SACD on a budget--is it worth the trouble?

kaxixi · « **on:** 9 Jun 2005, 03:00 pm »

I ask because I need to purchase a DVD player. I was planning on getting a cheap Panasonic and calling it a day until I noticed that several players offer SACD and DVD-A playback for only a bit more than I was planning on spending.

Thank you for your opinions.

-----------------------------------

iTunes -> Airport Express -> CI Audio DAC -> Rotel Preamplifier -> 2 bridged Rotel RB970bx's -> NHT superzeros and passive sub

lcrim · « **Reply #1 on:** 9 Jun 2005, 05:07 pm »

SACD does sound terrific but a couple things keep coming up that are sort of pushing me to abandon it for improved Redbbok. I don't know of any method of ripping SACD to a Hard drive for PC based playback. It seems like if its on SACD its also on Redbook but not the other way around. I like the convenience of the music channels on directv and they are very listenable with a separate DAC, this also holds true for PC based playback.
Right now I like the quality i'm getting w/ a cheap (modded) Toshiba 3950 DVD player and a cheap DAC for directv playback. There are ways to inexpensively mod the Toshiba 4960 and its Samsung equivalent and there are the Denon universal players (pricey) but I'm afraid for the sake of compatibilty that Redbook wins out. IMO at least for today!

soundboy · « **Reply #2 on:** 9 Jun 2005, 06:02 pm »

Heck yes! None of my 3 SACD players are over $175.00 and my latest was only $100.00!

It comes down to the quality of the mastering on the SACD. Even on my inexpensive Sony SCD-CE595 or Sony DVP-NS500V, a well-mastered SACD like Steely Dan's "Gaucho" really shines. Same with the recently-released SACD of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms". So it's not the player's fault for being cheap, it's more having to do with the quality and care in authoring the SACD.

BTW, I listen in stereo only - both on my headphone-based system and on my speaker-based system.

kaxixi · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 Jun 2005, 10:37 pm »

come on guys, don't just look... vote!!

stvnharr · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Jun 2005, 02:26 am »

"Is it worth the trouble?"

Oh my goodness, since when was anything that is for enjoyment considered too much trouble!!!

Since the new cheapie players are so cheap, sacd is essentially an extra in the ones that have it. What's the trouble??? You either want it or you don't? It's kind of yes or no, there is no maybe. If you have to think about it, well..............................

JoshK · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Jun 2005, 04:09 am »

I think it all comes down to whether the music available currently on SACD really interests you....honestly. Is it just a handful on titles or is it a good portion of your music interests? If not the later, I would skip on it and keep adding to your redbook library and improving on its playback. Remember, the more mediums and playback gear you have the more your money is being divided and not focused.

kaxixi · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Jun 2005, 05:14 am »

stvnharr, of course its trouble. its 50 bucks more for the player, and 5-15 bucks more each time I buy a CD. that adds up quick.

JoshK, thanks for the advice. I am particularly interested in SFS's release of the Mahler symphonies under MTT, but I could always play them over my redbook frontend.

Thanks for the extra votes!!

stvnharr · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Jun 2005, 03:17 pm »

kaxixi,
I second what Josh has said. There has to be music on sacd that interests you.
If you are interested in the MTT/Mahler symphonies, then by all means go for sacd!!!! These very recordings are what led me directly to sacd a couple years ago. They are excellent in rbcd, but sacd takes them up another level.
Another consideration is your total music listening system. The increased information and resolution of sacd needs amplifying and speakers that can handle this. Otherwise it won't sound much different from rbcd.
However, once you have the discs, they don't go bad and turn into pumpkins when the clock strikes 12.
Budget??? If you buy discs on sale and on special the cost is really little different from rbcd. You do have to shop around on the net however. If the $50 difference is budget breaking, well, then perhaps you need to have a rethink about things. Wanting is one thing, affording is another.

Hope this helps more than my previous post. Sorry to be so terse.

Steve

kaxixi · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Jun 2005, 08:29 pm »

stvnharr, I am happy to hear about the SFS recordings. I will place an order on amazon for the sixth in a moment. incidentally, have you heard Israel's recording of that piece under Zubin Mehta (released by Telarc, I believe)?

3/4 of voters seem to think its at least cheap enough to try, so if any of you have a cheap SACD/DVD player that you think particularly outshines the competition, feel free to recommend it now.

stvnharr · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Jun 2005, 05:31 am »

kaxixi,
I have a sacd Telarc Sixth, but it's by Ben Zander, not Zubin Mehta.

As for a cheap dvd/sacd player I cannot recommend one to you. However I was recently browzing for a cheap player. The problem with most all cheap players with sacd is that they convert the dsd sacd to pcm in order to keep them cheap. Some say this makes a big difference, others don't. I cannot say.
Sony has a bunch of "cheap" players. Many tout the Toshiba 4960.

Steve

Inscrutable · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Jun 2005, 09:12 am »

I want to third Josh's comments about diffusing your investment, and both on media than equipment. It is apparent that the current hi-rez formats - both SACD and DVD-Audio - are losing or have lost support from the major labels. I do think there will be a niche market, at least for a while. And almost unbelievably in a testament to the arrogance and stupidity of the industry, we are heading for yet another format war with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (both of which of course can carry hi-rez audio even in multi-channel, along with video).

I, for one, am disgusted enough with them, and happy to focus on higher quality redbook and vinyl playback and recordings - both of which sound much better than poorly-implemented hi-rez. YMMV

TheeeChosenOne · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Jun 2005, 06:38 pm »

I suggest you try the Pioneer 588 universal player which can be bought for around $130 from Vanns.com or Onecall.com.

The Pioneer units have been tremendously raved about in forums/mags for their bang/buck:

CNET said that sonic playback difference between the Pioneer 578 and Denon 2900 (i.e. 3910) were so similar, that only "hardcore" audiophiles would be the only ones to take issue.

Last month, "The Perfect Vision" magazine rated the older 578 model as just below the expensive/vaunted Denon 2910 and Pioneer 59avi:

Picture Quality/CD sound/SACD & DVD-A sound/Progressive Performance
Denon 2910..................8/7/7/10
Pioneer 59avi................8/7/7/8
Pioneer 578..................7/6/6/9
----------------------------------------
Toshiba 3960................5/6/na/5
Toshiba 5970................5/7/na/5
Esoteric DV-50.............na/9/9/6
Arcam FMJ DV29..........9/10/10/7
Sim Moon Orbiter.........10/9/9/9

The 588 apparently rectifies the thinner sound of the 578 vs the expensive units. Many people are raving about it's improved sonic & picture qualities........Plus it's a Swiss army knife type of player with DIVX playback(still rare these days), mp3 & jpeg playback via DVD+RW/+R (very rare) and seamless layer change (VERY rare & worthwhile feature!) due to the Mediatek chip.

A very reputable DAC designer has said that the recent Pioneer transport from these units "surprisingly" compare to $2k+ transports....so it would make a good candidate for a $500-$1k DAC if later on you decide to go the upgrade route.......I know of one guy who's a reeeally experienced audiophile and he uses the 578 w/ DAC that to him, sounds better for CD playback than the $6k Esoteric DV-50 unit he used to own.

I'd say for $130, it's a no-brainer to try out. You can always return it within 30 days for a pittance. Most likely, you won't return it!

Digi-G · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 Jun 2005, 07:17 pm »

It's definitely worth it. Most of the titles I have are multi-channel and if you have a multi-channel setup you may be amazed how good some of the titles can sound. Like Soundboy said, I think a lot of the 'quality' of the sound comes from how well the discs were mastered (and in the case of multi-channel, the decisions for sound placement).

Also, I like the idea of being able to play nearly any format available today. My Pioneer player will play dvd, cd, sacd, dvd-audio... and mp3.

It's relatively inexpensive these days for the players and the discs are close in price to redbook cds. Remember just a few years ago you couldn't touch an SACD player for less than $1k.

Go for it and enjoy....

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 Jun 2005, 10:09 pm »

Maybe, probably, and it's cheap enough to try.

I only recently took time out to listen to SACD and, boy, I was impressed. Sampling 2.8 million times per second seems to leave a lot more actual music and a lot less interpolation of music to listen to.

It's closer to master tape quality than vinyl as it extends fully thru the range of human hearing...with lower noise. The best CD was never better than good vinyl...just more convenient. Yes, it's not fully 100% linear and analogue, but at 2.8 million samples per second it's incredibly decent. I've not ever heard high hats and cymbols like that on Redbook ever, and I've got $2000 in Empirical Audio upgrades like silver wire and circuit redesigns on a good stock system (MSB Gold Link III and Sony 7700 modded transport

I honestly feel you have to spend more than 5x + the cost of most of these inexpensive SACD players to rival the beauty of it on CD/Redbook.

The downside, of course, is title selection and cost. But, for $100 to $1000 for good SACD playback now, you'll get a real enjoyment on discs that are out there. I don't dupe CD's, rip to hard drives, and I don't find PC audio convenient.....if you do either, you'll find any investment in SACD to be likely wasted.

The technology of mid-90's is simply better than that of late-70's. That's the conclusion I've reached.

Russtafarian · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 Jun 2005, 10:57 pm »

Yes, if only to hear some of the great multi-channel mixes on SACD. Brothers in Arms, Boys and Girls, Avalon, DSOTM, Clapton, some of the Dylan titles, just to name a few.

SACD can and does sound better than CD. But in my experience, you have to get beyond an entry level player to really appreciate it. I just replaced a Pioneer 563A with a used Sony NS999ES. Big step up in SACD performance even with a stock NS999ES.

Thebiker · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 Jun 2005, 06:45 pm »

I have picked up the SFS Mahlers on SACD. Wonderful doesn't come close. I'm strictly a 2 channel guy, using a Philips 1000 set up to output 2 channel. Great stuff, GO FOR IT!

regal · « **Reply #16 on:** 15 Jun 2005, 10:27 pm »

SACD is far better than red book CD. It sounds better than vinyl. I have a cheap pioneer 563 with a pioneer 912 receiver. You will need full range speakers (the expensive part) as there is no bass management. But the SACD sound is incredible, it is a tradegy that this format is going obsolete. DVD-a is no where near the same level as SACD. Unfortunately the HD_DVD and bluray are basically the same as DVD-a.

After you hear a SACD you will realize just how bad RBCD is and you will look for the best sounding CDP you can afford or mod.

kaxixi · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 Jun 2005, 09:29 pm »

Thank you for all the comments!

I currently store most of music on my laptop and stream from there, so I'll set up a totally separate front end for SACD. No big deal--its not too expensive to do so. Even a stand-alone player from Sony is affordable.

I got the SFS recording in the mail--it sounds phenomenal over my redbook front end. The bass drums and timpani scared the sh*t out of my poor cats and startled my girlfriend, who was studying in another room.

soundboy · « **Reply #18 on:** 26 Jun 2005, 12:00 am »

Quote from: regal

After you hear a SACD you will realize just how bad RBCD is and you will look for the best sounding CDP you can afford or mod.

That's a generalization

With almost 200 SACD, I am a supporter of the format. However, sound quality should be judged on a title-by-title basis. No matter what's the format, whether it's vinyl or CD/SACD/DVD-A, there are both great and not-so-great sounding examples. SACD gives the potential of something sounding great, it's up to the engineers to fulfill that potential.

doug s. · « **Reply #19 on:** 27 Jun 2005, 05:38 pm »

Quote from: regal

SACD is far better than red book CD. It sounds better than vinyl. I have a cheap pioneer 563 with a pioneer 912 receiver. You will need full range speakers (the expensive part) as there is no bass management. But the SACD sound is incredible, it is a tradegy that this format is going obsolete. DVD-a is no where near the same level as SACD. Unfortunately the HD_DVD and bluray are basically the same as DVD-a.

After you hear a SACD you will realize just how bad RBCD is and you will look for the best sounding CDP you can afford or mod.

get rid of your receiver & get quality amplification. then you will realize that sacd still comes up short compared to winyl, (tho admittedly it's getting much closer), & you will realize how close sacd & redbook cd are to each other.

doug s.

Poll

Can you enjoy the benefits of high-resolution formats over relatively cheap DACs found in mass market products?

SACD on a budget--is it worth the trouble?