I agree with Robm....jump in the sacd water..its nice |
Matchstickmen,
I only listen in 2 channel as well. I recently bought a Sony XA777ES (modded) for a very reasonable price, and its performance was good enough to justify the purchase just for that. If SACD starts to go away (it's all speculation right now), then I will use my Sony as a transport (It is an excellent transport), get an outboard DAC, and have a state of the art (at least on my scale) digital setup for redbook.
So, it isn't necessarily too risky to get into SACD.
Rob |
Matchstikman,
Definitely give me a call/write me directly. You're welcome to come by for a listen. If it works for you, wait until the 12th or later, as we'll have our 'new' speakers by then. If you need to come sooner, next Wednesday/Thursday would work.
We have an APL Hi Fi modded Denon 3910, which we will be picking up on Tuesday after having a few upgrades done.
Hope to see you soon,
Howard |
Matchstikman...I have a Denon 2900 with Underwood 3-channel mod and clock, and a stock Pioneer DV45. The Pioneer is in the HT rig.
Chadnliz...And sometimes it all goes to hell in stereo. It all depends on the disc, but a good multi beats a good stereo, just as stereo beats mono.
Best of all (IMHO of course) is the 2+2+2 multichannel configuration promoted by MDG in the DVDA format, but regretably there is little material issued this way. |
There is no waste of money using SACD in 2 channel only, it is still more open, airy and smooth...you are more likely to be satisfied with more SACD discs in 2 channel than in multi...sometimes it all goes to hell in multi |
Boa2, I am still in Sac, but I don't know for how much longer. I need to hook up with sometime next month and check out your gear.
Eldartford, Boa2, what kind of SACD players do you guys have? |
Matchstickman,
I find the SACD--I listen in 2-channel only--format to be a sonic improvement over redbook. I know you're deciding on the next source upgrade, so an audition could be in order. If you haven't left Sacramento yet, you're welcome to come by for a comparison.
Howard |
I don't know what "most" people do, but if they only use 2 channels it is my opinion that they have wasted money on SACD. It can be better stereo, but not a dramatic improvement for the typical disc.
To answer your specific question in a word...yes. |
Eldartford, you have a point there. I have some CDs that make me feel that I have reached nirvana and I will need no more, but then I put on something else that makes me wonder what is going on.
Eldartford, would you say most SACD users listen in multi-channel or 2 channel? I am a 2 channel man with no plans of multi-channel at all. If I go to SACD, it would be strictly 2 channel. Would this be a waste of the media's strong ponts? |
Matchstikman...I am the wrong guy to ask as I rarely listen to SACD in stereo. However, I think that most would agree that either format can be good or bad depending on how the mix and mastering was done. SACD obviously has potential to be better. |
Eldartford, thanks for the heads up. How does the 2 channel SACD mix compare with a good redbook remaster of the same music, say something by Patricia Barber? |
All multichannel SACD discs include a separate area of the disc which has a stereo mix of the program, but still in the DSD digital format. Some SACD discs only have a stereo program. Hybrid SACD discs have a separate "layer", which is read by a different color laser, and which has a stereo program in standard CD PCM format so that it can be played on any old CD player. |
