SACD

[jzoz01]

I'm considering stepping up to an SACD player and looking for a little input. I was listening to a multichannel SACD at the store today and it was just incredible, but was it just neat because i'd never heard music in a format like that before or because listening to music in 5.1 is a better expirience than music in stereo? Is it really worth getting now, or would I be better off waiting? And lastly, has anyone had expirience with DVD-audio, I hear it's similar, but not as good.

[SCOOTERDOG]

As in PWK own words...Bullsh#t. DVD Audio is excellent. Don't let anyone tell you its not. I don't own a SACD player yet, but I have listen to several of them. Most disc I have listen to are very good sounding. I even went out and bought the SACD of DSOTM by Pink Floyd to use as a reference disk to help in my decision process. Now that I have said that. I have owned a DVD Audio machine for almost 2 years and have about 40 DVD A disc's. I love the format. The detail on most of my disc's is awesome, spacious and crisp. Like any format some of the disc's I have bought were not totally impressive. It really depends on the original source tape, engineer etc. I will tell you the best thing to do is to get out and listen to both formats. They both can sound awesome and some can be disapointing. But is one format really better then the other...IMHO No!

[prodj101]

I have SACD, but I don't listen to it in multichannel format. I don't like my music in multichannel much. So, with my SACD player I just set it to play all multichannel SACD's in stereo. personally I think it sounds much better than CD in this setting. better dynamics, smoother high and mids.

[Fish]

If you want to hear what your system can do, get a dvd multi player,dvd-a,sacd.They start at about 400.00 US and a nice unit about 1k(yamaha s2300).BOTH formats are great and offer the best reproduction you've likely ever heard.I know there is a big debate but I don't know why(both are far superior).This competition to provide the best quality recordings makes me VERY happy.If they stopped making either I would still be glad just to have the ones I do.

[formica]

----------------

On 4/17/2003 11:27:18 PM SCOOTERDOG wrote:

Like any format some of the disc's I have bought were not totally impressive. It really depends on the original source tape, engineer etc.

----------------

I couldn't agree more!! Both formats can be great, and i guess you "don't shoot the messanger if you don't like the message"

If you are not up for a "combo" player, i'd go with the format which has the most music you like available. I have DVDA and agree that the detail and soundstage really good on a properly engineered disks... but unfortunately given my taste in music, I find the quantity of disks lacking (SACD is equally poor in my case). Honestly i can't wait till more music is made available for either format...

Rob.

PS: Scooterdog, 40 disks? did you buy them all??

[Parrot]

jzoz,

Try the Search function for SACD and read what has been posted in 2-channel forum since, say, January. Lots of good info and opinions.

I love the 5 channel music experience (I don't use a sub), although 2- or 3-channel stereo, or mono is fine too.

Since you had a good impression, why wait? Prices are already a tremendous bargain. My philosophy is, I might get run over by a truck tomorrow, so why put things off?

I would not buy a multi-format player. I have not read any in-depth reviews of them that are favorable. The cheaper ones usually scrimp on SACD. Plus, buying a separate SACD player and a separate DVD-A player, both of good quality, is cheaper than buying a combo of comparable quality!

[kjohnsonhp]

This seems to be the year of the multi-format player, but they seem to be coming out in the $1k price range...ie the new Denon 2900 at $995.

My guess is that with time therer will be more sw and lower priced players of the same quality. These new technologies depreciate dramatically unlike $1k invested into an amp or pair of speakers.

I like 2-channel SACD and occassionally multi-channel (ie DOTSM) but the sw selection is poor so I haven't justified too big of an investment...I'm seeking a good video player first and if HiRez audio comes along for free then great.

I don't think HiRez audio has crossed the chasm.

I guess I see three interesting options at various prices:

Sony SACD player under $250

Phillips around $400

Denon 2900 at $995 MSRP

I assume there will be more over the next few months.

[Strabo]

You can't go wrong upgrading to Hi-Rez if your in the market for a new player.

Be careful of the lower priced stuff if your upgrading for sound quality. I have the $200 Sony and it is much smoother than my previous player but the tone is off a bit (Sony sound?). For that reason I still use the DAC in my pre for most CD listening. It isn't as smooth but get's the tone right.

At $200 I figured it would be worth a try in the short term. Short term is turning into long term. I'm still waiting for a combo player that does both Hi-Rez formats well for a resonable price (<$1,500).

At this point I could care less if there is no video. I want a good sounding player.

[whell]

Call me a heretic, but I've never gotten comfortable with multi-channel music. The soundstage is not convincing to me. My examples so far, in all honesty, have been the DTS disks by the Eagles, Clapton and D Krall.

However, I've never been to a concert where the instruments are placed behind me (or just above my listening position at a 45 degree angle from my listening position). Its just not a life-like presentation.

As one reviewer (probably a dinosaur like me) put it: "Audiophiles aleady have a high resolution audio format. Its called vinyl!"

[Parrot]

whell,

Very few multi channel releases have instruments in the side-rear speakers. There are exceptions, but the large majority have ambience in the side-rears, which gives your brain cues as to the size of the room the work was performed in.

But I don't mind aggressive multi channel mixes either, in which instruments are directly coming out of the side-rear speakers. No studio work is recorded with the group playing all at once in a configuration like on a stage. There would be so much leakage that it couldn't possibly work. Everything is either overdubbed or else the performers are behind walls or in separate booths. It's all illusion. The producer and the engineers are the ones that mix all the tracks together to make it sound real, if they're good.

[whell]

Hmmm....

Maybe I need to listen to some of these recording again. I seem to remember distrinctly the Eagles DTS live recording having instruments placed in the rear speakers. Could be my ears playing tricks.

[Strabo]

----------------

On 4/18/2003 12:41:41 PM whell wrote:

Call me a heretic, but I've never gotten comfortable with multi-channel music. The soundstage is not convincing to me. My examples so far, in all honesty, have been the DTS disks by the Eagles, Clapton and D Krall.

However, I've never been to a concert where the instruments are placed behind me (or just above my listening position at a 45 degree angle from my listening position). Its just not a life-like presentation.

As one reviewer (probably a dinosaur like me) put it: "Audiophiles aleady have a high resolution audio format. Its called vinyl!"

----------------

Totally agree with you.

There are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, I want my music to come from a soundstage in front of me. I do not want to be on the stage.

On Hi-Rez too. Sure, I'm comparing a more expensive analog set-up to a $200 player, that's why I said earlier, I would like to find a quality combo player in the sub $1,500 range to use as a comparison. In my mind the Combo player should be fairly equal to the Analog rig of roughly the same price, or it just isn't worth it.

Marantz has one out there (8300) but from what I've read, the SACD playback is comparable to a good CD player (note, exert from a review I read on it. I have not heard it myself). That's why I suggest they forego the video section and concentrate on producing an audio player.

We should not have to pay twice as much on a digital source that is less than equal to an analog source.

[formica]

I might be mistaken but aren't DTS recordings at a lower sampling rate than regular CD's? Whell, if you really want to experience high-resolution surround sound, you should try to give some DVDA or SACD's a listen... they do sound quite a bit better, even to my "non-golden" ears.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

When setting up your system, adjusting your front and rear channels with a SPL meter is an important step in keeping to music where it belongs. I also found that when using matching fronts and rears, the overall balance is very pleasant.

[artto]

There is a major technical difference between DVD-Audio & SACD. SACD is a one bit system. It samples at a very high frequency rate (I believe around 3 million times per second). IMO, I wish they had gone this route in the beginning with CD. It would have eliminated a whole bunch of problems. One bit allows for better transition (interpolation) into the future if & when higher sampling rates (resolution) become available. 'One' is easily divisible into any number. What do you do with 44.1Khz?

SACD uses a technique called Direct Stream Digital (DSD). DVD-A uses the old Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) technique. PCM audio (ie: DVD-Audio) must go through the following stages before we hear the actual recording

1) Firstly the sound being recorded goes through a Delta-Sigma Modulator

2) Then a Decimation Digital Filter then onto a DVD. To listen to the recording the next steps are required

3) Interpolation Digital Filter

4) Delta-Sigma Modulator and finally

5) Analog Low Pass Filter.

SACD only needs to go through stage 1 and finally stage 5, missing out 3 whole process thus eliminating excessive filtration.

DSD is a completely new way of recording sound, PCM has been around for nearly 30 years which itself was developed by Sony. You can add more bits and up the sampling rate but its still PCM, DSD is closer to the original analog waveform a digital medium (see link below)

http://www.super-audiocd.com/tech_format.html (yeah, I know, its in Japanese. But its the graphics/diagrams that are important here)

I also remember reading something about DVDs security format being a pain. You may not be able to make a copy of a recording for use in your car (for instance).

I have not compared the two directly, but decided to go with SACD based on the above. Unfortunately, the format contest is probably going to turn into a pissing contest, & we, the consumer, will probably be the loser. I think there is significant danger of SACD going the BetaMax route because the record industry seems to love DVDs security format.

All that being said, be forewarned. There are a few CDs I have that will not play properly on my SACD player (skips). On one of my own most recent recordings (recorded at 48Khz & then resampled down to 44.1Khz for CD production) I had immense problems with the CD-Rs playing without skipping.

And as previously mentioned, some (many?) people seem to be having problems getting 5.1 to sound right. This brings up another point which I personally have a pet peeve about. 5.1 apparently requires a square or cubical room/speaker arrangement with the listener positioned in the center of the room. A cubical room creates the worse case scenario for good acoustics, especially at lower frequencies. And even more so as the room size decreases. On top of that, it seems to me that (even though there will probably always be that sweet spot) there is only one decent location for listening, that can be occupied by only one listener no less (unlike wide-stage stereo).

Support SACD. Technically, its the better format. And has better compatibility into the future IMO.

[Parrot]

whell,

Your Eagles disc might very well have instruments in the side-rears; it could be one of the exceptions. I never heard it so I can't say; but if you heard it that way, I wouldn't doubt you were right. But like was said above dts isn't SACD or DVD-A.

[Parrot]

artto,

Actually, SACD is more secure than DVD-A. SACD has been out since the end of 1999 (in Japan) and its coding scheme has not been broken. The only way to copy it is to take the analog signal out and record it to something in real time. Nobody much wants to do that nowadays, you gotta be able to rip it at 48x. Having something non-rippable is a huge selling point to record companies.

The recommended multi channel configuration does not call for a square room, but it does call for all the speakers to be equidistant from the listener. This is the ideal, not necessarily what everybody actually does. I have found that I am *less* confined to a sweet spot with multi channel than with stereo. I believe it has to do with having a discrete center channel signal.

With 2-speaker stereo, you will lose the center channel illusion if you move too far left or right. But the listener position is much more forgiving with the discrete center channel of multi channel.

[jdm56]

I think both formats are capable of equally superb performance, but SACD is what I am rooting for. It was conceived, designed and marketed as an AUDIO format. DVD-A seems to have been designed with HT in mind.

I think the backers of both formats have done a rather poor job of selling their products, though. Of course, it would be hard to sell anything with so many practical limitations, such as format incompatibility, over-priced discs, limited title selection, questionable re-mixing choices on many discs, screwed-up bass management/time alignment/channel balancing, and last, but certainly not least, the lack of digital outputs for the hi-rez signal, or compatible pre-amps and receivers to handle them.

...Which explains why I am still on the fence with regards to SACD and/or DVD-A. (and man, is my butt gettin' sore!)

[maxg]

My 0.02 is as follows:

Still havent seen DVDa in Greece so it dont look like they are out to dominate this marketplace at least.

There seems to be a glut of SACD and SACD/DVD players out there but still very little software with none of the local record shops stocking titles.

I tried out SACD about 18 months ago - it really impressed at first but then I got to playing with vinyl.

My experience is - no comparison. Vinyl wins hands down in this house - and you want to talk about availability of titles....

[anarchist]

SACD also provides the benefit of providing a glut of high-frequency sound which is quite objectionable to some folks while some speaker manufacturers have rolled out new models which go to 50kHz to take advantage of the incredible resolution of SACD. Rush out and upgrade folks! Further, in practice DSD recordings frequently use PCM as the source signal.

I will ignore the potential arguments of the range of human hearing, I will ignore that anything approaching 20kHz sounds pretty much like a high-pitched whining sound, and I will ignore most instruments aren't involved in this frequency range; what I can't ignore is my dog gets real pissed at 'noise' he believes to be a dog whistle, and SACD combined with 50kHz speakers would certainly appear to be just that.

Both formats have serious drawbacks and we are suckers to buy into the planned obsolescence. Two competing formats, $1K multi-players - which reduce the sound quality of both formats, and the worst marketing of any product since the Betamax. People thought CD's were the snit when they came out. Now CD's suck and SACD/DVD-A is the answer.

Demand better. A high quality CD player and high-end turntable are on my short and forseeable future list.

JMHO.

[middlecreekguy]

You are correct, sir. It`s all about marketing and, money money money money...Money.