is a SACD+CD player better than a universal player


Many people argue that separates are better in audio, whether it's amp/pre-amp, sources, etc.

So, based on experience with the available models, is it better to go with a unit that is SACD+CD and do video (and if you want it DVD-Audio) separately?

Carrying this to its extreme, do you think it should be all three -- one source that maximizes redbook CD peformance, one that maximizes SACD and one that maximizes video.

And the wrinkle in all this is HD-DVD/Blu-Ray which is beginning to appear as a rationale for separating audio and video once and for all.....

Your thoughts?
dgaylin

Showing 1 response by tedmbrady

My only input is this: yes, the Ayre is two-channel only, and for that it misses my mark (I have hundreds of mch hirez discs). My Modwright 3910, like most universals, has a video and digital out defeat mechanism called "all off" that likely gives you some large percentage of isolation that a gutted audio-only player would give. It is very difficult on 10% of my DVD-A's to live without ANY video, however, as they are authored so poorly (not sonically, just navigation) that finding the right layer or group is nearly impossible without a video feed.

The Esoteric line is a bit confusing but the SA-60 and DV-60 offer the mch universal player as audio-only or with video, and I haven't heard anyone say the SA-60 blows the DV version away or anything. My $.02 is that the video circuitry is easy to bypass, and that the differences in DACs and analog sections is a lot more evident sonically and a lot more worthy of evaluation than audio-only vs video-included (i realize you first asked about SACD/CD vs universal but assume you are mainly asking to discern whther onboard video is a large gremlin or not).