SACD two channel is superior to redbook two channel.
You do not need multi-channel to enjoy SACD. I have had multi-channel SACD players like the Sony SCD XA 777ES and now I have the Emm Labs Dac6, but I listen to them in two-channel and it sounds great. I'm not a fan of multi-channel when I listen to music -- I use my 5.1 system for movies only. The superiority of SACD comes through very clearly in two-channel.
Redbook CD is the format that came out in the early 80's. SACD is a different format which is much higher resolution, and actually sounds good. So it has little in common with redbook CD! CDs can be played in an SACD player, but SACDs cannot be played in a standard CDP.
"Two channel" is merely indicating that is was designed to be used only in a stereo mode.
Unless I missed the mark AGAIN this is what you were looking for, was I wrong?
Nrchy, thanks for the info, but I was referring more to the quality of the sound. Rsbeck is in the ballpark. My question, rephrased, is, all things being equal, what are the differences between 2 channel SACD and 2 channel redbook when it comes to the sound? Does the 2 channel SACD provide a better stereo reproduction than 2 channel redbook? In other words, you have two version of the same music; one on audiophile quality redbook and another on SACD and both are played in 2 channel. Will they sound the same or will one be superior to the other?
I have no interest at this time with a multi-channel setup; however, if SACD will deliver a better 2 channel experience than 2 channel redbook, I would like to go in that direction.
Matchstikman, the unswer is YES. Just like Nrchy said - the SACD has much higher resolution. The best way I can describe it as music sounds clearer and more defined.
Overall, I agree with others who have stated SACD is superior.
Of course, it also depends on the quality of the recordings. With that said, I believe that overall SACD playback generally has more warmth, depth, and a tad better resolution.
If I were to limit the improvements to one word, I would use the word 'richer'. As SACD playback seems to consistantly and distinctively have a 'richer' sound over redbook cd.
But you also have to ask, how much of the difference can be attributed to the SACD formatted recording and how much can be attributed to the component itself?
Perhaps it would have been prudent to ask Matchstikman his budget and his system. There are others who think based on what they've heard on SACD that it DOESN'T make a very big difference on playback quality at all especially down at the entry level to moderate level of things. There are some of us who have heard inferior SACD discs in comparison to their Redbook versions. It is also rich imho to make such statements when some of the above have already admitted that on certain hybrids the Redbook layer is better. It also depends how you determine "superior"-are we talking technically,sonically or as a format? Redbook is still the superior format in my book since if I want to buy new music I can actually buy it and listen to it on Redbook. There's no doubt technically SACD is superior,I also respect those who have heard the improvements SACD brings to them on their systems-again other haven't. But it is a pretty complicated issue-I found SACD inferior as a format for several reasons and sold all my SACD discs but kept my hybrids for the Redbook layer.
The SACD data format is completely different from the PCM redbook format, so that theoretical comparisons are not easy. There is an argument, posted elsewhere, that SACD resolution for signals above 8000 Hz is actually inferior.
To my ears, and depending on the particular disc, SACD is better than CD. Perhaps this is because the frequency range below 8000 Hz is most important.
On the other hand DVD-A is easy to compare to CD. It's the same PCM code except with 24 bits instead of 16, and 96KHz instead of 44.1 KHz. It's what they would have done thirty years ago if the technology had been available.
No question that SACD brings stereo to a whole new level. There is no comparison, the difference is akin to the superiority of good vinyl over redbook and it's completely addicting once you appreciate it. To be honest, I have a heck of a time analyzing the SACD side of good sacd players (I've heard many good and great ones, a few bad ones). I can pick apart the redbook side of any player in a few tracks, but SA-CD, after only a few seconds of listening, makes it near impossible for me to think about the equiptment; I get lost in the music, the ease, that naturlness, realness, coherence and life of the music. When I do force myself to compare, to listen to a redbook layer of a SACD, I in general will find that SACD is smoother, its more open, its fuller, its vastly more extended up top, it has better detail and clarity with a lower noise floor, it's simply more like real music...but I quickly forget about all the fluff and realize there is beautiful, life-like music playing in my room when playing the DSD side.... Like every other format it of course is recording quality dependant, yet I've heard things with good SACDs that my best CD's are completely lacking.
Every person I've let hear SACD in my system (strictly 2ch), even nonaudiphiles who don't care in the least about this hobby, have had no trouble picking up on the very differences I hear wrt the superiority of SA-CD, and this without any prompting from me. That's what amazes me and give me hope for the format, along with the flood of new titles finnally making it to shore and Sony promising to open the flood gate in 2004.
It's also worth observing that, as far as I can tell, Ben_campbell is the only person on this board, out of hundreds or even thousands of members, actively crusading against SACD at every turn. He can't hear the difference, as stated a hundred times now, which is fine; we all hear differently and we value different things in sound reproduction. However, do note that the fans of the format hugely outnumber the unbiased detractors, and likewise, appreciate that when I say I'm a "Fan" that is short for "Fanatic!"
Here is what I found: A well-engineered SACD sounds better than a well-engineered CD. A well-engineered CD sounds better than a poorly engineered SACD. A poorly engineered SACD sounds just as bad as a poorly engineered CD. Percentagewise, 7 out of 10 SACDs I bought are well-engineered but only 1 out of 3 CDs are.
Socrates it is a nonsense to both say I am the only dissenting voice and that I am anti-SACD. Try a search on the subject and see what it throws up. Even better still try and work out the extensive amount of SACD players and software available 2nd hand. I actively try to avoid the same old debate but apparently it is ok to make the same pro-SACD comments over and over again. I drive to give a balanced viewpoint-I DO NOT say I am right-I explain what my experience is. I ALWAYS state you should hear for yourself. Say the original poster only has a limited amount of money to spend on a SACD machine? Even those who are pro-SACD admit that at the lower end you will not hear a massive if any difference. Is my experience not valid? I actually saved a pro-SACD thread recently by making a post and getting the pro-SACD poster some answers. For me it's about music and SACD limits very much my choices in listening to music. I have to say I recently heard the Linn Unidisk playing SACD and I didn't hear anything to get excited about. Disagree with me by all means but please do not misrepresent what I have said in the past.
SACD surely has superior performance over Redbook. I have AB comp with several album (try Kenny G Live US Redbook against SACD Hybrid or Diana Karl). SACD gives you much better detail, depth and musical.
Even the DSD layer can win over Redbook.
SACD player in SACD player sounds better then playing its DSD layer over a decent Redbook CD player.
If you feel not trust worthy, try yourself and you will know.
I've heard redbook versions of CDs sound way better on a top-quality CD player (usually a 24/192 upsampler type)than the SACD version on an expensive SACD player. The format is of no advantage unless you have a truly good quality player to translate that data into MUSIC.
I'm sorry for the confusion on my part. SACD is a vastly superior format than CD.
FWIW I have never been happy until the last year or so, with digital recordings and playback gear. After 20 years on the market CDs and CDPs are finally putting out good sound. The medium was flawed from the outset. But that's another arguement.
SACD is doing what CD pioneers claimed their original format would accomplish. The treble is not as harsh as redbook; the midrange is much more pure and natural than what we experienced before; the bass is deeper and fuller. The sound from top to bottom is more natural.
I will still say that I prefer the sound of vinyl, but SACD is getting to where digital should be! If the format lasts long enough and the improvement continues as it did in redbook CDPs the potential improvement is incredible. This time they will be building on a solid foundation, as opposed to the sand they built redbook CD upon.
Great stuff, Right now I have a ModWright Pioneer CDP that is making great music for me with my existing CD collection. I use the Pioneer as a tranport with a Bel Canto DAC, plus I use a Decware pre-amp and TORII amp. The sound is very good and getting better. I have a few DVD-A selections that were, frankly, disappointing. I hear so much about SACD that I have been wondering if it is that much better than redbook.
I would rather get into vinyl that SACD or DVD-A, but I am afraid that the maintence and upkeep required for vinyl is more than I could handle.
As it is, at the local music shops where I live, vinyl has a bigger presence that SACD or DVD-A. In fact, vinyl takes up an entire wall where SACD and DVD-A combined take up a little more than half a rack, if that. Also, I have alot of friends that have never even heard of SACD or DVD-A. One of them bought a Police SACD and was frustrated because he couldn't play it on his redbook player until he noticed the label that read "for SACD player only."
I think a music listener could stay with redbook and be happy for the rest of this century if they so desired, right?
Matchstikman you really need to try and demo a SACD player in your own system. As regards the software SACD has a large slant towards Jazz and Classical-there are a few new rock/pop/alternative releases but not many. Of course there are quite a few rereleases-the most notiable being the Stones,Dylan and The Police. The double edge sword with SACD hybrid releases is that the Redbook layer is remastered too,I have found at my level (check my system)the Redbook layer is enough for me because my more expensive CD player is my best playback machine and these discs sound (mostly)great but also on my SACD player(a mere $750 list in it's day) the difference between layers is not noticeable to any great extent. It's long been my contention that SACD will survive probably only as an audiophille format and I think the releases so far pretty much reflect that. Sales are up on SACD but I do think this is due to the big name hybrid releases such as Floyd,The Stones,Dylan and The Police-all of which sound great on Redbook and the vast majority were probably bought for this. Try for yourself. Oh and I won't bother trying to get some manners out of some people on these discussions,they seem incapable of it.
I have the Emm Labs Dac6, which is a top of the line redbook CD player -- best I've ever heard -- simply amazing -- yet -- its SACD play-back is still superior. SACD is a superior medium. Music sounds more natural -- you have to hear it to understand.
Socrates I admire your review of the improvements SACD offer and find them to be acurate. However, I wish your jab at Ben had been left out. I've found over the past five years Ben to be consistant in his taste and his opinions. I believe there is room for both of you to be right here, which I believe you both are. For the entry level SACD may not have enough upside. This opinion is formed from reading others comments with lower end systems. My experience is only with high end systems, and I fully agree with Socrates. For my taste SACD is a vast improvement, and very addictive. Just my opinion, and that is what this poster asked for.
matchstikman, I am a strong proponant of vinyl, and I really think the labor issue is overblown. It takes time to get the original setup right, but after that there really isn't a lot to worry about, unlike some will indicate!
Get a little help from your friends, ultimately I think you will be happier with LPs. I could be wrong though.
While I'm also a strong proponent of vinyl (I've listened to almost nothing but since I returned 6 mos. ago), I don't think it renders the debate as moot since there is almost no decent vinyl available for recent recorded music. Even where vinyl is available, to my ear it is so digitally processed that it soulds no better than the CD in most cases or worse. I restrict my vinyl collection to pre 1980's stuff at the latest.
Vinyl is great, but I gave it up and have not regretted it -- if I were just getting into this -- at this stage in the development of digital -- I would not get into vinyl -- just my opinion. I also think this starts a different thread -- the original poster only asked about the difference between CD and SACD.
I had just received an ASCD version of Beethoven symphonies 5 and 7, and did a direct comparison to a CD version that I already had and loved. But what a difference in the dinamic range. I had to lover to volume and still had cristal clarity during soft passages. I recomend to anybody who still doubts the superiority of SACD to listen to this recording.
I have never heard a redbook version sound better than the sacd version but I don't listen to old dead guys either.
For those that want to hear what sacd is all about, check out DSOTM, Steve Earles Guitar Town, Allison Krauss Live or Joe Satrianis Strange Beautiful Music for starters. Compare any of these to there redbook version on even a midfi setup and you will have your answer. I have heard redbook and sacd versions of these on several 500.00 players,a 2k player and several modified players that cost even more. One thing remains consistent, and that is sacd is far more natural sounding whith greater resolution than the redbook versions by a large margin in every case. This repesents modern music from the 70's,80's and current releases. After listening to sacd versions and comparing, the redbook versions become coasters in every case. I just wish they would start releasing new material a bit quicker on the format.
Ears you will find one of the biggest SACD's supporters on these forums admit that some of The Stones discs sound better on the redbook layer of the SACD hybrids. He has the state of the art SACD set up. This of course doesn't disprove the overall theory, I admit that. DSOTM imho doesn't show much difference between the layers. I'm stepping out of this debate again but I want to make it clear I am a music enthuasiast-I do not recycle discs lighty and I do care about sonic reproduction. I'm only offering another set of experiences. To offer a true example here's a recent experience. I recently sold an interconnect on Ebay to a guy who stayed locally-he was a vinyl guy but with a lower end system. He liked the way my system sounded,he clearly knew his stuff and was impressed with the Ayre equipment which he'd never heard. He spotted my Sony DVD/SACD player and asked to hear some comparisons. First up he noticed the big drop in sound quality from the Ayre. But when he heard both Let It Bleed and DSOM on the Sony on different layers he found the performance between Redbook and SACD almost indentical. He thought LIB sounded very slightly better on Redbook and DSOM very slightly better on SACD.
Maybe it's my system-but a friend who has a Levison 39s and the cheap Pioneer multi-format machine-feels exactly the same. Let me finish by saying also I wish I could afford the like of Emm Labs equipment because I believe at that level you are very probably in a win win situation. Last words.
By your own admission, you have extensive experience only with a high end Ayre CD player and a low end SONY SACD player --and you prefer the CD play-back on the higher end CD player -- versus your lower end player -- which should come as a surprise to no one. You've admitted that you were not able to audition a high end SACD player at the time of your purchase because they were not available where you live. So, you opted to buy a high end player without SACD capability -- that was *your* decision -- without auditioning high end CD/SACD players. Other than that, you are offering the experiences of others -- hearsay -- which seems to have the effect of validating your purchase of a high-end player without SACD capability.
I guess your sore Rsbeck because you are the guy who has admitted some Redbook layers sounded better than SACD on the same disc. You are pretty close on my experience but not exactly right. I won't bore everybody with the details. Part of your problem is that you see a $750/£500 machine as low end-I think Sony will have sold vast quantities of machines below the $1000 many more than those players above it. The fact that a "lower" end machine doesn't highlight the differences doesn't matter to you because you are way at the other end of the scale,to me it is highly damaging to the format. It's also relevant to the original poster whom will probably be considering a lower end machine. Doesn't it matter that low end SACD machines don't show the format off? These forums are about opinions and experiences. You've stated that SACD is bettter than vinyl-some people don't agree. Shouldn't you be allowed to state that? My experience isn't as simplistic as you make out but if it saying that makes you happy then fine. However isn't your experience also limited because how many people in all reality can afford the Emm Labs equipment? I won't expect a reply to these points because you seldom actually reply to the facts. The crux of my argument is what happens on my Sony SACD player and NOTHING to do with my Ayre playback. It's that simple. Oh and now WOW I have had a real high end experience with the Linn Unidisk and it didn't do a lot for me. Keep smiling and try avoid getting this threads pulled by losing your temper.
Ben, I have not heard the Stones sacd's so I can't offer any input on those, but the DSOTM sacd sounds much better than any prior redbook release including the mofi version when played on equal players.
Are you saying that the DSOTM sacd played on a cheap Sony sounds only slightly better than the other layer played back on a hi end redbook player?.... if so, then that about says it all about which is superior.
I have some sacd's such as Bob Dylans Blood on the Tracks that sound better than the redbook version but not to the degree that you will find on other releases. This is the original recordings limits that you hear whith any format.
Some people have raved about The Eagles Hotel California dvd-a and I find it to not only sound rolled off, but also sounds like some of the frequencys have been sucked right out of the recording. I actually prefer the dcc redbook version.
The point I am trying to make is, we hear what we hear but any fair comparison should be done on equal gear imo.
When I compare redbook to sacd, I do not compare sacd played back on a hi end player to a 500.00 redbook player but rather something more equal in price.
I am not sore -- I just think your comments should be put in the context of your experience. After purchasing a high end Ayre CD-only player without auditioning any high end CD/SACD players first -- and then campaigning against SACD on this board -- you finally got some experience with a high end Linn Universal Player, and found it "didn't do a lot for you." But -- again -- this just seems like another attempt to justify your purchase of a high end player without SACD capability -- so, I see a theme here.
The question that the original poster asks with regard to CD and SACD is, "are they the same? Is one Superior?" Someone claimed that a high end CD player would out-perform a high end SACD player. Since I believe I own one of the top CD players available in the Emm Labs Dac6 and since it also has SACD capability, I think my experience in this regard is exactly on the point. The highest end CD player I have experienced -- The Emm Labs Dac6 -- is amazing, but still -- the SACD playback is superior.
With regard to the Stones hybrid, "Let it Bleed," I have said that I prefer the *MIXES* on some of the CD tracks, but that the SACD tracks still show the superiority of the *MEDIUM.*
Since this thread is about the *MEDIUM* of SACD compared to the *MEDIUM* of redbook CD, my comments about the Let it Bleed hybrid can only be used to support the argument that the MEDIUM of SACD is superior.
Further, I have also owned the Sony SCD XA777ES, which I purchased on Audiogon used for $1,600 and this player -- which has excellent redbook CD playback -- also demonstrated clear Superiority on SACD playback.
So, my answer to the original poster, based on my experience, is that CD and SACD are not the same, a high end CD player will not out-perform a high-end SACD player, and SACD *is* superior to CD.
My experience, and from what I read from others, is that even the cheapest DVD-A player sounds a lot better than CD, but to get good results from SACD requires a relatively expensive player. So the answer is: yes...SACD is superior to CD but only if you can afford an expensive player (which probably makes the CDs sound better also). So I don't give a lot of credit to the media. (Sorry Sony).
To get good results from redbook CD takes a relatively expensive player. I was unhappy with redbood CD playback until I purchased the Sony SCD XA777ES used on Audiogon for $1,600. Coincidentally, that machine also had SACD capability, which sounded even better. But, if you *really* want to hear redbook CD at its best, you need to get the Emm Labs Dac6, which also has SACD capability. I would be miserable with the cheapest DVD-A player. It would be no consolation to me that its DVD-A playback might be better than its [low-end] CD playback. So, for me, this is irrelevant. I've been about the business of searching out and buying the best redbook CD players I can find -- because I have over 1,000 redbook CD's -- it just happens that these players also have SACD capabilities and the SACD playback is even better, which has prompted me to buy a number of SACD's and to look forward to new releases.
Ears-just for the record the only comparison I do between Redbook and SACD is on the Sony. Which I find surprising. Comparisons with the Ayre would be largely pointless due to the obvious price difference.
Rsbeck-really my final words this time. If you see a theme fine,if I was sure I could have bought a SACD player that gave me the Redbook playback quality of the Ayre-I would have bought it and hopefully got the benefits of SACD a machine of that quality . If I could afford an Emm Labs system I would have it and if eveything I hear about it is true then I would obviously reinvest in SACD software. I think you fail to realise at your level you get a win,win situation below it there is much more debate. I am not anti-SACD-it is a more complicated issue than just to come to the conclusion that it is a better or worse format-there are many different levels and issues within the argument. As for the Stones SACD/Hybrids as far as I can hear and know the mixes on the SACD and Redbook layers are identical.
The fact remains that you were not happy with the redbook CD playback of your prior player -- so you moved up to a high end redbook CD player -- but, you were *unable* to audition high end CD players with SACD capability because they were not available in your area -- so, for this and other reasons, the route you took enabled you to explore high end CD playback, but did not enable you to further explore SACD.
I have no problem with the route you took and the rationale behind it, but IMO, when you hi-jack SACD threads to make negative comments regarding SACD [and players you have not personally auditioned], your admitted lack of experience with SACD [in relation to your more extensive experience with redbook CD] calls your comments into question.
What you can tell us is that you enjoy high end redbook CD playback better than low-end CD playback.
Further, I do agree that having a high end CD player with SACD capability puts me in a win/win situation. I also agree that there is debate with regard to the price point at which SACD's superiority can be discerned, but -- without trying to be rude -- I think that debate should take place between posters who have had experience with these machines, rather than between posters who *have* had experience versus a poster who can only offer 2nd hand hearsay.
Finally, on that point, I have written that I could clearly hear the superiority of SACD on a Sony SCD XA777ES which I bought used on Audiogion for $1,600. This player had excellent CD playback -- far superior to my previous player, which was a Yamaha s2300 Universal Player, which I bought new for $1,000. Still, the SACD playback of the XA777ES was superior to the CD playback. That was my experience with a player I had in my system for a few months.
Rsbeck really this is boring,I'm trying to get out of this debate but what you've written is not correct on a number of issues. I only wanted Matchstikman to hear of other experiences,which at least two other members have agreed with in general terms on this thread. Why don't you call them on that? Others have also elsewhere. Perhaps he could comment if my posts were worthwhile or not,he's probably quit the thread a while back. My experience with SACD involves listening to a highly rated payer for over a year which I still own,which has been reviewed as clearly showing the differences between Redbook and SACD. I current own about 20 SACD hybrids-I owned and heard about another 15 SACD discs. Big deal, my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best-as for the hearsay comment well show me where I have made detailed analysis about anything I haven't heard. You've done this on every thread,ignore the points you are called on (at least 4 or 5 above)and make the same point my experience isn't valid over and over again. Anyone who wishes to enter into SACD deserves to hear at least an alternative viewpoint,made to consider some of the drawbacks with the format and be aware that they may not hear the differences they are expecting. I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better. Martin Collims who is a well-respected journalist recently wrote in his Krell SACD review he had serious doubts and issues with the format. I will post elsewhere more detailed thoughts on the format.
>>I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.<<
Well, this was the subject of the thread. So, if you agree that -- at a certain price point, SACD reveals its Superiority -- one can only wonder why you would jump into the thread to debate against those who are arguing that SACD is superior.
>>my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best<<
Your less expensive player obviously didn't show redbook CD to its best, either -- or else you would not have been compelled to buy a high end CD player. So, this simply adds weight to the argument that *any* format will reveal more of its strengths with a high end player than with a low end one.
There's no wonder in it Rsbeck-I made the consideration that the original poster may not have more than $1500 to spend on a SACD player-if you read my original reply it should make sense. Can you state that SACD is superior at that price limit? We still don't know the original posters budget. I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up (Audio Alchemy DDE3,DTI2,POWER STATION 2)beat the Sony. The Sony is a good audio player for the money,it really is.
I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade,wanted more out of my music.
Bottom line: If one wants to see what digital has to offer -- either CD or SACD, one needs to be willing to spend some money on a front end. If one wants to be in a win/win situation, one might want to audition CD players with SACD capability. If one wants to have all formats covered, I recommend getting a high end CD/SACD player and combining it with a DVD/DVD-A player. In two boxes, you will have great music and DVD playback and all your formats covered.
"I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up...beat the Sony."
Then, you wrote......
"I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade, wanted more out of my music."
Maybe you *are* making really powerful points that I am avoiding, or maybe you don't communicate all that clearly. It seems to me that you first argue against my contention that you traded up to get more out of redbook CD -- which goes against logic -- and then you go on to confirm that this is exactly what you did.
I don't think rhetorical gambits like this need a response.
I cannot see where I have fouled you in any way. At least I stuck to the topic. Your final post contains nothing at all about audio. I call *that* a foul.
Rsbeck I find it incredible you can read that post again pick out two parts that aren't questions and completely miss the first part of the post. I'll try to be clear these were the questions you haven't answered. Did we know the original posters budget was(?) and therefore wasn't my original post valid since it was very possible that the poster would have less than $1500 to spend? Can you state that at this price limit SACD is indeed the superior format?
What you continually seem to miss is that I am only saying this is a more complex issue than is being stated. Of course the original post was vague,no price limits,idea of how important other aspects were. I can agree you replied in a broader sense of what the poster asked and that those points were VALID.
You never seem to think any of my points are vaild because you think I am writing from ignorance or limited experience. It appears you will never get away from that regardless of how wide I broaden the argument. It's pointless to keep this up.
Show me where I state to the original poster NOT to try SACD?
You clearly don't read a lot of what I write because it always take numerous attempts to get you to reply to the specific points,your last post is a totally classic example.
What is interesting Rsbeck is that through this and the other debate ongoing at the moment even the guy (Ears)who agrees with you most about my "hollow" stance have differing views about other aspects of SACD. You think you can get quality Redbook replay from a SACD machine around $1600 (used),he thinks at least $4k. By his measure I cannot afford Redbook replay of the standard I would like on a SACD machine. Is he right and you wrong? No both your viewpoints are valid from your respective perspectives and experience.
This is what I was aiming at with my original post,an opinion based on my experience with SACD,I only asked the poster to consider my points and find his own experience.
Please explain to me why this is not a valid reply to the question?
These forums are about debate it would appear you would just rather leave it at SACD is superior,all the time for everybody,end of story.
I was unimpressed with SACD when I had only heard it on the Sonys. (I own an entry level 775, and auditioned a 999ES.) When I switched to the Denon 5900 universal player, I changed my mind. I feed the Denon into a Bel Canto DAC2 for Redbook. I love that combination, but as good as it is, it isn't as good to my ears as the SACD. I only own a few SACD disks, all hybrid, and I prefer the SACD layer. With some the difference is dramatic, with others it's more subtle. (BTW, the 5900 is not a bad Redbook player on its own, but I wouldn't be satisfied with it.)
Obviously, the whole topic of SACD is a complex one *FOR YOU.* It is also apparent to me that, for you, this issue goes far beyond music. I guess I am supposed to go through your posts and figure out what I should answer and what I am supposed to ignore, which are your real points and which are just meant to act as filler between them, and then I am also supposed to validate the points you think you've made, ignore the points that contradict each other, ignore the holes in your experience, accept your 2nd hand hearsay -- even though I notice you misquote and misuse my statements in some of these rambles, etc. etc. etc.
For me, it is simple. From my first experiences with audio onward, I have accepted that the equipment I use and the music I play on it will be out of the mainstream, will cost more, will take some time and trouble to acquire and to "get right." But, it is worth it to get great music reproduction. So, frankly, I find all your "consumerist" complaints about SACD irrelevant -- ESPECIALLY on a board like this one. You know damn well there are web-sites that carry SACD, SACD's are NOT difficult for an audio enthusiast to find --they are difficult for a mainstream consumer to find. EVERYONE knows we are in the early phases and we are limited to the 1,500 or so SACD's available. Why should it matter to anyone who has the opportunity to explore SACD that your choices are limited by the shops in your town? I've never seen anyone else dog a piece of equipment because it isn't available at their neighborhood shop. Again -- this is STANDARD experience in this hobby. Frankly, it seems to me that you want others to validate your belief that because *you* have had a little bit of disappointment with your initial foray this must spell doom for the medium. But, I would wager that everyone on this forum has been disappointed by some highly rated piece of equipment and/or software on the road to audio nirvana. This is typical. So, I doubt you are going to get a lot of sympathy here. Your objections -- like your speculation that SACD will only live on as a toy for audiophiles -- would spell doom for everything we do on this forum. I find it objectionable that you have let your little disappointment -- whatever it was -- with one machine turn into this personal little crusade of yours -- especially when you pass on 2nd hand comments about equipment you've never heard. i consider that a foul. Then when you add the fact that you are sitting there with an esoteric piece of high end audiophile equipment listening to your redbook CD making these comments about SACD, I find your comments ironic to say the least.
Now, the original poster wanted to know about two channel SACD. Pretty specific question. I would guess the poster wanted to know if he/she needed a 5.1 system to enjoy SACD. My answer is, "no." He/she also wanted to know if SACD is superior to CD. Who in the world would think he/she was asking whether there was better selection of SOFTWARE on SACD as opposed to CD? Short answer -- NOBODY. This is just common sense. I assume this poster is interested in finding BETTER DIGITAL REPRODUCTION. This road is going to lead to a consideration of SACD. My answer is "yes, SACD sounds better." Finally, I didn't play guessing games with the original poster's budget -- because I don't NEED to know his/her budget. I assume the poster wants to hear the EXPERIENCE of other posters, so I shared with him/her the two pieces of equipment -- at two different price points -- that I have personally had in my system and enjoyed. I also assume that this is probably one of the first questions on this poster's journey. When he/she wants to know about players in his price range, how much it costs to get great reproduction, where to find software, how much is available -- HE/SHE WILL ASK. If the pieces I mention are too expensive, I assume he/she will say so, I also assume others will offer their EXPERIENCE at other price points -- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. IMO, what you have to offer is that you had a machine in your system and you didn't hear enough of a difference -- and then you didn't audition any other players because they were *UNAVAILABLE* in your area -- and that will be weighed against others who've had the same piece of equipment and DID hear enough difference, people who've heard SACD players that were UNAVAILABLE to you and enjoyed them, etc, etc, etc, etc. Then, the original poster and anyone else with interest in this thread will sift and weigh all this information and will form impressions, follow up questions, etc, etc, etc, etc.
In a way DVD being the closest cousin. Yes,but execution of recording is still the lead link. In music plybk it's system,electricity,the room,the floor. So I keep buying used cd's(beginning to see used DVD-audio and sacd also) But....vinyl does mighty well,wonderfully collectible and is very interesting with huge library. Redbook is seeing a golden age"IMHO"better mastering.CDP are cheaper and better. Used CD's,I focus my energy into finding all my music used and lately the bargains abound.I am gambling that CD due to its huge success will always be able to be played back and there have been marked improvements in CD playback in its entire history.With the best progress in the final act if that is what is happening. I will wait till it is to my benefit,cheaper,better and all the machines have full flow at the digital outputs. CD and Vinyl are still 2 fistfulls of great fun.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
