Need a Cd player?

[ctribble]

What do you all like as far as a cd player under the $1000.00 range? I would like
it to be a 5 disc changer and be able to play "sacd's". Any links would help. What is the deal with these sacds anyway..is it that much better? And do they sell sacd's in the store?
Thanks
C.T.

 

[mwheelerk]

Don't Change

If you are looking to invest up to $1,000 to the best of my knowledge you will be looking at single disc players. I do not know of any quality changer in that price range. Most changers are strictly budget units.

For high quality cd output in the $500 to $1000 range check out what is available Arcam, Music Fidelity, and the Cambridge Azur 640C a steal at just under $500 (this is not the Cambridge Audio catalog house but a renowned UK manufacturer).

The best changer I ever came across was the Parasound CDC 1500 which went for $650 but is no longer made. You might find one used on Audiogon though.

 

[anamorphic96]

Rotel RCC1055 at 699 is one of the better changers out there along with the Sony ES changer which includes SACD at 399. I think the model number is SCD 2000ES. You can find this unit at Crutchfield.com and the Rotel at an authorized dealer. If you check the Rotel.com sight it will tell you where your nearest dealer is.

SACD uses a much higher sampling rate to achieve a higher resolution of sound and better dynamics. It can be used in a 2 channel configuration to take advantage of the resolution or you can use it in a full 5.1 surround mode. SACDS can also be used in standard CD players as well you just wont get the higher resolution or surround mix.

I can definitely hear a difference in the formats and considering the cost to enjoy it, it might be worth checking out.

Glenn

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can definitely hear a difference in the formats and considering the cost to enjoy it, it might be worth checking out.

Glenn

Not necessarily due to the formats but most likely the mastering and care behind the boards. Many Cds are of poor quality today, no dinamics, etc. That is not the CD fault as the CD can have the dynamics. Higher sampling is not an issue.

 

[mtrycrafts]

What do you all like as far as a cd player under the $1000.00 range? I would like
it to be a 5 disc changer and be able to play "sacd's". Any links would help. What is the deal with these sacds anyway..is it that much better? And do they sell sacd's in the store?
Thanks
C.T.

Buy a universal player that will also play multi channel DVD audio as well. Price is not an indicator.
SACD was supposed to be multi channel but not from the start. It's highest resolution is lost in home playback. Try some DVD-Audio discs, or even DTS and DD audio discs in multi channel. Now that will make a difference.

 

[anamorphic96]

I must respectfully disagree. The SACD does allow for better dynamics when the recording is well done and not compressed to hell. I have heard this with level matched equipment using a blinfold as well. My ears picked the SACD every time. I also hear this on DVD-A and picked this format every time.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I have a $300 single disk NAD c521i player, and a $150 SONY 300 disk megachanger. I haven't yet compared the two with a serious listening test (and both are currently doing duty in seperate systems), but my pre-test ears are telling me there will be little diffrence.

 

[zumbo]

Just found this. Haven't read it.

 

[nav]

Just found this. Haven't read it.

That's the review that convinced me to go with the Yamaha DVD-C750 (I bought it about two weeks ago), mostly with what it said about the great (for its price range) audio quality. So far, I've been really happy with it for both DVDs and red book CDs. I don't have any SACDs or DVD-As, but I plan to pick a few up since I now have a player that supports them.

I think the review makes mention of this, but it's a little "slow" to react to certain things. Nothing too annoying and I think it's a small trade-off for such a good deal on a five disk player that also handles playing SACDs and DVD-A and received such a positive review of its audio quality (I paid $280 for it at Sound Track, a.k.a. Ultimate Electronics; so, one could likely do better than that somewhere else if their pricing is as it normally is ).

Oh, and the remote has "secret" controls (e.g., hit the stop button multiple times and the tray opens). The manual might make light of that, but I sure didn't see it in my skim through it.

 

[warnerwh]

You can get the Marantz 8260. Very analog sounding with excellent redbook playback and sacd capability. These can be had off of Audiogon for 850 shipped, list is about 1.099. User feedback and pro reviews have been very positive. The only thing better may be the Marantz SA11 but these run 1700 used and I hear(not intended) they sound about the same but the nod does go to the SA 11.

To Mrtrycrafts: You are flat out wrong about SACD. DSD definitely sounds better than standard redbook. I own some of the best redbook recordings there are and also SACD's. The Sacd's are capable of sounding much better than Redbook. You probably won't hear it on mid fi though unless you listen carefully and then if it's complete junk you wouldn't be able to hear it at all. On HI FI Sacd trounces redbook. It's much more pleasant to listen to not to mention sounding more real or natural. Read Clint's review of the Marantz DV9500.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The SACD does allow for better dynamics when the recording is well done and not compressed to hell. I have heard this with level matched equipment using a blinfold as well. My ears picked the SACD every time. I also hear this on DVD-A and picked this format every time.

Perhaps the CD wasn't master equally, most likely. The extra dynamic range over CD, if it had it is beyond detection, period. Many explanation if you really did hear a difference under DBT, certainly not the medium of the SACD/DVD-A.

 

[mtrycrafts]

To Mrtrycrafts: You are flat out wrong about SACD. DSD definitely sounds better than standard redbook. I own some of the best redbook recordings there are and also SACD's. The Sacd's are capable of sounding much better than Redbook. You probably won't hear it on mid fi though unless you listen carefully and then if it's complete junk you wouldn't be able to hear it at all. On HI FI Sacd trounces redbook. It's much more pleasant to listen to not to mention sounding more real or natural. Read Clint's review of the Marantz DV9500.

All you have to do is cite some DBT comparisons of identically mastered discs.
Your comparison is lacking. How do you know you compared equallly mastered discs? Was it under DBT conditions? SACD doesn't have anything audibly over Red book that is within the hearing capability. Sampling rate is not it, higher dynamics is useless if not on the masters and capable of detection. Ultrasonics? Actually, SACD is piss poor on that.

 

[warnerwh]

All you have to do is cite some DBT comparisons of identically mastered discs.
Your comparison is lacking. How do you know you compared equallly mastered discs? Was it under DBT conditions? SACD doesn't have anything audibly over Red book that is within the hearing capability. Sampling rate is not it, higher dynamics is useless if not on the masters and capable of detection. Ultrasonics? Actually, SACD is piss poor on that.

It's easy, just switch from one layer of the same cd to the other. On a hybrid it only takes a couple of seconds. The difference is obvious, you don't need a dbt. If you can't hear the difference between sacd and redbook then don't worry about it as it's either your ears need cleaning or your system is of low quality.

 

[WmAx]

It's easy, just switch from one layer of the same cd to the other. On a hybrid it only takes a couple of seconds. The difference is obvious, you don't need a dbt. If you can't hear the difference between sacd and redbook then don't worry about it as it's either your ears need cleaning or your system is of low quality.

What is the cause of this difference and how did you go about figuring out what caused the percieved difference?

Was it....

Different SPL between versions(not even 1 dB is required to create a difference that is audible)?

Different final mastered versions on each layer?

Mental bias(all humans are subject to this)?

A real and unexplained quality difference inherant to the formats?

To remove the mental component, blinded and randomized trials must be used. SPL has to be matched as well, and you have to synch between both precisely. You have to mesure the signals of each device/mode used in order ensure SPL matching, frequency response and to be certain that no other odd abberation shows up. Let's assume you do all this and have a fair comparison from this standpoint: How do you know the CD layer and SACD layer are the same master/mix?

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

It's easy, just switch from one layer of the same cd to the other. On a hybrid it only takes a couple of seconds. The difference is obvious, you don't need a dbt. If you can't hear the difference between sacd and redbook then don't worry about it as it's either your ears need cleaning or your system is of low quality.

Well, that is a simplistic and unreliable way to compare. No wonder unreliable results are passed on as facts. But Wmax pointed out the rest of the story, no need for Paul

 

[Tempest]

Well, that is a simplistic and unreliable way to compare. No wonder unreliable results are passed on as facts. But Wmax pointed out the rest of the story, no need for Paul

The usual doubting, numbers based drool from mtrycraft. Ignore it and enjoy the SACD format