[Images]

Let's say that about three and one half years ago SACD bloomed, and then, along with the competing DVD audio format, quickly whithered.  At this point in time I was having some serious health problems and had to "drop out of the game" for more than a year.  Actually, I was so out of the loop that when I finally did get back in the game, I was quite surprised to discover both successors to Red Book had pretty much become memories.  Right or wrong, I still have an interest is implementing decent SACD playback in my system.  I am perfectly happy with two channel reproduction.  I listen mostly to classical, orchestral music. 

My amps are CIA D100s, and they satisfy for now.  For CD playback I use a Parasound C/DP 1000 as a transport to a DacLite modified by Pacific Valve.  Though I know there is plenty of room for improvement, this works quite satisfactorily.  You would think that two channel SACD playback would easily top this.  Hmmmm.  I have a recent release of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra by the Philadelphia Orchestra, done as a SACD release by Ondine.  Good label, good orchestra.  I have the same Bartok Concerto on CD, originally recorded by Reiner with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in 1955.  (The Living Stereo CD is a 1993 release.)  Simply, the CD embarrasses the Odine SACD... much richer, more dynamic, better bass and better imaging.

Now we come to the ignorance part.  Is the problem that the Odine release is only playable as a multi-channel SACD?  I thought it was customary to "bury" a two channel version on the same disc, so as to increase the marketability of the product, I suppose.  If this release can only be heard as a multi-channel recording, well then I undoubtedly am missing much of the mix.  I have another SACD release, MTT's Mahler 7, recorded and released by the San Francisco Symphony.  This sounds "OK" when played as a two channel SACD.  Soooooo, the problem could well be the DVD player that I am using for SACD playback.  The unit is a Pioneer DV-578A.  I got it (a while ago) because it was cheap, it was marketed as a multi-format machine, and we needed a new DVD player anyway.

So it appears there are two questions here:  1) Are there actually SACD releases that can only be reproduced in multi-channel format?  2)  Is the unit I am using for SACD playback really a boat anchor in disguise?  

Your comments are welcome and invited, but remember, I am old and I am cheap.  Suggesting a $5K deck for spinning discs in a format that is hedging between obsolescence and extinction probably is a waste of your time.  (BTW, I have not fully researched this topic, so if these questions are already addressed in previous threads, feel welcome and invited to point me in that direction.)

I appreciate your input, and thank you for taking the time to comment.     

[3beanlimit]

Well I had to do a bit of googling to find this release.  Seems that indeed it's a multi channel release. 

Since your only using your player in 2 channel mode, I might suggest that you look in the manual and see if you can "fold" multichannel into 2 channel.  I don't remember the specifics of your player and I can't remember if that's doable in DSD but if I remember right, I think it is in PCM and your player converts to this anyway for bass managment.  Anyway if you can, then I'd set it up that way since your not using multi channel anyway.

I have the Living Stereo version of this with Fritz Reiner.  I belive it's in 3 channel.  Front, center, left.

If your SACD says it's multi channel, then that's what it is. If it's stereo, then it should also have that on the jacket.  Some of the "layers" you talk about are for CD.  Some of them have that and some don't.  Again, it should say on the jacket. 

[ted_b]

The Bartok Ondine is actually a hybrid mch/stereo release.  All three layers are there, just configure your player to access them.  I'm wondering if you accidentally heard the redbook layer.  However, the reviews of the disc are generally underwhelming sonically anyway.  I own a couple of Ondine releases (Mahler 6 is great) but not this one.

[Rob Babcock]

I haven't really found 2CH SACD to be a great improvement over well done Redbook.  It really comes down to the individual recordings.

[Mag]

I'm not sure how to answer your questions but offer my opinion.
1. You are only going to benefit from sacd if your system is elite. As mentioned with a good redbook cd it may be difficult to distinguish how an a sacd is better. In fact it may sound worse because the gain is lower. When I done a demo for a friend with Pink Floyd- DSOTM at medium volume using dts, redbook and sacd recordings he picked out the redbook as the one he preferred.
2. I asked a question a while back how the first Sony sacd player which cost $5000 + would sound better than the Sony model I have for $500 when the specs are the same. Apparently it just does because it is better built. However I feel my cheap Sony still exhibits the high quality of sacd's over cd's.
3. Sacds are not all the same. Some are truly stunning in realism especially in multi-channel and others a waste of money.
4. I think to hear the benefits of sacd you need to get the spl up to at least 90 dbs. This is where it really shines exhibiting no distortion smoothness,presence and dynamics. If you live in an environment where you can't crank it, then sacd may not be for you.
5. I've played sacd through cd inputs with just the front left and right rca jacks. Using my receiver's processor for multi-channel playback. Its comes through louder and sounds great, but if its a multi-channel recording then I may be losing the multi-channel effect. So I use 6 channel input for those sacd's.
   Sacd is going to be a niche market like vinyl. If you have the system to reveal its benefits then it is simply the best recording you'll hear with a good sacd.