What do SACD's sound like?

[*Psycho!*]

I only have a two channel SACD Machine, Marantz SA11s1. The Sacd's I do have sound bloody brilliant. Norah Jones, Dire Straits, Ray Charles, ect.....I have that special Gold pressing (Ultradisc II) of Roy Orbisons remastered songs using the JVC 24k gold process from the original master... and its astonishing. Then again RBCD sounds great to me...I think the player has a lot to do with it.

[tdunster]

I only have a two channel SACD Machine, Marantz SA11s1. The Sacd's I do have sound bloody brilliant. Norah Jones, Dire Straits, Ray Charles, ect.....I have that special Gold pressing (Ultradisc II) of Roy Orbisons remastered songs using the JVC 24k gold process from the original master... and its astonishing. Then again RBCD sounds great to me...I think the player has a lot to do with it.

It's definetly all about the player. I would think a RBCD of Norah Jones would sound great as well.

[Benalaur_1]

Tdunster

There is a 2 channel high res track on The Beatles love BUT you have to change the settings on your player to access it. Change your player mode (in the setup settings) from DVD-audio to DVD - Video and you can access it. Its odd this in not mentioned in the packaging. It is a 24/96 LPCM track, I think?

BTW I agree with you on the BIA sacd. I do listen to it but it doesn't really highlight what SACD is capable of. A 16 bit master tape may have been the source but Avalon was the same (i think) and it sounds pretty darn good on SACD.

Honkey Chateau is my favourite Elton John SACD (mainly becuase I love Rocket Man)

Tony

[Marine]

The Norah Jones SACD was mastered from the 16bit 44.1khz CD master so it's not a good example of SACD sound quality. See the Stereophile report here.

[*Psycho!*]

Avalon

That's another one I have that does sound superb as well.

[tdunster]

That's another one I have that does sound superb as well.

Do you like the printing error on the cover? Apart from the SACD logos it also has the HDCD logo as well. Unfortunately it doesn't have a HDCD layer.

The HDCD version strangely enough - has no HDCD logo on it.

[Boots-n-All]

Hi there,

I think it would be a good idea for everyone who posts regarding SACDs to say whether they are referring to the SACD STEREO track or the SACD SURROUND track since there can be some huge variations in quality between the different tracks on the same SACD.

I have only 2 Elton John SACDs

- Goodbye Yellow Brick Road which is brilliant on the surround track but mediocre on the stereo track.

- Captain Fantastic which is mediocre on both tracks, but probably better on the stereo and frankly a waste of money.

I also have the BIA SACD - here only the surround track makes any sense, seeing that it was originally recorded in 16/44.1, and hence the SACD stereo track really can't be much better than the redbook.

And as for all the stereo tracks mentioned above I really do prefer my original vinyls.

Boots.

[tdunster]

Good bye yellow brick road is a shocker and not a good introduction into SACD - Captain Fantastic in SACD isn't much better.. The Japanese mini-LP Cd versions of these albums sound a lot better. Captain Fantastic sounds amazing.

Suggestions:

Billy Joels The Stranger in SACD (2-ch and surround are both brilliant); or

Beatles Love DVD-A (For an amazingif somewhat manufactured surround experience).

Other than that not too much else in pop / rock on DVD-A or SACD is any better than the best RBCD releases of them IMHO.

[Craigandkim]

Other than that not too much else in pop / rock on DVD-A or SACD is any better than the best RBCD releases of them IMHO.

C'mon,

surely you do not mean that?!?!!?

Whether remastered or not I don't believe the CD equivalent comes close to these, whether in 2 channel or surround.

What about:

[Craigandkim]

or these perhaps: Excuse the classical for being outside your parameters

[tdunster]

C'mon,

surely you do not mean that?!?!!?

Whether remastered or not I don't believe the CD equivalent comes close to these, whether in 2 channel or surround.

What about:

Sorry.

T-Rex. I haven't played this for a long time but it didn't make me want to throw away my LP or RBCD versions. For the price I wouldn't be giving it the nod.
Hotel California is great on RBCD (not the later remastered ones though) and great on DVD-A. Yes - add this one to the list for SACD as well.
Vivaldi - I don't own it so won;t comment.
Taylor - I don't own it so won't comment.
Doors - Nothing wrong with the original RBCD's apart from the first album having speed issues. The new ones are compressed and play a bit too loud for my liking. The remixing though is just unforgiveable.
PInk Floyd - THere are many many versions of DSOTM on CD. Many of which were made from 2nd or 3rd generation tapes. Those that were made from the original masters are all very good. Ok I'll agree here as well.
Orbison - I had some of his vinyl and it sounded magnificent. I think it's the tapes not the SACD that make his recordings sound great. The RBCD's all sound good as well. So I'd pass unless they are cheap.
Jackson Browne - Again the RBCD sounds great. not worth the extra money.
Derek and the Dominoes - The RBCD sounds good enough. The SACD is not bad but it hardly makes me want to toss out the RBCD version either.

EDIT: Fleetwood Mac Rumours - DVD-A. Crap album but it does sound rather good on DVD-A.

Obviously it's all about choice but I'd much rather have spent the money I wasted on SACD on a better CD player 0r amp or speakers and forgone the SACD collection altogether.

[aechmea]

Last week I bought my first 2 SACDs and 2 DVD-Audios to see what the fuss was about.

So far I have been unimpressed in the implementation of the technology.

Firstly, you have to turn on the TV to navigate and play the DVDAs. Then when you do, you still only get 48kH sample rates. DVD-Video is sometimes better than that.

As for the SACDs, the digital out is restricted to 44.1kH and you only get that if there is a CD layer. What's the point.

Seems to me that both techniques are cumbersome and crippled.

So if you have a "stereo" system rather than a "5.1 surround" system, and you use "digital out" from your player then I can barely see the point in either DVDA or SACD other than a new mastering effort which may or may not be better than the original.

[Zammo]

Last week I bought my first 2 SACDs and 2So far I have been unimpressed in the implementation of the technology.



As for the SACDs, the digital out is restricted to 44.1kH and you only get that if there is a CD layer. What's the point.

Seems to me that both techniques are cumbersome and crippled.

So if you have a "stereo" system rather than a "5.1 surround" system, and you use "digital out" from your player then I can barely see the point in either DVDA or SACD other than a new mastering effort which may or may not be better than the original.

Yes, you cannot use the digital outs of your source to transmit the SACD (DSD) information in a standard stereo setup. You could have found this out before purchasing the SACD's, though (why didn't you ask someone here???). You MUST use analogue outs for SACD in a two channel setup (i.e., the source must do the DA conversion). There are some multichannel receivers that will accept SACD over HDMI. (Sony have an SACD player and receiver that will allow such a setup)

I don't see the above as "crippled", though. You just need to understand the technology before purchasing it. If you wish to stick to digital out from your universal player, then SACD is not the answer for you.

[Benje]

If you wish to stick to digital out from your universal player, then SACD is not the answer for you.

If you wish to stick to digital out from your universal player, use HDMI and have a receiver that can deal with DSD. I run an OPPO BDP83 player with a denon 3808a receiver connected by HDMI. Life is simple. Sound is good.

I understand that you probably run a stereo system, not multi-channel, so some of the possible benefit is not available (benefit depends upon personal preference - IMO the multi-channel can add great depth and breadth if done well).

If you don't want the dvd-a's and sacd's, I expect you will find someone who will buy them at a reasonable price. Some albums are very valuable, none are cheap (well, not delivered).

Benje

[Zammo]

If you wish to stick to digital out from your universal player, use HDMI and have a receiver that can deal with DSD. I run an OPPO BDP83 player with a denon 3808a receiver connected by HDMI. Life is simple. Sound is good.

I understand that you probably run a stereo system, not multi-channel, so some of the possible benefit is not available (benefit depends upon personal preference - IMO the multi-channel can add great depth and breadth if done well).

If you don't want the dvd-a's and sacd's, I expect you will find someone who will buy them at a reasonable price. Some albums are very valuable, none are cheap (well, not delivered).

Benje

I think aechmea was hoping to see the benefits of two channel SACD without changing receivers (in which case he must use analogue outs). If he were to get a Denon receiver, I believe that Denon has a proprietary connection called Denon Link (similar to the HDMI oriented Sony H.A.T.S) that reduces jitter markedly. Jitter over HDMI is a SERIOUS problem.

[aechmea]

I am actually keen on reducing the number of A/D D/A conversion processes, SPDIF/Toslink/coax conversions, DSD/PCM conversions, digital transmitters and receivers, and analogue interconnects and preamps to an absolute minimum and at the same time getting the highest bit rate possible. This is why I go direct from the S/PDIF coax PCM out socket on the player direct to a coax active digital Xover thence a DAC to analogue power amps. Unfortunately if you try to do this with SACD and DVDA you get something about the same as RedBook CD.

BTW I knew that this was the case before I started, but it is important in life to confirm ideas with actual experimental results, particularly when the price of a few disks is inconsequential in the big scheme of things.

The original poster BusBoy is just beginning his hifi journey and has some nice new stereo equipment, so I was only too happy to pass on to him that he would probably be wasting his time and money with SACD as it is deliberately targetted at analogue 5.1 surround and crippled otherwise.

However, I was very cunning anyway because the DVDA disk sets that I bought contained a Redbook CD; and the SACDs had an included DVDA as well as a CD layer, so I could always play them as CDs through my digital pathway. Nothing lost.

BTW I rather like the King Crimson DVDA 2009 remasters and the Genesis SACD/DVDA sets that I bought, but the only point of reference I would have is the 30-40 year old vinyls which I haven't spun for 20 years, so useful comparisons are impossible.

Cheers.

[Vladimir Freddie]

Look here. Click SACD on the left.

From $12, and free postage.

Thanks for the link Jake! Another source to check out before purchasing

Cheers,

[Vladimir Freddie]

I'm just wondering how much of a difference there is with SACD recording.My Marantz player says it's compatible with SACD's, and i would like to try one to see what the differences are, but i'm finding them anywhere from $50-100+.Which is a lot of money for me just to try something out, especially when i don't recognise any of the artists.

I find SACD excellent, even on my 2 channel system. Of course the quality varies, but to me on my system there are significant improvements over RBCD. Even then if I wasn't into Classical & Jazz I'd find the titles available too limiting to make it worthwhile.

BTW what Marantz player do you have?

Cheers

[Zammo]

The original poster BusBoy is just beginning his hifi journey and has some nice new stereo equipment, so I was only too happy to pass on to him that he would probably be wasting his time and money with SACD as it is deliberately targetted at analogue 5.1 surround and crippled otherwise.

Not entirely true. My SACD player is a pure 2 channel only source that converts DSD directly to analogue. I don't believe it's crippled by this, as I like the sound of well recorded DSD in 2 channel. You definitely need to do your research before considering SACD, though, as it can be expensive (equipment and discs), and the material available is limited.

[aechmea]

I think aechmea was hoping to see the benefits of two channel SACD without changing receivers

Yep. In fact, without a receiver at all. Just after good old fashioned PCM digital stereo at a better bit rate and/or word size than 16/44.1

[Craigandkim]

Last week I bought my first 2 SACDs and 2 DVD-Audios to see what the fuss was about.
So far I have been unimpressed in the implementation of the technology.

Firstly, you have to turn on the TV to navigate and play the DVDAs. Then when you do, you still only get 48kH sample rates. DVD-Video is sometimes better than that.

As for the SACDs, the digital out is restricted to 44.1kH and you only get that if there is a CD layer. What's the point.Seems to me that both techniques are cumbersome and crippled.
So if you have a "stereo" system rather than a "5.1 surround" system, and you use "digital out" from your player then I can barely see the point in either DVDA or SACD other than a new mastering effort which may or may not be better than the original.

Aechmea,

PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, but I don't want others to be misinformed or confused by some of your incorrect statements regarding DVD-A/SACD in your post in this thread.

Refer to Bolded text:

1: no you do not, the disc's are divided into groups which are navigable thru the remote.
2: some disc's may contain 48kHz sampling rates, most contain 96kHz, some contain 88.2kHz, others contain 176.4 or 192kHz (for 2 channel)
3: sacd digital transmission is not restricted to 44.1kHz- this is using your set-up via coax/optical.

Should you wish to hear improved audio using your set-up with minimal conversions or weak links in the signal path - "I am actually keen on reducing the number of A/D D/A conversion processes, SPDIF/Toslink/coax conversions, DSD/PCM conversions, digital transmitters and receivers, and analogue interconnects and preamps to an absolute minimum and at the same time getting the highest bit rate possible." - you would use the 3930's analogue 2 channel output which you would have also selected in the 3930 menu option as the preferred output from SACD/DVD-A.

Regarding digital output from hi-rez sources you have a number of options depending upon your components:
1: HDMI (1.2) full 2 channel & multi-channel digital DSD and LPCM transmission
2: IEEE 1394/Firewire/I-link- DSD and LPCM transmission

and proprietary connections such as

3: Denon link - DSD and LPCM transmission
4: Meridian Smart link and MMHR- LPCM transmission

Some informative links you might want to read regarding both:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

I hope this information has cleared a few things up for you,

Cheers

[Craigandkim]

Sorry.
T-Rex. I haven't played this for a long time but it didn't make me want to throw away my LP or RBCD versions. For the price I wouldn't be giving it the nod.
Hotel California is great on RBCD (not the later remastered ones though) and great on DVD-A. Yes - add this one to the list for SACD as well.
Vivaldi - I don't own it so won;t comment.
Taylor - I don't own it so won't comment.
Doors - Nothing wrong with the original RBCD's apart from the first album having speed issues. The new ones are compressed and play a bit too loud for my liking. The remixing though is just unforgiveable.
PInk Floyd - THere are many many versions of DSOTM on CD. Many of which were made from 2nd or 3rd generation tapes. Those that were made from the original masters are all very good. Ok I'll agree here as well.
Orbison - I had some of his vinyl and it sounded magnificent. I think it's the tapes not the SACD that make his recordings sound great. The RBCD's all sound good as well. So I'd pass unless they are cheap.
Jackson Browne - Again the RBCD sounds great. not worth the extra money.
Derek and the Dominoes - The RBCD sounds good enough. The SACD is not bad but it hardly makes me want to toss out the RBCD version either.

EDIT: Fleetwood Mac Rumours - DVD-A. Crap album but it does sound rather good on DVD-A.

Obviously it's all about choice but I'd much rather have spent the money I wasted on SACD on a better CD player 0r amp or speakers and forgone the SACD collection altogether.

Gotta agree with you about Rumours I waited for years for a remastered CD version to appear and low and behold in 2000/01 along came the dvd-a. Great stuff.
Regarding the money aspect- most of my disc's were all bought upon release and/or mostly from o/s- there has not been one disc that I have paid over $35AUS -except for the doors box set (if you remember this is nearly the same price as CD's were long ago)

Regarding the doors yes the CD's are left well behind when compared to the two or six channel 24/96 dvd-a versions

Regarding Layla- I had the 20bit (Sony sbm) remastered cd version years ago and I thought it sounded crap (the tape hiss was unbearable, vocals were hidden) - the sacd improves upon a crap recording substantially I thought.

Regarding DSOTM- I was suckered, bought both the MFSL and the 94 remaster- got rid of them both when I bought and listened to the SACD. What they have managed to unlock in both fidelity and presentation (multi-channel) is amazing and is right up there with "the stranger".

Regards

[tdunster]

Is everyone here aware that the 2002 ABKco Rolling Stones CD's in Mini-LP format / Covers are actually SACD ?

It's not written on them but rest assured they are SACD.

The ones in jewel cases are NOT SACD regardless of what they have written on them concerning DSD.

So mini-LP, 2002 Rolling Stones releases = SACD.

JB fire saled them a few years back for under $20 a CD and I managed to pick others up through liquidators for less than $10 a disc including doubles and triples like the Singles collection.

How do they sound ? Better than most but don't expect Beatles like recording quality. The Stones were handled by non-industry types who cared and knew little about recording / mastering processes.