[Ted Goldie]

I have tried to read as much as I can on this topic. As I understand it if you are using mainly headphones which are only stereo and not 5.1 there is no advantage to going SACD. You should stick to a good redbook CD player. I am using a Darkvoice 332 tube amp with analog plugs so I would not take advantage of a SACD player. I am thinking of getting a Cambridge 640C as my new source for playing CD's. This seems to be a respectable player to replace my 20 year old Sony CPD-550 which has served me very well over the years. For headphoness I think you are best to get a redbook CD player over a SACD player or a DVD player. This is a correct, right? Any 640C users regretted getting the player?

 

[mwallace573]

SACD and isn't just about 5.1 sound. In fact I've seen a few SACDs where there isn't even a 5.1 mix, it's only stereo. The sample rates on SACD are much higher than your typical Redbook CD, not to mention that the mastering is usually, but not always, a good deal better their Redbook counterparts. I've yet to listen to a good hi-rez setup, but from what I've read the differences are definitely noticeable.

 

[Ted Goldie]

So you are noticing a big difference through headphones between Redbook CD and SACD. I was under the impression through speakers and a 5.1 amp you can notice a big difference. I would be using headphones and analog connections to a Darkvoice 332. Do you feel I will notice a big difference?

 

[plaidplatypus]

Some SACD players are very good at CD playback as well. I have a SACDmods Sony that I think does CD, SACD, and DVD well. Some of the cheap DVD players that have SACD playback aren't that great for CD. If you like classical music and Jazz then you should do more research, if not just get a regular CD player.

 

[IPodPJ]

Not true at all Ted. A good native recording at 24/96 (which SACD can do) will walk all over a redbook recording, through headphones or speakers, makes no difference.

 

[wower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Goldie /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you are using mainly headphones which are only stereo and not 5.1 there is no advantage to going SACD.

I think this is just plain wrong. IMO going SACD is the cheapest source upgrade one can make. In the top-shelf units, many sources do SACD and CD very well. But in the sub-$1000 catagory, SACD brings substanial benifits. A smoother, warmer, more liquid, more detailed, more airy recording is presented on a wider soundstage. The only area I didn't notice good improvements over CD was texture and tonality, I guess you have to spend the really big bucks to get this.

Also counter to the above quote: It's well-known that SACD's stereo playback is much more popular, reflected in the fact that many companies are producting stereo-only SACD players, here Esoteric comes to mind. If 5.1 was the only advantage, would estabished companies take such a risk?

As wallance noted, it's not a panacea, some SACD are still poorly mixed and mastered. My Bob Dylan Blonde on Blonde is nearly unlistenable on some tracks because of the too forward, bright, harmonica, luckily my favorite cut on the disk, "Forth Time Around" is unaffected. That track on a quiet afternoon is as close to vinyl as I will get for a while.

I know the quote is only your understanding, I hope my input helped. The 640C is a great unit but way overpriced in Japan. I went with marantz.

 

[Ted Goldie]

Which SACD players would you recommend for about $600 Canadian. We seem to get ripped off in this country because our dollar is worth more right now and for example the Cambridge 640C in Canada ranges from $630 to $800 and in the United States it goes for around $500. Well enough crying what players would you recommend for my price range?

 

[Uncle Erik]

You get plenty of benefits from SACD with headphones or speakers. If I remember correctly, SACD samples at 64 times the rate that CD does.

The biggest liability is the library. There are about 5,000 releases right now, but something like 80% of them are classical. Another 10%-15% are jazz and the rest are mixed. If you listen to a lot of classical, SACD would be a good choice.

I listen to a lot of classical on SACD, and have a few jazz discs, too. For rock and most everything else, I usually pick that up on vinyl.

 

[wower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Goldie /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...Well enough crying...

Well that's one way to get our help.

 

[soundboy]

Many people mistaken think that SACD is mainly a surround sound format when the opposite is true....Sony mandates a 2 channel stereo (or mono) hi-rez mix on every SACD while multi-channel surround sound is optional. Also, as pointed out earlier, the top line SACD players from manufactuers such as Marantz and Denon are all 2 channel machines.

I think that if you happen to have a well produced SACD and an equally well produced CD of the same album, when played back on a competent player, you can hear that the SACD version more real....everything sounds more nature (or analog). And this is over headphones or on a 2 channel stereo speaker-based system.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Goldie /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have tried to read as much as I can on this topic. As I understand it if you are using mainly headphones which are only stereo and not 5.1 there is no advantage to going SACD. You should stick to a good redbook CD player. I am using a Darkvoice 332 tube amp with analog plugs so I would not take advantage of a SACD player. I am thinking of getting a Cambridge 640C as my new source for playing CD's. This seems to be a respectable player to replace my 20 year old Sony CPD-550 which has served me very well over the years. For headphoness I think you are best to get a redbook CD player over a SACD player or a DVD player. This is a correct, right? Any 640C users regretted getting the player?

There is a vigorous debate over whether the format difference by itself is audibly superior or whether it is just different mastering. Meyer and Moran
(2007) tested high res recordings vs downsampled versions and could not find any evidence that the audio quality was distinguishable in normal listening. Having said that, High res recordings are sometimes just mastered better which is what Meyer and Moran conclude.

Several members here have done blind tests of 24/96 vs downsampled 16/44.1 audio and been unable to tell the difference. With proper downsampling the differences seem to disappear in many cases. Just downloading two purportedly identical tracks in different formats may be misleading, this was my experience.

I downloaded a 24/96 and a 16/44.1 track from the same place and at first I could just detect a slight difference, one was marginally louder on the intro and an analysis of the waveforms showed a slight difference here. Normal listening didnt reveal any real differences of note. Once I downsampled the 24/96 to 16/44.1 myself and did the Blind comparison the small difference Ihad detected before vanished and viewing the waveforms they were much more similar.

 

[HiWire]

I haven't noticed any differences so far between Redbook and SACD layers on the hybrid discs I own, after level-matching on players that I've auditioned. Anna Netrebko's Sempre Libera sounded pretty good on the dCS Paganini, though. I didn't bother switching layers on that one.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not true at all Ted. A good native recording at 24/96 (which SACD can do) will walk all over a redbook recording, through headphones or speakers, makes no difference.

SACD is not natively PCM it is DSD which is 1 bit 2.8Mhz, it has to be converted to PCM to get 24/96 or whatever, my understanding is that some players convert to PCM and some dont.

Also there is some heated debate over whether DSD is superior to PCM ...

http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
http://www.extra.research.philips.co...-aesformat.pdf
Surround Professional 2002 - Craig Anderson; DSD to PCM Comparisons

 

[Ted Goldie]

I thank everyone for your opinions. I think because of the lack of available SACD CD's in my area and the cheaper price of regular CD's I am better to purchase a good CD player and later get a cheap DVD player. The DVD players I have listened to do not seem to sound as good as a redbook player for CD's. Thanks.

 

[lisnalee]

I've had my 640c about 6 months now and lovin every day with it, just wish i'd bought it sooner