DCC Archive SACD

Okay, I've now carefully listened to SACD, DVD-A, and DTS. My conclusion? DVD-A, hands down. I love the 6 channel separation, and it's thunderous. SACD is still 2 channel, and I find it a tad on the harsh side. As for DTS, I love BAND ON THE RUN and VENUS AND MARS, but some of their titles are laughably bad, especially ABRAXAS.

 

There are multi-channel SACD's and players available. Just so ya know.

 

It always sends off my alarm when someone says a format is hands down better than others in a comparison while failing to describe what gear and music was used in the comparison, and failing to even compare multichannel with multichannel, if that is their preference.

 

Greg, hasn't it been you that's been preaching that SACD is hands down better than everything else out there?

 

The only SACD title I know of, and have, is TUBULAR BELLS. If there are other rock titles that are multi channel, do tell, because BAT OUT OF HELL, TAPESTRY, and SHE'S SO UNUSUAL are two channel.

 

Correction: the only SACD multi channel I know of and have is TUBULAR BELLS. Please educate me if there are any other rock multi channel SACDs.

 

I have a fairly extensive SACD collection and am planning on gettin a multichannel model in the near-future. Sony has several multichannel rock/pop titles in its catalog already: Billy Joel's "The Stranger" & "52nd
St.", James Taylor's "Hourglass" and Jeff Beck's "Blow By Blow". They also have tentative plans to release Springsteen's "Live In N.Y.C." on 5.1 surround SACD along with Michael Jackson's "Thriller". If you're into jazz, they've also released Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue", doing a direct transfer from the original 3-channel multitrack master on a tube setup! One word of warning, however: be sure to look for the "Multi-Channel" logo on these releases, or you'll be accidentally picking up these titles on already-existing stereo-only pressings!

 

Yeah, but he lists the gear (Sony) and music (Thriller SACD).

 

Very funny Patrick. My point was that it is meaningless to declare one format the winner while failing to explain the music and gear you're listening to. I think I've tried to do this [on the old board where it met with hostility--fear of the unknown] and described what I listened to, my system, and why I liked SACD better than CD or DVD-A. Plus, the guy posting up top didn't even realize SACD is a multichannel format; major oversight. There are dozens of MC titles in production in addition to those already mentioned.

 

I actually thought it was pretty funny.

Seriously, don't you have the Thriller SACD?

 

I heard, almost two years ago, that Philips was going to bring out a player that would play both SACD and DVD-A but have heard nothing since. What happened?

 

I'll tell you what.....If Sony wants some great market share, they should market a player that does the following:

1) Play ANY shiny little disc you can throw at it. That includes DVD, DVD-A, DVD-R, DVD-RW, CD, CDR, CDR-RW, MP3 and of course, SACD.

2)Have Progresive Scan and Component Outputs

3)Hold Multiple discs, at least 3

4)Dolby Digital 5.1, DTS, and Dolby 2 (great 5.1 effect from stereo cds)

5) Be under 1,000

If they did this, I would bet you every audio/video enthusiast in the USA would sell their old players on EBAY and buy this one.
The high price can be justified, because, hell, you are going to have this unit for a long time, at LEAST 5 years, probably more.


Your comments, guys?

 

What, no laserdiscs?

 

The problem with a lot of supposed "multi player" disc decks is the sacrifices to the gains.

I have a Pioneer laserdisc player and an Apex DVD player. With the Sony optical and a carosel CD player I have, I can play a lot of discs, VCD, Laser, MP3-CD, DVD, CD... and yes this means I end up with potentially 4 units that can play Cds. Hmm, anyone seen my Dire Straits Cd?? I know I played it last night, but where did I play it?

Problem here is, if I bought one unit to do everything, it wouldn't only be high-priced but possibly lacking in sonics or video, depending on the format. Oh yes, it would also mean the deck would be the #1 used electronic gadget in the house, maximizing wear and tear on a single unit. It would be more used than the doormat.

Add in the fact that when you have the unit repaired, not only would it be expensive, but might also be a long time. If that was your only player in the house, are you good at humming to yourself while the house is quiet?

There ain't no such thing as a multi-use playback deck that beats all. A truely educated buyer is going to get something that has the strengths going for it, not just because it will toast bagels.

Hey, this is a sick thought. Count how many CD playing units you have in your household, including clock radios, portable, walkmans, hi-fi and computer. I come up with 11. With my car, 13. Whoah. Isn't it great to live in America!

 

Some audiophiles have told me to avoid any CD player that can hold more than one disc. They insisted that this feature was destructive to the sound you get. Is this reasonable advice? I get the feeling that the disc changer isn't the problem, it's the system that uses it.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Camarillo ]

 

No, that's just not true. The transport system, clamping and dampening effect each one has is totally different, and most of them are average to poor, and that doesn't mean the carosel and magazine players are what makes em poo. Most CD players and Rom drives bring the CD in and the tray is mechanical: It will either flatten out and drop the cd on a spindle/clamp or the spindle clamp will grasp the disc above the tray. The CD will be elevated and can then spin without obstruction. The mechanicals, including the spindle motor and laser pickup mech's have to be like buttah, and with goooood circut design, makes a worthwile purchase.

Some of the 1st CD players (and some high-enders) either have a clamshell approach to CD clamp and spin (drop the cd and shut the door ON the Cd, clamping it) or you drop it on a spindle and put a clamp weight on the CD that keeps it stable on play. (I think Steve's SACD is like that...)

Like LPs, the CD goes through a lot of "crapola-granola" between manufacture and playback, and yes, there are SO many common factors.

My Laserdisc player is a very good tracker, because the motor is so strong and verile, besides it's designed to spin a disc 18X the weight of a regular CD. Because of the sloppy transport mechanism (draw-to-clamp) and the calamity the disc has to go through (my Laserdisc player has a seperate 5" draw for CD) the resolution sounds good, but not as good as my Sony CD single playrrr...

And with that, my carosel player has the same transport and clamp mechanism as my other CD players, with the only difference being a spinning platform of 5 CDs.

What makes the grade is a cleanly built DAC circut, a stable and quiet mechanism (less vibration to start with) and effeciant pickup scheme to read the damn disc.

With those recc's put to myself, the winning CD player is a 8-Bit TEAC draw unit I picked up as "new" from a yard sale for $2. All I had to do is take it apart, pull off the pickup and use a camera blower. It had a "beard" of dust on it. No wonder it wound't play! Works great now. It makes virtually no noise (vibrations) in draw transport or in playback mechanism. I'm building a Bottlehead "Foreplay" soon and will use one of my Dynaco ST70's with DIY cable with this CD player too. I'll post more tube porn after all is done.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, Sckott.

 

I'll add though, that a unit simplistic in its design is usually more musical, but that's a very broad statement. Only example I have in mind are turntables like Regas with the RB250 or 300 arms. Everything from ass to elbow is made with simple solid design in mind and as few mechanical moving parts as humanly possible. That goes for their carts too.

CD players can't always be that way. They sound great, but bandwith at the sampling rate they're on, the technical messy-ness they can have (poor reflective coverage on the disc, poor transport and DAC for instance and that's to start!) make them the audiophile format people love to hate more than anything. Digital nastiness isn't always at the mastering level. People spend more money on sandboxes and dampening devices than the Cd player they bought in the 1st place. Some transports have rubber grommits for vibration, but that's basically for motor and inside vibration, but it depends.

I've owned Cds who's paint job and manufacture would make the transport "earthquake" (you would have to open the deck to find it). I've owned Cds who's spindle-hole wasn't dead-on-balls-centered. Hillarious watching a pickup track a CD that's mis-centered going 500+ RPMs! Talk about spin-dizzy!

They're not exactly wrong, them audiophiles. Listening experiences is best one disc at a time, in general. I only fire up the carosel if I end up cooking soup from scratch or super-clean the kitchen. Then, I don't have time to jockey discs with wet hands.

BTW, CDRs have a VERY low error rate in tests, if you can believe it (there's reasons why, but I'll skip it). Problem is, if they 'cheapness' the dyes any more, that won't be true in the future...

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Sckott ]

 

I'VE GOT BOTH SACD AND DVD-A.IF WE GOT REAL GOOD EARS,YOU WILL PICK SACD OVER DVD-A.TAKE A LOOK AT SONY'S SCD-CE775.ITS WHAT IV'E GOT.AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BAND IS PLAYING RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.I WILL SAY THAT BOTH ARE A LOT BETTER THAN CD.DOLBY LABS,THE OWNER OF MLP TECHNOLOGY MAY COME OUT WITH 88.2 KHZ CD'S.MOST DVD-A PLAYERS WILL PLAY THOSE CD'S WHEN THAY HIT THE MARKET.DSD SOUND BEATS PCM IN MY MIND.

 

Hi Rodney, that is my conclusion too. I think most people giving a fair listen to both formats finds SACD more natural and dynamic.

 

Actually there are over 40 Multichannel SACDs available, with more on the way. See List of Multichannel SACDs - Now Available for a list.

In the pop/rock category, there are Multichannel SACDs out by Billy Joel, James Taylor, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Earth Wind & Fire and Alice in Chains in addition to Tubular Bells.

And speaking of Tubular Bells, in Multichannel SACD it's quite a step up from the quad days of SQ and CD-4 !

 

Q: What's the only thing worse that two channels of Billy Joel?

A: Five channels of Billy Joel.


Avid audiophiles cheer for SACD as they turn in their redbook CDs

[Image and caption flagrantly stolen from Werner without permission.]

 

whatever. I've managed to collect more than 100 SACDs without any Billy Joel or Toto.

 

But you remain mysteriously reticent on this "Thriller" issue.

 

LOL. . .okay, I got Thriller BUT I did so only because I found it cheap, used on ebay and my friend wanted to compare it to his vinyl. It sits in my closet with the rest of my stuff I am ashamed to own.

Here is how my friend convinced me it was worth owning: "200 million people can't be wrong." Yes, they can. I do kind of like Off the Wall. . .Wah Wah Watson on guitar (who played with Herbie Hancock). But I think it's back to ebay with Thriller.