[Spunky8]

I have a question that probably has an obvious answer: If I have a regular CD player (not a SACD model) and I purchase SACD discs, will the sound quality be better than on the original, non-SACD disc? I have a collection of older CDs (mostly jazz) and am wondering whether I would gain significantly in SQ if I replaced some of my favorites with newer, SACD versions.

Thanks for any input you can give.

 

[Morph201]

In some cases yes, in others no... really depends on the mastering. I've been burned plenty of times thinking the hybrid disc would yield better results, and in SOME cases the master on the CD side is worse!

A good place to search for particular titles that you are looking for is:
www.SteveHoffman.tv, a pretty good resource regarding different masterings.

 

[Killercrush]

I thought you couldn't play SACD's on regular CD players ?! Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[m11a1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killercrush /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought you couldn't play SACD's on regular CD players ?! Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Standard SACD cannot be played on regular CD players.
Hybrid SACD can be played on regular CD players.

 

[derekbmn]

Taken from Wiki-

There are three types of SACDs:

Hybrid: The most popular of the three types, hybrid discs include a "Red Book" layer compatible with most legacy Compact Disc players, dubbed the "CD layer," and a 4.7 GB SACD layer, dubbed the "HD layer." It is not uncommon for hybrid discs to carry the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo to show that the disc is CDDA-compliant.

Single-layer: Physically a DVD-5 DVD, a single-layer SACD includes a 4.7 GB HD layer with no CD layer.

Dual-layer: Physically a DVD-9 DVD, a dual-layer SACD includes two HD layers totalling 8.5 GB, with no CD layer. This type is rarely used. It enables nearly twice as much data to be stored, but eliminates CD player compatibility

 

[m11a1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derekbmn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dual-layer: Physically a DVD-9 DVD, a dual-layer SACD includes two HD layers totalling 8.5 GB, with no CD layer. This type is rarely used. It enables nearly twice as much data to be stored, but eliminates CD player compatibility

Also known as DVD-A right?

 

[Spunky8]

On a hybrid SACD, will the "Red Book" layer have SQ equivalent to the SACD layer? Or, will the "Red Book" layer, which is playable on a standard CD player, sound essentially the same as a regular CD? I guess I'm trying to figure out whether I'm wasting my money when I buy a SACD where I only have a regular, old-fashioned CD player, or where I'm using my computer to rip the CD using Apple Lossless.

Thanks. I'm fairly confused, as you can see.

 

[Morph201]

No need to be confused... Like I said, with HYBRID discs (i.e. the ones you can play on sacd and cd players) you're taking a chance... depending on how the tracks were mastered the cd layer may sound better, same, or worse... It's best to look up reviews of the selected titles.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Some CD players support something called HDCD, and I have some SACD where the hybrid CD recording is in HDCD, and that will sound better on your CD player if it supports HDCD.

Then there is also K2HD, XRCD, and XRCD2 which all technologies that will sound better on your normal CD player, without needing the HDCD chip. You can buy many of these recordings at First Impression Music Inc - Home Page and they have great clarity and depth vs normal redbook CD's, on a normal CD player. Some hybrid SACD also incorporate these technologies in the redbook layer, like they do with HDCD at times.

But, a hybrid SACD with normal redbook layer will not sound different than a redbook CD if played on a normal player. In those cases you need an SACD player to enjoy the additional sonic benefits.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunky8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif On a hybrid SACD, will the "Red Book" layer have SQ equivalent to the SACD layer?

No.

SACD is a different digital format from CD. It's like comparing a cassette and a reel-to-reel. Same general idea, but reel-to-reel wipes the floor with cassette. SACD is a different format altogether and incompatible with a CD player. It has a much higher resolution and uses a laser different from the one in CD players. If you want the sonic benefit, buy a SACD player.

Don't be confused by the hybrid discs. They have two different layers on them. The CD laser cannot read the SACD layer. The SACD layer contains a lot more information and detail than the CD layer, but you don't get that unless you have a SACD player.

SACD players are not expensive any longer, either. The Sony SCD-CE595 comes up on refurb around $60 and new ones are around $100. I owned one for a bit and thought it was pretty good. Good enough to make an investment in the format and upgrade to a better player. If you're interested in the format, I encourage you to pick up a SCD-CE595. I think it has the most bang for the buck of any source on the market.

 

[Cecala]

I have one disc in XRCD2 format and they are suburb. If only all redbook CDs were mastered using JVCs technology-No real need for SACD.

 

[Spunky8]

Thanks so far to all. Very, very helpful.

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some CD players support something called HDCD, and I have some SACD where the hybrid CD recording is in HDCD, and that will sound better on your CD player if it supports HDCD.

Haha, good luck finding HDCDs... that's the reason I bought and then sold my NAD C542. Out of 300 cd purchases 1 was an actual HDCD, well the other two I bought for a lot of dough and because the CDs were well mastered normal CD playback on a better cd player gave better results than the HDCD playback on my C542!!

In the long run it made more sense to invest in better gear and search for well mastered CDs at normal prices!

Well, maybe the genre of music you listen to may have more available.

Sorry to threadjack.. just had an HDCD flashback...

 

[silverrain]

There is a thread in the music forum here, of HDCD sources -- I have a LOT of HDCD -- been collecting them for years (since they first came out) -- the HDCD players generally have a better DAC chip, too, that is very good with regular CD playback. I can hear the difference, on those HDCD players. (I have three)
The playback SQ of a good CD and the same in HDCD, is usually very obvious.
I've personally been wondering whether it is worth it, to try SACD, since the HDCD is very good already.

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverrain /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a thread in the music forum here, of HDCD sources -- I have a LOT of HDCD -- been collecting them for years (since they first came out) -- the HDCD players generally have a better DAC chip, too, that is very good with regular CD playback. I can hear the difference, on those HDCD players. (I have three) The playback SQ of a good CD and the same in HDCD, is usually very obvious. I've personally been wondering whether it is worth it, to try SACD, since the HDCD is very good already.

You're more fortunate than me. The ONLY HDCD I purchased without knowing it was one (since most aren't labeled, thanks Microsoft) was Brubeck's Time Out. I purchased 2 or 3 from acoustic sounds at a premium price, and compared to what I heard on the C542 using HDCD and other players playing the disc without the HDCD encoding, I don't miss my C542's HDCD capability... I purchased Gene Ammons Gentle Jug and Patricia Barber's Cafe Blue (both gold HDCDs) and although the SQ was much improved over regular CD playback on the C542, when I played those discs on a higher end CD player I was immediately drawn into the music, needless to say my C542 with it's HDCD encoder was put on the chopping block. Of course I spent 2-4 times the price on the CD player, but for me it's worth it compared to hunting for HDCD's and\or paying a higher price.

Just goes to show that a lot of it has to do with the mastering process... more so than the gimicky labels they throw on discs (XRCD2,etc...).

Of course YMMV ...