Am I really going to like SACD?

I recommend the Stones SACD's(If you're a Stones fan) that were released a couple of years ago. When I played the few Stones SACD's I purchased, I was very impressed. They really sound fantastic and left me amazed that I was listening to 60's recording's.
For me, vinyl is king but there a few SACD's I own that are pretty sweet sounding. That being said, I enjoy having the capability of playing these little silver discs and the price of players' have made it quite affordable to get your feet wet. Oh, and the fact that most SACD's are hybrid makes it even more versatile.

 

yes SACD is killer

I listen about to about 85% more recorded music since hi-rez started. Maybe more.

SACD, vinly, DVD-A, it's all great. good time to be alive.

Now if someone would just tell me where I can find that Pizarro recording of the Op 111!!!! The only site I found charged like $5.75 in shipping. For ONE CD!!!

 

As most of the forum members know I love vinyl...always did, always will. That said, I didn't get into SACD until the Stones reissues came out. I'm glad I made the plunge. Not just for the Stones or the Dylan's for that matter. Listen to Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" or Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue," or even the original Carole Kings' "Tapestry" Believe me you'll never look back! SACD is not going to replace vinyl for me. I look at SACD as another medium where the play back results can be (I hate to say it), stunning! (...there I said it...)

 

I don't know if this will be the case, specially when we are talking about classic rock or jazz, or any recording made in mono or stereo, there is a point that nobody around here seems to understand, and is that you can get so much out of these old tapes, and that's it.
You can remaster an originally stereo or mono recorded tape a million times and the quality might improve, but just to a certain point. I don't really know how much can engineers digitally manipulate them or if it's even legal to do so.
Blue ray offers a lot more space per disc, so music or video specifically recorderd for it will be awesome, no doubt.
Hi rez as called here is not only SACD or DVD-a, that was only the beginning and only a few deep pocket audiophiles adopted it, but they don't appeal to the masses.
As I said before, until a format becomes standard I won't buy into it, no sense in spending a fortune on players, amps and speakers just to see all the titles I want being redone into another format next year.

 

And yet, somehow, RedBook Cd's got better. Although Vinyl (historically) always had greater resolution than RedBook, it's not inconceivable that some digital format someday soon will beat it outright. Any vinyl copy, however well mastered, will have some low level eccentricity---off-centeredness. Any vinyl copy no matter how carefully cut, will lose sonic quality as the needle approaches the end of the disc. And these vinyl recordings we listen to do not reside in the realm of theory. They exist in the realm of distortions unique to the vinyl experience. Clicks. Pops. Surface wear. Warps. Wow. I've gone through 5 copies of Walter Giesiking's stereo recording of Beethoven's "Emperor" concerto (Alceo Galleria/Philharmonia---It's on Seraphim) trying to find a copy that's not off-center.

..."those old RCA recordings never had glare to begin with."... You betcha! And as someone who always had the hardest time getting a decent brass sound in a symphonic recording---the best I ever got involved a great big room and an all-tube chain feeding my DAT recorder---well... ...like yea! The old Reiner/Chicago recordings are remarkable.

"If you put a 78 on an SACD, its going to sound like just that, a 78." I might have the engineers name wrong---Was Reg Wilkinson the famous engineer from Decca? In any case, I recall an interview with him (Absolute Sound? Gramophone?) where he said the best sounding recording he made was a 78. It is, after all, "Direct to Disc". Whatever modulation noise is coming off a 78, its not coming from tape. I've owned some very good sounding 78's, if SACD really can sound just like a 78, I'll be very happy.

 

I'll let my wife tell it like it is

She says CD's, most of the time, hurt her ears. She can't explain it. She says they sound like "buzzaws" to her.

She has also said that, most of the time, those discs she can't play anywhere except in the living room sound smooth and relaxing.

I tend to trust her

 

We understand everything. What has been surprising us over the last few years has been exactly the opposite.

 

Well you know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there's a 154 channel frequency with holographic videos of the bands playing hidden on the master tapes, and all they need to do is keep remastering them till those come out, who knows.

 

The two formats will die gradually. No one is going to buy all the re-issues in their existing format of 1 LP per CD again. Lack of softwares support will ensure the 2 formats will go the way of Beta/MD/DAT as far as general consumers are concerned. The new and next generation will buy/download music to whatever storage medium.

 

When you hear Tumbleweed Connection on SACD....you'd be as happy as me that this format exists.

 

Blu Ray and HD-DVD will be battling it out to be the Hi Definition Video answer to the DVD Video format.

At this point, most of the talk about the audio on these formats has revolved around their use of Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD - the next generation versions of Dolby Digital and DTS.

So the emphasis with BluRay and HD-DVD is on replacing DVD Video discs - not CDs and SACDs and DVD-A audio discs.

 

I also have a Sony 775 player. I also continue to play vinyl and actually buy vinyl. Like everyone else I continue to buy Redbook CD's.

Yes- it means another format we support- but hi-rez can sound blissfully wonderful. Like anything else- yes it depends on the mastering.

The Stones are good, Dylan is good(better- as there are some surround titles), Steely Dan Gaucho is great, as is Miles Davis Kind of Blue and the Live set by Roger Waters. As for stereo only- Steve's Creedence titles on AP, Bob James on AF, and Sony's Santana Abraxas and Stevie Ray Vaughan's Texas Flood are KILLLER.

I wish the player I had was a combo-unit so I could buy some DVD-a's, but will now wait a bit longer. I would love to hear the Chicago titles, as well as Hotel California, LA Woman and ELP, but they are DVD-A only.

Chris

 

I love SACD. Most of my listening is 5.1, but the 2 channel discs I have...Steve's CCR's, Oscar Peterson....are wonderful. But, like any medium, it's all dependant on how it was recorded and mastered. My 2 channel Roxy Music best of SACD is dog poopy, so they're not all winners.

As far as the vinyl references here....I put on a recently purchased Stevie Wonder LP....and my tin eared wife remarked...."Wow, that sounds great!"

 

If you are a vinyl fan, then I can understand your lack of enthusiasim for CD sound. I can listen, even at times enjoy, but never (NEVER!!) slip into that comfort zone sonically that analog gives me every time.

When I heard my first SACD (on the old Sony SCD-CE775 changer) I was floored. Here was a digital sound that I could relax into and fully enjoy, just like analog. Does it sound like analog? Nope, not quite. Does it sound better than redbook CD? Yep, and by a long shot (at least to these ears). What will you find? Good question. But with the price of entrance into the hi-rez digital world down to around $250 - what do you really have to lose trying?

 

While I understand the personal economics of this decision, it concerns me that if too many people think this way, record company executives will see the low sales figures and conclude that there is simply not a viable market for any high-resolution format, and they will stick with CD as the "premium" format as they continue to align with iTunes and Wal-Mart to distribute compressed audio formats like MP3.

I would rather show support with my wallet now for the formats I want to see become a standard (SACD; maybe DVD-Audio if they'd ever get their act together), ignoring (as much as possible) the formats I wish would go away - like maximized/compressed/NR'ed CDs and MP3s.

Craig(VC)

 

CraigVc, I think they will eventually hit the spot with a format that will appeal to everyone, just like cd or dvd did in the past. They just keep testing the market with SACD DVD-a and others and then move on when the tests fail.
I'm very optimistic about this, a new, great hi rez format for audio and video is just around the corner!!

 

I'm not sure I agree with you. A billion+ has been invested. These are not simple tests of the market - there is a tremendous commitement required to reach critical mass. Close to 300 labels are prepared to stick their neck out for SACD - the very LEAST I can do is show support.

 

Totti, I think you hit the key point. They already have a format that satisfies 99% of the music buying public. It's the good ole redbook CD.

 

Last year, I bought a Pioneer DV-563A primarily for SACD playback. However, I have found that I can get better sound from the redbook layer, through my Denon DAC.

I am certainly not suggesting that redbook is better than SACD. What I am suggesting is that the quality of the player is a much, much bigger factor than the format.

I am sure that had I bought a Denon DVD 2900 or even a 2200, the SACD layer would have sounded better than the redbook. However, a thousand dollars is a lot of money to upgrade the sound of less than 5% of my CD collection. For less than the cost of the 2900, I could get a really good dedicated redbook player that could provide much better redbook performance than the 2900. That way, I could get great sound from all of my CDs.

Unless one is interested in multichannel, I feel that the cost of a really good SACD player could be better spent on a really good dedicated redbook player. Just my humble opinion.

Of course, if SACD ever replaces redbook as the dominant format, I would have to reassess my humble opinion.

 

Wow, talk about "YMMV"!

I have a Pioneer DV-563A and a Denon receiver (AVR-3801, I think), and I was disappointed with the sound quality of CD on that player. For SACD, however, I think it is excellent for that format!

I tried listening to CDs on the Pioneer 563a through both analog and digital connections to my Denon receiver, and in either case the sound is not pleasing. (If I remember correctly, the analog connection was "warmer" but the high frequencies were smushed and hazy, while the Denon DACs provided more detail but the brittle, harsh digitized swoosh of the cymbals was excruciating.)

So mainly I use the Pioneer for SACD listening nowadays, while kicking myself for selling my Marantz special-edition dedicated redbook CD player, which sounded amazing with either analog or digital connections to my Denon receiver.

This portion of the discussion does illuminate a good point: one's perception of the superiority of SACD depends in part on the equipment used.

In this case, the only variables between Bruce's equipment and mine are the interconnects and the speakers (my speakers are Polk), but apparently those differences are significant enough to produce dramatically different opinions about SACD between me and Bruce.

Oh, and we have another equipment distinction between us: different sets of ears.

Craig(VC).

 

Hi,

Wouldn't that be an on-going six year test, yet to fail and may never?

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

And thank you for pointing out the other 1/2 of the equation. On the one hand there are these (competing) high-rez formats. There is cheap (sub $200) hardware out there. One of the best new SACD series (RCA Living Stereo) is mid priced ($12.98-$11.98). There is a very real opportunity to make the world a better sounding place. It's true that "Tumbleweed Connection" will cost more. It is also true that it will sound much, much better.

On the other hand, there is the encroachment of MP3s and Killer Kompressors from Mars. The world, in fact, is sounding worse. Many new recordings are either designed with the realities of MP3 in mind, or are produced using deliberate deployment of distortions unique to the Digital domain and uniquely toxic in effect.

Know that Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys/Cher ripping/chorusing sound used as a production effect? That's the sound of pitch-correction software distorting. Mistracking. Malfunctioning. That tells you bundles about the experience of making those records.

And frankly, I don't want to ever hear that sound again.

 

That's where the modifiers come in. If you look at almost any report by someone who had their SACD player modified, the biggest surprise for them is the improvement to the Redbook sound. Although there was previously some small interest in modifying CD players (I had a Trichord clock added to a Marantz 63SE 10 years back), the introduction of the SACD player kicked this little cottage industry into hyperdrive.

To turn your sentence around a bit:

This will give you the best of both worlds. The sound from modified players compares favourably with or exceeds the sound of the $10k plus factory jobs.

 

It is not that I think the Pioneer DV 563A sounds bad. Actually, both redbook CDs and SACDs sound quite good on this machine. It is just that there are redbook players and DACs capable of even better sound.

Since over ninety percent of all CDs released are redbook only and SACD doesn't seem to be making any headway, I would try to get a CD player with the best redbook performance within my budget. If that player happen to have SACD, all the better.

As far as modifications go, I did start a thread a few weeks ago, asking it it would be worthwhile spending five hundred dollars or more modifying my 563A. The general consensus seemed to be that this was a lot of money to spend on a two hundred dollar player. However, it might be worth looking into modifying a higher end model.