point before being made into DSD/SACDs.

Whew. In the end, it's all about the music, not the format, right?

 

[Lewis Besze]

Well, Sony and Denon haven't made a back handed comment about me or my gear.
Like I said their decession is pure marketing[what you call greed],but eventually they will come around to lower priced models as well,like the Denon 3805.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Good points.Sony indeed claims that all of the post processing[BM TA] takes place without conversion,at least on their new 9000 series gear.I'm no expert either,I think John Kotches posted that his DSP engineer friends told him that they don't know of[or heard any] any solutions as to how to "manipulate" data in DSD domain like they do for PCM.Yes Sony should provide the white papers to this if they claim it's true.

 

[Rob Kramer]

Sorry if it came out that way. The comment was general, and not directed to anyone or anything.

 

[Rachael B]

I listened extensively to the Pioneer AX10 uni a few years back. It converted DSD to PCM and I think that drug it down. It was a much better player for DVD-A, IMO. If it had done SACD better, I would of bought one, proably, maybe...M/C had me on the fence too...??? Things have changed some since but it was obvious that the PCM circuits in the AX10 took the edge off of the music, to me, anyway...

I'm confident that an AX10 can't perform as well as, say, a Sony SCD-C555ES with a straight, no BM, signal path.

These differences do require purr-dy good stuff to differentiate, me thinks...but definitely not just the highest-ended equipment.