[Echolane]

I had to buy a new CD player about five years ago and I got talked out of buying one that was also SACD capable.  My dealer is a bit of a purist and he insisted that CD only players were better and SACD wasn’t worth it.  And then about two years ago I got into streaming and the deal I got on my DAC was just way too good to pass up, and I mean WAY too good to pass up, so even though it doesn’ t do DSD, I bought it anyway. 

Meanwhile, I’ve managed to accumulate about 40 SACDs and while I can play the hybrid layer, I’ve never heard the SACD version.  So I looked up the price of SACD players and they seem to start at around $3000.  Ouch, that’s quite a lot of money just to hear about 30 SACDs.  Is DSD worth it?

[FullRangeMan]

I would go a cd/sacd player imo.

[Phil A]

There is much skill to mixing and mastering music so regardless of format there are other things which impact how a disc will sound. $3k is a lot to spend for a few dozen SACDs.  I'm no longer into disc playback for many years.  I have transports in various systems mainly for video and if someone comes over with a CD every 4 years or so they can hear it.  Any electromechanical device over a period of time can also go bad and the drive mechanisms for disc spinners like everything else changes over time.  A particular disc spinner has software written for the particular drive used and when that drive is no longer produced, it will mean a new player.

Over the years DACs used, either outboard or in players, also have advances.  So if you're strictly into disc playback at some point in the future, you may wish, assuming your player has a digital output, to a separate DAC at some point in the future.  I have files of all resolutions, including many which are higher resolution than CDs (PCM, DSD, etc.).  So when you think you are ready to move to a better DAC than the one built into your current CD player, you can always buy a DAC (for less than $3k) and rip the SACDs to files and get a small fanless PC running something like JRiver and play them back.

So I would say as long as you enjoy what you have now, keep it.  Thinks about a DAC at some point and audition some, whether at a friend's place or a dealer.

[Rusty Jefferson]

....So I looked up the price of SACD players and they seem to start at around $3000.  Ouch, that’s quite a lot of money just to hear about 30 SACDs.  Is DSD worth it?

Not for me, and especially if your discs are older analogue recordings re-released on SACD. If the recordings were recorded in DSD end to end, without conversion or manipulation and you plan on increasing that collection, then maybe.

[rif]

there are a few SACD players on Amazon for a few hundred $.

[Mag]

   I will add where SACD shines is in multi-channel playback, the only true multi-channel format as far as I know. I have two Sony SACD players and sure didn't spend 3 grand on them. The problem is my older player is the HDMI is not compatible with newer HDMI inputs so you'll have to go with interconnects most likely.

 MY experience with the CD Hybrid layer is that it is not the proper thickness for CD Redbook playback so you're not hearing what the CD really should sound like unless you transfer this layer to a cd-r that has the correct Redbook thickness, it makes a difference believe it or not.

If you are not going to listen in multi-channel I would not bother with it.

[WGH]

Is DSD worth it?

No... but it will sound different. DSD is slightly less sharp sounding, some say more analog. Great for classical, soft rock, easy listening but PCM will sound more exciting for rock-n-roll and electric blues. 16 bit/44.1 kHz upsampled to 384 kHz PCM can sound much better than DSD64, which is what I do, 44.1 kHz sounds flat in comparison. I don't bother upsampling DSD64, even though I can.

All the variables involved in SACD playback will determine the playback quality. First is sample rate: a SACD is DSD64. Rip a SACD and you get a DSD64 file.

"... DSD is not magically better than its rivals. A ‘standard’ DSD file- often referred to as DSD64 is roughly equivalent to a sample rate of 24/88.2kHz."
https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/blog/what-dsd

Second is the DAC. Is the DAC inside the SACD player better than a stand alone DAC? Depends on price. The hybrid layer may sound better through a stand alone DAC.

Using HDMI is another can-of-worms. My Oppo BDP-103 Blu-ray player will play SACD disks. The Anthem AVM60 surround processor HDMI input doesn't process DSD so even when using HDMI I'm stuck listening to the hybrid layer. Even though the Anthem is an excellent multi-channel movie processor the DAC sucks when compared to a quality 2-channel DAC.

My solution is probably a lot more involved than you are thinking about. I use the Oppo to rip each SACD disk to a .dsf music file. Each music folder is about 2 GB and behaves just like a FLAC file, it is labeled, indexed, and has cover art. The DSD64 music files are played using a homemade music server feeding a Holo Audio DAC which is able to play DSD files natively without first converting to PCM. Most DACs convert DSD to PCM (or upsample PCM to DSD for noise shaping then convert back to PCM behind the scenes).

So unless you get a real expensive SACD player or play the ripped SACD files using a DAC that natively plays a DSD64 file you will never hear high quality DSD. All you get is a down sampled file equivalent to the hybrid layer.

[FullRangeMan]

CD and SACD are the end of game to me, all that I dont need is a new format a computer server or streamer, SACD format are plenty of quality and lots of space to music.

[routlaw]

Agree with other comments you don't have to spend $3K for an SACD player although players at this price and above might perform and sound better. I have no experience with them in this price range however. Check out the link below for others more modestly priced. Marantz used to make one much less expensive than shown here but apparently they must have discontinued those models.

https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/disc-player/?_bc_fsnf=1&Player%20Format=SACD/CD&sort=priceasc

My experience is a dedicated CD transport will outperform (with redbook cd) the SACD or Universal players I've owned which includes Oppo 103, Oppo 203, and a couple of older Sony Universal players but don't recall their model #'s. YMMV as the saying goes.

[Echolane]

Not for me, and especially if your discs are older analogue recordings re-released on SACD. If the recordings were recorded in DSD end to end, without conversion or manipulation and you plan on increasing that collection, then maybe.

That is a point I never considered.  I know a half dozen or so are treasurable recordings of the past, so they are definitely not pure DSD.  I will look through the rest and see what I find, but that certainly raises the bar on whether a purchase is worth it.

I’m really annoyed that neither of my two expensive players will do DSD.  I went ahead with the purchase of my DAC because I kept hearing “we live in a PCM world, forget about DSD”.  It is certainly true, but when I hear that pure DSD sounds like good analog I can’t help but be interested.  I keep thinking my tube amp would make an agreeable match and I’d get wonderful sound quality.

[Echolane]

   I will add where SACD shines is in multi-channel playback, the only true multi-channel format as far as I know. I have two Sony SACD players and sure didn't spend 3 grand on them. The problem is my older player is the HDMI is not compatible with newer HDMI inputs so you'll have to go with interconnects most likely.

 MY experience with the CD Hybrid layer is that it is not the proper thickness for CD Redbook playback so you're not hearing what the CD really should sound like unless you transfer this layer to a cd-r that has the correct Redbook thickness, it makes a difference believe it or not.

If you are not going to listen in multi-channel I would not bother with it.

I’m glad I asked!  THANKS for pointing this out to me.  I am NOT into multi-channel.  I will almost certainly remain a two channel dinosaur forever.

[Echolane]

Agree with other comments you don't have to spend $3K for an SACD player although players at this price and above might perform and sound better. I have no experience with them in this price range however. Check out the link below for others more modestly priced. Marantz used to make one much less expensive than shown here but apparently they must have discontinued those models.

https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/disc-player/?_bc_fsnf=1&Player%20Format=SACD/CD&sort=priceasc
.

My experience (or my impression) is that one usually has to pay more to get the best sounding parts inside audio gear.  You can pay almost nothing for capacitors up to several hundred dollars for the best.  That goes for other parts too.  I don’t have the kind of money to pay for super expensive gear, but I do try to stretch for mid priced equipment in hopes of getting good sound.  And I will often go for used.

[firedog]

Get a used Sony or Pioneer bluray?SACD player on ebay for $40-$75. Find a model that's in the ripping SACDs thread at hifihaven: https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/rip-sacd-with-a-blu-ray-player.3652/

You can do a simple hack to the disc player that allows you to rip the DSD layer of your SACD and play it back as a  DSD file from your server. You can use the above player for playback of discs, but I'd just reserve it for ripping SACDs. This will sound just as good as an expensive player and will save you big bucks.

[Echolane]

Get a used Sony or Pioneer bluray?SACD player on ebay for $40-$75. Find a model that's in the ripping SACDs thread at hifihaven: https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/rip-sacd-with-a-blu-ray-player.3652/

You can do a simple hack to the disc player that allows you to rip the DSD layer of your SACD and play it back as a  DSD file from your server. You can use the above player for playback of discs, but I'd just reserve it for ripping SACDs. This will sound just as good as an expensive player and will save you big bucks.

I’ve read about this.  Sounds like a great fix but I won’t be able to play it as DSD, so far as I understand anyway.  That’s because my DAC doesn’t do DSD.  I have a Berkeley Audio DAC Reference Series 2.  As I mentioned, I hesitated to buy it because it doesn’t do DSD, but I bought it used for a fraction of its MSRP.  It was too good a deal to pass up. 

[Phil A]

I’ve read about this.  Sounds like a great fix but I won’t be able to play it as DSD, so far as I understand anyway.  That’s because my DAC doesn’t do DSD.  I have a Berkeley Audio DAC Reference Series 2.  As I mentioned, I hesitated to buy it because it doesn’t do DAD, but I bought it used for a fraction of its MSRP.  It was too good a deal to pass up.

Once you have something ripped to a file, it can be converted by various programs.  I have some downloads from DSD files converted to 24/176.4 or 24/88.2 PCM.  I have some files where I have both the DSD file and 24/176.4 and one would be hard pressed to discern many, if any differences.  Some people just want disc playback and I understand that.  I never thought I'd leave physical media but about a dozen years back, give or take, I went to file playback and I'd never go back.  My discs are in a closet and I try to buy downloads vs. physical media.  I bought some CD storage boxes last year as I was running out of space in my furniture which holds my discs.

[WGH]

I have a Berkeley Audio DAC Reference Series 2.

The $19,500 Berkeley looks like a very nice DAC. Comparing it's sound to an old, used $600 SACD player will probably be a disappointment even if you are finally listening to the Holy Grail SACD sound. As you figured out, a $2000-$3000 player will get you close.

The Berkekey Reference will decode all PCM resolutions up to 192/24. My question is how to get the higher resolutions into the Berkeley? Certainly not a CD or SACD player so I guess you will need the optional $1995 Berkeley Alpha USB USB-to-AES/EBU converter. No ripped hi-res or converted SACD files for you unless you get into computer audio. The Hollis Audio HAL MS-6 Music Server is much, much better than a noisy laptop and is only $450. The HAL and will send hi-res files to a USB/SPDIF converter then to your Berkeley. Someone here on AC must have an unused USB/SPDIF converter laying around, it doesn't need to be the Berkeley Alpha.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=175173.0

Robert Harley has some interesting comments in his TAS review of the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series 2:
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/berkeley-audio-design-alpha-dac-reference-series-2/

"If you want to play DSD files you’ll need to convert those files to PCM in a computer."

"After I listened to a wide range of file resolutions through the Series 2, it struck me that the most impressive aspect of this DAC isn’t its all-out performance with 176.4kHz/24-bit files (which is spectacular), but what it can do with garden-variety CD files. The sound quality difference between CD and high-resolution sources is less stark through the Series 2 than through any other DAC I’ve heard. It’s surprising how good CD can sound when played back through a state-of-the-art system (CD ripped to an Aurender W20 and decoded by the Series 2 with the Berkeley Alpha USB converter)."


The Music Room has a Aurender W20 Network Streamer / Server; W-20; 12TB SSD; Silver for $7,009.17
https://tmraudio.com/components/music-servers-streamers/aurender-w20-network-streamer-server-w-20-12tb-ssd-silver/

"The Aurender W20 is in my experience the current state of the art in music servers. It excels in every parameter; its array of features is unmatched, the 12TB of available storage will accommodate virtually any library; its interface is wonderful and intuitive; and most importantly, it delivers sound quality unmatched by any other digital source I’ve heard. The W20 brought out the best in my system, delivering the greatest dimensionality, timbral purity, resolution, and freedom from hash I’ve heard from digital sources." -Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

Go for it!

[Echolane]

The $19,500 Berkeley looks like a very nice DAC. Comparing it's sound to an old, used $600 SACD player will probably be a disappointment even if you are finally listening to the Holy Grail SACD sound. As you figured out, a $2000-$3000 player will get you close.

************************************************************
Yes indeed, you have definitely decoded (pun intended) my reason for thinking a starting point for SACD Players would be about $3000. 
************************************************************
 
The Berkekey Reference will decode all PCM resolutions up to 192/24. My question is how to get the higher resolutions into the Berkeley? Certainly not a CD or SACD player so I guess you will need the optional $1995 Berkeley Alpha USB USB-to-AES/EBU converter.

*************************************************************
You really have my attention here.  As it happens I do own the Alpha USB, another exceptionally good deal I lucked into.  This time it was on a player that was used only a few days and had a nice but not spectacularly discounted price. I bought it to use at my desktop computer’s good audio system but was advised to put it with the Berkeley DAC.   BUT….I’ve no idea why it would be useful in this SACD/DSD situation under discussion, so I’m all ears, please do explain.
*************************************************************


 No ripped hi-res or converted SACD files for you unless you get into computer audio. The Hollis Audio HAL MS-6 Music Server is much, much better than a noisy laptop and is only $450. The HAL and will send hi-res files to a USB/SPDIF converter then to your Berkeley. Someone here on AC must have an unused USB/SPDIF converter laying around, it doesn't need to be the Berkeley Alpha.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=175173.0

Robert Harley has some interesting comments in his TAS review of the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series 2:
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/berkeley-audio-design-alpha-dac-reference-series-2/

"If you want to play DSD files you’ll need to convert those files to PCM in a computer."

"After I listened to a wide range of file resolutions through the Series 2, it struck me that the most impressive aspect of this DAC isn’t its all-out performance with 176.4kHz/24-bit files (which is spectacular), but what it can do with garden-variety CD files. The sound quality difference between CD and high-resolution sources is less stark through the Series 2 than through any other DAC I’ve heard. It’s surprising how good CD can sound when played back through a state-of-the-art system (CD ripped to an Aurender W20 and decoded by the Series 2 with the Berkeley Alpha USB converter)."


The Music Room has a Aurender W20 Network Streamer / Server; W-20; 12TB SSD; Silver for $7,009.17
https://tmraudio.com/components/music-servers-streamers/aurender-w20-network-streamer-server-w-20-12tb-ssd-silver/

"The Aurender W20 is in my experience the current state of the art in music servers. It excels in every parameter; its array of features is unmatched, the 12TB of available storage will accommodate virtually any library; its interface is wonderful and intuitive; and most importantly, it delivers sound quality unmatched by any other digital source I’ve heard. The W20 brought out the best in my system, delivering the greatest dimensionality, timbral purity, resolution, and freedom from hash I’ve heard from digital sources." -Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

***********************************************************
I agree with you that the Aurender is a very fine music server.  I happen to have the Roon Nucleus  going into the Audio Alchemy DMP-1 and then my Berkeley DAC.
***********************************************************
Go for it!

[Echolane]

Once you have something ripped to a file, it can be converted by various programs.  I have some downloads from DSD files converted to 24/176.4 or 24/88.2 PCM.  I have some files where I have both the DSD file and 24/176.4 and one would be hard pressed to discern many, if any differences.  Some people just want disc playback and I understand that.  I never thought I'd leave physical media but about a dozen years back, give or take, I went to file playback and I'd never go back.  My discs are in a closet and I try to buy downloads vs. physical media.  I bought some CD storage boxes last year as I was running out of space in my furniture which holds my discs.

It’s reassuring that you hear no discernible differences in different resolutions.  It’s all too easy to go overboard on this issue.

I almost never play physical CDs anymore.  Same for my LPs.  Both CD player and turntable sit idle.   Same goes for my VHS player and my Laser Disc player.  Eventually, I will be forced to downsize and they will have to go.  That’ll be a sad day.

All my CDs are ripped for my streaming obsession, stored in my ROON Nucleus.  All that is sort of left out are the 30-40 SACDs that I can’t play as SACDs, though they are ripped and playable as hybrid.

My problem is what to do with the CDs and whether to buy more or depend on subscriptions entirely.  My CDs are stored in all available furniture spaces.  I’ve really only room for a few more.  I should go through them all and set aside those that I can’t live without, like my opera CDs with libretto included.  Of the rest, I’d have quite a pile of those I’ll probably not ever want to play again and dispose of the physical CD somehow.  After that it’ll get harder.  I won’t know exactly how I’ll work it out until I actually try to do this sorting out.  As far as buying new, so far, if  I really like something, I still want to own the CD.  The plus side of that is I usually don’t feel the need to buy new, so I’ll look for that good but  cheap used version.  Even though I’m running out of places to store those CDs now! 

All this chatter about what to do with CDs leaves a more difficult subject untouched which is what to do wirh all my LPS!  AND Laser Discs and VHS tapes.  And my overflowing DVD storage.    It’s a problem now and eventually will be a bigger problem.  I’m in my eighties and will eventually (almost certainly) find myself facing a downsizing issue.  That’ll be a sad day!

[WGH]

I happen to have the Roon Nucleus  going into the Audio Alchemy DMP-1 and then my Berkeley DAC.

You already have almost everything you need.

The Audio Alchemy DMP-1 plays PCM up to 24/192
Roon can be set to automatically convert and play DSD64 to PCM so no need to mess with DSD to PCM conversion apps
https://help.roonlabs.com/portal/en/kb/articles/dsd-to-pcm-settings#Overview

All you need to do is figure how to get those little copy protected DSD bits off the SACD and store them on your desktop computer, point Roon to the ripped music folder and it will take care of the rest.

As Firedog mentioned, you need an approved SACD player from the list
https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/rip-sacd-with-a-blu-ray-player.3652/

The player has to have ethernet, hard wired is best. Boot the player with a FAT32 formatted thumb drive loaded with the free and legal SACDExtractGUI ripping software (you own the disk so you can copy it for home use). Look in the SACD player menu for the Server/IP address to enter into the ACDExtractGUI screen.

Start Here:
https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/rip-sacd-with-a-blu-ray-player.3652/

Don't change the :2002 port address. The numbers before the 2002 is the IP address, they can change daily depending on their mood. DSF is the native DSD file format, don't worry about it or touch it.


Google "SACDExtractGUI" for more info. Audiophile Style has a thread started by ted_b, the Moderator of this HiRes Music Circle
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/28569-sacd-ripping-using-an-oppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true/#comments


Ripping SACDs is fun and empowering. Then you can scour record stores and yard sales for SACD disks and get new Hi-Res music for practically nothing.

[WGH]

And you are probably thinking "Can't I just plug the SACD player digital out into something?"

Nope, all you get is the hybrid layer. Only the HDMI out with the correct handshake gets the DSD stream. Cracking the copy protection and ripping is the only way to get those hi-res bits released from their silver coated prison.