SACD & other Formats

"So what are the record people thinking?"

They don't think.

What kind of downloads are you talking about, high rez or something else? That does seem very high.

"Before you take the plunge, read Roger Sanders (Sanders Sound) white paper regarding CD's and SACD's. He believes that SACD is inferior to CD and explains why - it actually makes sense...?!

Then buy the Oppo 105 and get it modded.

Dsper
Dsper (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

You can't listen to a piece of white paper.

"03-04-15: Highendbob
SACD is the way to go IMHO. Buy the Oppo 105 and have Modwright instruments give it the full mod. The player becomes a giant killer in multiformat players. I have one as well as the 25k EMM labs XDS1 they are closer than they should be for the price difference."

Why not just buy a player that was made right the first time, like an Ayre 5 series universal player, or something similar? You will also be wasting money on video features that will never be used.

"I understand the Hybrid SACD have a SACD layer and a red book layer. Assuming both layers are from the same mastering could a CDP like the Isis reading the red book out perform or be as good as say a Modified Modwright reading the SACD level?"

I think the biggest mistake made with SACD, was to allow both single and dual layer discs. If Sony only allowed for hybrid discs, people would have been building their SACD collections even if they didn't know what SACD's were. The format may not have failed.

As far as quality goes, that's something you have to decide for yourself. I thought CD's sounded better on my Wadia than an SACD of the same recording, did on my Sony 9000ES. But its a judgement call that you have to make.

"Do people buy SACDs for the red book layer? in theory it should contain the same mastering."

Yes, but unfortunately most SACD's are single layer.

"03-05-15: Ptss
Musichead, heed ZD. SACD was/(is) just a blip on the radar.
It will imminently be out of date as hi-des downloads are going to provide stunning audio quality -- it's happening now."

That's certainly a true statement. Downloads may end up saving high end audio altogether. To produce physical albums in different formats is a big expense. Not to mention risk. To offer music as downloads in multiple resolutions, really won't cost anything extra. The only real downside is illegal file sharing.

"03-07-15: Colekat
SACD hasn't failed. As a matter of fact, with the right rig, SACD is awesome."

I don't think I was clear. I meant SACD was a commercial failure. Sony stopped supporting the format about 10 years ago. The sound quality is fine. I think it sounds much better than CD.

"03-07-15: Musichead
So what is the right equipment to make SACD sing? Some people say the Oppo is good, others say it needs to be modified and I see SACD players $10K +. Is a dedicated SACD the better route?"

That puts you in an interresting position. I happen to agree Ptss in that downloads are the safest bet for the reasons stated in my other post. If you don't want to download, for whatever reason, it may make sense for you to buy a player. I'm not a big fan of mods. I'm sure a modified Oppo sounds better than a stock Oppo, but why not just buy something that was made to perform at a certain level to begin with? It seems to be a cleaner solution. And with the Oppo, you will be paying for features that you won't be using. Of all the players I've heard, I like the Ayre 5 series universal the best. It sounds great with CD, SACD and DVD-A. Its a universal player that was designed for 2 channel music playback. There's no money wasted on multichannel or video. My second choice would probably be a Cary 306.

"03-07-15: Tomcy6
ZD542, the $18 to $30 is on the hi-res download sites HDTracks and Acoustic Sounds Super HiRez. There were some titles at HDTracks on sale for $15.

Colekat, SACDs outside of classical are being released at the rate of one or two a month except for Japanese SHM SACDs which cost $40 to $90 apiece. The most desirable out of print SACDS go for very high prices. Only the ones no one wants are cheap. So I would say that SACD is not a vibrant, growing format. I enjoy SACDs and wish there were a lot of them that I wanted at good prices, but there just are not very many."

That's foolish. People like this never learn. All they're going to do is drive people to download without paying.

"03-09-15: Musichead
To try SACD in my system can I just buy a cheaper SACD player and and use it as a transport to feed my DAC? Or is a full player required?"

You need to get a full SACD player. There's very few SACD transport/dac combos in production. And the ones I do know of are very expensive. But getting a cheap SACD player to try SACD's is not the right way to do it. A well designed, good sounding Redbook player will almost always sound better than a cheap SACD player. The format alone can't overcome every obstacle and always sound better than CD. You need to buy an SACD player the way you buy any other piece of audio gear. And that's to employ careful consideration of any player you are looking to buy. Like any other component, you need to make sure the player is the right fit for your expectations.

"Any opinions of the Cambridge Audio Azur 752BD?"

I don't read reviews. I'm sure that the reviewers are well intentioned, but I find them to be of very little use. I don't know what you're budget is, but have a look at this listing for an Esoteric DV-60, lis64eee. It looks like a really good deal. It should be the last player you'll ever need to buy. If you can find a good used Ayre 5 series universal, that will definitely be the last player you buy. But it will be a bit more expensive. If you're looking for something more affordable, I think Marantz has several players that should be as good as anything else in their price range. I've had some Cambridge components, but I would still go with the Marantz. Look at the Esoteric first, though. That's probably the best value and the most reliable. Esoteric is a division of Teac, and they make the best transports.