Stereo SACDs: Viable Undertaking?

[PearlcorderS701]

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.

I will in fact keep in mind the viewpoint of "just forgetting about" SACD at this point, but something confused me in your statement here...you mentioned me buying hybrid SACDs and using their CD layer -- but do you mean if I were to use them on a standard CD player? Because if I bought an SACD player, wouldn't I just use the SACD layer at that point? Why would I use the CD layer?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Fixed the spelling for you.

For me!?!?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

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.

Interesting enough, sholl, as I suppose it was a matter of time until downloads became "hi rez"...however, I'd still like to stick to physical media if I can.

 

[audiofox]

With the right software, you can burn a DVD-audio disc with hi-res audio file downloads. I use a freeware program called DVD-Audiofile for the Mac (only seems to do 2 channel) to "author" the disk image with the individual files (then burn it with Toast or the built in DVD burner), but there are other Mac and PC apps available that can do stereo as well as multichannel authoring. My Acura has a DVD-audio deck, so I burn disks from my hi-res collection for my drive to work. I think Yamaha made a "universal" (ie, DVD-V/A, SACD, CD) changer, so if you got one of those you could even play your DIY DVD-Audio disks on that.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Thanks for the info, 'Fox...if Yamaha made a changer that supported SACD (I thought only Sony was in this camp) I'd consider one, although from the concensus of this thread, it's not really worth getting into any longer at this point...

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Looks like they make a few SACD single disc decks, but no changer:

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/hifi-components/cd-players/

 

[j_garcia]

Looks like they make a few SACD single disc decks, but no changer:

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/hifi-components/cd-players/

Changers weren't so common even when the format was doing well, so chances of finding one new now are slim. If you are serious, I'd consider selling you my changer. I mostly use it for cds now, but it is rarely used anymore. I have 4 sacd players

You haven't heard about bd audio because you aren't looking, and just like SACD, it isn't mainstream and likely won't find a big following. You can find them at amazon.

Like I said before though, a player isn't the problem. Check the prices for the titles you are interested in. A good collection at this point is potentially going to cost you more than the player in just a few discs.

 

[Pyrrho]

I will in fact keep in mind the viewpoint of "just forgetting about" SACD at this point, but something confused me in your statement here...you mentioned me buying hybrid SACDs and using their CD layer -- but do you mean if I were to use them on a standard CD player? Because if I bought an SACD player, wouldn't I just use the SACD layer at that point? Why would I use the CD layer?

I am imagining the future. Suppose after trying SACDs for a while, you feel that it is not worth it. Eventually, your SACD player dies, and then at that time there will probably be very few SACD players available. So you might decide at that point to just buy a CD player instead. You still could play your hybrid SACD discs on an ordinary CD player (though only the CD layer), so you don't lose all of the music that you bought in that format.

The beauty of a hybrid SACD is that it is both a CD and an SACD, and therefore can play in anything that can play either format. Of course, if the player one uses can only play CDs and not SACDs, then one will only have access to the CD layer, but one still gets to hear the music in CD quality sound. It is not like you would be stuck with a bunch of discs that you could no longer play.

Frankly, if Philips and Sony had wanted SACD to take over, they should have, for the most part, stopped releasing ordinary CDs, and just released nearly everything as a hybrid SACD. That way, every disc of these that they sold would be an advertisement for the format, and many people would be sufficiently curious to try this new high resolution format, and many would want access to multichannel sound. But they did not do that, and so it has always been a small market.

 

[j_garcia]

Frankly, if Philips and Sony had wanted SACD to take over, they should have, for the most part, stopped releasing ordinary CDs, and just released nearly everything as a hybrid SACD. That way, every disc of these that they sold would be an advertisement for the format, and many people would be sufficiently curious to try this new high resolution format, and many would want access to multichannel sound. But they did not do that, and so it has always been a small market.

And we all know they did not do that because that would mean someone would have to take the time to master whatever it was that was going to be put out even in stereo. At which point, if they had just spent the time to master it correctly, you could have CDs that sound good enough that we wouldn't need SACD OR, someone would have to master the multichannel mix and that would obviously take more time and money, and in most cases, that didn't happen as it was. Thus the reason why DVD-A and SACD did not blossom. Not every 5.1 mix is good, which means there were people doing the m/c mixes that didn't quite understand how it needed to be done, and this was a problem as well - little or nothing needed to be done for stereo though. They could have made the 5.1 discs "special" or "premium" editions for people who wanted them and made the "standard" disc stereo hybrid, and that would have been fine with me.

 

[goodman]

SACD remains the best audio I have personally listened to in my home. Some albums have disappointing sound quality (Rolling Stones), but most are excellent. I have two, four, and five channel SACDs and they are all enjoyable. The four-channel discs were first recorded back in the quadraphonic days, were done well, and sound terrific. You can hook up SACD through HDMI, if so equipped, or through analog outs, or through Denon Link if you have older gear so equipped.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Changers weren't so common even when the format was doing well, so chances of finding one new now are slim. If you are serious, I'd consider selling you my changer. I mostly use it for cds now, but it is rarely used anymore. I have 4 sacd players

You mean your Sony ES? Thanks; let me chew on that...

You haven't heard about bd audio because you aren't looking, and just like SACD, it isn't mainstream and likely won't find a big following. You can find them at amazon.

That's not really a fair statement -- how would I know to look for something that I didn't know existed?

Like I said before though, a player isn't the problem. Check the prices for the titles you are interested in. A good collection at this point is potentially going to cost you more than the player in just a few discs.

Seriously? These titles are that expensive? And what did you mean "a player isn't the problem"? I in fact do have a problem because I'm seeking a carousel style device...

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I am imagining the future. Suppose after trying SACDs for a while, you feel that it is not worth it. Eventually, your SACD player dies, and then at that time there will probably be very few SACD players available. So you might decide at that point to just buy a CD player instead. You still could play your hybrid SACD discs on an ordinary CD player (though only the CD layer), so you don't lose all of the music that you bought in that format.

The beauty of a hybrid SACD is that it is both a CD and an SACD, and therefore can play in anything that can play either format. Of course, if the player one uses can only play CDs and not SACDs, then one will only have access to the CD layer, but one still gets to hear the music in CD quality sound. It is not like you would be stuck with a bunch of discs that you could no longer play.

Frankly, if Philips and Sony had wanted SACD to take over, they should have, for the most part, stopped releasing ordinary CDs, and just released nearly everything as a hybrid SACD. That way, every disc of these that they sold would be an advertisement for the format, and many people would be sufficiently curious to try this new high resolution format, and many would want access to multichannel sound. But they did not do that, and so it has always been a small market.

I think I see...

 

[PearlcorderS701]

SACD remains the best audio I have personally listened to in my home. Some albums have disappointing sound quality (Rolling Stones), but most are excellent. I have two, four, and five channel SACDs and they are all enjoyable. The four-channel discs were first recorded back in the quadraphonic days, were done well, and sound terrific. You can hook up SACD through HDMI, if so equipped, or through analog outs, or through Denon Link if you have older gear so equipped.

Thanks for your input here, Goodman; that's disappointing about the Stones discs...but what did you mean with regard to your "quadraphonic" reference...did you mean the SACDs were taken from quadraphonic masters?

The system this would be connected in wouldn't be utilizing HDMI; it would be a straight two channel analog RCA link from player/changer to receiver...

 

[j_garcia]

That's not really a fair statement -- how would I know to look for something that I didn't know existed?

Of course you didn't, because few people do There are a number of places to get them, but I have yet to see any in actual B&M stores. All I meant by that was that likely if you kept digging, you would eventually have run into this format. I haven't actually bought one yet myself, as I am not sure where it will go, plus the fact that there aren't any titles that have gotten me excited yet.

Seriously? These titles are that expensive? And what did you mean "a player isn't the problem"? I in fact do have a problem because I'm seeking a carousel style device...

Not kidding at all there. OOP titles can easily be upwards of $100 and that isn't unexpected considering that even when they were NEW I was buying titles that were up to $30. Typical price for me was about $15-20.

What I mean about player not being a problem is the fact that there are still quite a few out there and a few are still making them currently (oppo). I understand why you want a changer, but as was already said MANY times in the previous thread about a "high end" changer, that is something that isn't going to be very likely.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Of course you didn't, because few people do

That's why I had stated that it seemed unfair to say "I wasn't looking"...however, you do go on to say:

There are a number of places to get them, but I have yet to see any in actual B&M stores. All I meant by that was that likely if you kept digging, you would eventually have run into this format.

...so I suppose, in retrospect, that kind of covers the comment; still, I don't know how "the reason you haven't heard about it is because you weren't looking" equates to "eventually you would have run into this format" but that's a discussion for another time and place perhaps.

I haven't actually bought one yet myself, as I am not sure where it will go, plus the fact that there aren't any titles that have gotten me excited yet.

Bought one of what -- a Blu-ray Audio player?

Not kidding at all there. OOP titles can easily be upwards of $100 and that isn't unexpected considering that even when they were NEW I was buying titles that were up to $30. Typical price for me was about $15-20.

Wow -- $100 a title I am sure not paying, so that's out and downright ridiculous; standard CDs are still around 15 to 20 bucks.

What I mean about player not being a problem is the fact that there are still quite a few out there and a few are still making them currently (oppo). I understand why you want a changer, but as was already said MANY times in the previous thread about a "high end" changer, that is something that isn't going to be very likely.

I've gotten the point that a very high end changer (CD) isn't in my near future, or any future at all, at this point and I will probably go with Onkyo's only model that's in their CD player lineup (their CD changer that is, the 390 I believe?) or possibly Integra's if I can find it online, if I decide to get rid of the Marantz once and for all...I was just interested in learning more about SACD and wanted to flirt with the possibility of swapping the Marantz CC4001 for a five disc changer that would also play SACD -- as I said, I thought Sony was the only brand still making one.

 

[3db]

I'll stick with CDs and vinyl myself. I'm not a fan of multichannel sound and I find it artificial unless the recording engineer are using the multichannels for ambience such as cannon shots in Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture as an example. Every classical and rock concert I've ever been too had the music coming from the front of the stage. I never attended a concert of any kind where I sat in the middle of the band/orchestra. I don't understand this alure to being in the middle of the music.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I'll stick with CDs and vinyl myself. I'm not a fan of multichannel sound and I find it artificial unless the recording engineer are using the multichannels for ambience such as cannon shots in Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture as an example. Every classical and rock concert I've ever been too had the music coming from the front of the stage. I never attended a concert of any kind where I sat in the middle of the band/orchestra. I don't understand this alure to being in the middle of the music.

I agree; thus, I was only interested in stereo SACD.

 

[j_garcia]

I'll stick with CDs and vinyl myself. I'm not a fan of multichannel sound and I find it artificial unless the recording engineer are using the multichannels for ambience such as cannon shots in Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture as an example. Every classical and rock concert I've ever been too had the music coming from the front of the stage. I never attended a concert of any kind where I sat in the middle of the band/orchestra. I don't understand this alure to being in the middle of the music.

The allure is that it can be well done with excellent results. It also isn't live in most cases, but EVERY concert I've been to, especially in indoor venues, the music is coming from everywhere from reflections and multiple speakers, not just the stage. So technically, you are in the middle of the music, at least at the shows I go to. I don't go to see a lot of classical.

I'll give you one perfect example of where multichannel does the recording justice: Dave Brubeck - Concord on a Midsummer Night The reflections from the venue are perfectly placed in the rear channels and it literally sounds like you are there.

 

[goodman]

Thanks for your input here, Goodman; that's disappointing about the Stones discs...but what did you mean with regard to your "quadraphonic" reference...did you mean the SACDs were taken from quadraphonic masters?

The system this would be connected in wouldn't be utilizing HDMI; it would be a straight two channel analog RCA link from player/changer to receiver...

Yes, the SACDs were made from quadraphonic masters. They are classical music recordings. I use 5.1 channel analog outs to connect my player to my receiver. I can give you names and numbers of specific recordings if you are interested.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

So, these play back as four-channel recordings?