[wakeride74]

I am playing with the idea of upgrading my home source to something that will play the SACD and DVD formats and bring me closer to the audiophile sound we all strive for.

Is it worth it at this point or is all this so new it could use some time to cool off (drop in price)?
What brands are good considerations?

 

[jefemeister]

if you already own CDs, just get a better CD Player, DAC, amp, speakers,etc. There's nothing particularly "audiophile sound" about SACD/DVD-A in my opinion and you might as well get better sound out of titles you already own instead of buying a few titles on hi-rez just to chase audiophiledom. just my 2 cents.

 

[bigshot]

If you have a good stereo, and you want to get just about all of the advantage of having an SACD player, just get some hybrid discs and play them on your regular CD player. The improvement in sound in most cases is entirely due to remastering. The redbook layer sounds just as good as the SACD layer does.

However, if you have a multi-channel speaker setup, SACD is great. I'd suggest investing in a 5.1 surround speaker setup before an SACD player.

See ya
Steve

 

[wakeride74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If you have a good stereo, and you want to get just about all of the advantage of having an SACD player, just get some hybrid discs and play them on your regular CD player. The improvement in sound in most cases is entirely due to remastering. The redbook layer sounds just as good as the SACD layer does. However, if you have a multi-channel speaker setup, SACD is great. I'd suggest investing in a 5.1 surround speaker setup before an SACD player. See ya Steve

I actually have the 7.1 although it is really 5.1 expanded it still adds a lot in terms of "surround sound" so this is simply a question of cost to value in source SQ.

 

[bigshot]

I don't think SACD players are going to drop too much further. They're already quite inexpensive. I'm not so sure how long the format is going to last through.

See ya
Steve

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I don't think SACD players are going to drop too much further. They're already quite inexpensive. I'm not so sure how long the format is going to last through. See ya Steve

I fear buying an SACD player now is essentially buying a seat on the Titanic. The format is nice, from what I've heard of it, but a comercial loser and it's sinking. Same with DVD-A. I am curious to see what will happen next, and whether 5 years from now there will still be any universal players being produced.

Of course, if you have access to a lot of SACDs that you like, a player is still going to be worth while. And while I suspect Steve is right, new SACD players are not likely to drop much in price at the entry level, the price of used higher end players is probably about to have the floor drop out from under it.

 

[DJ_JonnyV]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If you have a good stereo, and you want to get just about all of the advantage of having an SACD player, just get some hybrid discs and play them on your regular CD player. The improvement in sound in most cases is entirely due to remastering. The redbook layer sounds just as good as the SACD layer does.

I totally agree with this statement! When I play on of my Diana Krall SACDs on my older Pio Elite 25 disc changer it sounds fabulous. I'm using some Shure E3cs and it just sounds like velvet coming through them. There's something about the redbook layer that makes these discs sound that much bettter on regular cd players.

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeride74 I actually have the 7.1 although it is really 5.1 expanded it still adds a lot in terms of "surround sound" so this is simply a question of cost to value in source SQ.

Nice

Depending on your budget you may want to consider picking up a higher end SACD unit used or refurbished, I see little sense in using a high-res format in a cheap unit. Especially since you are very dependant on the quality of the output stages with SACD as you cannot just upgrade it with a killer DAC as you can with almost any cheap CDP. The higher end you go with the initial SACD unit, the smaller will be your urged to upgrade it with a DAC for redbook later.
If you like Jazz, Classical, or Classic Rock - give it a go. All the high quality labels (the usual suspects, Linn, Telarc, Chesky, MFSL) have outstanding material on offer.

Don't you have a nice store around where you could lend out a player & reference discs for a couple of days?

 

[Demian]

I'd recommend getting one that improves your redbook playback and offers SACD as a bonus. There are a number of the Sony's (the 222 or the 555 ES changers; I own the 555ES and am very pleased with both SACD and redbook) that you can find used which cost about the same as their non-SACD counterparts. Or just get a cheap SACD player (many of the entry level Sony's are supposed to offer very good SACD playback and so so redbook). Then just buy hybrids (yourmusic.com has over 30 hybrids for 5.99) and it doesn't matter what happens to the format because you'll still be enjoying the titles you have. My bet is that SACD sticks around for quite awhile as an audiophile niche market (like vinyl, XRCD, etc, with a similar range of music).

For what it's worth, I've got about 100 SACD's and, on my system, the vast majority have very good sound and most surpass the sound of the CD layer. One way to think of SACD's is that, for about the price of a normal cd, you're often getting audiophile level mastering without paying the $30 XRCD, gold disc, etc price.

 

[bigshot]

SACD players make it very difficult to do A/B testing of the layers. To switch layers, you have to shut down the machine and restart. In order to do a true A/B, you have to rip the CD layer, burn it to a CD-R, and rack it up on a CD player alongside the SACD. I'm betting most people haven't done that. I have. There's no difference in sound between SACD and redbook. If the SACD is reproducing frequencies beyond what the CD is capable of, it doesn't matter, because the ear can't hear them.

All of the audible improvement I've heard in SACDs is due to mastering.

See ya
Steve

 

[Demian]

For what it's worth, I've done A/B testing with my 555 changer via toggling the layers with the remote (mine doesn't require a shut down, only stopping the disc and hitting a button on the remote) and, at least on my system, I can hear a difference in the dynamic range and a more tube-like quality to the sound. Better recording/mastering has a lot to do with it, but DSD does add something to my ears.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeride74 I am playing with the idea of upgrading my home source to something that will play the SACD and DVD formats and bring me closer to the audiophile sound we all strive for. What brands are good considerations?

I'm not sure if SACD and DVD-A are really dying. But fact is that the hi-rez music catalog is not large and versatile enough to justify the upgrade to SACD (or DVD-A), maybe unless you're into the mainstream of every genre. And of course if you really want to know how high-resolution audio playback sounds. That may be justification enough for an audiophile. I for one have a McCormack UDP-1 and am far from regretting the puchase, the more so as it offers magnificent CD playback on a level comparable to pure CD players in the same price category and above.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot ...burn it to a CD-R, and rack it up on a CD player alongside the SACD. I'm betting most people haven't done that. I have. There's no difference in sound between SACD and redbook.

That's a funny way of doing comparisons. It implies that CD and SACD player sound the same. Which is very unlikely given all source devices I've heard show different characteristics. So if you don't hear that, it's no wonder that you don't hear the difference between the formats.

Quote:

All of the audible improvement I've heard in SACDs is due to mastering.

Now, is that because you really know that the mastering has been different, or just guessing? Of course I also hear characteristic differences which lead me to believe the same every now and then, but that's an exception.

Generally there's a clear, distinct differerence between the formats to my ears: CD, SACD and DVD-A. Notice that I've taken care for hi-rez recordings. Low-rez recordings pressed on SACDs make no sense (which doesn't mean they sound the same as the CD layer though, just not better).

 

[ken36]

Outstanding thread. Very informative. Thanks.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ That's a funny way of doing comparisons. It implies that CD and SACD player sound the same. Which is very unlikely given all source devices I've heard show different characteristics.

Unfortunately, given the technology, it's the only way to get a direct A/B short of having two identical players and two copies of the same disk. I used a Phillips 963SA and a mid-level Yamaha CD player to compare, and neither me, nor the sound engineer I did the test with could hear any difference between the two.

The sound differences between CD players is MUCH less apparent than the differences between speakers or headphones, or even amps for that matter.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The sound differences between CD players is MUCH less apparent than the differences between speakers or headphones...

...whatever that means.