Are SACD's worth the trouble?

[dieseldude73]

As of latley I've started apreciating higher quality audio. Are the SACD's worth the extra money if you don't have the fancy $1200 speakers?

 

[j_garcia]

Yes, except for the fact that you are a few years too late to benefit. SACD and DVD-A are all but dead and used prices for the top titles are quite steep.

 

[pzaur]

Yes, except for the fact that you are a few years too late to benefit. SACD and DVD-A are all but dead and used prices for the top titles are quite steep.

It really depends on the genre. Classical has a relatively strong selection of releases. Many "in-house" labels release their albums on hybrid discs.

-pat

 

[PENG]

I can only comment based on my own experience. In my collections, many of regular CDs do better than some of my SACDs. I found that it is a little (just much more so) like comparing DVD and BD, it depends quite a bit on the recording/mastering/tranfer etc. In my system, I have no doubt the weakest link is the source (CD,DVD,BD,SACD,DVD-S) discs, then the speakers, the player, the preamp/amp and me in between somewhere. Again, this is just based on my own experience, yours will depend on the quality of each of your components and whether you have the so call 'Golden ear'. If you don't mind listing your audio components from player to speakers, I would love to take a guess.

 

[Cavediver]

As of latley I've started apreciating higher quality audio. Are the SACD's worth the extra money if you don't have the fancy $1200 speakers?

No. Not worth it. All of my SACDs are gathering dust and have been for a couple of years.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

All of my SACDs & DVD-A are collection dust as well.

The reason is simple.

All my favorite songs are in WAV uncompressed format on my USB connected to my Denon AVR.

Just like all my blu-rays are in ISO uncompressed format on my HTPC.

Physical discs are becoming more and more of a hassle.

 

[skizzerflake]

SACDs are worth it IF you have a 5 channel setup and you listen to recordings that are don in 5 channels. You can put a CD into the same player and use your receiver to mimic 5 channel sound, but it usually sucks by comparison to a genuine 5 channel recording. Whether the hi-res format actually improves the quality and detail of what you hear depends on the recording and your ears. I can't say that I think the basic sound quality is significantly better, but in the few 5 channel mastered recordings I have, the ambience is excellent.

 

[yepimonfire]

i personally wouldn't go out and buy new equipment to play a format that doesen't exist anymore, the title database is very limited as well, and for the record, DVD-A isn't entirely dead yet, a few albums have been released on it recently. but because of the limited titles i won't go out of my way to do it. also, as far as your comment about "mimicing" 5ch sound, i once had a beatles dvd-a that was in 5.1 sound, it also came with the standard cd, playing the discrete 5ch version then playing the 2ch cd over PLII they were actually quite similar. PLII mimics environmental ambiance very well.

 

[pzaur]

Yepimonfire - I would imagine the Beatles DVD-A was a remaster to create a 5 channel from a two channel source.

Like I said earlier, it depends on the genre.

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

I have a few and have been very pleased with them. It's a different mix and completely different than a PLIIx codec. Nowhere near the same. If the original recording was done in multichannel SACD, they can be superb. I don't believe a 2 channel source remastered to a 5 channel source is worthwhile. It's basically the same as applying PLIIx or similar to the 2 channel.

-pat

 

[yepimonfire]

the album appears to have had re-recordings of the instruments done, theres no way it could have sounded as sharp as it did otherwise, i've also heard a bruce springsteen dvd-a once again, pretty interesting but nothing PLII cant do. im sure some can surpass PLII, it's all a matter of how it's mixed, the biggest problem with using PLII for mch music is you never know whats going to end up in the surrounds since all stereo recordings are mixed differently without the intent of a matrix being applied, some are fantastic, some not so much, i suggest listening to coldplays clocks on PLII, that is really really fantastic sounding. the more ambiance applied to a stereo recording the better it sounds, many recordings though sound environmentally dead if you get what i mean. i really do hope some sort of mch music format takes off, i dont see it happening for awhile though because it will cost recording engineers alot more money then their willing to spend, they would have to throw out 1000s of dollars in equipment and then buy 1000s more. i don't see it happening. the biggest advantage of the dvd-a's was the incredible resolution of fine detail, it was like the instruments were there.

 

[PENG]

the biggest advantage of the dvd-a's was the incredible resolution of fine detail, it was like the instruments were there.

That is true relatively speaking but in real world listening, I know for a fact many of my CDs sound better in every way than some of my DVDAs and SACDs except they are stereo only. So I agree with your earlier statement that for someone who enjoys music in 5.1 than it is worth going to SACD/DVDA otherwise probably not especially if some of the audio components used are subpar.

 

[yepimonfire]

That is true relatively speaking but in real world listening, I know for a fact many of my CDs sound better in every way than some of my DVDAs and SACDs except they are stereo only. So I agree with your earlier statement that for someone who enjoys music in 5.1 than it is worth going to SACD/DVDA otherwise probably not especially if some of the audio components used are subpar.

as always it depends on the recording itself, even CD's are able to reolve great detail close to exactness, but if the recording itself sounds bad then nothing can be done about it. i've heard CD's that sound like old worn vinyl.

 

[j_garcia]

I am fine with 2ch, but there are some REALLY good sounding 5.1 mixes out there. Don't worry, just invest in a decent Blu-ray player because that is where multichannel music is going: BD Audio. Classical already has.

 

[axelrod]

As of latley I've started apreciating higher quality audio. Are the SACD's worth the extra money if you don't have the fancy $1200 speakers?

I got an SACD/CD player a year ago ... best improvement to my system sound in over 12 years. Definitely worth it. Has made music exciting again for me.

Basically, CD itself is dead as a high-end audiophile format. If you want to go hi-rez, there are basically two options: SACD (I'm a stereo guy) or hi-rez downloads. In terms of title availability, there about 6600 releases on SACD ... but only a tiny fraction of that number available as hi-rez downloads. The hi-rez download market is very very limited ... I'm not sure that the hi-rez download title situation will change much ... labels don't like releasing their studio masters without DRM ... and SACD has DRM on the hi-rez layer (but not on the lower quality CD layer).

As to trouble ... no trouble involved. You can play all your existing CDs. Easy to find titles on places like ebay or Amazon or acousticsounds or through sa-cd.net ... In my experience, hi-rez downloads are infinitely more trouble ...
* First, with downloads, you are never really sure if your computer is interfering with the sound path;
* Second, you always have to clean up the meta-data ... which usually is an awful mess or inconsistent with your listings;
* Third, hi-rez downloads cost more than SACD discs ... which is weird
* Fourth, if you spend $15 or $20 on a hi-rez download and don't like it, you are stuck with it ... no re-sale market. By contrast, SACDs have a very healthy second-hand market.

But mostly, it's huge fun /// just comparing the SACD layer of a disc to the CD layer. Difference is surprisingly large ... on good hi-rez recordings.

 

[skizzerflake]

SACD isn't quite dead yet. Oppo has its offerings and Sony quietly built SACD into their new Blue Ray players. I recently got a S570 Sony, which can be had for under $200 and was surprised to find that it played SACDs. I already had a player and couldn't really distinguish between the two..it sounds pretty good.

 

[yepimonfire]

theres hardware, but the software is very limited.

 

[skizzerflake]

theres hardware, but the software is very limited.

Pretty much all in the web stores now, carrying a premium price.

 

[pzaur]

Pretty much all in the web stores now, carrying a premium price.

My Yamaha DVD player was old stock on Amazon for $40 shipped. The purchase was made within the past year.

-pat

 

[axelrod]

theres hardware, but the software is very limited.

That's not really true at all. SACD nests CD ... so you get ALL the CD content ... and then you get the hi-rez SACD stuff as well. That's more - not less.

If your contention is ... "ah yes ... but there isn't much hi-rez content on SACD" .... well that's not true either. There are over 6500 titles ... and growing at about 600 new ones a year. That's vastly more hi-rez content than on any other format. DVD-Audio is kaput. Downloads have hardly any hi-rez content available - in the hundreds ... which is a tiny fraction of the number of SACD releases available. So - yes - 6500 titles is not enormous ... but it's vastly more hi-rez content than any other format.

 

[dobyblue]

If your player already supports it then there are enough titles still in print to pick up a few, you can get almost all the Elton John SACD's for around $20/each and they're all amazingly mastered with excellent 5.1 multi-channel mixes. NIN's The Downward Spiral, Dark Side of the Moon, Brothers in Arms, they're all easy to find online as well. But other titles well worth picking up like Billy Joel's The Stranger, the amazing MCH mix of Beck's Sea Change, The Police, Sting, Toto IV MCH, Genesis, Depeche Mode, these titles can all cost you between $50 to $150. It's hard to say it's worth it when so many titles are OOP and cost you an arm and a leg. I certainly wouldn't buy a high-end SACD player in 2010 unless I was a jazz or classical fan...but the classical labels are also the first to start supporting Blu-ray and there are already high-end Blu-ray players too so as a classical fan I'd also be likely to consider Blu-ray first and I think BD will also see a push for pop/rock titles before the end of 2012 with The Beatles remastered 24/192 releases and perhaps a deluxe 5.1 edition of MJ's Thriller.

I am amazed with SACD quality and I think when you hear "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant" from Billy Joel's The Stranger in 5.1 you'll start campaigning the major labels to give high rez another chance on Blu-ray, the results from a good surround mix like Elliot Schiner's mixes are amazing.

I don't think PLII compares at all and I've done several tests including The Beatles, tracks like "Strawberry Fields Forever" are a bit of a mess compared to the discrete 24/96 MLP 5.1 layer. I believe Love DVD-A is still pretty easy to find as well.

I can only hope that Blu-ray will allow us to see feature-laden releases from DMB, pearl jam, Coldplay, Verve, Oasis, Smashing pumpkins, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, The Cure, Jane's Addiction (live Blu-ray coming out next week), Nirvana, etc., etc., complete with high reoslution stereo and surround mixes, interviews, b-sides in high resolution, performance footage, interactive discography, CD or digital download coupon, etc., etc., enticing not just audiophiles but fans of the band, music shoppers, etc., to get back into their local store or order a physical product online. 24-bit digital downloads are only ever going to be useful to people that care about fidelity, BD albnum releases done properly could be enticing to several different types of music fan,

That's not really true at all. SACD nests CD ... so you get ALL the CD content ... and then you get the hi-rez SACD stuff as well. That's more - not less.

If your contention is ... "ah yes ... but there isn't much hi-rez content on SACD" .... well that's not true either. There are over 6500 titles ... and growing at about 600 new ones a year. That's vastly more hi-rez content than on any other format. DVD-Audio is kaput. Downloads have hardly any hi-rez content available - in the hundreds ... which is a tiny fraction of the number of SACD releases available. So - yes - 6500 titles is not enormous ... but it's vastly more hi-rez content than any other format.

For high resolution pop/rock there isn't a large gap between new DVD-A titles and SACD titles. There's been a few new titles on SHM-SACD from Universal Japan but it costs around US$60~US$75 to order them depending on the retailer. For all intents and purposes both are dead as far as pop/rock goes.