2. digital
  3. 1068150027

SACD Opinions: Gimmick? Like it? Don't? Why?

I would like to hear some opinions from those who have (or have heard) an SACD cdp in a quality system. I am considering it, but in the area I live its hard to get a good demonstration of it. So before I go out of my way I'm trying to figure out if I even want to bother. I guess I'm a little skeptical.

What sets it apart from regular cd sonically, if anything?

I know it has multi-channel capabilities, but how about standard 2-channel performance? Is it even intended to be used with a 2-channel system?

Does regular cd performance suffer in any way (generally) due to the presence of sacd capabilities?

If you can't really answer the questions above in an "all else equal" sense, and rather "it depends..." then what does it depend upon?
Thanks for any opinions, Jb3
jb3

Showing 4 responses by eldartford

eldartford
4,262 posts
 
I am on my second universal player, Denon 2900 following a Pioneer DV45A.

With the Pioneer, both SACD and DVD-A were superior to CD, with the caution that all media are strongly impacted by the audio quality of the particular disc. However, I found that SACD was a disapointment after all the hype from Sony. DVD-A seemed better.

With the Denon, SACD matches DVD-A within the variable sonics from disc to disc. It isn't any better.

From this I conclude that SACD technology does not lend itself to good implementation in a low cost player (compared to DVD-A) and this does not bode well for the survival of the format in competition with DVD-A.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Sean...If you can tolerate Bach, try the multichannel Sony SACD SS87983, E Power Biggs playing Toccatas and Fugues using the four organs installed in the cathedral of Freiburg. The multichannel aspect of this recording is not a creation of the recording engineers, but merely reflects the antiphonal character of the music and the instruments.

There are many more good DVD-A than multichannel SACD. The "killers" are Tacet DVD-A. They put you in the midst of a small chamber music group (eg: quartet) as if you were one of the musicians. Unless you have experienced this perspective, this may seem like a "gimmick" dreamed up by the engineers, but it really is not.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Rsbeck...I'm not going to get involved with the argument about whether single media players are better than universal ones, but if you are correct about that, the explanation you cite is not the reason. "Stuff everything into one box". Practically everything necessary for one media is necessary for the others, and there is lots of empty space inside even a universal player. There is absolutely no technical reason why universal players should be inferior to single media ones, and there is certainly oportunity for cost reduction. Put the $ that would go for an extra transport, power supply, chassis, marketing, etc. into better clock and analog output circuits.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Sogood51...If I had invested $6000 in a CD player, human nature would bias me to prefer it to my friend's $800 universal. Audiophiles are (I think) human. Besides, the $6000 player probably does sound as good as can be achieved with the marginal resolution of the redbook CD protocol.

Existing universal players, up to now, have not generally aimed at the highest level of performance. However, there is a mod for the Denon 2900 for about $1000 that supposedly makes it as good as the best. Mostly analog audio circuit upgrade, plus clock.
More to discover