2. digital
  3. 1241473922

How much SACD do I need?

I've acquired a good number of hybrid CD/SACD disks and would love to listen to the SACD layer. Here's my situation, I have a CD player with which I'm very happy, works well in my system, and will keep (Linn Majik). I would think that some amount of the cost of higher end SACD players goes into getting decent redbook CD playback. What do I need to get quality SACD playback (two-channel)? That is, I don't want to sink a lot of money into reproducing redbook CD playback (already got that). But don't want to spend so little that SACD's end up sounding inferior to my CD player. Would something like a Marantz 8003 or Sony 5400 work? i.e. would a Marantz 8003 player the SACD layer do better than the Majik playing the CD layer? Would appreciate any thoughts and guidance. Tks.

John
john_adams_sunnyvale
jph_22
2 posts
 
CD must be more than "low-rez" if reviewers are putting it on equal grounds with (true) hi-rez !! This would include John Atkinson's (recent) review of Meridian's 808.2 CD player.

Let's not forget that (audiophile) recording labels record at *20 bits* along with higher-than-44 kHz sampling rates since the early 1990's. This helped overcome the production losses which occured when recording right at 16. By this, I mean the "headroom" needed for signal processing. Engineers also use dither to remove the low-level quantization noise, if present, for the consumer copy.

I don't know which of these two techniques is more effective - but 16 bits by itself captures 25db more dynamic range than a symphony orchestra produces. Most audiophiles don't know this...or for that matter, how dither works......
audioholik
90 posts
 
"CD must be more than "low-rez"

unfortunately CD is low-rez, nothing less nothing more

just look at available audio formats

16-bit/44,1kHz
20-bit/44,1kHz
24-bit/48kHz
24-bit/88,2kHz
24-bit/96kHz
24-bit/176,4kHz
24-bit/192kHz
DSD 2,8MHz
mrthunder
7 posts
 
I have the sony 5400 player and it does a great job on SACD. It is also very good on CD with terrific base and mid range. It's better than any Marantz I've heard.
SACD sounds much better than CD.
Listned to a lot of players and until you move into very high $ like Esoteric P-03 D-03 SACD it is not substantially better.
The 5400 has nice solid build which is a good foundation for sound.
strateahed
299 posts
 
According to Kal Rubinson's May review, (Redbook) CD processing on the XA5400 is done in such a way that results in a 2.8MHz signal-sampling frequency - the same as DSD. That, plus comments here and on other boards that say it raises the difference between Redbook to SACD to near indiscernible, puts this machine on my must-audition list.
mrthunder
7 posts
 
There is still a substantial difference between SACD and CD on my XA5400. There is simply more information on a SACD than a CD. Multiply the CD information up to SACD doesn't add the missing data. Just look at the sampling rates for CD on higher frequencies.
If Wadia and others spend as much time improving SACD playback as they have on CD we would have "analog" quality and better.
The CD playback on the 5400 is great but not as good as a Wadia 581. SACD is better for much less $.
More to discover