To SACD or not - My digital future

mfsoa · « **on:** 8 Dec 2007, 01:37 am »

Hi guys,
My current digital sources (2 diff Rotel CDPs) just aren't up to the quality of the rest of my system. I think that there are significant gains just waiting to be had. But which way to go?

I don't have any SACDs right now, but I wonder if I'm limiting the ultimate performance of my system without a quality SACD player?
I hear some say it's truly the ultimate in playback, and others that seem to have major issues with both the technology and the sound quality. Whaddya think? Anyone feel that they'd really be missing something without their SACD players? (It'd be for 2ch only)

The options I'm facing:
1) I can get a good deal on a Marantz SA11S2 (or other Marantz products)- People seem to think that the Redbook on this player is very good, and of course it offers SACD playback. I doubt I'll ever get a substantial SACD collection but who knows? Maybe they'll be available cheap someday if the format really tanks. But if I spend the coin on this, it'll prevent me from doing the sensible thing, which is to:
2) Get a DAC. Use my current CDP as transport and make the seemingly inevitable transition to PC-based storage. I like the way the upcoming Bryston DAC has multiple digital inputs that I'd use for the CDP and a Squeezeboxy-type device. Or...
3) A CDP w/ digital input, like the much heralded Cambridge 840.

Its really tough if not impossible to audition at home and I stink at flipping old gear (I have a pile of stuff to sell but just don't get around to it) so I don't want to "buy to try".

Do you feel that your audio life would be incomplete without having SACD capability?

Thanks for helping me spend my money ~~wisely~~ less foolishly than I could!

-Mike

Toka · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 02:00 am »

I have a few SACD's, and have heard dozens of different setups using SACD. At this point, in the (almost) year 2008, I'd say unless you are a feverish buyer of all things classical, don't bother. Of course, I would have said the same thing 5 years ago, but even moreso now. Treat the CDs you already have to something like a Van Alstine DAC, or the Bryston BCD-1 player, and re-enjoy everything you already own. My opinion anyway.

EDIT: The Cambridge you mentioned is another great choice. Plug a SB into it and you can enjoy music in many different ways.

The Computer Audiophile · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 02:19 am »

Only go down the SACD path if you really like classical. I just sold my Lexicon Universal player and I am going solely computer based. Read the article in the latest Absolute Sound about hard drives sounding better than CD drives. It is interesting. Now, you can download 24/96 music from many companies. SACDs from nonclassical artists seem to be fading fast. When Diana Krall's latest album and Mark Knopfler's latest album were not released on SACD I knew it was time to sell the Lexicon.

- Chris
Computer Audiophile | Turn Down The Silence

http://www.computeraudiophile.com

Scott F. · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 am »

I've bought a lot of gear over the years heading down the upgrade path. I can say one thing with absolute certainty, I will never buy another CD/SACD or DVD-A player to spin my CD's. Computer based audio is the only way to go. With a good conversion, PC based systems sounds significantly better than CD players at nearly any level.

The first thing you need to decide is how you want your music served up, non-oversampled or upsampled. This will likely completely system dependant. If you have a relatively 'laid back' system sound, look towards upsampled. If your system is a bit more forward or bright, go NOS unless you are a detail freak (and don't listen loud).

After that choice, you need to decide if you want to USB, wireless or PC card then use the digital out to a DAC. More and more decent sounding, relatively cheap USB DAC's are hitting the market (read=under $500). The wireless route is extremely good but it in its modified version will tip the $1k mark (with a cheap power supply). I can't speak to the PC card version but there are many who swear by it.

Me, I do the wireless thing (Bolder SB's). Of all that I've heard, it sounds the best. Far better than any of the uber expensive CD/SACD/DVD-A players I've listened to over the years.

Trust me on this one, CD players are going by way of the horse and buggy.

TerryO · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 03:04 am »

I'll probably get a lot of flak over this, but IMHO, SACD and DVD-A are soon to be replaced by the K2 Cd "format". Recently, First Impression Music's Winton Ma demoed his latest K2 disks against his SACD and XLCD24 disks, with the identical recording, to our audio club (Pacific Northwest Audio Society) and the difference was not subtle. Every member present (approx. 18) agreed that the K2 disks were superior and that doesn't happen very often aa

The good news is that they can be played on any player, so "upgrading" your present CDP isn't necessary.

Best Regards,
TerryO

Gordy · « **Reply #5 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 03:16 am »

Terry,

Would that be the same K2 as in the JVC 20 bit XRCD's?

TerryO · « **Reply #6 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 04:08 am »

Quote from: Gordy on 8 Dec 2007, 03:16 am

Terry,

Would that be the same K2 as in the JVC 20 bit XRCD's?

I see that I should have written XRCD24 in my post above.

I'm not sure what JVC has termed the K2 processing, but Winston Ma was granted the priviledge of doing the initial release of the K2 "format" by JVC at the Tokyo show this year. Before coming to the US, he was one of Asia's top equipment reviewers and Music critics. IIRC, he has had a "special relationship" with the top JVC people going back several decades, and I've heard that in JVC's secretive Audio Division R&D Lab, only about a dozen people have clearance for entry (two JVC executives, the rest being research scientists, with one non-JVC "outsider") aa

If I understand what you're possibly alluding to, this K2 "format" is several generations from the K2 of the XRCD development, which Winton Ma also introduced, as well as the later XRCD24. It's unfortunate that the same term has been used, as it does cause some confusion. BTW: K2 is used because the two JVC scientists that originally developed it and later refined it further, both have names that start with "K".

Best Regards,
TerryO

pardales · « **Reply #7 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 07:06 am »

I agree with the comments above: go with a DAC or new CD player set-up that will allow you to get into a PC based music server. You WILL eventually end up there anyway.

darrenyeats · « **Reply #8 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 12:13 pm »

It's well documented that many SACDs are mastered better than their CD equivalents. You can take this as segmented marketing or take it as a conspiracy. Either way, the CD format itself is not to blame and no-one has proved that SACD sounds better in itself.

As another poster pointed out recently, by all means sing the praises of K2 if you like it, but it's not an alternative to red book CD, it is a red book CD mastered differently.

I am very happy with ripped red book CDs playing over my Squeezebox. I use the Inguz digital EQ plugin, digital volume control and the internal DAC - all work at bit depth 24. Works a treat.
Darren

jaywills · « **Reply #9 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 12:26 pm »

I, also, must echo those comments above about the desirability of moving from CD/SACD players to hard drives & DACs. I've got a high-dollar Sony SACD player that I've not used more than a few times since I went to SqueezeBox>DAC a couple of years ago. If you do any digital room correction (I use a TacT 2.2x), you can't output a digital signal from your SACD disc into the correction device (you can digitalize the analog SACD output, but many folks try to keep their digital/analog conversions to a minimum). Bottom line: If my business consisted only of making high-dollar CD/SACD players, I'd be looking at a new business model or face the prospect of bankruptcy. Of course, YMMV. Cordially,

Gordy · « **Reply #10 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 12:29 pm »

Thank you for the clarification Terry!

Gordy

twitch54 · « **Reply #11 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 pm »

Quote from: Scott F. on 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 am

Trust me on this one, CD players are going by way of the horse and buggy.

While I agree with alot of which you have said Scott (your obviously quite young), don't put the 'death nail' into CD's quite yet or for that matter LP's !!

Keep in mind there are alot of audiophiles, music lovers out there that treasure the physical / tangable piece of software that we can hold in our grubby little hands ! It's one of the reasons the CD makers have been screwing around with jewel cases since day one, they can't replace the "fondle" factor of an alblum cover.

As I'm sure you have gathered by my dribble, I'm an old fart that still loves analog and while I do have a sizeable CD collection and a very fine Digital Front end to my system, I welcome the new technology as well.

Remember there were those that said twenty five years ago that LP's would be gone by the turn of the century........well guess what, last I looked Analog is doing just A-OK !! I believe a strong niche market that WILL endure the test of time.

Besides this is the time of year for a nice "Horse and Buggy" ride anyways !

Happy Holidays !!

stvnharr · « **Reply #12 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 04:10 pm »

Quote from: mfsoa on 8 Dec 2007, 01:37 am

Hi guys,
My current digital sources (2 diff Rotel CDPs) just aren't up to the quality of the rest of my system. I think that there are significant gains just waiting to be had. But which way to go?

I don't have any SACDs right now, but I wonder if I'm limiting the ultimate performance of my system without a quality SACD player?
I hear some say it's truly the ultimate in playback, and others that seem to have major issues with both the technology and the sound quality. Whaddya think? Anyone feel that they'd really be missing something without their SACD players? (It'd be for 2ch only)

The options I'm facing:
1) I can get a good deal on a Marantz SA11S2 (or other Marantz products)- People seem to think that the Redbook on this player is very good, and of course it offers SACD playback. I doubt I'll ever get a substantial SACD collection but who knows? Maybe they'll be available cheap someday if the format really tanks. But if I spend the coin on this, it'll prevent me from doing the sensible thing, which is to:
2) Get a DAC. Use my current CDP as transport and make the seemingly inevitable transition to PC-based storage. I like the way the upcoming Bryston DAC has multiple digital inputs that I'd use for the CDP and a Squeezeboxy-type device. Or...
3) A CDP w/ digital input, like the much heralded Cambridge 840.

Its really tough if not impossible to audition at home and I stink at flipping old gear (I have a pile of stuff to sell but just don't get around to it) so I don't want to "buy to try".

Do you feel that your audio life would be incomplete without having SACD capability?

Thanks for helping me spend my money ~~wisely~~ less foolishly than I could!

-Mike

Mike,
Since your post is about basically whether or not to get a sacd player, I find the answer to be quite simple. IF the music that has already been released on sacd is music you like and enjoy, then it only makes sense to get an sacd player. Opinions will vary on players of course. Most Marantz SA-11 owners think the rbcd playback of their players is pretty good. Good deals can be had on the S1 version, both new and used, while the S2 version is new and just out on the market.
I am a classical music listener and think sacd is a real step up over rbcd's. There was a great rush a few years ago on jazz sacd reissues, but they've all dried up, and not many new ones are now issued, save an occassional Chesky release. I don't think sacd is likely to expand much beyond the current boundaries with mostly classical releases.
There are a great many options for improving, or changing, rbcd only playback.

Steve

Scott F. · « **Reply #13 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 04:29 pm »

Quote from: twitch54 on 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 pm

Quote from: Scott F. on 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 am
Trust me on this one, CD players are going by way of the horse and buggy.

While I agree with alot of which you have said Scott (your obviously quite young), don't put the 'death nail' into CD's quite yet or for that matter LP's !!

Hiya Twitch,

I see where you get the idea that I said CD's (themselves) won't exist. I probably should have been a bit clearer. What I meant was CD players. The compact disc will be around for (likely) decades, I personally thing that the high end CD player is doomed because of how good PC based systems have come. For not much money, a person can easily outperform multi-$K CD players, plus they have their entire music digital library right at their fingertips.

Like you, I'm pretty much an old fart too. Hardcore into tubes and vinyl. Heres a couple of links to my gallery if you are interested.
The '06 Gateway Audio Christmas Bash
some more misc pics

Quote from: twitch54 on 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 pm

Besides this is the time of year for a nice "Horse and Buggy" ride anyways !

Happy Holidays !!

I agree. We're headed over to Kansas City this afternoon for dinner. Afterwards you'll be able to spot us in a buggy, clopping our way around The Plaza

mgalusha · « **Reply #14 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 05:07 pm »

Another vote to save your money and not get an SACD player unless you really have the software available on SACD. I have about 60 or so SACD's and only a few were really worth it, most were little if any better than their red book equivalents. I'm one of those using a network music player (Squeezebox 2) and my red book discs sound much better using the little SB than they did with my CD/DVDA/SACD player, enough so that I don't miss my SACD's. I really should sell them one of these days...

I have a few 24/96 discs and while the SB down samples them to 48KHz the sound of those is something special. John Lee Hooker - Boom Boom from Classic Records at 24/96 is flat amazing.

TerryO · « **Reply #15 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 05:17 pm »

Quote from: darrenyeats on 8 Dec 2007, 12:13 pm

It's well documented that many SACDs are mastered better than their CD equivalents. You can take this as segmented marketing or take it as a conspiracy. Either way, the CD format itself is not to blame and no-one has proved that SACD sounds better in itself.

As another poster pointed out recently, by all means sing the praises of K2 if you like it, but it's not an alternative to red book CD, it is a red book CD mastered differently.

I am very happy with ripped red book CDs playing over my Squeezebox. I use the Inguz digital EQ plugin, digital volume control and the internal DAC - all work at bit depth 24. Works a treat.
Darren

Darren,

You're absolutely right about K2 being a redbook format and the difference being the mastering process. One nice thing about K2's superior sound is that it's transferable to any other medium without any special equipment. IOW, the K2 disc can be burned onto HDs or whatever. I have several friends that are PC Audio Guys and they're excited by the idea of having the K2 mastered material available. I suppose that it's a lot like having Master Tapes available to use for source material, without having several generations of processing to degrade the sound. I realize that this isn't a great analogy, but the better the original sound source is, the better any subsequent use will probably be.

Best Regards,
TerryO

lazydays · « **Reply #16 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 09:33 pm »

I do SACD, and DVD-A, as well as cd and hdcd. I find DVD-A tobe somewhat more musical in a tube like way. But the software is nill. The SACD format is dead right along with HD. Think "elcassette" here, and then add "hi-rez" to it.
None of these formats will equal let alone best analog. Of them I think DVD-A is closer (sorry Stereophile but you've lost it when it comes to perception). But of the digital formats the redbook will still be around at Walmart while the others are in a museum. Downloaded music is for the masses that don't know anybetter. You cannot duplicate anything 100%, and after going thru two or three servers you'll be lucky to have 80%. That's a matter of electrical engineering that's backed of 365 days a year. Nothing beats having the original. When the others are gone, you'll pay four times what you are now with the slogan "take it or leave it."
So where do I stand? You can forget another new format from JVC (I still remember the overpriced XRCD). I'll keep banging away with the redbook stuff for a few more years (maybe one more new player). With sacd, I'm just not sure. I used a couple Sonys and a Marantz 8260. The 8260 is by far the best for me, and just keeps plugging away. I suspect I'll be getting out of sacd when the 8260 dies (have had it for three years), and the DVD-A will be history soon enough. But if I do stay with Hi-Rez for awhile longer I'll get a better player. But while all this digital crap keeps rolling under the rug, I'll still be buying LP's constantly.
gary

twitch54 · « **Reply #17 on:** 8 Dec 2007, 10:26 pm »

Quote from: Scott F. on 8 Dec 2007, 04:29 pm

Quote from: twitch54 on 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 pm
Quote from: Scott F. on 8 Dec 2007, 02:47 am
Trust me on this one, CD players are going by way of the horse and buggy.

I'm pretty much an old fart too. Hardcore into tubes and vinyl. Heres a couple of links to my gallery if you are interested.
The '06 Gateway Audio Christmas Bash
some more misc pics

Hi Scott, Great Pics ! Looks like a good time was had by all ! I guess my concern is .....myself and I'm sure others, are somewhat 'computer challenged' so we want to hold onto our 'old school' technology as long as possible !!

Russtafarian · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Dec 2007, 04:09 am »

When you guys are ready for your SACD/DVD-A garage sale just let me know. I've got room for more!

I just took delivery of 10 Telarc SACDs (thanks to the Concord sale posted here last week) and can't wait to dig into them. Classical and film music in SACD surround is an experience I've cherished for nearly seven years and one I won't give up anytime soon. And yes I have a squeezebox and a VPI TNT that I also enjoy immensely.

Russ

Jon L · « **Reply #19 on:** 9 Dec 2007, 07:24 am »

Quote from: lazydays on 8 Dec 2007, 09:33 pm

..Downloaded music is for the masses that don't know anybetter. You cannot duplicate anything 100%, and after going thru two or three servers you'll be lucky to have 80%. ..

Huh? This is akin to saying a Microsoft Word document loses 20% of its words after going through two or three servers. It doesn't, and a music file doesn't, either.

In addition, there are download sites that offer lossless file downloads and even 24bit/96kHz downloads.