[marios_mar]

How would a $3000 CDP compare to a $200-$300 SACD player?


Is there ANY CDP that can sound as full and as warm as a $200-$300???

I mean wont REDBOOK be always redbook with harshness etc?

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar I mean wont REDBOOK be always redbook with harshness etc?

You would be amazed what redbook is capable of with a decent CD player.

 

[lan]

A cheaper player whether CD, SACD, or DVD-A will have lesser power, transport, electronics, analog sections. You may loose resolution there which translates to less detail, soundstage, etc. But as to the warmth you can still warm it up by using tubes and carefully selecting your cables.

As for harshness, any good player shouldn't be harsh.

 

[stuartr]

This is like comparing this:

with this:

 

[Zanth]

Depending on the $3k redbook player...it will not just crush but completely destroy the SACD player of $300 bucks. In fact, many a Redbook player squashes SACD players head to head, the first playing redbook of course, the second playing sacd..same discs from hybrid. It's a personal thing. As stuart said...apples....oranges.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Agree with the previous posters there is no way a $300 SACDP will beat a decent $3000 CDP. Too many compromises to achieve a $300 price point. More realistically, will a $2000 SACDP (not universal) playing SACD crush a $4000 CDP playing redbook, POSSIBLY, depending on program material and only in those areas where SACDs excel, soundstaging and dynamics and top end refinement and resolution. Program material is of particular importance because playing DSOTM stereo layer will not cut it. However, Herbie Hancock Headhunters or Joshua Bell's West side story is another matter. SACDs seem to pull away when the music gets more complex or busy.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr This is like comparing this: with this:

LOL. Hahaha. So literal and so funny.

Not to mention the fact that SACD has a woefully thin inventory. Redbook just wins due to sheer numbers.

-Ed

 

[markl]

I also agree that an expensive CDP playing Redbook CDs will crush a cheap-o SACDP playing SACDs.

I've seen a nasty rumor that low-end SACDPs convert the DSD signal from SACDs into lossy PCM before handing it off to the analog section. If so, this would defeat the purpose of SACD in many ways. I can't verify this, though, but there was a discussion about this over at audioasylum, but there's such a low signal-to-noise ratio over there, it's hard to verify anything. There's also endless war between the SACD (DSD) vs. DVD-Audio (PCM) crowd,, it could be propaganda.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl ... I can't verify this, though, but there was a discussion about this over at audioasylum, but there's such a low signal-to-noise ratio over there, it's hard to verify anything. There's also endless war between the SACD (DSD) vs. DVD-Audio (PCM) crowd...

When you blow upwards of USD10K on a source or USD15K + on studio recording equipment, you want everybody to know you made the RIGHT choice and that the other party is WRONG .

 

[jefemeister]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar How would a $3000 CDP compare to a $200-$300 SACD player? Is there ANY CDP that can sound as full and as warm as a $200-$300??? I mean wont REDBOOK be always redbook with harshness etc?

I assume you've never heard a good CD player.

 

[tom hankins]

Quote:

Originally posted by theaudiohobby When you blow upwards of USD10K on a source or USD15K + on studio recording equipment, you want everybody to know you made the RIGHT choice and that the other party is WRONG .

I think anyone who spends this kind of money on a source knows they made the right choice before they lay down the money. I also think people willing to spend this kind of money are so happy with there purchase, they really don't think to much about if the other guy bought the wrong thing or not.
Back on topic: If there was a 300.00 SACD player that would compete with a 3000.00 redbook CDP, my bank account would be very happy.

 

[Zanth]

Heck why not throw vinyl into the mix! We are all told it is the best anyway

 

[jefemeister]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl I've seen a nasty rumor that low-end SACDPs convert the DSD signal from SACDs into lossy PCM before handing it off to the analog section. If so, this would defeat the purpose of SACD in many ways.

Many players convert from DSD before decoding. Wadia will. DCS does*. I'm sure there are others.

I guarantee that in the recoring studio, all DSD releases were PCM at some point in their lives before being put on a disc. The A/D chips just don't exist yet.

I don't have a (serious) problem with SACD, just don't think that converting to PCM is such a bad thing. As with everything it's implementation specific.

* on a side note, DCS uses the 5-bit ring DAC architecture they're famous for. There is no way DSD can be decoded using it. Kind of makes you wonder why they released the La Scala version of their Verdi transport huh? Or the Purcell PCM to DSD converter for that matter.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Many players convert from DSD before decoding. Wadia will. DCS does*. I'm sure there are others.

Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of SACD? Taking the DSD signal, sampling it, decimating it, and converting it to PCM? Don't you lose a lot of the data *and* add to various kinds of distortion through any conversion process? Wouldn't you just be better off with a 24/96 DVD-Audio disc on a machine that did that, so it doesn't have to go through that conversion at all, it could stay native 24/96?

Complicating this factor is that I've also read that the vast majority of today's DAC chips are not really multi-bit, but start the process as a bitstream, reading the PCM data off the CD in a single-bit manner a la DSD (SACD), *then* convert it to multi-bit PCM. Ed Meitner contends that DSD is superior because it keeps the data in a single-bit form throughout the process without this conversion. (I'm not an engineer so bear with me, I'm paraphrasing from memory). Quote:

I guarantee that in the recoring studio, all DSD releases were PCM at some point in their lives before being put on a disc. The A/D chips just don't exist yet.

Yes, here's one of the chief "complaints" about SACD that is fodder over at aa. However, this really only comes into play for modern recordings made in a modern studio, not to old analog tapes from analog studio equipment. This is a definite "problem" for SACD on music that was recorded or mixed in PCM. Most studios have 24/96 gear in them, not DSD. No way to "add back" information in a DSD conversion that was never recorded in the first place via PCM. That music will never sound "better" than 24/96 data will allow.

Also, I've read that SACD is not as manipulatable as PCM in the studio, much harder to edit with or to process. It seems to be a combination of lack of equipment combined with technical problems with trying to process a DSD signal.

Even die-hard DSD/SACD people have to admit that the best use for the process is in the re-mastering of analog masters, as DSD with its insane sampling rate is much closer to an analog signal than any 24/96 PCM approximation. Actually Sony developed SACD as a means of protecting its most valuable asset-- namely aging master tapes that were crumbling before their very eyes. The idea was to create a "perfect" digital scheme that would allow for permanent capture and storage of their old analog master tapes, to be "dumbed down" later at any time to whatever the prevailing PCM scheme of the day was for consumer products (16/44.1, 24/96, 32/192, etc.). Ultimately they decided to release it as a commercial product.

Mark

 

[wali]

A $3000 SACDp will play CDs as well

.