"Stereo SACD's dead in the water"

So said the nice man at Audio T. My TAG/B&W system wouldn't shew any improvement over straight CD.
I'm not interested in surround sound (haven't the space for rear speakers), but am curious about SACD as I've just got some hybrid CDs (with an SACD track included). They sound fine on CD, but how will the SACD track sound? The obvious solution would be to find a demo, but that's not so easy!
All depends on the player, of course - I wouldn't want to spend much at this stage. The little Pioneer everyone talks about would be an obvious solution, and it does DVD-A, but there's also the £400 Philips player if I were really to push the boat out.
Has anyone epxerience of stereo only SACD from a budget player verses CD from a much more costly set-up? (I run an Audiolab 8000CD via a Tag DAC20)

 

Eisenach, your dealer is [probably] right about there not being much of an improvement over your TAG gear if you compare it to a budget SACD player.
However, 2 Channel SACD will (IMO) never go away. Pretty much all new releases will have a 2 channel PCM layer, 2 Channel DSD layer and maybe a DSD Surround layer. Basically they want people to listen to SACD; be it on 2 channel hifi set up or in a home cinema.

I use a Sony DVP-9000ES DVD player in my Home Cinema set up. I've had this up against a Linn Genki/Rotel combo, an Audio Note/Tact combo and a Wadia/Tact combo.

Now, for Redbook CD's (SACD Hybrids included) the 9000 was trounced by all. For Redbook layer [of SACD] (in the 3 other players) v's SACD layer (in the 9000) it was a hell of a lot tighter with the the AN/Wadia/TACT combo's coming out on top (by quite a margin ). The Linn/Rotels fell pretty quickly.

What I'm trying to say is that, for me, SACD software through a decent SACD player is, IMO, very good. It is worth noting though, that for many, it has a different quality to it. I say it's more vinyl-esque whilst others refer to it as mushy.

I am big fan of SACD and I have a decent no. of disks, of various music types and some direct to DSD transfers as well. I like it and, for me, the number of decent titles is increasing by the month. Fortunately most are albums I've always wanted to buy but have never got round to purchasing. So for me the issue of buying the same album again is non-existant in most cases.
The joys of being a young(ish) 'un , I guess :Quad:.

Redbook CD's still have huge potential and it is only after 20 years of working with PCM and digital mastering that the true potential of this format is being shown. Inversely, production styles seem to be pretty much chalk and cheese and this ensures that CD's will never have that elusive quality many music/hifi aficianados search for .

One thing you sould note though - TAG are tied to DVD-A development. You're dealer may be just wanting you to veer away from SACD ?
But am I that cynical ?

 

Ive recently aquired a denon DV2900 mainly for Home cinema duties but have run that into my stereo set up to see how it fairs with just stereo playback. FYI I use chord CPA2200/SPM1200B amps and living voice avatars. Ive not listened for too long yet, but the early indications are that My Naim CDX2 and my (currently for sale!?) Arcam FMJ CD33 are way nicer to listen to than SACDs on the denon. Ive done a few back to backs with a handful of hybrid discs but plan to spend more time listening at the weekend and maybe then i can be a bit more constructive. Im not sure im great at using the right technical terms to describe what i hear so ill try and describe it in plain english.. Basically the SACD sound is very different, and the sound does seem to extend further outside the speakers (almost like they are further apart) but somehow it all sounds a little hard and artificial. I tried my one and only DVDA (REM Automatic for the people) and i have to say that sounded a little better to my ears.. A little more convincing... I think it may be mixed quite differently to the CD version though so im not sure there can be a straight comparison of the players ability.

 

Hi Eisenach,
I have always been sceptical about digital formats - take 16 bit CD - the fundamental technology is really poor (IMO) 44.1 Khz sampling was such a low level yard stick to build what became a 25+ year boom replacement to vinyl.

As a result after listening and dabbling in '89 I only ever bought around 30 CDs versus 5000+ vinyl discs. Since listening to SACD on and then buying a Sony SCD-1, I now firmly trust at least one digital format.

From what I understand and have experienced with SACD I feel its VERY much the next step. The quality is a defiite and clear step up when compared to all standard CD setups I have heard. Though from what I have read the very best of the upsamplers (eg. dCS 972/Elgar DAC) still manages to complete.

People talk about a "vinyl" quality to SACD, but at the end of the day music is an analogue thing so in SACD trying to get closer to the analogue waveform this doesnt mean its trying to be "vinyl" sounding.

The question of whether budget SACD machines will out perform your current setup - probably not. But why buy into two setups?

I would personally either...
Stick with your CD only track and look towards putting your 400 squids (and whatever you could get for the DAC20) toward a used Chord DAC64...
...Or...
Sell the Audiolab/TAG boxes and invest in a replacement SACD/CD setup.

For £1500 (used) the SCD-1 represents a good candidate for both fornats (IMHO . I like it because out of the box the SACD stage is very near the top of the SACD pile and can (so I read) match the £15K dCS rig toe to toe in a SACD vs upsampled CD battle. Then the standard CD stage is as good as any £1500 CD only setup I have heard. Also upgrades to the machine can raise the CD repro quality up to and above Wadia heights (apparently anyway ...

Hope this helps a bit.
Greg

 

Sorry I missed this, I'm not a great fan of DCS gear, but Greg mate, you need to re address that statement, sorry mate, there is slightly more of a difference here than you may think
Reality is indeed different from hifi mags, although they would like you to think otherwise some times.
The next verison of the sacd 1 on the 777 is ok, and tweeked up can produce a pretty fair sound no quibble, but that about it.
And for full benefit, don't forget you'll need speakers capable of the full 54Khz plus, if you want to 'hear' the full spectrum of the player in full flight

 

At a recent(ish) hi-fi show, a mate and I both sat in on a CD vs DVD-A dem run by Arcam. My mate said he couldn't really hear any appreciable, if any between the CD and the DVD-A versions of the album track selections we heard. I heard differences, but mostly it sounded to me as if the recordings/masters for each format had been mixed differently with slight but noticeable levels difference between the multi tracks from the session tapes.

Have admit though, I'm a bit of an SACD fan, if forced to choose between DVD-A and SACD, I'd for an SACD mastered from DSD session material (if available). This is IME, thus far.

But as things currently stand, I'd rather stick with red book CD, buy more CDs and invest time/effort on getting the best out of red book CD replay - state-of-the-art-red book CD replay from dedicated non-multi format hardware is really better than most people have experienced IMO (even after hearing good dems of both DVD-A and SACD).

Let's not also forget, "musical tastes" determine our choice of prefered "musical" presentation whether that be hardware or software formats.

 

Which bit?

I understand your view but only the dCS comment was based on what I had read which I mentioned and treat with the pinch of the white stuff it deserves.

I personally compared the SCD-1 to a full Classe setup and felt it held its own very well - considering the price diff I think it represents great value. But again I am going on my ears and my limited experience of mid to high end digital sources.

But whilst I am pretty limited in my experience I would like to hear a £1500 (new) CD w/upsampling setup (1 or 2 box) that exceeds it. None of those I have heard exceeded the SCD-1 for CD playback. Can you recommend something?

Plus, with the excellent chassis and build, the apparently great basis for mods and the great alternative potential it has as a well engineered transport-only device I'm not sure how it could represent a poor choice really. Yes its takes a while to open and load, but I actually dig that.

Yep Sony isnt the brand many would like to see on their source component but so what? I beg to differ on its quality and value.

I am genuinely interested in your input as I am open minded and just looking to further my setup at the lowest cost. I have no axes in need of a grind

Cheers
Greg

 

WM...
I admit I did make reference to Wadia in the hope it might stoke your stove - but for all the right reasons I promise ;-)

I did want to reiterate when I bought the SCD-1 it was primarily for SACD playback and my comments regards its PCM playback were in respect of the bonus that it represents a good CD player.

I would never have spent more than a grand on a CD only machine as I just never plan to buy many more than the 130 CDs I own.

I think for SACD purposes it more than holds its own out the box. I am fascinated with the potential that mods could present. Perhaps tell me offline what services you could provide in this area...

G

 

Greg,

Out of interest, if you are not buying CDs anymore, what format are you intending to buy? Availability of the high res formats seems extremely limited to me.

CD is going to be around for a long time yet, I suspect.

 

Greg, third time I tried to do this bloody computer , First the sacd 1 is very build, nice bits inside and sony can and do make some top notch kit, and their attention to detail is almost anal.
AS far as £1500 cdp new, your proberbly right, but I would never buy new (unless the new 900 wad turns out to be good), I have a cdp/dac combo cost including the tweeky bits, £550 that will happily see off the cd side of the sacd 1, and give the sacd side a scare, and for another £600 a P1-a & aftermarket psu, throw that in the mix and its' starting to get good, however as with all comparisions rooms, speakers amps, cables, gel factor all come into the equation.
If yo do mod her, pay particular attention to dac & dsd sections, clock, analogue stages, voltage regulation, mechism damping.
And just to be a son of a cuss I know of one guy who traded an sacd 1, 3 weeks ago for a tweeked multiformat pioneer, but it's all horses for coarses.
One thing I may be wrong but arn't they only 700 titles on sacd at the moment ?. Wm

 

Good comments and food for thought indeed.
My faith (albeit a leap of) is that SACD will bloom though I accept this is not certain by any means. On the other side of the coin - there are a few titles on SACD which (to me) justify my investment alone.

I tend to buy vinyl, say 20-40 discs per month, mostly EPs. I just feel secure in the knowledge that in the main with vinyl its simply all there waiting for better analogue hardware to find the lost grooves. Whereas CD will always be a 16-bit encoding of the real thing and can never be improved at source.

However, I spose I will continue to buy 'em, so my claim to stick at 130 or so is probably unrealistic, but when I do buy I'll have a nagging irritation that its a duff medium.

I guess if I could find good improvement to both DSD and PCM from getting the SCD-1 mods I might realise that the hardware really can raise the bar for CD repro, even if the medium itself is cast in stone. I admit I have not invested sufficient time in auditioning many higher end CD apart from being very impressed with the DAC64. However, if I bought a DAC64 then I'd have to buy more CDs AND consider I was wrong. Baa humbug.

 

Tony mate,
While I wouldn't dispute this , and assuming we are talking about frequency range I would really like someone to illuminate one small point:
What is the point of extended frequency playback, when 99.9999% of all recordings ever made were recorded with equipment that does not record anything above 20kHz (look at the charts of all your favourite mics). Indeed a great many albums (classic Bluenote and Kind of Blue for example) were recorded back in the 1950s when microphone response went all the way up to the giddying heights of 16Khz (on a good day, downhill with a tail wind).
Me no comprendo

 

1950's Joel? blimey I was but a long way off well the 'hear' is for those extra bits you 'feel' with above 20Khz stuff, the firmer bass, the more open top etc, the super tweeter effect maybe , be interesting to do a speaker cable swop with either sacd/dvda, one thing I haven't done yet?, see if there is anything or just the theroy again
Having chance to go back to back sacd/red book, sacd does give more natural mids & presence, with a bigger open 'drive through' stage, but just seem to give the timing or the total dynamics, so I feel you pays you money & takes the box home. T.

 

...
I don't doubt this is true, but I'm still at a loss as to what it is we're supposed to hear or feel from above 20Khz since the the mics simply do not "hear" any of that during the actual recording
Maybe some of what we hear on SACD is the result of more care being taken and better knowledge being applied during the remastering process...

 

joel,
take a look at a sacd fequency response graph as published in most reviews of sacd players. you'll see this gread swathe of rising ultrasonic noise from about 20khz upwards, with a few peaks poking out of it that are puported to be music. you could get much the same effect but having a supertweeter that hissed at a rising volume through the frequency range up to about 70 khz.
also bear in mind that a lot of early hi resolution discs were mastered with buggy software that mirrored the music above 22.1 khz - so a peak at 1khz was mirrored about 22.1 khz to be at 43.2 khz (if my sums are correct) as well making early high rez music sound odd indeed. i believe paul miller found this and it was published in hi fi choice a couple of years ago.
to me sacd has a twittery quality that i find extremely annoying.
cheers


julian

 

Mmmm, well taking Kind of Blue as an example. On my modest system I find the CD version to be somewhat one dimensional with a hard quality whereas the SACD version has a timbre and naturalness similar to the vinyl version. The space between the instruments and the sense of place seems to be somewhat there.

I am not using the wide frequency band mode, so my experience is improved simmply due to the extra information between 20 and 20K. I've never found the format twittery, just fuller, more natural and more believable.

 

Greg,

How do you find the high rez formats compare with CD when it comes to pace, rhythm and timing aspects of the sound? I have found them to be wanting miserably.

 

Greg:
Which vinyl version? I'm not joking, as there are vinyl versions and vinyl versions of this famously (notoriously) flawed but great recording. I will give the SACD version of this a workout in comparison to a good quality vinyl pressing at some point (hopefully soon ) and get to you.
Coming back to BlueNote for a minute, I find the supposedly 24bit RvG remaster series to be remarkebly lackluster. The early 90s Japanese 20bit K2 remasters are much better IMO (but still pail in comparison to a mint '70s Toshiba-EMI or King pressing).

Julian:
Interesting, I shall check that out. It rather seems to make a mockery of many of the claims made for the format...

Isn't all of this rather academic anyway. Surely the next high-rez format will have nothing in common with such an antiquated notion as spinning silver discs?

 

Now, I may be miles :music: off here, but from all the technical jargon I've read about DSD/SACD it appears to me that the high level information is more like junk shunted to the upper frequencies and this gives the often mentioned very clear mid-range.

 

Robbo an astute' observation sir, whilst the mid band does give more palpability and texture, it's inability to recreate the rythmic and dynamic timing shifts, in a believable fashion, leaves me feeling some what cheated, great for Jazz cats & nora jones, non motor head classical buffs & affisionardos, a more suitable marriage you'd be hard pressed to find, to quote a well worn phrase, lifes to short for boring hifi Wm