[radu_D]

Hi all,

I just recently got in the word of audiophiles and I bought my first pair of cans: the AKG K701 and i freaking love them...although they still need to burn!! My CD player is a TEAC and my amp is an old Sansui AMP (AU-4900) which drives everything very nicely and adds a lot of weight to the headphones.

I've read about how great SACD sound, and was about to purchase a SACD player (the Marantz SA8260), but was wondering how the SACD music compares to old vinyls!?

My question is not regarding which one sounds "better" but would like to hear opinions from people who have experienced both.

I'm listening to mostly electronic and rock music (Depeche Mode, Massive Attack, Led Z, Portishead, INXS.....)

Thanks again.

Radu D.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I'm not even going to try to determine which is "better." I thoroughly love both, but think that both formats need each other.

That's because a lot of the classic vinyl albums are really expensive due to collectors, but you can get the recording for about $20 on SACD and it sounds great. But because the SACD catalog is somewhat limited outside of classical and a bit of jazz, you need vinyl to get hi-res on other albums. Thanks to the resurgence in vinyl, you can get a lot of the new rock releases on vinyl, and prices are fair.

Between the two, I can get just about anything I want. Works for me, and I could not be happier with the sound.

 

[ozz]

i no longer have my turntable but i am on my second sacd i liked my
turntable should have kept it some things never made it to cd let alone
sacd but the best sound to date comes from some of my sacd's a great
example would be pink floyd's dark side of the moon .

 

[AudioDwebe]

I'm not sure what the Marantz you're considering costs, but for the most part, I think it's less expensive to get into an SACD player that sounds good versus a vinyl rig. Turntable, cartridge, phono pre...it all can get pretty expensive. Generally speaking, when folks talk about how vinyl sounds better than a CD counterpart, they've got some money invested in their vinyl set-up.

My $.02.

Ciao,

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioDwebe /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure what the Marantz you're considering costs, but for the most part, I think it's less expensive to get into an SACD player that sounds good versus a vinyl rig. Turntable, cartridge, phono pre...it all can get pretty expensive. Generally speaking, when folks talk about how vinyl sounds better than a CD counterpart, they've got some money invested in their vinyl set-up. My $.02. Ciao,

not to mention the last denon mc cartridge that i had was over 600.00 and now
thats considered mid-fi.

 

[alpha80]

FYI, I like both. And I'll never get rid of my old Vinyl.

Old vinyl is far less accurate, has a smaller dynamic range, and degrades over time. The reason why vinyl has remained so popular is that no matter how inaccurate, it always provides a super-smooth transition between frequency transients. Nothing sounds harsh. All smooth.

Regular CD's are technically more accurate than Vinyl, but the issue with them is the harshness of the transients, and the light "graininess" that our minds CAN detect when CD's are played back without a very high-quality interpolation prior to hitting the DAC. This graininess is the result of the sound only being measured ~fourty-four-thousand times per second. That's alot of little tiny square "stairsteps". Every one slightly abrasive to the ear unless ran thru a high-quality interpolation algorithm, or after DAC, if run thru buttery analog gear/tubes.

When CD technology was being invented, many discerning engineers argued that 44.1khz was too little. CD's were originally meant to be 60Khz.

SACD on the other hand, really embraces the best of both worlds.

SACD has all the accuracy and consistency of digital audio files, and even without any interpolation at all, sounds very smooth and natural. This is due to an extremely high sampling rate. For every single "stairstep" in the waveform of a regular CD, SACD has 64 seperate measurements. A total of over 2 million measurements per second of audio.

This not only provides extremely smooth, organic playback, but also improved transient response.

SACD also has a much higher dynamic range than regular CD's or Vinyl.

 

[ozz]

i forgot to add the stereo separation on a sacd or cd is better.

 

[mikeg]

This is just a comment on the 8260, which I owned for several years. It does a fine job with SACDs, but it's second rate for regular (i.e., Redbook) CDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by radu_D /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi all, I just recently got in the word of audiophiles and I bought my first pair of cans: the AKG K701 and i freaking love them...although they still need to burn!! My CD player is a TEAC and my amp is an old Sansui AMP (AU-4900) which drives everything very nicely and adds a lot of weight to the headphones. I've read about how great SACD sound, and was about to purchase a SACD player (the Marantz SA8260), but was wondering how the SACD music compares to old vinyls!? My question is not regarding which one sounds "better" but would like to hear opinions from people who have experienced both. I'm listening to mostly electronic and rock music (Depeche Mode, Massive Attack, Led Z, Portishead, INXS.....) Thanks again. Radu D.

 

[daltonlanny]

CD's actually have a better signal to noise ratio in the top octave, and better dynamic range in the upper octave than SACD's do...

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny /img/forum/go_quote.gif CD's actually have a better signal to noise ratio in the top octave, and better dynamic range in the upper octave than SACD's do...

thats out of the audiable range.

 

[daltonlanny]

ozz,
Nope.
The upper octave range I am talking about is from about 8 Khz to 20 Khz...very audible.

 

[radu_D]

thanks for all the comments....very worthy stuff.

If you have any more opinions, please post.

Thanks again.

Radu D.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daltonlanny ozz, Nope. The upper octave range I am talking about is from about 8 Khz to 20 Khz...very audible.

Doesn't that depend on the DSD decoding algorithm used? I remember reading that the first chips used simple analog filters, which is what Sony said was the best at the time. Later, it was discovered that this method created audible distortion and "fuzziness" in the upper audible frequency range...

Check out the section labeled "Dependence of the Quality on a Playback Method" in this article. Interesting stuff.

 

[ozz]

the only current advantage out there presently is dvd-a and that extends
way past 20k still inaudiable.

 

[infinitesymphony]

One of the points of both high-res formats is to decrease the chance of interpolation errors by using higher sampling rates and/or bit-depths. A higher sampling rate also means that the slope of a DAC's low-pass filter can be moved out of the audible range.

If you can't hear past 22.05 kHz then ultrasonic frequencies may be inaudible, but the filter implementations in both high-res formats (and the lack of a filter in vinyl) mean that the audible treble range will be more accurately represented.