Low end SACD vs. High end CD

I currently own a Meridian 508.24 CD player with which I am very pleased. I'm intrigued by SACD, though I've never heard it. I recently purchased a couple of the Rolling Stones hybrid CDs and am enjoying them on my regular CD player. My question regards the difference between the sound of the CD and SACD layer? I can guess that all things being equal the SACD would sound better...but what if all things are not equal? What if I compare a low end SACD to a high end CD? Will a cheap SACD player produce better sound than my high end CD player soley on the basis of it's ability to play the SACD layer? Has anyone done any direct comparisons between the SACD and CD layers of these new Stones releases...or any other releases for that matter? thanks

Randy

 

The answer depends on who you're talking to, Randy, and what hi-end CD player it is. I've never heard the Meridian you have, but in point of fact, I own three different CD players simply because I have never heard THE ONE CD player that can play every CD I own exactly as I want it to sound (don't you just wish they'd put tone controls back on preamps?).

What kind of music do you listen to?

On CDs that are a little dark, I fire up my Rotel; if they're too bright they go into my Carver, but if they're extremely natural they go into my SA-14.

If you are interested in an SACD player only to hear the Rolling Stones SACD layers, then, I think after an adequate break-in period a cheaper player would sound great with these recordings - less so with a higher resolution player like the SCD-1 or SA-14.

If your Meridian player is adept at producing quality sound from less than ideal CDs (meaning it can mask a bit of the harshness common to Sixties Rock CDs) then you may find that you prefer it to the SACD layer. Since the SACD will intensify several aspects of the sound you will have to take the good with the bad here.

 

I imagine that there is more than sampling frequency and bit rate. The analog part of any given system is at least as important as the digital computer power. Power supplies, transformers, wiring, capacitors (or not), etc. are key factors to good sound. I find it hard to believe that a 300 US$ SACD player can sound better than a 5'000 US$ high end CD player... Disagree?
Peace
Thomas

 

I don't disagree, because I don't know how they would compare - I have always had fairly good but cheap CD players. It is very likely that a $5000 CD player will sound much better than the CD playback you get from a cheap SACD player, and perhaps better than the SACD playback from a cheap player.

But then again, you might be surprised at how good SACD sounds on a cheap player. It will probably be different from what you get from an expensive CD player, but by how much, I could not say.

The fact is that SACD has the ability to hold much more musical information than CD. While the capacity of the disc is, I don't know, 5 to 10 times that of CD, I guess it would be fair to say that CD contains nearly all of the musical information - it's just more heavily "grained", and CD players do varying jobs of making up for that loss of information on CD.

I have just bought a cheaper Sony SACD player, and have been pleasantly surprised at the CD playback quality - compared to my old CD player, it does seem quicker and more lively. The SACD sound is wonderful - on hybrid discs, I have not noticed huge differences between the CD and SACD layers, as the overall character of the sound is the same - but the SACD layer sounds less cluttered. I guess that's what "resolution" is about - the high resolution format can actually resolve instruments better, so they sound more distinct from one another, particularly in busy or loud passages.

 

This is a real good question. I've heard comparisons between real high end CDs and real high end SACDs and have done the same comparisons with low end versus low end. In both cases the SACD put the CD to shame. It was more realistic, had a much wider image and just had more thickness and heft to the sound. Now, I HAVE heard a high end system play 24bit/96KHz and compared it to a low end consumer SACD player. The only problem with this comparison is the SACD was a mastered version of the 24/96 mix. Like I said, this wasn't a good test. The SACD was better by the way.

 

I can offer some observations from personal experience. I have tested some midrange SACD players (Sony 555ES) versus the Meridian 508.24 on redbook and much prefer the SACD sound. The Meridian does a great job for redbook but there is another step up with Super Audio.

If you are a classical or jazz fan, I would particularly recommend it as step to better sound given the excellent SACDs coming out like the amazing APO releases and the Mahlers releases from the San Francisco Symphony.

Do stay away from the Pioneer 47A as its SACD implementation sucks.

 

I kind of disagree here. Most of the SACD players out there (shall I even dare say all) are very accurate with their playback. Yes, some are better (that ole 10% high-end rule of thumb thingie) but none are terrible. You will hear a lot of the same strengths & weaknesses of the Stones Hybrid material (and other titles) with the use of a CE175 or a SCD-1. I think the goal here (at least what I strive for) is to get source playback as accurate possible. Of course, some material will sound more pleasing then others due to many factors (recording quality, condition, mastering, etc.). Heck, if our systems aren't calibrated in one form or another, where is our true frame of reference??? Look, that's just me. If something sucks then I would rather be certain it's the material and not because my system doesn't do Beethoven!!

Todd

 

That just about nails it. Well spoken!

Gardo

 

Well, Todd, there's no law against disagreement, but if you're suggesting a 10% differential in sound quality between an SCD-1 and a 775, then you better toss that 775 in the garbage heap and get something that resembles music. 10% suggests significant distortion, and I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

If the goal of audiophiles, however, were to get source playback as accurate possible," then there needs to be a complete revamping in the way magazine articles are written, and how audiophiles choose what they want to buy. Those magazine articles could describe the physical appearance, and then give a single number as to how "accurate" something is - like, "component X is 98% accurate while component Y was 98.267897389% accurate." Audiophiles (at least the ones I know), by and large, choose a component because it sounds good to them, not because they think it's accurate. And, who's to say what's accurate and what's not anyway? If the original pressing of Sonny Rollins' Saxophone Colossus on the Contemporary label is an "accurate" portrayal of what's on the master tapes, then I better dump my DCC vinyl since each has its own sonic strengths, and they sound very different from each other - I just happen to prefer the DCC, since I don't have the luxury of comparing each to the masters.

 

Well, I did dump the CE775 (not in the trash but back to CC/it's a pretty good machine actually). I ended up getting C555ES (which is pretty nifty too).... (so many dots)....

Okay, here's my take on the situation (beware my love). Every product strives to reach a certain level of good playback (which is a tall order). 100% accurate I don't think exists (like perfection, it's stroked for). Now, I'm not talking about fly-by-night products that use BS tricks to improve a turd (with diplomatic compassion, Bose). To get closer to perfection (accurate playback/less distortion, etc.) costs money, time, talent (in the design), etc. All these different companies come up with their own crack-pot designs (with love, some of these designers are mad scientists!!), philosophies, etc. for different price levels (like steps on a staircase heading to perfection). At each level, compromises are met (parts, build, etc.). Each brand/design has it's own weakness/strengths (some even come with free batteries!!). Some go for a certain DAC (one man's DAC is another man's SPLAT!), others go for tank build quality ("Did we win the war?", some go on the cheapie-cheap with the tray (Marantz), other glue-on the OP amps (Sony), the wheel goes round & round (and all the loose parts slowly fall out). It's almost like different religions/lifestyles existing with very specific ideas but the common ground is still touching God (Wow, I'm being over the top here, forgive me person in beard). 10% seems like a lot but it in some ways it isn't. A couple making love at 90% optimum motion level will still have a good ol' time (right?). The question really is "what (and sometimes watt) corners had to be cut by 10% to reach a competitive cost (also to make a profit/life isn't a charity)." That 10% MIA can result in cheap trays, wires, OP amps, caps, DACs, casing, no remotes/nukes, noisy assembly, exploding fuses, etc. One company may skip some of the percentage in one way and another company will call them insane as their clamping down the Rat Shack connectors. I think a player that is 90% on mark is pretty damn good! Nothing (IMO) will ever be 100% (though some claim their products are/one man's shoe is another man's foot!! 100% is still years way or we'll have to ditch "new & improved").

Okay, trade papers/magazine reviews (the big boys!!). What or who are they reviewing for? "Hey, that sounds neato?" or "I like my job, life is cool, smoke a ciggie with me and listen to this system?" Whatever.... I think they're reviewing on an accuracy criteria. One product achieves it better than another in this particular way. "I like this design because it blah, blah, blah..." It's about pointing readers in a good direction at different price levels. They do a test drive and explain the pros/cons of the journey. Some cars are better at "transportation" than others but hopefully none are a death trap (who would write the review??)...

What is the goal of recorded music?? I think usually to reproduce the illusion of a live performance (or some are abstract paintings created in studio's/mix/etc.). I believe (at least as of today at this hour) a tuned system will give an honest representation of what is on the source (okay, which sources are more accurate?/they all have strengths/weaknesses/etc./same thing) you're playing (or impersonating). Yes, you may prefer an original Sonny Rollins album compared to a MFSL. That's fine (it's called taste). You may think Kenny G is better on sax and represents jazz better (call the doctor). You may prefer a quality that a particular pressing brings over another (brings the music closer to your heart). There's no shame in that (maybe a tear or two). If you have a decent system (that's on the road to being accurate/tuned/honest/not a big fat liar!!) then you should be at a good place to be able to hear those differences. It's all about reproduction (or in other ways deconstruction). Some systems by design/room/nature/voodoo are more laid back then others, some are bass heavier, some are warmer (others are mean), etc. Since nothing is 100% accurate (and hearing is subjective/"eh?") it's fine (one man's wine is another man's piss). Each listener (also designer/even reviewers) has their own taste/opinion of what reproduces "accurate" sound. It's like film critics. Some people really did Ebert, other's don't. The key thing is to make sure everything is not out of whack with what ever system that's being used (or abused). If every opera record sounds great and Otis Redding sounds terrible then there's something not right in Denmark!! A system like that is naughty (almost an elitist!!!). Think TV ("Yes, one day you can & will be a star, by gum!!"). It costs a lot of money to build a TV that does color well (actually modern ones suck because of the cost factor/etc.). Well, no matter what cost level TV you buy, a good thing to do is tune/calibrate it to the NTSC system (if in the US at least) with test discs. At least you will know where the strengths/weaknesses are in and you then have basis for making any tweaks, etc. to improve your watching experience (just turn off the SVM and keep your paws off the sharpness/noise switch)...
I hope someone gets my point (I sure as Hell don't). I'm kind of freewriting this response. I'm a rambling man....

 

Todd expostulated (among other things):

That reminds me of the time that I had traveled to another city to visit an audiophile friend.

This guy spends more in one week on system tweaks than I have in my whole lifetime on cars (well, almost). Anyway, we had been sitting in his listening room saying "Wow!" to each other every time he put a different record or CD. "Man those Bazoom 2000 speakers are the greatest, and that Wazoo 150 amp is the greatest," I extolled.

Then a few guys showed up. They were introduced to me as Larry, Curly and Moe, and I was told that they were local jazz musicians; Larry, the pianist, turns out to have known my friend since they were kids, and the other two were just with him. So Larry asks, "So what's new in the system, Felix?" and Felix answers, "well I have this new Wazoo amp, and these Bazzom speakers, and they are the most accurate things I've ever heard. Since you're a piano player, let me put some jazz piano on for you."

Larry and Curly listened intently to about a half dozen samples of piano jazz on as many records and CDs (Moe went outside to smoke and talk to his girlfriend on his cell phone). So then, Felix stops the music and asks, "So, whaddya think, Larry? Isn't that the most natural sounding piano you ever heard?"

There was a long pause while Larry scratched his chin and then looked over to Curly before he spoke. "If I ever had a piano that sounded that bad I'd set it on fire. Whaddya think, Curly?" Curly nodded and said, "no, Larry, never heard a piano that sounded like that."

"Right on," I thought in silence.

 

I give up!!! someone else take wheel...

Todd

 

I've never heard a Wazoo but they look OK


All the best - Andrew

 

I used an SCD-1 for several months (on loan) and now own a 500V. I did not have both in my home at the same time. My personal observation is that both did a great job on Red Book CD's and stereo SACD's. SACD with good source material on both machines sounds wonderful. Yet the cheap as heck 500V offers superb DVD, CD-R and CD-RW playback and multi-channel. With the prospect of future SACD players offering digital video output and SACD digital output with HDMI interconnects and improved SACD decoder chip sets with full bass management and timing alignment, I'm going to stick with the 500V for now. I like to think the SCD-1 sounded a bit better, but can't be sure because I never heard both at the same time. I sure looked neat.

Richard.

 

Your comments make sense Richard - I think that SACD is at a point now where a cheap player will give you a very good indication of what the format is capable of, with clear superiority to similarly priced redbook CD players. Further developments on the hi-res front mean that a cheaper player is a good investment for those with limited budgets - you can get a foothold in the market.

I've no doubt that there will be some high end CD players that outperform cheap SACD players when it comes to CD playback, but for people on a tight budget, I reckon a cheap SACD player at the moment will give one a comparable musical experience to a very expensive CD player. That's probably oversimplifying it somewhat, I know, as SACD is really a different beast.

Anyway, I've never had a lot of money to spend on my hifi gear, and have settled for low to middle level stuff by and large. So I am pleasantly surprised by the CD playback on my new Sony NS905V - it is really much more dynamic and lively than my 10-year old Sony mid-range player. No doubt a top-of-the-line expensive CD player could improve upon this, but for now I would rather start to enjoy SACD, and look forward to further improvements and developments in hi-res digital audio.

 

Ha

I can't believe you found that picture.]

Ferg

 

No Way

I wouldn't even get in the car at this point- the guy has tremendous conviction.

Ferg

 

Re: No Way

No Ferg, this guy is a convict.

 

Heck, you may be a convict but you'd be great company in any cell chatting about this stuff...

Todd

 

Expensive CD player vs. cheap SACD

I have found the Sony XB940 to be extremely close to my Well Tempered turntable in terms of smoothness, imaging, and tonal variety, which I cannot say from the more expensive CD players (Linn, Meridian, Rega and some older top-of-the-line Sony gear like the 777ES) I auditioned in the same chain. It may be a psychological thing, but any CD player seems to be limited in the range of tonal nuances. It reminds me of the time when a graphics card capable of 256 colors was regarded as state of the art. You'd look at a GIF image and say "wow, now that's photorealistic". But after a while, you'd notice that each and every image was composed from the very same colors. And while there are cheapo "True Color" graphics cards nowadays which are way inferior to a 1988 $2000 card with 256 colors in terms of luminance or sharpness of the image, they'll still produce images which are much more lifelike. Sometimes too dark or too red, but nevertheless much closer to the real thing. That's what I felt with the SACD playback. I have listened to the XB940 for almost a month now, and it continues to excite me beause of the "OMG, I've never heard a sound like that from a CD player" effect.

Arne