[uzziah]

i don't have any sacd's right now, and i'm going to by a (up to) $300 source sometime soon. i'm debating whether to buy a standard cd player like a nad or rotel. or, should i buy a sacd/cd player? i mainly listen to classic rock, jazz and classical. techno as well. the listing of sacd's already seems to have much of my favorites in it. i wonder, how would such an sacd player stack up to a comporable nad cd player for playing regular cd's?

i'd probably end up listening to cd 50% of the time, and sacd 50% considering my cd library is already well built

should i consider dvd-a?

 

[AndrewTosh]

I just got my shipment of SACDs in the mail today. So far only the Miles Davis Kind Of Blue disc has impressed me much. It is really amazing, especially for such an old recording.

Norah Jones' Come Away With me doesn't sound much better, though I've read it is just a 44.1 PCM transfer. Lang Lang Live At Carnegie Hall doesn't sound much different comparing the SACD and CD layers. It also has a persistent buzz in the background that isn't being made by my gear. It's very distracting on the Etymotics, though on regular headphones it might not be as noticeable.

Overall my response is somewhat lukewarm, though with good recordings the format certainly shows promise. I'm going to be checking out www.sa-cd.net and Audio Asylum reviews BEFORE buying next time. It seems to have better pace than the CD, but that could just be placebo effect.

 

[recephasan]

Well, I don't know about your wallet but judging by the number of titles released, I'd say your 50-50 estimate is not going to work out. You're probably going to end up listening to a lot of your existing CDs and will enjoy a few SACDs here and there. Frankly, I got sick of Kind of Blue after hearing it for the 1000th time and listen to my other 20 or so Miles Davis CDs when I get the cravings.
But, by all means don't let me stop you from buying SACDs. Some day, hopefully, all CDs will be released hybrid.

In the meantime, if I could afford it, I'd get a good redbook player and enjoy better sound than my $150 SACD player.

 

[soundboy]

I think it comes down to whether there are enough titles on SACD that will interest you musically. SACD, as a format, has the potential of ebing excellent. However, at this stage of development, truly excellent SACD are few. Not saying there's none, just few.

 

[lan]

It's more important to get better redbook performance IMO because most music is in that format. Great CD playback is still better than cheap SACD performance. But I'm not sure how far $300 will get you with a dedicated source.

 

[uzziah]

so, for example, a similarly priced sony sacd player wouldn't measure up to say a used nad 542 player when playing regular cd's?

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah so, for example, a similarly priced sony sacd player wouldn't measure up to say a used nad 542 player when playing regular cd's?

I think you should shoot for the Sony SCD2000ES which will give you the best of both worlds that is top-flight redbook and very good SACD. My Sharp DXSX1 SACD/CD Player will frighten any redbook-only player < USD5000 and I will be bold enough to say that the Wadia 301 is simply no match. Secondly, sometime ago I tried out the Denon 2900 on redbook and it held it own against an equivalent priced DAC. I think the days of redbook-only players providing unequivocal superior redbook performance are gone.

 

[boodi]

I'd get a universal player if i were you , then maybe get it modded / upgraded if it would need to.
The DENON dvd 2900 seems a good choice to me , this if you can afford it ; it is also mod-ready

 

[JefferyK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah so, for example, a similarly priced sony sacd player wouldn't measure up to say a used nad 542 player when playing regular cd's?

No.

NAD CD players are just more musical.

Jeffery

 

[uzziah]

you're gonna have to explain what it means for a player to be "musical"
sounds a little odd to me

we're all listening to music, right?

 

[Dimitri]

If you aren't into classical or jazz, sa-cd doesn't offer enough title choice, imo. i chose to go down the sa-cd road precisely because I wanted to start a classical and jazz collection, and have been extremely happy with the titles available. Plus, virtually all new titles are hybrids, so the "risk factor" of going with the new format is minimized.

 

[MoodyDragon]

If you listen to classic rock, jazz and classical, SACD is definitely the way to go. This does not mean every SACD is going to sound better than the cd counterpart, but a large majority will. Good luck!

 

[uzziah]

what if i want to put a sacd on my computer to be played portably?

is it possible?

by "hybrid" are you saying i could rip it onto my computer, but it would only read the "stereo" level of encoding? in other words, i would basically have a standard stereo cd ripped on my computer?

 

[AndrewTosh]

If it is a hybrid disc, it has two layers. The one layer is an SACD which will play at higher quality (possibly multichannel, too) in an SACD player. The other is a regular CD layer which will be read by any CD player. No computer that I know of can read SACDs, so you would be getting the standard 44.1khz/16bit CD data by putting it in your computer.

A few discs are SACD only, and cannot be read in a computer or CD player. Generally they are clearly marked "FOR USE IN SACD PLAYERS ONLY" or something to that effect.

 

[soundboy]

You can go to sa-cd.net to check out SACD titles available. You can also see which are hybrid SACDs/single-layer (SACD only), and which are stereo/multi-channel.