SACDs
Jan 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM Post #16 of 48

Mr.Sneis

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Posts
3,346
Likes
222
STR-DA6400ES is supposed to, but I don't know that I've ever seen one for sale.
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item2c622bc0e9&item=190625595625&nma=true&pt=Receivers_Tuners&rt=nc&si=F65ADTUnHOkK649fTs%252BX6jePBfE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc Wow really wish I would have known this was listed!
 
Jan 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM Post #17 of 48

soundboy

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Posts
3,780
Likes
24
Quote:
Search Amazon> Music>SACD, you'll find a pile of stuff out there much of it in the $10.00 range. I just ordered a Susan Wong SACD from the EvoSound website for $19.99. 



In case you don't know, Hong Kong Sony Music just released SACD of Joanna Wang's latest album.  Under $20.00 from yesasia.com.
 
Your post reminded me to pick up SACD of Susan Wong's 511 SACD
 
 
Jan 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM Post #18 of 48

DesireUsername

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Posts
101
Likes
13


Quote:
Quote:


In case you don't know, Hong Kong Sony Music just released SACD of Joanna Wang's latest album.  Under $20.00 from yesasia.com.
 
Your post reminded me to pick up SACD of Susan Wong's 511 SACD
 


I was under the impression that SACD production had stopped? Will we be seeing more of these?
 
 
 


Quote:
STR-DA6400ES is supposed to, but I don't know that I've ever seen one for sale.
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item2c622bc0e9&item=190625595625&nma=true&pt=Receivers_Tuners&rt=nc&si=F65ADTUnHOkK649fTs%252BX6jePBfE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc Wow really wish I would have known this was listed!

 
Wow the back of that thing is impressive. Just curious, there's a digital out on the back, if I were to connect that to a DAC would it downmix SACDs when it feeds it the info?
 
I'm kinda stumped why they would build in downmixing into the machine for the digital out and not put in a headphone jack, so I'm not sure if that's faulty reasoning on my part.
Any ideas?
 
Jan 31, 2012 at 6:28 PM Post #20 of 48

Fugue

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Posts
326
Likes
73
I paid $150 for an OOP E. Power Biggs Bach Toccata and Fugue SACD! If one has a multi-channel system, then this is the ultimate disc, as the massive organ he used is actually comprised of four organs, and when he fires up the entire rig, look out! A new disc, which mine was, is now $299!
blink.gif
  http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Four-Great-Toccatas-Fugues/dp/B00008PX99/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328052350&sr=8-1
 
(I get a kick out of the idiot who gave it one star because he didn't realize he had to have special equipment to play it!)
 
Feb 4, 2012 at 12:18 AM Post #23 of 48

DesireUsername

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Posts
101
Likes
13


Quote:
Just got this from EVO Sound http://evosound.com/en SACD, $19.99 and free shipping from Hong Kong. The sound is spectacular.
 
Susan_Wong____So_4e04397020f74.jpg

Thanks, would really like to keep this thread alive for the sake of SACD discussion. I'm in the process of picking out 5.1 speakers right now. (leaning towards these Yamahas)
 
Feb 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM Post #24 of 48

Quake1028

Previously known as Gloomfire.
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Posts
579
Likes
11
Is it worth it to get an SACD player now? I would only be playing it through headphones.
 
Feb 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM Post #25 of 48

fatcat28037

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Posts
5,687
Likes
103
Location
Denver, NC, 20mi. NNW of Charlotte.

 
Quote:
Is it worth it to get an SACD player now? I would only be playing it through headphones.


IMO yes, it's worth it. Even with my sorry old ears I can detect subtle improvements in sound from SACDs. I suspend with better ears the difference would be greater. SACDs are a niche, they take a special players, they usually cost more and not a lot of titles are available. In the end it's about how big a geek audiophile you are. Oh.........wait.............where does that leave me?
 
 
Feb 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM Post #26 of 48

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,116
Likes
4,751
Location
Hollywood USA
I spent the better part of a month trying to cut through the smoke and mirrors of SACDs.
 
i bought a highly regarded SACD player and a stack of SACDs and sat down and did controlled, line level matched A/B comparisons. I found out several things.
 
Initially, I noticed that sound quality was all over the place. With some legacy titles, the SACD sounded better. With others, the CD was better. Sometimes it was just different, not better, not worse.
 
The mastering on the redbook layer of SACDs is often totally different than the SACD layer, and both of those are usually totally different than the mastering on standard CD. This makes comparing the differences between formats almost impossible. Add to that the huge time delay in switching between layers, and the difficulty is even worse. I tore my hair out trying to find a fair comparison. Every version had different EQ. Some, like the Rolling Stones SACDs had songs that were remixed from scratch.
 
Finally, someone here in the forums suggested I look for Direct Stream Digital recordings rather than standard ones. DSD recordings are recorded, mixed and mastered all in the high bitrate digital domain. I got two copies of a hybrid Pentatone SACD which was impeccably recorded and mastered.  I put one copy in a regular Yamaha CD player and the other in my fancy SACD player and hit play on both at the same time. I carefully level matched- the redbook was a little quieter- and spent an hour switching back and forth trying to detect a difference. I enlisted the help of a friend who is a professional sound engineer. We spent a whole afternoon examining the sound with a fine toothed comb. For the life of us, neither of us could detect any difference between the regular CD and the SACD. For all intents and purposes, they were identical.
 
Manufacturers have done a remarkable job trying to blur the lines around sound quality with SACD. Do they sound different? The answer is usually yes. But do they sound better? If they do, it's entirely because they have been remixed or remastered. It has nothing to do with the format itself.
 
I stuck my SACD player in the closet and stopped buying SACDs. It turned out that the regular CD release was just as likely to sound good as the SACD. I didn't need the aggrivation of another format for no reason.
 
The only reason to buy an SACD player is multichannel sound. But good luck finding a reasonably priced AV receiver that has multichannel analogue inputs. SACD is the most poorly implemented format that I've ever seen.
 
Feb 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM Post #27 of 48

Philimon

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Posts
1,741
Likes
629
Location
Portland
The article in my signature describes an experiment that had been done involving audiophiles, musicians, etc., where the only way anyone could tell the difference between SACD and regular was by turning the volume up unreasonably high and revealing which was the SACD by the lower noise floor (or something like that, please click and read for yourself). I believe it said over 500 trials were conducted. It does mention how SACDs are usually mastered differently, so they had to do something similar to bigshot's experiment to make things equal. 
 
Feb 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM Post #28 of 48

DesireUsername

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Posts
101
Likes
13

 
Quote:
I spent the better part of a month trying to cut through the smoke and mirrors of SACDs.
 
i bought a highly regarded SACD player and a stack of SACDs and sat down and did controlled, line level matched A/B comparisons. I found out several things.
 
Initially, I noticed that sound quality was all over the place. With some legacy titles, the SACD sounded better. With others, the CD was better. Sometimes it was just different, not better, not worse.
 
The mastering on the redbook layer of SACDs is often totally different than the SACD layer, and both of those are usually totally different than the mastering on standard CD. This makes comparing the differences between formats almost impossible. Add to that the huge time delay in switching between layers, and the difficulty is even worse. I tore my hair out trying to find a fair comparison. Every version had different EQ. Some, like the Rolling Stones SACDs had songs that were remixed from scratch.
 
Finally, someone here in the forums suggested I look for Direct Stream Digital recordings rather than standard ones. DSD recordings are recorded, mixed and mastered all in the high bitrate digital domain. I got two copies of a hybrid Pentatone SACD which was impeccably recorded and mastered.  I put one copy in a regular Yamaha CD player and the other in my fancy SACD player and hit play on both at the same time. I carefully level matched- the redbook was a little quieter- and spent an hour switching back and forth trying to detect a difference. I enlisted the help of a friend who is a professional sound engineer. We spent a whole afternoon examining the sound with a fine toothed comb. For the life of us, neither of us could detect any difference between the regular CD and the SACD. For all intents and purposes, they were identical.
 
Manufacturers have done a remarkable job trying to blur the lines around sound quality with SACD. Do they sound different? The answer is usually yes. But do they sound better? If they do, it's entirely because they have been remixed or remastered. It has nothing to do with the format itself.
 
I stuck my SACD player in the closet and stopped buying SACDs. It turned out that the regular CD release was just as likely to sound good as the SACD. I didn't need the aggrivation of another format for no reason.
 
The only reason to buy an SACD player is multichannel sound. But good luck finding a reasonably priced AV receiver that has multichannel analogue inputs. SACD is the most poorly implemented format that I've ever seen.


Interesting thought. Do you really need a receiver that has multichannel inputs? My SACD player has RCA inputs on the back where I assume you could just plug in 5.1 speakers
 
 
Feb 5, 2012 at 12:12 AM Post #29 of 48

stokitw

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Posts
332
Likes
10
While I do agree the major difference comes from the multichannel, I do not agree that the difference between SACD and CD is too little to ignore in 2 channel.
Just like you said, lots of reissues actually been through the remastering.
It could be the remastering cause most of the audible difference.
 
Therefore, I do agree that it is better for us to investigate those DSD recordings to tell the difference.
From my experience, it is pretty easy to tell the difference between SACD and CD layer using my GS-1000 or GMP450 (Sony XA5400ES or Sony C222ES or even Sony SCE595 -> Grace M902 served as amp only).
The increased bandwidth really improves texture of the instruments.
Yet I cannot tell the difference from my cheap speaker set up (2 channel vs. 2 channel).
 
I do enjoy a lot in the multichannel output.
One may have invest in much more money in 2-channel setup to get the improvement from a cheap 3-channel setup while playing those old 3-channel recordings.
(Do not have the budget and space to set up a 5.1 system yet.)
 
Actually, for the same modern recordings, I tend to ignore the CD format if I know SACD format is available.
(Not for 2 channel only reissues from Japan since most of the difference comes from remastering).
 
Quote:
I spent the better part of a month trying to cut through the smoke and mirrors of SACDs.
 
i bought a highly regarded SACD player and a stack of SACDs and sat down and did controlled, line level matched A/B comparisons. I found out several things.
 
Initially, I noticed that sound quality was all over the place. With some legacy titles, the SACD sounded better. With others, the CD was better. Sometimes it was just different, not better, not worse.
 
The mastering on the redbook layer of SACDs is often totally different than the SACD layer, and both of those are usually totally different than the mastering on standard CD. This makes comparing the differences between formats almost impossible. Add to that the huge time delay in switching between layers, and the difficulty is even worse. I tore my hair out trying to find a fair comparison. Every version had different EQ. Some, like the Rolling Stones SACDs had songs that were remixed from scratch.
 
Finally, someone here in the forums suggested I look for Direct Stream Digital recordings rather than standard ones. DSD recordings are recorded, mixed and mastered all in the high bitrate digital domain. I got two copies of a hybrid Pentatone SACD which was impeccably recorded and mastered.  I put one copy in a regular Yamaha CD player and the other in my fancy SACD player and hit play on both at the same time. I carefully level matched- the redbook was a little quieter- and spent an hour switching back and forth trying to detect a difference. I enlisted the help of a friend who is a professional sound engineer. We spent a whole afternoon examining the sound with a fine toothed comb. For the life of us, neither of us could detect any difference between the regular CD and the SACD. For all intents and purposes, they were identical.
 
Manufacturers have done a remarkable job trying to blur the lines around sound quality with SACD. Do they sound different? The answer is usually yes. But do they sound better? If they do, it's entirely because they have been remixed or remastered. It has nothing to do with the format itself.
 
I stuck my SACD player in the closet and stopped buying SACDs. It turned out that the regular CD release was just as likely to sound good as the SACD. I didn't need the aggrivation of another format for no reason.
 
The only reason to buy an SACD player is multichannel sound. But good luck finding a reasonably priced AV receiver that has multichannel analogue inputs. SACD is the most poorly implemented format that I've ever seen.



 
 
Feb 5, 2012 at 12:16 AM Post #30 of 48

DesireUsername

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Posts
101
Likes
13


Quote:
The article in my signature describes an experiment that had been done involving audiophiles, musicians, etc., where the only way anyone could tell the difference between SACD and regular was by turning the volume up unreasonably high and revealing which was the SACD by the lower noise floor (or something like that, please click and read for yourself). I believe it said over 500 trials were conducted. It does mention how SACDs are usually mastered differently, so they had to do something similar to bigshot's experiment to make things equal. 



This is a really excellent article, well done.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top