thastankanator Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Hi, I am a Klipsch enthusiest who is interested in SACD technology. My main question is: is SACD technology worth the price if I am going to be running it 2-channel stereo rather than 6-channel surround? Also, what is a good make and model of an SACD player and how much am I looking to spend here? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Most current SACD's don't run in 6 or multichannel mode but still have a significant sound improvement depending on the engineering/re-engineering so I would say yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai2000 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I cannot possibly imagine a multi-channel setup in my listening room, so it's pure 'old-fashioned' stereo for me (but no complaints about that!). I came across my current digital source by accident when a lot of people posted about the Philips DVD 963SA player which had made me curious and I was thinking of getting a new DVD player anyway, so its audio qualities came as a very unexpected surprise. I think it's really a first class unit (after all it replaced my McIntosh CD player even without some minor mods ) which plays everything (except DVD-A). Run a search on the player and you'll get some valuable information. Wolfram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I like it. It seems the first thing someone usually asks when I demo my system is Is this analog? I say No, its SACD. I think its the best of both digital and analog worlds. And the format makes sense from a future compatibility standpoint. Its one bit. One can be evenly divided into any whole number. Sample rate is nearly 3 million per second. It eliminates the steep brick wall filters at both ends of the recording/production process that cause all the audible problems with PCM (CD) that lots of people complain about. Some have argued that it has some noise issues, but I dont hear any and my system, as many of you know, could be considered ultra high resolution and is in a very quiet room. The Sony players are actually pretty good. I like their selectable filters for CD playback. The Phillips player mentioned above is a bargain. I love the Shanling SCD-T200 I acquired recently, although it is one of the more expensive units out there. This link may provide you with more insight as to the pros and cons of SACD vs. the PCM formats http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/meitnerinterview.htm EDIT: When selecting SACD recordings, if you want to hear a true SACD, make sure that it was recorded in DSD (Direct Stream Digital). Recordings that were made on analog tape or PCM format may or may not transfer well to SACD. It just depends on the actual quality of the original recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssh Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Yes, the 2 channel listen is an improvement. My Marantz is a multi-player, so I often listen in multi-channel, but 2 channel is what many older recordings are going to be in, anyway. The Phillips suggestion is a good one, and you can spend much more, arguably with considerably better quality. I'd like to hear the Shanling. Heck, I'd like to see_ it playing in my rack; it's a beautiful machine. SSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thastankanator Posted July 31, 2004 Author Share Posted July 31, 2004 Thanks, everyone. I will look into those models. Concerning the EDIT in the above post- this is alarming news! Most of my favorite albums were recorded on 2" analog tape. If this is so easy to get onto CD format, why would there be an issue with SACD? It would not be worth a penny to get an SACD player that didn't improve the sound of analog-source recordings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I have 2 Sony SCD-555ES's which I use for 2-channel only. Significant improvement over regular old CDs. I still prefer a well recorded lp but that's just me. To me, SACD is the next best thing and often better than the lp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I have both Sony (sacd) and Toshiba (dvd/a) in seperate systems. Both sound really good in 2 channel and appear to approach vinyl in sheer listening pleasure. I think the new formats are a big improvement on many cd's. But the shortage of software is a worry. I really couldn't say whether dvd/a or sacd is better - they're both good. As to listening to sacd or dvd/a in 2 channel - I actually prefer that option. Some of the multi channel mixes I've heard are pretty ordinary. For example in James Taylor's 'Hourglass' multi-channel mix, the main vocals come from the centre channel - no reverb or interaction with the 2 mains. Really sounds weird. But listen to this disc in sacd 2 channel, the mix is natural and James Taylor's voice sounds as though it is actually part of the recording. Consider a universal sacd/dvd/a player if you can afford it. Pioneer make a good one - so does Denon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 i have a pioneer universal player that i would highley recomend that way you can try both formats and what not, and its at a great price... i have dvd-audio i just got it like 3 days ago and i bought a pioneer then the new model came out a 2 days alter and i could get it for cheaper so i exchanged the one i got but i left my metallica ddvd-audio disk in my old player which the more i think about the more angry i get but i guess i can always get another one or something.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 ---------------- On 7/31/2004 7:43:50 PM Gramas701 wrote: ...then the new model came out a 2 days alter and i could get it for cheaper so i exchanged the one i got but i left my metallica ddvd-audio disk in my old player... --------------- Yeah, I've done that before. But when I found out, I went straight back to the shop and got the disc back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 well the good thing is, is i am almost sure i will be able to get it back tommorrow, i just went there twice already today and i didn't want to go back for a third time and besides i really wanted to play with my system since i just switched my recievers from the onkyo to the hk and i got the new dvd-audio player adn all that jazz, so i am not too worried just yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 If you are going to get into hi-rez audio I highly recommend a multi format player.Sacd is fine,dvda is just as good,imo,even in 2ch.There are several new players coming soon,Denon has some great units coming at very reasonable prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Definitely go for a universal player. You'll be glad you did! For me, 2-channel hi-rez, whether DVD-A or SACD is not worth the money or the hassle. Not that it can't sound better than CD, but the fact is, in my experience it usually doesn't. It just depends on the original recording, mixing and mastering quality, or on the re-mastering quality. Multi-channel is what makes SACD and DVD-Audio, to me. Of course, at this fairly early stage of the game, the multi-channel mixes are all over the map. From the outrageous to the "why bother?". But still the potential is there for stunning sound that makes 2-channel sound as dated as that felt picture on the wall of doggies playing poker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 btw i was able to get my lost metallica dvd a disk back and i was happy as soon as i got home today i cranked it up and thought it was sure glad to have it back.... anyways the universal player is where its at, i need to start looking for sacds i may like but i eally only want the disks that will play multi-channel adn 2 ch as opposed to only the 2 ch which a lot of sacds are so it limits what i will buy a lot... ohh well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 ---------------- On 8/1/2004 12:52:11 AM jdm56 wrote: Not that it can't sound better than CD, but the fact is, in my experience it usually doesn't. It just depends on the original recording, mixing and mastering quality, or on the re-mastering quality. ---------------- In my experience the SACD always sounds better than the CD. I can't think of one I own that doesn't. I only use 2-channel mode however. I've never even heard one in multi-channel. When I eventually replace my DVD player, I'm definitely going to get a universal player. The prices have come down so much over the past couple years it's crazy not to. For what I spent on my DVD player 4 years ago (not even progressive scan) I can get a pretty nice universal player now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 From what I've seen, many of the SACD's on the market are ONLY 2 channel. I have a couple of those, a couple multi channel, and couple more "hybrid" (play on a SACD player and also on a CD player). I think 2 channel SACD and DVD-A sound better than CD's - in every case I've compared anyway. Agree with many comments above - get a univeral player. DVD-A sounds (in my opinion) equal to SACD. Neither has great selection yet, so having a player that covers both formats gives you a lot more options (and in the end, only 1 may end up dominating - like VHS over Beta). I have the Denon 2900 and I've been extremely happy with that. Obviously, there are a lot of options with a wide price range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 On 8/1/2004 9:57:39 PM garymd wrote: In my experience the SACD always sounds better than the CD. I can't think of one I own that doesn't. I only use 2-channel mode however. I've never even heard one in multi-channel. ---------------- If you are comparing title to title, the SACD version has probably been re-mastered. Not necessarily always the case, but I would imagine most have been. That alone could account for a difference in sound quality. My collection is pretty small, so I can't make any sweeping pronouncements, but the cases where I do have the CD, the 2-channel version on SACD is from a new master and/or mix. On the other hand, I have a couple of DVD-A titles that were new releases, so there is no previous CD version to compare to. And these two titles both have really lame sound. So even in hi-rez land, the old rule still applies - garbage in / garbage out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thastankanator Posted August 2, 2004 Author Share Posted August 2, 2004 The following is from the recently released 3rd Edition of Robert Harley's "The Complete Guide To High-End Audio" (p. 267): "There's an important caveat to be aware of when evaluating SACD: some titles have been remastered in the new format from 44.1kHz, 16-bit master tapes. This means the SACD release will contain no more information than the CD version; the remastered disc can, however, sound better than the original CD because post-processing is performed at a higher sampling frequency (and the errors introduced are distributed over a wider bandwith), and the filtering performed in the player can be more gentle. Nonetheless, the best way to judge SACD is to choose tiltles originally recorded in DSD". Unfortunately, per the latest count published on the sa-cd.net web site, of the 2283 SACD's that have been produced todate, only 452 are pure SACD (i.e. SACD mastered at the time of recording). ************* So in most cases, there is no difference between CD and SACD other than the fact that the SACDs are usually remastered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Don't forget to add $5-10 as well 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.