shake777 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Bought a cheap Sony CE595 SACD player and much to my surpise works well and makes my listening pleasure all the more. Have any of you got the mod for this done that is supposed to provide a huge improvement in quality. I've heard some things and ready to plunk down several hundred dollars to gain what is touted as thousands in improvement. Please tell me its true...better yet tell me the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I have three players that do SACD, one of them capable of recording DSF and a couple of other variants on the 1bit recording used to make them. As with most things audio, I hear nothing to suggest that throwing a bunch of money at it would help. The IO for these things is an algorithm that cannot be made more or less than it is, and the parts used to form the mechanics required either meet electrical specs or they don't. Some can hear minute differences in such things and find them "significant" and sometimes "enormous." I don't, and don't care to. I have switched to the DSF format for live recording. It is capable of providing ample headroom in all directions and has the inherent capability to be (virtually) losslessly transcoded to any other format. I wish they had not kept the barriers to folks like us up so long. This format would have replaced CD except for the shortsightedness of the rights holders. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM3 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Some years back when I upgraded the dvd player in the living room I bought a unit that did DVD audio and SACD. Some of the mixes I bought were fair most were junk because they were not mixed well. In fact I actually prefered the CD's better. There are a few good ones that I found. Dark Side of the Moon was one of the best mixes actually. My big problem was trying to find the SACD's without special ordering them. I hear that there are some excellent examples of what the format is/was capable of and a lot of good classical music as well. Good luck with the purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Very true, EM3. See the "Why does my digital outperform my analog" thread for more on this. The bottom line is that the qualities of the mastering format are irrelevant if the engineering is crappy. Drinking Mogen David from a Waterford crystal doesn't improve it any, nor does a paper cup make it any worse. However, all things being equal, DSF format recordings can provide the highest level of performance. I recently acquired a Harmonia Mundi SACD "Music for Compline" that is all about the music. I can hear straight through the mastering chain to the room. That's what it's all about. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNRabbit Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 FYI: http://www.sa-cd.net An EXCELLENT source for SACD/DVD-A. Most are on amazon.com at reasonable prices. I think there are about 5500 SACD/DVD-A titles now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I have three players that do SACD, one of them capable of recording DSF and a couple of other variants on the 1bit recording used to make them. As with most things audio, I hear nothing to suggest that throwing a bunch of money at it would help. The IO for these things is an algorithm that cannot be made more or less than it is, and the parts used to form the mechanics required either meet electrical specs or they don't. Some can hear minute differences in such things and find them "significant" and sometimes "enormous." I don't, and don't care to. I have switched to the DSF format for live recording. It is capable of providing ample headroom in all directions and has the inherent capability to be (virtually) losslessly transcoded to any other format. I wish they had not kept the barriers to folks like us up so long. This format would have replaced CD except for the shortsightedness of the rights holders. Dave Geepers I didn't understand any of that [:$] I have a Yamaha SACD player DVD-S2500 and just got a few SACD's from another member. What should I be listening for? Do I play these in 2 ch, 2.1, 5.1 what? Thanks for a basic primer. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Sorry, Michael. 1. SACD uses a recording format that provides a much larger pot than most others. There is no musical stew that cannot fit in it with room to spare. 2. It can be poured into a smaller pot, like a CD size pot, with only a change in quantity. The quality of what is in the smaller pot will be the same, just less of it. While all the peas and carrots will not fit, you'll just be disposing of them, not mushing up the ones that remain or anything. 3. The SACD process effectively freeze drys the music so it can be used later. 4. The process of restoring the freeze dried music to sound is straightforward and has to be done with clean water, which is inexpensive and readily available. 5. As long as clean water is used, the reconstituted music will be, for all practical purposes, identical to the original music. 6. You may get a very slight improvement detectable to a handful of audio savants by using 1899 Dom Perignon in place of the water, but most folks, including most connoisseurs, will hear no real difference. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I assumed someone would reply, Michael. Did the analogy make any sense? As to "what do I play it in," TRY IT ALL. The worst will be as good as any CD. The 5.1 will run from intolerable to sublime...it's gonna depend entirely on the engineer. I don't know what you are listening to, but the center channel is (IMHO) irrelevant on acoustic music. I only use 4 mics and encode my surround to 4, not 5.1. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a center channel, especially if you have a problematic room, but doing without or simple summing a la PWK is perfectly adequate for the brain to localize properly recorded acoustic images. As to the .1, the speakers my target audience use can handle all the bass acoustic instruments provide without it, so it's redundant. Those choices are part of the neat options of the technology. There is no wrong choice...unless the music sucks. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 the 'bigger pot' is higher sampling rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 That's part of it, but let's don't go there, Michael. I get carried away and the music doesn't sound a bit better for it. Let's just leave it by saying there is nothing you can hear in terms of range of volume, complexity, or frequency that the DSF format cannot handle with room to spare in all directions. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.