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! 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.