Stereo SACDs: Viable Undertaking?

[PearlcorderS701]

In my search for a replacement CD changer (to take the duties from a still-malfunctioning Marantz CC4001), I have come to consider perhaps a CD/SACD changer (I believe Sony makes one) so I could possibly get my feet wet with stereo SACD...

But is this a viable media at all? Are there many stereo SACD titles out there to even choose from? Is there a clear sonic difference between SACD and redbook variants?

And what about hookup -- does SACD require a digital connection to a receiver/integrated amp/preamp? If it does, I'm **** Outta Luck because my stereo receiver has no digital inputs...

 

[Pyrrho]

For what titles are available, see:

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

As for a clear sonic difference, if you are only listening to the stereo portion (of those with a stereo SACD portion), and not the multichannel portion (of those that have a multichannel stereo portion), you will only hear a difference if the mastering is different from the CD. (As usual, one would need to level match the two in order to do a proper test; and since with a hybrid SACD, the CD layer is totally independent of the SACD layer, one still would need to level match them from the same disc.) Some people, of course, claim superhuman abilities, and so you will find people who claim otherwise, but it has been pretty well proven that the CD format is transparent, as far as human abilities are concerned. See, for example:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Now, since they often do remastering for SACDs, you may hear a difference due to that. But not due to the format under normal conditions.

SACD originally was available only with analog connections, due to concerns about digital copying of the recorded material. Now, HDMI connections can be used with some SACD players and some receivers or preamps that can accept the signal digitally, but with every player I have ever seen, they still retain the analog connections.

For me personally, my format of choice for new music is hybrid SACD, if available. That is a disc with a CD layer that can be read by any CD player, giving the usual sound, and it has another SACD layer that can be read by an SACD player. I like this because I like multichannel audio, and I like being able to play it on anything that can play a CD (even though it will then only be two channel).

I personally would not bother with SACD for two channel, though you would have access to new masterings of some recordings that you otherwise would not be able to hear, as that new mastering may never be released on CD.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

As always Pyrrho, thanks...

For what titles are available, see:

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

I will check that out ASAP...thanks...

As for a clear sonic difference, if you are only listening to the stereo portion (of those with a stereo SACD portion), and not the multichannel portion (of those that have a multichannel stereo portion), you will only hear a difference if the mastering is different from the CD. (As usual, one would need to level match the two in order to do a proper test; and since with a hybrid SACD, the CD layer is totally independent of the SACD layer, one still would need to level match them from the same disc.) Some people, of course, claim superhuman abilities, and so you will find people who claim otherwise, but it has been pretty well proven that the CD format is transparent, as far as human abilities are concerned. See, for example:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Now, since they often do remastering for SACDs, you may hear a difference due to that. But not due to the format under normal conditions.

Oh brother...so are you telling me that SACD, under normal circumstances unless there's been some kind of remix or remastering done, doesn't offer sonic benefits over standard CD? Is that true of just about every title?

It seems to me then that I should just stick with redbook media...I wouldn't be using this in any sort of multichannel way, just stereo, so for the most part are stereo SACDs not that much different sounding from their CD counterparts? There is no sonic improvement at all?

SACD originally was available only with analog connections, due to concerns about digital copying of the recorded material. Now, HDMI connections can be used with some SACD players and some receivers or preamps that can accept the signal digitally, but with every player I have ever seen, they still retain the analog connections.

Okay, so I'd be able to run analog stereo outs to my stereo receiver if the SACD changer offers them? Outside of the Sony, do you know of any multi disc SACD changers?

For me personally, my format of choice for new music is hybrid SACD, if available. That is a disc with a CD layer that can be read by any CD player, giving the usual sound, and it has another SACD layer that can be read by an SACD player. I like this because I like multichannel audio, and I like being able to play it on anything that can play a CD (even though it will then only be two channel).

But wouldn't any SACD player/changer also play CDs?

I personally would not bother with SACD for two channel, though you would have access to new masterings of some recordings that you otherwise would not be able to hear, as that new mastering may never be released on CD.

I see -- thanks for your opinion here; for the most part, there aren't that many outstanding sounding SACDs out there, huh?

Two of the titles that caught my eye and which I have on standard CD were Journey's Greatest Hits and the first awesome Boston album...

 

[Pyrrho]

As always Pyrrho, thanks...



I will check that out ASAP...thanks...



Oh brother...so are you telling me that SACD, under normal circumstances unless there's been some kind of remix or remastering done, doesn't offer sonic benefits over standard CD? Is that true of just about every title?

The format is theoretically superior, being able to give you a wider dynamic range and wider frequency response. But given the fact that the CD format has enough dynamic range for reasonable purposes (most CDs do not use all of the dynamic range capability of the CD format, or even close to it), and covers all of the audible frequencies, the improvements are not going to be heard.

For more on that, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Audible_differences_compared_to_PCM.2FCD
(And if you don't like Wikipedia, use the links at the bottom to take you to their sources. In this instance, Wikipedia sums up the situation quite well for anyone not wanting to read a lot of material. But if anyone is reading this who does not like Wikipedia, use the links.)


Now, if they did a better job of mastering the SACD than the CD, then it will sound better. But that makes it audibly no different from a CD that has better mastering than another CD.

And, of course, there can be 5.1 channels of material on an SACD, so it can be better in that way, but that is irrelevant to 2 channel playback.

It seems to me then that I should just stick with redbook media...I wouldn't be using this in any sort of multichannel way, just stereo, so for the most part are stereo SACDs not that much different sounding from their CD counterparts? There is no sonic improvement at all?

As I said, if the mastering is different, then it may sound different.

Okay, so I'd be able to run analog stereo outs to my stereo receiver if the SACD changer offers them?

Yes.

Outside of the Sony, do you know of any multi disc SACD changers?

Yamaha has made some with DVD playback capability, so they would be listed with their DVD players. My first SACD player was (and is) a Yamaha DVD-C750, which is a 5 disc carousel changer. I also have an Oppo single disc player that plays SACDs.

I know Denon, Marantz, and Pioneer have all made single disc SACD players, but I do not know about changers. Other than Sony, Marantz (and probably Philips), most manufacturers would probably have the SACD format along with DVD capability.

Here is a listing of manufacturers who have made SACD players, but I do not know how many of them have made SACD changers:

http://www.sa-cd.net/faq#playback14

But wouldn't any SACD player/changer also play CDs?

Yes. But CD players cannot play standard SACDs. But if it is a hybrid SACD, then CD players can play them (but only the CD layer, not the SACD layer). Most SACDs are hybrid SACDs, but not all of them.

I see -- thanks for your opinion here; for the most part, there aren't that many outstanding sounding SACDs out there, huh?

Properly recorded multichannel SACDs sound substantially better than 2 channel recordings, if one has a proper setup and sits in the appropriate location.

With many classical multichannel SACDs, with a properly set up system, sitting in the proper position, one does not directly notice the surround channels at all, and it seems as though all of the sound is coming from the front. But one can get up and approach the rear channels and then notice that sound is coming from them. The sound represents reflected sound if you were in an auditorium, and the effect is the closest to realistic reproduction of music I have ever heard. I think the center front is also a benefit, but if I used an inferior center speaker the way that many people do, I might feel otherwise due to not properly reproducing the center channel.

It helps that with my surround system, all of my speakers, other than subwoofers, are identical. And they are good. And I have taken the time and trouble to set up my system (which is not that hard with a modern receiver that has an automatic setup, but some people manage to bungle it anyway).

Two of the titles that caught my eye and which I have on standard CD were Journey's Greatest Hits and the first awesome Boston album...

 

[PENG]

In my collection of SACD I may have one or two that I feel the sound quality is subpar. I agree it depends more on the mastering/transfer than the format itself, in other words garbage in garbage out holds true here.

I am not 100% sure but I would still bet all SACD players can play CD. As for MC vs Stereo, I prefer Stereo. To me MC is for movies and rock concerts only but that's just me. It is not that I don't listen to MC but I prefer Stereo. I hate to admit it but the truth is, if I have the same speakers for all 7 channels I may change my mind.

Overall I will stick with SACD/DVDA because I believe there is a much greater chance of getting better mastering/transfer quality disc in SACD than in CD. I do find that some, such as Telarc CDs are typically of high quality.

Not that I can hear a difference but I always use the dedicated 2 channel analog outputs for serious listening and digital for multichannel listening.

 

[PENG]

It helps that with my surround system, all of my speakers, other than subwoofers, are identical. And they are good. And I have taken the time and trouble to set up my system (which is not that hard with a modern receiver that has an automatic setup, but some people manage to bungle it anyway).

I did not read this before I posted. One of the two reasons I prefer to listen in Stereo is that I don't have identical speakers all around. They are of the same brand but the surrounds are the weak link.

 

[Pyrrho]

I did not read this before I posted. One of the two reasons I prefer to listen in Stereo is that I don't have identical speakers all around. They are of the same brand but the surrounds are the weak link.

I think the center being identical is also good. But most people have a different model there, and that can explain why they may not like three channels up front. In the past, I have read some posts from some people who do not like a center channel up front even with movies, but in all such cases that I have seen, the person was using a speaker that was different from the other two front speakers, though it was supposedly voice matched to them. Pretty much no one would mix speakers that way for two channels, yet people often feel like it is okay with multichannel. Naturally, if one's standards are lower for what one is willing to use with multichannel, the sound may not be as good as with 2 channels. The problem isn't the number of channels, but the fact that people do not bother to precisely match the speakers for the different channels. And, of course, in the setup, there is a much greater chance for error with more channels, and that, too, can explain why some people don't like multichannel sound. If one does not decently position the speakers and balance the sound, I would rather have 2 channels also, but that is because I don't want the sound screwed up from an improper setup.

But in the end, I listen mostly to 2 channel audio, because the vast majority of what I have is in 2 channel, and I find the artificial creation of extra channels to be unconvincing. It is, however, much better than the early attempts at artificially creating 2 channels from mono sources, but it is not good enough to satisfy me. (Or at least, none of the artificial creation of extra channels that I have heard is good enough; I obviously have not heard every DSP mode of every model of receiver and preamp ever made, in every possible configuration.)

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Thanks for your input, fellas...

I'm still torn on this whole SACD/CD fiasco; I'd like to maybe get into SACD (stereo) because I feel there are many CD masters out there that could definitely benefit from some sonic improvements, but there are many factors that are in my "cons" column...for example, there really aren't that many titles, from what I could see, which would interest me (save for some rock catalog titles like the aforementioned Journey or Boston) and I'm concerned, based on discussions here, that many SACDs simply won't sound all that better than a comparable CD...I also don't quite get, yet, the whole "Hybrid" element with these releases. Only Hybrid SACDs with a CD layer can be played on a CD/SACD player/changer? Further, I don't want a source device for this particular system that plays video discs -- this is strictly for my 2-channel setup, so I don't want a DVD/CD/SACD type universal machine. I'd prefer a standalone five or six disc carousel style changer which plays only SACDs and CDs; from what I have researched, it seems only Sony still makes one of these...

 

[dapack69]

How do SACD's compare to music coming out on Blu-ray?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Which music coming out on Blu-ray? You mean the concert discs?

BTW, fellow Onkyo fan -- you need to fix the spelling of "Onkyo" in part of your sig!

 

[dapack69]

Yes, most of the SACD's I own are concert.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Yes, most of the SACD's I own are concert.

Yeah, but the Blu-ray concerts I mentioned are video concerts, not audio-only -- unlike DVD with DVD-Audio, Blu-ray has no companion parallel audio format (unless I'm mistaken).

And fix that reference to ONKYO in your sig!! The misspelling is driving me nuts!!

J/K...

 

[sholling]

Just my two cents but for two channel I'm putting my money into high bit rate flacs instead of buying anymore SACDs. The selection is getting much better, and all that I've seen so far are two-channel - at least for now.

 

[dapack69]

Yeah, but the Blu-ray concerts I mentioned are video concerts, not audio-only -- unlike DVD with DVD-Audio, Blu-ray has no companion parallel audio format (unless I'm mistaken).

And fix that reference to ONKYO in your sig!! The misspelling is driving me nuts!!

J/K...

Fixed the spelling for you.

I'm not sure about the audio part, that is why I posted the question.

 

[j_garcia]

Yeah, but the Blu-ray concerts I mentioned are video concerts, not audio-only -- unlike DVD with DVD-Audio, Blu-ray has no companion parallel audio format (unless I'm mistaken).

You are most certainly mistaken. Blu-ray audio (audio only) does exist. Unless you are after classical though, you aren't going to find much of interest.

I love SACD, but it definitely is not worth it to get into at this point, since it has basically been dead for over 2 years and the most sought after titles are most likely out of print and extremely expensive.

 

[Pyrrho]

Thanks for your input, fellas...

I'm still torn on this whole SACD/CD fiasco; I'd like to maybe get into SACD (stereo) because I feel there are many CD masters out there that could definitely benefit from some sonic improvements, but there are many factors that are in my "cons" column...for example, there really aren't that many titles, from what I could see, which would interest me (save for some rock catalog titles like the aforementioned Journey or Boston) and I'm concerned, based on discussions here, that many SACDs simply won't sound all that better than a comparable CD...I also don't quite get, yet, the whole "Hybrid" element with these releases. Only Hybrid SACDs with a CD layer can be played on a CD/SACD player/changer?

No. An SACD player can play SACDs, CDs, and hybrid SACDs (which are a type of SACD). A CD player can play CDs and the CD layer of hybrid SACDs (but not the SACD layer of hybrid SACDs).

For more, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacd

Further, I don't want a source device for this particular system that plays video discs -- this is strictly for my 2-channel setup, so I don't want a DVD/CD/SACD type universal machine. I'd prefer a standalone five or six disc carousel style changer which plays only SACDs and CDs; from what I have researched, it seems only Sony still makes one of these...

I don't know why you want a player that can't play some other types of discs, but if that is what you want, Sony might be your only option with a changer. But you can research that list to which I provided a link previously to see what the different manufacturers offer.

 

[Pyrrho]

How do SACD's compare to music coming out on Blu-ray?

The format on Blu-ray is more like DVD-Audio than SACD. However, with equally mastered recordings, with the same number of channels, they should all be audibly indistinguishable from each other.

The thing is, with these various high resolution formats, they are more likely to take care to master them well, and so one might gain just from that.

 

[Pyrrho]

...

I love SACD, but it definitely is not worth it to get into at this point, since it has basically been dead for over 2 years and the most sought after titles are most likely out of print and extremely expensive.

I think that is very worth remembering, and there will probably be very few new titles, if any. However, an SACD player can be had for little money, and he needs a new CD player anyway, so it may not cost much to get into it. Plus, if all of the SACDs he buys are hybrid SACDs (which most SACDs are), they can be used as regular CDs. But I can certainly understand just forgetting about it.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

You are most certainly mistaken. Blu-ray audio (audio only) does exist. Unless you are after classical though, you aren't going to find much of interest.

Where are Blu-ray audio titles sold, and since when has this format been on the market? I haven't seen or heard anything about it...

I love SACD, but it definitely is not worth it to get into at this point, since it has basically been dead for over 2 years and the most sought after titles are most likely out of print and extremely expensive.

So, perhaps that's the deal-breaker and decider for me right there.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

No. An SACD player can play SACDs, CDs, and hybrid SACDs (which are a type of SACD). A CD player can play CDs and the CD layer of hybrid SACDs (but not the SACD layer of hybrid SACDs).

For more, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacd

Oh, okay; that seems clearer now...

I don't know why you want a player that can't play some other types of discs, but if that is what you want, Sony might be your only option with a changer. But you can research that list to which I provided a link previously to see what the different manufacturers offer.

The reason is simple -- this player/changer will be used in a room that does not contain a display of any kind, nor is geared towards any kind of video reproduction. Sure, there's no essential "harm" to keeping a source deck which plays video discs in an audio system, but I'd like a dedicated, preferably multi-disc, audio solution for this room.