2. digital
  3. 1241473922

How much SACD do I need?

I've acquired a good number of hybrid CD/SACD disks and would love to listen to the SACD layer. Here's my situation, I have a CD player with which I'm very happy, works well in my system, and will keep (Linn Majik). I would think that some amount of the cost of higher end SACD players goes into getting decent redbook CD playback. What do I need to get quality SACD playback (two-channel)? That is, I don't want to sink a lot of money into reproducing redbook CD playback (already got that). But don't want to spend so little that SACD's end up sounding inferior to my CD player. Would something like a Marantz 8003 or Sony 5400 work? i.e. would a Marantz 8003 player the SACD layer do better than the Majik playing the CD layer? Would appreciate any thoughts and guidance. Tks.

John
john_adams_sunnyvale
batmobile
5 posts
 
A medium price SACD player like the Marantz SA 7003 or SA 8003 (about US$600-900) will vastly outperform ANY CD player on the market.

CD is a low-rez format. You can buy expensive CD players that cost $10000 ... but however much you pay, it is always limited to low-resolution 16 bit 44 kHz sound. Can't escape that. Can't make quality out of thin air. That's why serious audiophile companies like Mark Levinson and Krell no longer sell CD players - they've moved to SACD. Similarly, Sony, Marantz and Yamaha basically no longer sell standalone CD players - they are moving their entire line-ups to SACD.

CD as an audiophile concept is finished. The mass market is going downloads. Audiophile market is going hi-rez. Smell the flowers.
audiotomb's avatar
audiotomb
1,112 posts
 
the flowers everywhere but around the batmobile ;-)
are either in vinyl or blu ray

will the high res companies deliver quality blu ray discs?

neil young is better his early farm on it
audioholik
90 posts
 
blu-ray discs are not backwards compatible, forget it!

if a customer buys Neil Young disc, and then he or she will find out that it can't be played in a car for example the disc will be returned to the store!
jph_22
2 posts
 
CD must be more than "low-rez" if reviewers are putting it on equal grounds with (true) hi-rez !! This would include John Atkinson's (recent) review of Meridian's 808.2 CD player.

Let's not forget that (audiophile) recording labels record at *20 bits* along with higher-than-44 kHz sampling rates since the early 1990's. This helped overcome the production losses which occured when recording right at 16. By this, I mean the "headroom" needed for signal processing. Engineers also use dither to remove the low-level quantization noise, if present, for the consumer copy.

I don't know which of these two techniques is more effective - but 16 bits by itself captures 25db more dynamic range than a symphony orchestra produces. Most audiophiles don't know this...or for that matter, how dither works......
audioholik
90 posts
 
"CD must be more than "low-rez"

unfortunately CD is low-rez, nothing less nothing more

just look at available audio formats

16-bit/44,1kHz
20-bit/44,1kHz
24-bit/48kHz
24-bit/88,2kHz
24-bit/96kHz
24-bit/176,4kHz
24-bit/192kHz
DSD 2,8MHz
More to discover