SACD in general

I don't have a multi channel audio set up, and, quite frankly, don't plan on doing it any time soon. I am a dedicated 2 channel guy. I have thousands of CD's, including almost every DCC and MFSL disc, but my true love is still vinyl. I also own probably 3000 lp's and I have almost every DCC and MFSL vinyl product released. That being said, what is the general opinion of SACD for someone like me that is not inteested in multi channel. I have about 20-30 SACD's, but am I wasting my time buying these if I have no interest in multi channel? Am I missing the boat by ignoring multi channel?

Curious about some feeedback here....

 

Just because you're not a multi-channel guy, it should NOT discourage you to get decent SACD playback....

 

Unless you're ready to throw serious coin at a good center, surrounds, sub and multichannel pre-amp, I think a 2channel guy like yourself might be dissapointed in 5.1 SACDs.

Of course every one of your 20-30 SACDs has a dedicated stereo track on it that may very well put some of your redbook CDs to shame. Compared to your LPs? Well, you be the judge

Of my 20 or so 5.1 SACDs, only a couple or three would make a serious 2channel guy sit up and say "WOW". And that's after I've spent the time to set up my room and maximize my gear for 5.1. If one was to just throw something together, results would be mediocre at best.

All IMHO, of course.

 

I guess my question really is what is the overall opinion of 2 channel SACD vs red book. I know it depends on the particular disc, but is there a prevailing opinion overall?

I have stuck my toe in the water with a few SACD's as noted above, and bought a basic player, that actually got a very good review in Absolute Sound a while back, the SONY DVP-NS755V....

 

I presume that since you have 20-30 SACDs you also have an SACD player. If that is the case and, you have to ask if it is worth having, then it probably isn't. Obviously you don't hear any worthwhile difference or you wouldn't be asking the question.

Many people including myself find a very obvious and substantial improvement in sound quality through well mastered SACD in two channel playback. Then again, there are many who don't think hi-rez is worth it at all, so you are not alone. I guess it's just a personal thing.

If you don't hear an improvement with two channel SACD playback then I would say why bother with it.

 

You may have answered your own question. SACD is a wonderful format, and depending on the disc, SACD is either good or beat-all. If you can't do MCh, you're not missing much.

 

Now that is a very big can of worms.

Do you mean SACD vs. redbook layer on the same disc? Or just in general SACD releases vs. available redbook versions?

Really it can swing either way. I have some SACDs (The Police titles) that sound like 16/44.1 to me, and others (MFSL Blues in Orbit) that sound like no digital medium at all.

I did realize that by buying a better SACD player, it did so well with redbooks that I started to appreciate some of the better CD titles all over again.

The 755 is a nice player, hang onto it.

 

I am referring to SACD vs available red book versions.

How about another can of worms....what about SACD vs DVD-A? Is one better from an audio standpoint? Will both survive? I am on the SACD train for now, but what happens to the Beatles catalog (SACD vs DVD-A) will have a major effect on me.....

 

I have a pretty good CD setup and a Sony SCD-XA777ES SACD player, and I also only do 2 channel.

I enjoy SACD very much and prefer it to redbook when the same material is available for each. SACD is not going to make me stop spinning records on my TNT-III, but when I want to just pop in a disc and listen SACD beats redbook for me.

 

And I will never stop spinning my Planar 3 and P25. I am listening to the new 180 gram "Aftermath" as we speak.....

 

My view is it can never hurt to have another choice of playback of an excellent medium. Agree 100% about vinyl yet SACD also can provide great music playback too. As Steve says, "It's all in the mastering." There have been some SACD duds just as there have been some vinyl ones. The plus thing is that when you get a great one (mastering, album, etc.) you're in heaven. For me, the perk of SACD is the hi-rez aspect rather than the multi-channel playback (which is nice but not the be all-end all).

 

I've just listened to 2 channel sound too.
For me the biggest attraction to sacd is the improved sound.
I'm not into 5.1 yet. (if ever)

As far as redbook goes, every title is different, depends on the engineer too. There are so many variables. But GENERALLY sacd 2 channel tends to sound better: more airy, and for me, simply easier to listen to than redbook. IMO.


I think the general opinion of sacd is it's better for 2 channel than for 5.1
That's my impression anyway. That's a HUGE generalization too.
If you're only into 2 channel, you won't be disappointed IF you care about the sonic qualities of the release.
I love sacd 2 channel. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything; other than my fav titles not having the dsd treatment yet!

It's true though, if you have a real sacd player and you have to ask if it's worth it after hearing some great sounding titles, it's not.
You won't have to ask.

As far as THE question. I think with the GH sacd's coming out in Feb. EMI is testing the sacd waters for a Beatles release. That's my guess, I don't know.
My gut feeling (big deal right?) says that in N. America Beatles on dvd-a.
Everywhere else, sacd. If that's wrong, then 100% sacd.

Most people who are into dvd-a are into it for the 5.1 aspect. If I'm wrong on that, my apologies; but that's my impression.
Sacd sounds more 'analog' has more analog qualities to it. Dvd-a is more like cd on steroids. If you like cd sound, you love dvd-a sound.
If you love vinyl sound, you tend to like sacd more than dvd-a. Again, generalizations. But that's my impression.

It's a lot easier to use sacd than dvd-a right now.
I think that dvd-a might possibly become this decade's version of DAT.
Used by pros, not by consumers. Dvd-a is falling behind sacd and will have to make up SERIOUS lost time and title progress if it's to even up or beat sacd.

I don't think both will survive with equal market share.
Dvd-a has been a disaster marketing wise, and useability wise.
I think that's beyond dispute. The sound can be AMAZING though.

If Elvis and the Beatles come out on sacd, I think dvd-a will have suffered a mortal blow...

Hope that helps.

 

I've stated before that I love 5.1 and I rarely buy a 2 channel sacd. The difference between sacd and dvd-a is negligable IMO but dvd-a has video ability which isn't being used for sacd, at least not yet.
I love to deconstruct mixes and listen to individual components. 5.1 is perfect for that, and it allows music to breathe more, especially when many instruments are involved.

 

This thread contains a potential can of worms, but I would like to just stick in my $.02 worth anyway. For me personally, music that has gone staright from analog tape to DSD is very analog sounding, like a very good black vinyl source. If the music is strictly analog to DSD then I don't perceive any digital feel whatsoever. An SACD that has gone through some PCM stage is very noticably digital. Even the best SACD that has gone through a hi-rez PCM (like 24/96) stage has a certain digital feel that one can easily perceive, the new Dinah Washington on Verve comes immeadiately to mind. That is also my impression of DVD-A, it still has a digital feel. I guess what I am saying, that it is readily apparent to my ears that a true analog to DSD SACD sounds very natural and organic, or in the words of the audiophile community, open and airy.

 

I'm another 2 Channel SACD user, and I'm very happy with sound of most stereo SACDs. To me, some of the best sounding SACDs that I have, such as Steve's CCR and Zombies titles, the Japanese SACDs of Santana's "Caravanserai" and Miles Davis' "Jack Johnson", the original stereo SACD of Carole King's "Tapestry", etc, are all stereo only SACDs. Besides, the stereo SACD portions of many of my stereo/multi-channel SACDs sound excellent also; titles such as Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", Billy Joel's "The Stranger", Deep Purple's "Machine Head", etc. So, IMO, you don't necessarily need a surround sound configuration to enjoy the wonderful world of SACD.



Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

 

Forgive them Dave, they know not what they're saying...

 

I'm looking forward to surround one day, but for now I'm perfectly happy with two-channel SACD and DVD-A playback. I can rarely sit down and listen to anything in one fixed spot in the house, so surround really is not really practical and of little use to me anyway, except as a novelty.

OK Dave, here ya go:



SACDs don't strike me as being a huge difference in sound over CD, but I know I can listen to SACDs longer without getting fatigued, especially at louder volumes. They just sound more natural in that respect.

 

IMHO, If you are a dedicated 2 channel & LP guy, give your turntable a hug and keep your money in your pocket.

 

I have had SACD for a year plus or minus. While I search for and buy mostly Multi-channel- I do own a few Stereo's such as a couple Creedence, and couple of Stones, Blood, Sweat, and Tears, and Bob James.

The Stereo's I bought specifically because these versions were known to be clearer than the existing Redbook versions(by far)!

When it comes to the Multi's- I don't believe I have even listened to any of them in Stereo SACD or Redbook. I have Elton John GYBR, Tommy, Police GH, DSOTM, EWF Gratitude, Waters In the Flesh Live, Steely Dan, Frampton.
I didn't buy them for Stereo OR Redbook, but SPECIFICALLY for Surround- as that is the biggest bang for ME.

I appreciate the fact that I could listen to the Hydrids in my car, or at the beach or... I choose not to. Mostly in that type of an environment- the rewards in better rez will diminish based on the surrounding noise level.

For someone whose CD player has died and needs another- fine- buy an SACD player. If I had a Stereo only system, and never planned on going surround I probably would not have went hi-rez. At least right now- I could get the benefit of better releases just buying the Hybrid releases to play back on Redbook.

I bought into SACD for the benefit of Surround rather than hi-rez stereo. In order to gain more mainstream folks- I think this is what needs to be shouted out.

Foregive me if I am all over the place on this!!! Been a REAL $%^&&* day here at work.

Chris

 

As Steve has said, it's in the mastering. Both SACD and DVD-A have the POTENTIAL to sound better than Redbook. For example, Steve's CCR SACDs beat the DCC golds - but not by much (they're TONALLY nearly the same) and the difference is much more apparent on better equipment. On the 555Es, the difference can be a crapshoot, but the 555 doesn't do SACD NEARLY as well as the AX777ES. On the AX777ES, the difference is obvious. I won't say the best SACD on the AX777ES is better than the best vinyl on a great vinyl setup, but it's close. It's definitely better than crappy vinyl on a cheap vinyl rig. A well-done SACD has a liquidity and an analog quality you can't get from CD. IF the chain is pure analog to DSD, the results can be incredible. But the difference is qualitative, and again, it's in the mastering.

I prefer the MFSL UDI Dark Side of the Moon to the SACD version. It has a warmer, lusher sound than the SACD. The SACD has more detail, but I find the SACD slightly clinical. However, if the same person had mastered both versions IN THE SAME WAY, I'd prefer the SACD hands down. But it's a trade off in this case. The MFSL isn't as liquid or as detailed as the SACD version. So I'm trading liquidity and detail for tonality. But for pure sound QUALITY, I'd have to go with the SACD. So let's say that SACD at its best will always beat CD at its best, but beyond that, it becomes a matter of personal taste. (In most cases, I think I'd prefer a Hoffman-mastered CD to an SACD mastered by most others.)

As for DVD-A, there's a qualitative difference between SACD and DVD-A, also. SACD seems a bit more liquid but DVD-A has, well, a blacker background. It's hard to describe. I'd have to say that probably neither format (as we consumers hear it) sounds EXACTLY like the master tape, and that each format changes the sound a little differently. Having never heard an SACD and a DVD-A version of the same disc mastered by the same person, I can't say which is better. But at their best, both sound like an improvement over CD. Let's put it this way - I can listen to the Hoffman gold CD of any CCR title all day long but I'd RATHER listen to the SACD version all day long. Or I can listen to the DVD-A of say, Fleetwood Mac's Rumors all day long. And I can't stand the standard CD versions of any of them. And I think the SACD version of Ziggy Stardust beats any version I've ever heard, including the original British vinyl.

So there's no easy answer to your question. I'd say that to a great extent, it depends on your equipment. If you've got some great equipment and a high end vinyl setup, SACD or DVD-A isn't worth it unless you're willing to dive in with something of the caliber of the AX777ES. If you're doing your listening over little computer-style speakers, SACD and DVD-A aren't really worth it, either, because you won't hear the nuances that can make these formats sound better. And even with a good setup, you might prefer the CD or vinyl versions of some titles.

As for multi-channel, you run into another if-then situation. On a cheap home theater setup, (and by cheap I'm including systems costing a couple of grand) MC will blow 2 channel away almost every time, regardless of how it's mixed. All those speakers playing fill out the sound and hide a lot of sonic problems. However, a high end 2 channel setup will blow away a MC setup of lesser quality every time. In fact, a really great 2 channel setup will sound almost like sedate MC in smaller rooms. But if you throw in 3 more channels of the SAME high quality (which most people, including myself, can't do) and a really good MC mix with NO crazy rear effects, the stereo image becomes (almost) crystal clear in a way 2 channel can't deliver. But again, it's in the mix, and IMO radical 5.1 mixes are strictly for cheaper setups, and can actually detract from the sound on high-end gear.

My solution to all this was to buy 2 SACD players and a DVD-A player, and add a Yamaha RXV1 for occaisional MC use, and to hope that eventually I can afford to expand my 2 channel setup to MC using equipment of the same quality.

But right now, I'd STILL rather listen to the UDI DSOTM in stereo than listen to the SACD in 2.0 OR 5.1.

 

SACD Two Channel vs Multichannel

I balked at mutichannel discs at first. Then I bought a DVD-Audio player. I popped in "Brain Salad Surgery" and wen't for a helluva ride. The quality of the sound was more like digital than analog. The 5.1 surround aspect was great. Remember, this is an album released in the 70's. Since then I've purchased about 50 discs. Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" has to be heard to appreciate what this format can do.

Then I bought an SACD player. Initially, I used it only for 2 chanell playback. The sound was nice and soothing, almost like my VPI turntable. I continued buying discs and now have about 100 SACDs. The highlights include: anything done by Steve Hoffman, all Stones and Dylan reissues, Kind of Blue, Tubular Bells I, and a couple from Telarc that escape me.

Last week I decided to set up my SACD rig to play 5.1 releases. This involves buying 6 moderately expensive cables and listening. WOW. This experience shook me to the core. Of course I was listening to "Dark Side of the Moon." I continued playing the multi-channel discs and just felt immersed in the music. If you play a live album set in a club it is a "you are there" experience. Recently, I purchased "Toys in the Attic." Great multi-channel sound. I'm still waiting to hear GBYBR.

After all of this here's my ranking considering all things being equal:
1. SACD (done right by someone like SH)
2. LP (180 or 200 g)
3. DVD-Audio (check out the last "Flaming Lips" release)
4. DVD-DTS (these are older titles but sound great, i.e., "Hell Freezes Over.")
5. CD (I'm not sure this is fair. I have a Musical Fidelity CD player and almost everything sounds "Redbook" great.
6. Cassette Tape (only kidding)

By the way, I've ripped and burned a couple of hybrid SACDs into MP3 files and they sound very good , not great, on my IPod.

That's my $1.50 worth.

 

But be careful not to squash your stylus

 

I think the point is...as Steve says...

It's all in the mastering.

Whatever format you have. (Myself, I would add mix/performance...those things can get pretty tightly entangled in the whole equation.)

 

My 2 cents: SACD has made me appreciate stereo listening 1000X more. On CD's and SACD's.

Why?

Simple. Because when I bought a new player, my CD collection sounded a lot better. And because my stereo SACDs sound absolutely heavenly...!

I have a properly calibrated 5.1 setup, and I don't think I have listened to it much since "discovering" stereo again.