SACD vs traditional CD

[Coytee]

I've got a sony dvd/cd player (model number escapes me while I"m here at work) Anyway, I've read a lot about SACD and am intrigued, so I have a couple of questions.

1. What is the inherent benefit of SACD over traditional?

2. If I get a SACD, will it play my "regular" cd's just fine, Will I perhaps, notice any benefit?

3. I'm currently listening to 2 channel. Is that sufficient for SACD?

(I seem to recall being told once, SACD is 5.1?)

4. I was at BB once and looked at their SACD rack, seemed AWFULLY thin in it's choices, is that me, or was it Christmas time, or is that for real?

5. Are "all" artists availble on SACD? Most? Some? Would it dictate getting new CD's to maximize it's impact?

6. Can you get a SACD dvd player?

7. Can you get a SACD changer?

You all see what's happening to me?

I read here & became intrigued on Brads (for sale) K-horns & drove from Knoxville to Chicago to get them. I later asked a bunch (with more to follow) questions on tube amps and finally , just jumped into the water and bought a Jolida so I have a starting point. I had Mark Deneed on phone and was asking him various questions and ended up ordering a Peach and now I'm inquiring about SACD.

Yes... my wife is definatly going to divorce me. But hey... it could be worse??? she COULD divorce me and KEEP my Klipsch stuff?

[Coytee]

I didn't really mean to say Deneed

[gcoker]

SACD is Super Audio CD and it is 5.1. Your regular CD's will

play fine in there but there will be no benefit. SACD is not

widely popular on CD's currently as you can tell from the

selection.

[DrWho]

SACD is also very much two channel. It uses a different encoding technique than CD or DVD and thus has an insanely higher bitrate. I've heard many claim that SACD is the "new analog", or at least it's the closest to analog sounding thing out there so far. I must say that I'm impressed with the improvement over redbook CDs (redbook is the normal standard CD). SACD has the capability to do 5.1, but this is at a sacrifice of bitrate to achieve the other channels. I do believe you can purchase an SACD combo DVD player. Also, all SACD players can play CDs and I'm fairly certain even a lot of normal CD players can play SACDs because of the way they're encoded (though you only get the normal redbook quality level).

[Hardhead]

1. SACD samples and decodes the sampled signal more times per second than regular (sometimes called "redbook" CD), so the decoded signal comes out looking and sounding smoother and thus more like an analog signal. The result can be in the hands of a decent engineer a better sounding signal.

2. Your SACD player will play redbook CD's, also.

3. SACD's can be multichannel, 2 channel, or both (hybrid). The cover of the SACD will tell you.

4. The number of SACD's isn't large, but is slowly getting larger.

5. All artists aren't on SACD yet. Jazz seems to have embraced it more than the other types of music. I wouldn't re-buy a SACD that I already had on redbook CD, but that's just me.

6 and 7. You can get DVD players and changers that also play SACD; Sony makes some since you already own that brand. The DVD's won't be in the SCAD format, since DVD's use a different coding and decoding format that, like SACD, sounds better than redbook CD's. The DVD players that play SACD's will also play redbook CD's, but often the electronics for the redbook CD's and sometimes for the SACD can be of lesser quality than the DVD decoder. The more things a manufacturer tries to get a component to do, the more compromises he has to make, especially at the lower price points. I would recommend a separate SACD/CD player for the best sound and maximum flexibility. Two components may cost more money at first, but if one needs replacing or upgrading, you only have to replace that one.

On a lighter note, if your wife does divorce you, don't let her know you'd give up everything else just to keep the Klipsch. She won't want it, but she might try to extort the most she can in exchange.

[Parrot]

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

On 12/27/2004 4:25:42 PM DrWho wrote:

SACD has the capability to do 5.1, but this is at a sacrifice of bitrate to achieve the other channels.

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

There is no lowering whatsoever of quality on multichannel SACD. There is on multichannel DVD-A.

[Parrot]

Coytee,

Check out this site

http://www.sa-cd.net/

It lists every SACD title there is, with reader reviews of quite a few of them.

How much money do you want to spend on a player?

[Coytee]

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

How much money do you want to spend on a player?

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

Although I'd not given it too much thought, I've learned to NOT say "money no object"

Since I'm definately NOT buying one within the next several months... as Mr. Budget gets over the recent k-horns, tube amp, Peach... I could comprehend an upper limit of say $1,500 give/take. I'd much rather comprehend a limit of 500, but could talk higher, if the incremental quality in sound is there with the incremental gain in price. I'd rather be a bit practical and not blow excess $$ on a name, or feature I'd use one time in a year.

[Q-Man]

Once you listen to SACD's and DVD-Audio you will want to replace all your CD's with them.

[edwinr]

SACD's to me, seem to offer a smoother and more extended sound over CD's and DVD Audio. Obviously DVD Audio sounds great in multi channel, but is less successful in two channel. SACD's sound similar to the best analogue, without the noise floor. If you want a really good SACD sound, I reckon you should check out the new Sony SACD/CD players. They have multi channel facilities if you want them, but they're fine in two channel. I had a Pioneer universal player for a while. I was a bit disappointed, although it played everything, it did nothing particularly well. In relation to playing DVD's, I would stick to a dedicated player.

[3dzapper]

In this month's "Stereophile" Jon Iverson's editorial has a couple of telling quotes. " as a Warner Special Products producer noted during one of the panel discussions 'DVD-Audio will disappear.'" That is when the video dvd/low res CD dual disk hits the scene. And this: "At the San Francisco AES conference, a famed recording engineer and equipment manufacturer summed up the impact of SACD over the last five years thusly:'Sales did not happen.' Note the past tense."

With sales of DVD-A and SACD combined equal to the 600,000 LP's sold in the past year and cassettes selling twice as many at 1.2 million out of a total of 289.8million units shipped. And with Apple et all making a killing with MP-3 download garbage, the writing is on the wall. Can you say Beta max?

My advice, stick to a good quality Redbook Cd player preferably with upsampling at this time. I'm glad I only spent under $140 on a Phillips 963a to "get into" SACD. The Upsampler is a better feature IMO. YMMV etc.

Rick

[3dzapper]

Sorry. Double post.

[Parrot]

You have zillions of options with a $1500 budget.

While some people recommend buying some of the classic early SACD players because they were over-engineered, I feel this is countered by not knowing how much wear and tear they've received over the last 3 or 4 years. And just about any seller is going to say his player has low hours on it and has been babied! But what if its laser mechanism goes out within 6 weeks?

So I would buy only a new SACD player. A lot of people are liking the newer Denon models, like the 2900, and then some get them modded besides. A few modders:

http://modwright.com/products/index.php?product_id=19

http://www.aplhifi.com/product.html

http://tweakaudio.com/EVS-2/EVS_Products.html

http://sacdmods.com/

The top Sony is the XA9000ES, around $2000-$2200 from oade.com

The only other Sony ES model is the SCD-C2000ES for only $299 from oade.com

http://oade.com/Home_theater/Sacd/index.html

The C2000ES is undoubtedly the best bang for the buck. You could always get it modded too, if money is burning a hole in your pocket!

P.S. The sales figures for SACD apparently did not include hybrid discs, and most SACDs are hybrids. Hybrids are counted as regular CDs. But it is true that SACD sales, including bybrids, are poor. If you like classical music, the selection is superb. Rock music, pretty bad. Country music, forget it. Jazz, quite a few titles. But if you're concerned that the format could disappear, buy the $299 model and it will be a good CD player too.

[edwinr]

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

On 12/27/2004 6:02:59 PM 3dzapper wrote:

My advice, stick to a good quality Redbook Cd player preferably with upsampling at this time. I'm glad I only spent under $140 on a Phillips 963a to "get into" SACD. The Upsampler is a better feature IMO. YMMV etc.

Rick

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

Fair comment, Rick. It is of concern that neither SACD nor DVD/A has really taken off like I thought they would. They might be slow starters, but frankly, I'm of the belief that they've both shot themselves in the foot. Bad timing, poor marketing, too much infighting among the stake holders.

Paul's suggestions of a good quality, lower cost, SONY SACD player is the way to go. If SACD runs out of puff, then you haven't really lost anything.

[Coytee]

All above wisdom is appreciated. I'll anticipate buying a lesser priced version.

Thanks to all, it's (your effort) appreciated.

[3dzapper]

Plus edwin, with the upcoming introduction of blue laser disks, there will be too many formats for the industry to support profitably. There are two conflicting formats of blue laser recording/playback parameters also.

Audiopiles will have to be content with and support vinyl to continue their habit.

Rick

[Parrot]

Rick,

The blue laser stuff is for high def video. While of course it could hold hi-rez audio, there'd be no real point. It's not like a label is going to put the complete Beatles catalog on one blu-ray disc just because it would fit.

Yeah, isn't that great, another format war?! It's because whoever wins, wins big.

Coytee,

Forget about buying most SACD at retail stores. You're much better off shopping online. BestBuy selection is not good, and most people don't live next to a Tower Records store (and they're expensive anyway). The only exception is hybrids of some titles at BestBuy and Circuit City, like the Dylan and Rolling Stones catalogs.

[DrWho]

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

On 12/27/2004 4:38:19 PM paulparrot wrote:

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

On 12/27/2004 4:25:42 PM DrWho wrote:

SACD has the capability to do 5.1, but this is at a sacrifice of bitrate to achieve the other channels.

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

There is no lowering whatsoever of quality on multichannel SACD. There is on multichannel DVD-A.

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

Thanks for the correction

[edwinr]

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

On 12/27/2004 4:38:19 PM paulparrot wrote:

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

On 12/27/2004 4:25:42 PM DrWho wrote:

SACD has the capability to do 5.1, but this is at a sacrifice of bitrate to achieve the other channels.

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

There is no lowering whatsoever of quality on multichannel SACD. There is on multichannel DVD-A.

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

I had forgotten that inherently, going multi channel in DVD/A results in a loss of quality. I noted previously that I thought DVD/A in 2 channel sounds inferior to 2 channel SACD. I find DVD/A sounds much better in multi channel. Not better than SACD of course. Is this because the DVD/A 5.1 mix covers up inadequacies in the DVD/A format? I wonder. Perhaps it's just the titillation of hearing surround sound music that you forget to be analytical. If I listened to more multi channel music, perhaps I'd develop a more discerning ear.

[DrWho]

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

On 12/27/2004 9:54:02 PM edwinr wrote:

I had forgotten that inherently, going multi channel in DVD/A results in a loss of quality. I noted previously that I thought DVD/A in 2 channel sounds inferior to 2 channel SACD. I find DVD/A sounds much better in multi channel. Not better than SACD of course. Is this because the DVD/A 5.1 mix covers up inadequacies in the DVD/A format? I wonder. Perhaps it's just the titillation of hearing surround sound music that you forget to be analytical. If I listened to more multi channel music, perhaps I'd develop a more discerning ear.

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

I've noticed that having the surround speakers helps to fill the room without having the volume as high. I've played around with it a bit and have found that the 2 channel sounds better when I bring the volume up loud enough to fill the room to the same extent...switching over to 5.1 at these volumes results in a lot of muddiness because the room is then overloaded.