Sacd?

[StanTheMan]

Is it worth it to get an SACD player or is that format pretty much dead?

[racquetman]

It probably depends on what type of music you listen to.

If you are into popular music, don't expect to see many (if any) titles in SACD.

The format is dead (it's being outsold by vinyl), but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy a few high quality offerings if you find some titles you like.

If you want to try out SACD (or DVD-A), buy a universal player. It functions very well as a DVD and CD player if you end up not getting into the hi rez music formats.

[StanTheMan]

Well, at this point, I'd like the Stones and Dylan releases. Are they worth investing in an SACD player? Or is it better just to be patient -- if sacd is dead, then won't they come out as DVD-Audio or some other format? Hopefully not Dualdisc...I hate those things.

[racquetman]

Well, at this point, I'd like the Stones and Dylan releases. Are they worth investing in an SACD player? Or is it better just to be patient -- if sacd is dead, then won't they come out as DVD-Audio or some other format? Hopefully not Dualdisc...I hate those things.

Only you can decide whether they are worth the investment. I have a DVD-A player and about 12 titles. It was worth the purchase for me, but I also realize that I'm not likely to see many titles that I want in the DVD-A format. DVD-A is just as dead as SACD. Dualdisc, unfortunately (I hate them also), is the best selling format of the three, and money talks.

If you can, go to a high end electronics store and have them play you an SACD and see if you think the sound is worth it.

[supervij]

The purchase of a cheap universal player was worth it for me too -- more so for the ability to listen to multi-channel albums. Cheap players like mine do a decent job, but the sound quality is only just a bit better than regular CDs. Having said that, there are several SACDs and several DVD-As to which I listen constantly. The format is kinda on life-support, but there are some amazing albums out there, both multi-channel and stereo, to discover.

cheers,
supervij

[Rob Babcock]

I was shopping on HB Direct for classical SACDs & DVD-As, just putting things into my cart that looked good. Before I knew it, my cart was up to $475!:eek: And there were literally dozens, if not hundreds, more that I would like to have. If you're into classical, or to a lesser extent jazz, then those formats are still very vital and growing daily. If you're only into pop & rock, both formats are nearly dead.

Still, I did recently buy the DVD-A MC reissue of The Soft Bulletin by The Flaming Lips. And supposedly John Mayer's Room For Squares will be out soon. The flow of new titles is more trickle than flood, but there are some new ones.

[rgriffin25]

I have used both formats to expand my musical tastes. A large majority of what I buy is classical. Recently I have bought several Jazz recordings and I must say this genre is really growing on me. Like Rob mentioned, if you are into classical and Jazz there are new releases coming out all the time. I have several discs on my "want" list. (I currently have approx. 65 Hi-Rez discs)

[howie85]

Personally I found the experience of sacd and dvd a very enjoyable. Most of the better dvd players out there today play one or both formats anyway, I love dsom in multichannel it ranks high as a standard for good use of the format. If you like Pink Floyd it is a must.

[Naves74]

SACD and DVD-A are fantastic. I would say go out and get a cheap dual format player and get some cd's you wont be dissipointed. Just know your not going to be able to go to BB or CC and pick up 15 cd's that you know and love on both formats everytime you go. But the technology is great. I can sit for hours and listen to Dire Straits in SACD.


I wish the masses would get turned on by multi-channel audio. I guess there just all happy with there 128kbs tunes and ipod.

[StanTheMan]

Thanks for all the feedback. Is there anything in particular I should look for in a player? The consensus here seems to be that a cheapo-universal player is sufficient.

[j_garcia]

What's your price range? I've read good things about the Denon 1920 at $350. I used to own the 2200 and now the 2900 and they are great all around players. El Cheapo isn't the best approach, but it will work without breaking the bank, to get you to the point of deciding if it is something you want to continue to expand on while you build a library of titles. I think both of these formats are great, as long as you do a little research first on particular titles - not all hires discs are created equally, and each is only as good as the mix/master is. When they're good, it can be amazing, but when they're bad, it can be hardly better (if not worse due to a bad mix) than a regular CD.

[Nomo]

Thanks for all the feedback. Is there anything in particular I should look for in a player? The consensus here seems to be that a cheapo-universal player is sufficient.

What's your idea of cheap? If I had the chance to do it all again...

Sorry, lost in a Barb S moment.

Where was I? Oh yeah. I looked at the Denon J_Garcia mentioned. Wish I'd bought it. I got an Onkyo instead. Don't ask.

Depending on your musical tastes a universal player is still not a bad way to go. Until they stop selling the format and it's still possible to find music to your liking, DVDA and SACD ain't dead, yet.

[Jack Dotson]

Your probably right about SACD dying a slow death, and I'm one who thinks this really sucks. Fact is, the majority of the listening public could give a damn about quality, and most don't have a system where could tell the difference between the various formats to start with.

IMO SACD and DVDA are heads a shoulders above redbook cd's. I have to really like a tile that is only available on RB before I'll buy it. Of course there are some bad and good examples of both, but when done right there is no comparison.

I've been using a Sony NS DVP999ES for the past couple of years and to this point have only collected SACD's. I already have a good collection of many of my favorites and will get more.

Just today I put a Sherwood SD-860 on order. This is a multi-format DVDP that does SACD and DVDA, so now I can go after those titles that are available on DVDA only. I already have several in mind.

I was going to hold off on the purchase of another DVDP until the HD units become affordable, but I've read they actually may not even support SACD/DVDA. May not be true, but I'm not going to take a chance.

If the video performance of the SD-860 is good that's a plus, but I'm primarily concerned about the sound. Regardless of what happens with the new formats I will still have all these great SACD and DVDA's and will need something to play them on.

HD may be allot better on the video side, but I'm really not very optimistic they're going to make an improvement to these formats on the audio side. These didn't take off so what would be the need?

[StanTheMan]

What's your price range? I've read good things about the Denon 1920 at $350. I used to own the 2200 and now the 2900 and they are great all around players. El Cheapo isn't the best approach, but it will work without breaking the bank, to get you to the point of deciding if it is something you want to continue to expand on while you build a library of titles. I think both of these formats are great, as long as you do a little research first on particular titles - not all hires discs are created equally, and each is only as good as the mix/master is. When they're good, it can be amazing, but when they're bad, it can be hardly better (if not worse due to a bad mix) than a regular CD.


$350 is in my price range. My only hesitancy with Denon is that I had a Denon surround sound receiver, and it completely died at around the 4 year mark. My previous receiver was a JVC and it lasted forever. I couldn't *get* it to break, though it eventually did after 15 years...

[StanTheMan]

Your probably right about SACD dying a slow death, and I'm one who thinks this really sucks. Fact is, the majority of the listening public could give a damn about quality, and most don't have a system where could tell the difference between the various formats to start with.



I blame digital downloads and the iPod....unfortunate, but we seem to be in an era where disposable singles and crappy sound quality reign supreme.

[j_garcia]

I'm not a big fan of Denon's receivers, but I'm quite happy with their DVD players. I understand though. JVC let me down in the past, so I'm not ready to buy any more of their products. Every brand has their lemons :)

Yeah, the iPod annoys me. People seem to think it is some sort of nice piece of gear, and it most certainly is not. It is an MP3 player just like the rest of them, and it is subject to the same limitations - the quality of the MP3 files themselves.

[supervij]

The iPod is a nice piece of gear. I use mine all the time when I'm out and about. And why not? I mean, the city (loud traffic and loud people) makes enough noise that SACD-quality sound will never be heard, right? So what's the big deal? mp3-quality sound really is all you need if you're outdoors -- it is a portable player, after all.

When I'm home though, the only time I listen to mp3s is when I'm on the computer and just want some background music. But if I'm listening critically, yer darn tootin' I haul out a CD, DVD-A or SACD. I can't imagine anyone listening to mp3s critically in the way someone would sit down to listen to a Bach or Pink Floyd CD/DVD-A/SACD.

Man, the iPod gets a lot of flak from you guys!

Anyway, I can't get enough of my SACDs. Love 'em. Loooooove 'em. And oh MAN would I love to pick up a Denon 1920 -- it's the only current player I'd be able to afford right now. But I'll contine to drool over the 3910 every time I stroll into Bay Bloor Radio. Sigh. So pretty . . . so shiny . . . sigh . . .

cheers,
supervij

[j_garcia]

OT: The iPod is good for what it is, but like you said it IS a portable device, not something that I would consider connecting to either of my systems. I like it. I have a friend that works for Apple and those are one of the things he works on... For me personally, it serves little or no purpose though. If I am at the computer at work, I listen right off the computer. If I am at home, there is never a time when I'd be listening to MP3s because I'll just turn on one of the systems to listen to music. In the car...if I had an in-dash MP3 player, I'd use it, otherwise I listen to CDs. Many new in dash receivers are starting to come with memory, which makes sense to me, but again, no use for a portable device (unless they get smart and make them one device like the satellite guys did, duh). I don't wear headphones when I am biking either.

[Buckle-meister]

...the iPod annoys me. People seem to think it is some sort of nice piece of gear, and it most certainly is not. It is an MP3 player just like the rest of them...

People may use it as such, but as far as I'm aware, you can place .wav files on it if you wish, though at the expense of eating up more of the unit's memory compared to an equivalent .mp3.

[j_garcia]

People may use it as such, but as far as I'm aware, you can place .wav files on it if you wish, though at the expense of eating up more of the unit's memory compared to an equivalent .mp3.

High bitrate MP3s are more or less in the same boat - they sound better, but they also take up more space. I always use a minimum of 192k when making MP3s, otherwise I feel you can start to hear the compression. At that bitrate, they are about 7meg for the typical song, up to 15+meg.

[rollinrocker]

I have about 40 dvd-a discs. For the most part they sound fantastic, but there are some duds. I have 4 sacd/hybrids but i don't even have a sacd player, the remastered two channel sounds great. There are new releases coming out every month, but not in any great numbers. Hi-rez is not dead, but pulse is weak!

[j_garcia]

Most SACDs just contain the exact same tracks on the CD layer that are on the redbook CD. They are NOT remastered just for the SACD release in most cases, AFAIK.

[rollinrocker]

I have both redbook and sacd versions of "avalon" and "dark side of the moon". Trust me, there IS a difference.

[treetownal]

I bought my Denon 1920 for about $250, refurbed with full warranty. It works great and SACD sounds great. You can probably get it cheaper if you looked hard enough. There are enough good SACD titles out there that it is worth it to own just for them.

[j_garcia]

DSoTM has at least a dozen versions and I couldn't tell you which one is on the SACD, so that one isn't so easy to pin down. Avalon is different from the previous RB because I think they went back to what I believe was a thought to be lost analog master and they probably were remastered. That is not the case for all hybrids though, because I have a few that it is clear that there is no difference. All I'm saying is don't assume that every hybrid will contain remastered CD tracks. On the Nine Inch Nails The Downward Spiral, the CD tracks are identical to the previous redbook release (AFAIK) for example.

[Jack Dotson]

Snip...
Anyway, I can't get enough of my SACDs. Love 'em. Loooooove 'em. And oh MAN would I love to pick up a Denon 1920 -- it's the only current player I'd be able to afford right now. But I'll contine to drool over the 3910 every time I stroll into Bay Bloor Radio. Sigh. So pretty . . . so shiny . . . sigh . . .

cheers,
supervij

How about the Sherwood Newcastle SD-860? Have you taken a look at it? There is very little written about it, but I took a chance a ordered one yesterday, $418 shipping included, three year warranty. Look too go to be true on paper, I'll let you guys know how it turns out.

[StanTheMan]

Yeah, the iPod annoys me. People seem to think it is some sort of nice piece of gear, and it most certainly is not. It is an MP3 player just like the rest of them, and it is subject to the same limitations - the quality of the MP3 files themselves.


It's nice because of the portability, and for folks who travel a lot, it's an easy way to take your tunes with you without lugging another suitcase. Considering how often I lugged around a portable cassette player (25 years ago or so), it likely also is great for the young 'uns. But the fact that folks think it has suitable sound quality for an every day player is disturbing as is the emphasis on singles rather than albums. Albums are art, man. A single....is just a single. It's easy to see why the industries love 'em though...the record labels made a bundle off 45s and they've been trying to get back there ever since the 45 bit the dust.

[Geno]

If you do a lot of air travel, the portables are a gift from God. I burn from my own CDs using MP3Pro at minimum 192Kbs Variable Bitrate, and the sound is quite good through my Etymotic earbuds. I have a 20 GB Archos player and have about 50 CDs on it, and it's still only about half full.
Gotta agree about critical listening at home, though. I find enough SACDs and DVDAs to satisfy my habits, and most of the DVD concerts in DTS are also good audio quality.

[shokhead]

The more i listen to SACD and DTS discs,the worst redbook cd's sound.

[j_garcia]

The more i listen to SACD and DTS discs,the worst redbook cd's sound.

Sorty of :D I do listen to my hires more and more too, The resolution definitely isn't there on most CDs, but that is not the fault of the media, it is the mastering. I do have a few CDs that I think sound great. Jazz at the Pawnshop is a redbook CD, but it actually has as much detail as my best SACDs. I'd buy it on SACD, but that version is ~$60!

[Ssebu]

Just two things I'd like to add:

First, you have to know that SACD players cannot output sound to your receiver in the digital domain, Sony (which created the format) won't allow it. You have to run six analog RCA cables from your player to your receiver. Therefore, many things you take for granted from your receiver have to be done by your player. For example, bass management. I have a Denon 1920 myself, and it does bass management, but the crossover frequency is fixed at 100 hertz. A lot of those universal players have fixed frequency bass management like that, but some have a crossover at 120 hertz, which is worse if you ask me. Players with a configurable crossover frequency are a lot more expensive than the 1920. Make sure to check the bass management and speaker calibration features of the players you shop for.

Second, I'd like to ask people why it is that they dislike dualdisc that much. I used to think that dualdiscs were like DVD-Audios, except that they dealt with the biggest letdown from that format: the lack of compatibility with CD players. I admit I was pretty disappointed last week when I bought a dualdisc and the DVD side only contained Dolby Digital, no MLP. However, I read that this is only a habit of Sony's. Therefore, NEVER buy dualdiscs from Sony BMG. However, my Nine Inch Nails dualdiscs are remarkable, and their DVD side is a full blown DVD-Audio. I'd love to have more disks like that, and I prefer that to normal DVD-Audios any day of the week.

[shokhead]

Not all Dualdisc are DVD-a

[j_garcia]

Just two things I'd like to add:

First, you have to know that SACD players cannot output sound to your receiver in the digital domain, Sony (which created the format) won't allow it.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. There are at least two approved digital connection types for passing SACD, IEEE (firewire) and now Denon Link, for compatible denon gear - both the receiver/pre/pro and the player have to have the same connection.

Second, I'd like to ask people why it is that they dislike dualdisc that much. I used to think that dualdiscs were like DVD-Audios, except that they dealt with the biggest letdown from that format: the lack of compatibility with CD players. I admit I was pretty disappointed last week when I bought a dualdisc and the DVD side only contained Dolby Digital, no MLP. However, I read that this is only a habit of Sony's. Therefore, NEVER buy dualdiscs from Sony BMG. However, my Nine Inch Nails dualdiscs are remarkable, and their DVD side is a full blown DVD-Audio. I'd love to have more disks like that, and I prefer that to normal DVD-Audios any day of the week.

Dual Disc is fine, right up until you try that disc in a player that isn't Dual Disc compatible and the disc is destroyed... Dual Discs are physically not compatible with all players; I found this out the hard way while trying to find out which players of mine the discs worked on.

DVD-A (MLP) is a competetor of Sony's SACD format, so it is pretty obvious that any Dual Discs they release are not going to have MLP content.

Did you read your own manual? The 1920 has a fixed crossover of 80Hz.

[Ssebu]

My manual indicates that the crossover frequency is 100 Hz, see page 27 of the English part.

And sorry about the Denon link thing, I didn't notice it allowed SACD output, as of 2005. Guess I'm a bit behind on news.

[j_garcia]

My manual indicates that the crossover frequency is 100 Hz, see page 27 of the English part.

Interesting, the website lists 80Hz under specs, which is the same as the 2910 and 3910, so it would make more sense. So I'd say an email to Denon is in order to find out which is correct.

And sorry about the Denon link thing, I didn't notice it allowed SACD output, as of 2005. Guess I'm a bit behind on news.

Well, I just found that out in this thread myself also. Firewire has been able to pass SACD digitally for some time now though.

[WeAreSurrounded]

And how about HDMI ? I heard that the newer version of the standard will accept the SACD signal as well. Anybody knows more details ?

[Johnd]

HDMI 1.2 supports SACD, but I'm more concerned with sound quality than convenience. You'll be hard-pressed to get a better signal transfer than with six high quality cables.

[Geno]

It's been interesting reading all your responses on the imminent death of SACD & DVD-A. I just started getting into these things about 9 months ago, and have a pretty good collection of both formats. I've mostly bought duplicates of my favorite redbook CDs (Steely Dan, Donald Fagen, Dire Straits, Mark Knopfler, Pink Floyd), so I guess I've been very happy with the selection. The classical and jazz offerings are huge...now, if they'd just start doing gangsta rap on SACD and convince the crowd with the thumpin' cars that they ain't cool wit'out it..:eek:

[Johnd]

It's been interesting reading all your responses on the imminent death of SACD & DVD-A. I just started getting into these things about 9 months ago, and have a pretty good collection of both formats. I've mostly bought duplicates of my favorite redbook CDs (Steely Dan, Donald Fagen, Dire Straits, Mark Knopfler, Pink Floyd), so I guess I've been very happy with the selection. The classical and jazz offerings are huge...now, if they'd just start doing gangsta rap on SACD and convince the crowd with the thumpin' cars that they ain't cool wit'out it..:eek:

Geno: I must be some sort of Dinosaur as I just bought my sacd player (Denon 2900 that was discontinued 14 months ago). Floyd, Knopfler, Dire Straits; all excellent choices. And the jazz and classical choices are endless. I guess when I refer to the imminent death of sacd, it's only that the next "latest/greatest" will begin to detract from their sales, and consequently, production of sacd's. I hope sacd's are here for another decade...I am sure the classical masses won't have it any other way. Besides, my player's only a month old. Happy listening.

[Pyrrho]

Thanks for all the feedback. Is there anything in particular I should look for in a player? The consensus here seems to be that a cheapo-universal player is sufficient.

What you should look for depends upon your needs, desires, and your budget. I have a Yamaha DVD-C750, and I am very happy with it. You can read a review at:

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/YamahaDVD-C750DVDChanger1.php

You can read another thread about it at:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20985

[Pyrrho]

The more i listen to SACD and DTS discs,the worst redbook cd's sound.

What you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. DTS uses lossy compression, unlike CD, so it really is an inferior format. Saying that DTS is better than CD is a bit like saying MP3s are better than CDs.

[j_garcia]

DTS can be 24 bit and a much higher sample rate (not all are), so even being "lossy" there can still be more information in a DTS track than a CD track. What really matters is how well it was recorded and mastered. MP3 is a different story, but at about 256K, most people can't tell the difference between MP3 and CD.

[WmAx]

DTS can be 24 bit and a much higher sample rate (not all are), so even being "lossy" there can still be more information in a DTS track than a CD track.

But the key here is not more audibly relevant information.

MP3 is a different story, but at about 256K, most people can't tell the difference between MP3 and CD.

The general person will have difficulty discerning even 128kbps MP3 from the CD on most samples, according to large scale ABX tests carried out on hydrogenaudio.org, if one uses a highly advanced MP3 encoder such as the latest version of Lame using the recommended settings by the Lame developers.

-Chris

[j_garcia]

I use 192k and I would have to listen very closely on a decent system to hear the difference if at all. Using WMP, I can definitely hear the difference on my home system with 128.

But the key here is not more audibly relevant information.

True, but what I am saying is that calling DTS a "lossy" format is a kind of blanket statement that is not 100% correct. Lossy compared to what?

[thundergust]

256k for regular mp3's are fine, but for music with a lot of DEEP bass, you can actually still hear a tiny bit of distortion.
btw, i use vbr 256kbps (192k - 320k) because my mp3 player is only 256MB.

[WmAx]

256k for regular mp3's are fine, but for music with a lot of DEEP bass, you can actually still hear a tiny bit of distortion.
btw, i use vbr 256kbps (192k - 320k) because my mp3 player is only 256MB.

How deep? Amplitude? What kind of distortion? Please provide me with an uncompressed sample clip and the compressed version demonstrating the effect, and specify the encoder used. I will analyze this sample for distortion(s) as well as test a separate encoding. I may provide you with a test signal to encode that can be sent back to me for analysis. I can provide you with a server space to upload the files to if necessary.

-Chris

[shokhead]

What you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. DTS uses lossy compression, unlike CD, so it really is an inferior format. Saying that DTS is better than CD is a bit like saying MP3s are better than CDs.

What i'm enjoying is a DTS Disc that sounds better then cd Disc. Lossy,compression,none of that means jack. It looks real nice on paper.

[Pyrrho]

I use 192k and I would have to listen very closely on a decent system to hear the difference if at all. Using WMP, I can definitely hear the difference on my home system with 128.



True, but what I am saying is that calling DTS a "lossy" format is a kind of blanket statement that is not 100% correct. Lossy compared to what?

"Lossy" is a term with a precise meaning, not a comparative term. It means that the format is such that data is thrown away. With data compression, sometimes it is such that no data is lost, and other times, during the compression process, data is purposely thrown away, often based upon the idea that you are not going to notice that it is missing. For your computer programs, you can use software that compresses the data, but this never uses lossy compression, as it would make the programs useless. But with audio (and video), lossy compression can be used, which may or may not go unnoticed. CDs are not a lossy format, nor are SACDs (nor are they compressed). Dolby Digital and DTS are both lossy formats, as are MP3s.

So saying that DTS is a lossy format is absolutely 100% correct, as it is a format in which data is thrown away. If you doubt this, go to their web site and read about it.

[Pyrrho]

What i'm enjoying is a DTS Disc that sounds better then cd Disc. Lossy,compression,none of that means jack. It looks real nice on paper.

As I said, what you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. It is a very real difference.

[shokhead]

As I said, what you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. It is a very real difference.

Well yes,that makes it even better but i just dont listen to the rears.

[12outof13]

I agree with you, but I also blame it on the recording industry and manufacturers for not promoting the format. Most people have never even heard of SACD and don't have clue what it is. You can hardly find them in any retail stores and music selection is very limited. Also, they normally cost even more than DVD's and they priced themselves out of the market at normally $25 each. It seems to me they never believed in this format to begin with and weren't willing to make a serious commitment to it. It really pisses me off, but hopefully they will do a better job with Blueray discs. I think we have to face the fact that there aren't enough audiophiles out there for the recording studios and manufacturers to worry about. The big guys simply are not interested in sound quality and it will likely only get worse as more of the smaller record labels get bought out or go out of business. It is rather ironic that the most popular artists record the worst sound quality CDs.

[shokhead]

As long as there are 2 different formats it wont work good enough to make them money to the limited buyers like us. If it would have been only SACD or DVD-A i think it would be pretty healthy