SACD, how do you REALLY feel about it?

[alphaGT]

I recently bought a used CD player, a Cary 306.200. Which sold for a tidy sum when new, and at 5 years old it plays CD’s sublimely. (Is that a word?). I could not be happier with its performance! But it does not play SACD’s, and when I was shopping I pondered buying a unit that did play SACD, or perhaps a universal player. I reasoned that I don’t presently own any SACD’s or DVDA’s, so why pay for the hardware to play them? Plus, a search on available titles proved lacking in the music I like.

So what am I missing? Is it really great? Does it trounce regular CD’s? Is it worth the trouble even with limited titles? Or can you take it or leave it? I see a lot of you listing SACD’s in the “What’s Spinning?”, thread. Please share your thoughts!

Russell


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jandl100]

I've had a few SACD-capable players over the years.
Waste of time, imho.

I didn't really notice any difference, the individual recording differences between albums were way bigger than any SACD benefits I might (or might not) have heard.

And, worse, they brought out an OCD element in my personality that isn't usually in evidence - despite not really hearing any worthwhile improvement I found I was restricting my musical diet to SACD recordings! :doh: And buying more and more of the damned expensive things. And usually the best albums are not available on SACD anyway.

What a muffin. :rolleyes:

So, no SACD for me, thanks. :nono:

[JimC]

DSD whether it comes from an SACD or a file from a PC sounds dull and lifeless to me.
I too don't get what the fuss is about, give me good ol' PCM anytime.

Jim.

[struth]

I can play sacd but almost always play the cd layer. Not a big fan

[Macca]

SACD was yesterday's con.

The new con is MQA. I wouldn't buy into that, either.

[GJO]

I sold all my SACD's,went through a phase of buying quite a few,but as mentioned before I just didn't get them and preferred the original CD,did make a tidy profit on them though :)

[m10]

Much depends on mastering quality - and lots of that survives onto the CD layer, but the best ones are IMHO sublime. I'm fairly relaxed, though, about whether I listen to vinyl, SACD, CD (usually ripped) FLAC, ALAC, MP3 and whether I own or stream.

SACD is still the best way to deliver discrete multichannel music - and this for me is its principal raison d'etre. I despair of Blu-ray discs (and some DVD-A) that require on-screen navigation to access audio only content (Sgt. Pepper's, The Division Bell are some of the main villains here). Classical in surround is my big driver for continuing to buy SACD - a genre that is very well served by SACD. Definitely worth it.

[Boyse6748]

Much depends on mastering quality - and lots of that survives onto the CD layer, but the best ones are IMHO sublime. I'm fairly relaxed, though, about whether I listen to vinyl, SACD, CD (usually ripped) FLAC, ALAC, MP3 and whether I own or stream.

SACD is still the best way to deliver discrete multichannel music - and this for me is its principal raison d'etre. I despair of Blu-ray discs (and some DVD-A) that require on-screen navigation to access audio only content (Sgt. Pepper's, The Division Bell are some of the main villains here). Classical in surround is my big driver for continuing to buy SACD - a genre that is very well served by SACD. Definitely worth it.

Sorry, this is a bit of a YES / NO / MAYBE answer.

SACD is, and can be fabulous with the right Transport (not mentioning what brand). After spending what I consider a fortune on a Transport, I’m really disappointed as to the cost of SACD (only) disks “Not Hybrid”. The Japanese market is very different to ours, as they have embraced the technology and here in the UK finding the artist that you want is a bit of “Hit and Miss affair”, and it costs the earth.

I think my advice is...... if I was as informed then, as I am now.... I probably wouldn’t have spent so much money on this technology. I guess the only bonus is.... with a decent Transport, CD also sounds FAB.

The really irritating thing is ...... waiting 5 weeks or more + import duty to buy SACD from Japan, is a PAIN!!!!

So...... as always, I head back to good old Vinyl [emoji41] when all else fails.

Peter


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Yomanze]

Pick your poison: potential phase or impulse response issues (PCM) or ultrasonic noise issues affecting downstream components (DSD).

[anthonyTD]

Although I still own a SACD Player, I have not used it for quite a while now due mainly to what others have said, your limited in material to play.
I have though experienced the diffrence between both technologies, and it can be quite noticable, unfortunetly though in my honest opinion, SACD came out at least 5 years too late for it to have ever caught on mainstream, hence the reason why I [and I suspect many others here] own very few SACD disks compared to regular CD.:(
A...

[Boyse6748]

That’s very deep.... I quite like it [emoji7]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Haselsh1]

I have experienced both and can say that SACD is quite different to CD but when my last SACD player went bang I didn't replace it. Happy to keep on with CD.

[alphaGT]

Thanks guys, you’ve set my mind at ease. I don’t feel like I’ve missed out or am missing anything from SACD’s. I already own a few hundred CD’s accumulated during the years it was impossible to find new vinyl, and most of my present CD purchases are used. I’ve bought several new vinyl albums of late, and a lot of used ones. So not embracing yet another standard that is even more expensive is OK by me.

And honestly, if Super hi-fi is your goal, these days high resolution downloads are the way to go, I mean digital. In my system as it stands nothing beats a new 180 gram vinyl for reaching that emotional content. Although, since I’ve added the Cary CD player, it gives it a nice run for its money. I certainly don’t mind hearing a CD instead of a vinyl album.

Something to be said for a machine that put all of its eggs in one basket. A CD only player, in theory, concentrates on the best playback for CD’s without wasting any money on other parts that play other mediums. In reality, that may not play out? But, it makes sense to some degree. At least that’s what the sales literature says! If it’s to be believed. At any rate, I feel renewed confidence in my decision to buy a CD only player.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[m10]

Sorry, this is a bit of a YES / NO / MAYBE answer.

SACD is, and can be fabulous with the right Transport (not mentioning what brand). After spending what I consider a fortune on a Transport, I’m really disappointed as to the cost of SACD (only) disks “Not Hybrid”. The Japanese market is very different to ours, as they have embraced the technology and here in the UK finding the artist that you want is a bit of “Hit and Miss affair”, and it costs the earth.

I think my advice is...... if I was as informed then, as I am now.... I probably wouldn’t have spent so much money on this technology. I guess the only bonus is.... with a decent Transport, CD also sounds FAB.

The really irritating thing is ...... waiting 5 weeks or more + import duty to buy SACD from Japan, is a PAIN!!!!

So...... as always, I head back to good old Vinyl [emoji41] when all else fails.

Peter


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I get that I'm perhaps trying to cover all my bases here --- I don't subscribe to the idea that only single-layer discs sound good, or even that they're any better than hybrid discs. I love that the Japanese have embraced the format, but I think a lot of what they suggest is audiophile tomfoolery (like adherence to single-layer for SACD - never mind silliness like SHM and blu-spec CDs).

I also don't feel that you need a lofty high-end transport or player to feel the benefit. The difference (small as it is IMO) can be heard even on my lowly system. My experience of a dCS player is similar. For me, there's a sense of air and ease on the best discs that rivals the best vinyl (although it is a different sound, as you might expect).

The choice of music on SACD is disappointing in many genres of course, and Japanese imports are prohibitively expensive. I'd hate to think I had only one horse in the race, so to speak. I enjoy that I can play SACD. The nicest ones are some of the finest recordings I own. I won't lose sleep if I can't get my favourite album in an SACD version. Ambivalent enthusiasm?

[Macca]

I was under the impression that there was quite a big catalogue of Classical SACD available, and new ones still coming out?

I can see the appeal of it if you want surround sound.

As to the sound I don't know if it is maybe 'smoother' sounding than CD, sometimes I think so, sometimes I think it is my imagination. This could be down to the character of the typical SACD DAC rather than the medium, though. Wise not to make assumptions about what is responsible for the character of the sound you hear, especially with digital.

[Spectral Morn]

I hear the difference and have two SACD front ends, an Esoteric P5, D5 combo and a Marantz SA7.

[anthonyTD]

I think I had an SA7 at one point Neil,
Found its sonic presentation quite bland, and uninteresting to be honest, not realy sure what it was that gave it that character, even tried it at a friends in his system, same character, Its long gone now.
A...
I hear the difference and have two SACD front ends, an Esoteric P5, D5 combo and a Marantz SA7.

[alphaGT]

I hear the difference and have two SACD front ends, an Esoteric P5, D5 combo and a Marantz SA7.

Those are all VERY nice machines! I’m Jealous!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Macca]

The different mastering is pretty easy to hear, and this is what convinces people that SACD is night and day better than CD. It fooled me when I first heard it. It is any difference beyond that, in the character of the sound, that I struggle with.

I did use to think that it was worth having for the improved sound quality of the re-mastering (and re-mixing in some cases) but I've changed my stance on that in the last year or so. I'd rather have the original now.

[Bazil]

I've got a few because I had a Cambridge universal player now an OPPO 205 which does sound excellent with SACD's , there is so much re-mastering going on these days what sounds better , God knows.
I play DVD-As , Blu-Ray-As , SACDs , CDs , FLACs I no longer analyse just enjoy the music.
One maybe interesting note I have a Japanese SACD (not hybrid) of Wishbone Ash's Argus , its the most expensive disc I have ever bought , I never played it because compared to my remastered CD it sounded flat and dull, I read on I think Steve Hoffman's forum that my CD was a terrible remastering and that the best or one of the best was my SACD :scratch: , a bit more researching and the SACD needed quite a bit more volume , well blow me , it had been shoved at the back all these years , great recording , blows the CD away :D

[montesquieu]

I never got into SACD although I guess in the world of streaming the hi-res masters it spawned will no doubt not be wasted. (Though I suspect there are hi-res digital masters of almost everything produced in the last 20 years ... 24/96 and subsequently 24/192 have between them been the studio standard for a long time.)

I could never see the point of dedicated SACD players, although I owned a couple out of curiosity (Sony and Denon, can't remember the model numbers). Why? Because with a proper DAC like my Audio Note, redbook actually sounded better than SACD through your average SACD player ouput stage. I think redbook, done properly (that is, with due attention paid to the output stage, just as much as to the digital side) can sound amazing. SACD likewise ... but nothing I've heard really made the effort so build a separate setup seem worthwhile.

My AN DAC can do 24/96 (I've had some fun with the hi-res version of Qobuz) but the quality of the musical experience seems to me to be completely decoupled from the resolution or bit rate. The quality of the performance and its recording and mastering is far, far, far more important than the resolution of the media it's recorded to.

Anyway FWIW in my view it's a 'nearly' format, killed off ironically by shitty low res MP3s as the great unwashed moved to listening to Britney and Beyonce on their iPods, rather than spending money as they were supposed to on a 'better' digital format.

Sony might see a new lease of life if they allowed direct DSD digital output from a new generation of SACD transports (their refusal to do this all but guaranteed SACD's irrelevance in the world of hi-res DACs and streaming) but I suspect it's too late now regardless. A curiosity, a dead end, a nearly idea with a few diehard fans, like Betamax and Laserdisk. Close but no cigar.

[WESTLOWER]

I think redbook, done properly (that is, with due attention paid to the output stage, just as much as to the digital side) can sound amazing......The quality of the performance and its recording and mastering is far, far, far more important than the resolution of the media it's recorded to

+1 Tom, when redbook is delivered properly I can't see what more is to be gained!

[Boyse6748]

Isn’t that the whole point of this forum!!! We like what we like !!!!!

What you guys like, is not necessarily my taste. Par say!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Boyse6748]

I sometimes wish I could express myself better..... when you pay £10k + for a SACD you expect the Earth and more.. For me, it didn’t do it (My mistake) just trying to explain the pit falls.

However, if no one is listening.... Hay ho.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WESTLOWER]

I sometimes wish I could express myself better..... when you pay £10k + for a SACD you expect the Earth and more.. For me, it didn’t do it (My mistake) just trying to explain the pit falls.

However, if no one is listening.... Hay ho.
Peter, I'm sure people are listening and your findings and views are valid.

[anthonyTD]

Exactly, we can only share our own personal experiences, which can be taken with a pinch of salt in many cases, However; sometimes there is a common theme that the majority will experience.
Isn’t that the whole point of this forum!!! We like what we like !!!!!

What you guys like, is not necessarily my taste. Par say!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[m10]

I sometimes wish I could express myself better..... when you pay £10k + for a SACD you expect the Earth and more.. For me, it didn’t do it (My mistake) just trying to explain the pit falls.

However, if no one is listening.... Hay ho.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think we are listening - and with these things it's a case of each to his own to a great degree. I'd say your experience is relevant, and anyone auditioning a megabucks SACD player (or at any level) should do so with these things in mind. Certainly, the idea that there's lots of mileage in redbook standard 16/44 (whether from CD, FLAC, ALAC, WAV, stored or streamed) is powerful.

[jandl100]

Yep, I have a pretty good system imo, and I am a discerning listener, once again imo! - and Red Book standard or near equivalent is just fine and dandy as far as I am concerned.

[Spectral Morn]

I never got into SACD although I guess in the world of streaming the hi-res masters it spawned will no doubt not be wasted. (Though I suspect there are hi-res digital masters of almost everything produced in the last 20 years ... 24/96 and subsequently 24/192 have between them been the studio standard for a long time.)

I could never see the point of dedicated SACD players, although I owned a couple out of curiosity (Sony and Denon, can't remember the model numbers). Why? Because with a proper DAC like my Audio Note, redbook actually sounded better than SACD through your average SACD player ouput stage. I think redbook, done properly (that is, with due attention paid to the output stage, just as much as to the digital side) can sound amazing. SACD likewise ... but nothing I've heard really made the effort so build a separate setup seem worthwhile.

My AN DAC can do 24/96 (I've had some fun with the hi-res version of Qobuz) but the quality of the musical experience seems to me to be completely decoupled from the resolution or bit rate. The quality of the performance and its recording and mastering is far, far, far more important than the resolution of the media it's recorded to.

Anyway FWIW in my view it's a 'nearly' format, killed off ironically by shitty low res MP3s as the great unwashed moved to listening to Britney and Beyonce on their iPods, rather than spending money as they were supposed to on a 'better' digital format.

Sony might see a new lease of life if they allowed direct DSD digital output from a new generation of SACD transports (their refusal to do this all but guaranteed SACD's irrelevance in the world of hi-res DACs and streaming) but I suspect it's too late now regardless. A curiosity, a dead end, a nearly idea with a few diehard fans, like Betamax and Laserdisk. Close but no cigar.

Not tried this yet but the Sony HAPZ1 had a recent software/operational tweak which makes the USB a digital out now, and as the HAP plays DSD and can convert files to DSD (also comes with DSD sample tracks) I plan on trying it with a DAC I have that is DSD compatible. If this works then that is a step forward.

Esoteric equipment has two DSD output options Firewire and twin XLR outputs, both sound excellent.

[Spectral Morn]

I think I had an SA7 at one point Neil,
Found its sonic presentation quite bland, and uninteresting to be honest, not realy sure what it was that gave it that character, even tried it at a friends in his system, same character, Its long gone now.
A...

I respect your listening experience but don't agree.

[montesquieu]

Not tried this yet but the Sony HAPZ1 had a recent software/operational tweak which makes the USB a digital out now, and as the HAP plays DSD and can convert files to DSD (also comes with DSD sample tracks) I plan on trying it with a DAC I have that is DSD compatible. If this works then that is a step forward.

Esoteric equipment has two DSD output options Firewire and twin XLR outputs, both sound excellent.

Interesting, Neil. It was always my understanding that just about all SACD transports to date only output PCM over SPDIF, via a conversion process, most can't output native DSD, so it's pretty cool that some are doing that. It would be pretty cool to be able to make a direct comparison.

My DAC doesn't read native DSD but my newly-acquired Mutec MC3+USB reclocking device does, though it performs a conversion to PCM in passing the signal through, that's supposed to be done in a reasonably sophisticated way but is a conversion nonetheless. I assume the DSD input is only over USB but I haven't checked. Conversion is frought with difficulty though because the whole stream is handled entirely differently, DSD is only 1 bit but a massively higher sample rate.

Very few SACD recordings were done natively in 1bit DSD anyway, most are conversions of 24/96 or 24/192 in the studio. So they get quantized on the way to DSD format, and conversion to PCM quantizes them on the way out - not ideal and there are strong arugments on the high-res side for keeping things PCM.

Some interesting info out there on the relationships between DSD and PCM and it seems to me that which format is 'better' is not always clear cut. Here's one example which though it's by a DAC vendor explains things rather well. http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

[alphaGT]

Thank you Tom! I truly enjoyed reading the article you linked to. I did my college thesis on PCM way back in ‘93, a LOT has happened since then! And the author really sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, and made it very readable. It answered a lot of questions I didn’t know I wanted to ask!

Russell


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chivas]

From limited experimentation, I prefer redbook cd's played through my AN DAC to SACD played directly from my Oppo UDP 203. I wanted the option to play most formats and thus went for a universal player like the Oppo, but as said the quality of the DAC surpasses any (potential) gains made in the format - IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James the Albarry lover]

My one and only experience with SACD was from a Marantz sa11s2 if you played back to back with the same normal cds the differences were huge for me it just added more layers to the music, left me so impressed that a Marantz SA player is the next thing i'll be buying

[Macca]

My one and only experience with SACD was from a Marantz sa11s2 if you played back to back with the same normal cds the differences were huge for me it just added more layers to the music, left me so impressed that a Marantz SA player is the next thing i'll be buying

The differences are all in the mastering, not the format. Buy the hybrid copy if there is one and play it on a normal cd player, you will still get all the benefits of the better mastering. The format side of SACD is a bit of a con, I'm afraid.

[Yomanze]

The differences are all in the mastering, not the format. Buy the hybrid copy if there is one and play it on a normal cd player, you will still get all the benefits of the better mastering. The format side of SACD is a bit of a con, I'm afraid.

Amen.

[montesquieu]

The differences are all in the mastering, not the format. Buy the hybrid copy if there is one and play it on a normal cd player, you will still get all the benefits of the better mastering. The format side of SACD is a bit of a con, I'm afraid.

Totally agree.

[struth]

Have to say I have a few and just play the normal layer.

[anthonyTD]

:)
I respect your listening experience but don't agree.