SACD- my intial thoughts....

My wife and I first heard a SACD while auditioning some Vandersteen 2ce at a local high-end, single owner shop back in 2000. It was an intimate setting as there was only one other person in the shop and the phone wasn't ringing! He had some CD's for us to browse while he hooked up the speakers. It was all to be hooked up to a McCormack amp and preamp (model?) We chose Natalie Merchant's Tiger Lilly - the NON-SACD version - as I was very familiar with the recording on my home system. The CD player he used was the Sony SCD-1. Natalie sounded fantastic! The soundstage at the end of "Carnival" sounded like I was standing on a sidewalk in Central Park - very impressive. I wasn't sure if this was the player, speaker, associated equipment or all of the above. I asked a couple of questions about the player and he said it was a Sony - their new "SACD" player. I asked if what we just heard was an SACD and he said no although he had an SACD sampler disc he could bring out. For grins he replaced the Sony with Parasound's flagship CD player at the time (don't rememer the model but was selling for around $1900). I currently own a Parasound DAC and have owned other Parasound equipment in the past. Parasound is capable of making excellent equipment IMO. Anyway, I auditioned "Carnival" one more time over the same system only with the Parasound in place of the Sony. There was something missing with the Parasound, a realism and simbilance that the Sony did very well. The Parasound, while sounding very good, did not convey the realism of the Sony. The soundstage was lush with the Sony and very layered with a clarity that was remarkable. This is just comparing the redbook source! Needless to say I was truly able to see the impact of the machine on the whole system. I was really taken with the Sony while the sound with the Parasound in the chain sounded close to my current home system. When John brought out the SACD sample CD, I was ready to hear it - even my wife was excited! He played only one track from it (I don't remember the title) but there was a drummer right in front of me (sonically) using a brush on the cymbals. It sounded scary REAL. The prices I have seen these sell for recently (used) are right in line with what the Parasound was retailing for 2 years ago! I wish I had the $$$ for one, even at today's prices! :-( BTW: My wife loved every second of our visit - a testament to the equipment and the kind of shop and owner where this can be done! Tony

I just heard "kind of blue" on SACD , then redbook on the musical fidelity trivista. I have been very curioius for a long time... The SACD sounded more "detailed" and multilayered, but also more fractured, and less like music, kind of like a recording where you can hear the splices. I was missing the flow and organicism of the performance. When we put the redbook in, it was such a relief. It just sounded more like music.

Hi Ben

I share your experience 100%. I have not compared the CD layer with the SACD layer, instead I have used a red book CD and compared to the equivalent SACD. I think have a decent reproduction chain with Adcom 750 pre Mark Levinson PA (200+200) and Martin Logan ReQuest(6'tall). Kimber is my standard cable. The front end is the recently released Philips SA963 which has 192Khz oversampling on CD. My previous CD player was the Meridian 500/566 combo which now plays paper weight. The most noticeable difference between the two standard is more musicality, will it blow off your socks?
No, do not think so. My experience is sattle details here and there and a bit expanded frequency range. As said the improvement I enjoyed most is the musicality and lack of edgy and too sharp not natural reproduction that some time effects CD. But is it the CD standard or the mastering and recording??? Why some CDs sound wonderful and other so harsh and anything but musical?

Bottomm line is, I do not think the general population will spend $30,000 to bring out the small enhancement of the SACD standard.

I agree with Buxter66. I've heard SACD and find it to be overly detailed to the point of fatigue. Sometimes, too much of a good thing is bad.

I much prefer listening to CDs on my MF Nu-Vista CD player. The sound is simply glorious.

If the gear can't handle the details of a SACD, it can't handle a good redbook player either. A SACD DAC at higher sampling rate is easier to design being smooth sounding.
If you put your Nu-Vista on the same set-up, I think, it will not sound as good as in your set up either.

Details will not annoy anybody's ear, it is the edgy sound somewhere caused by bad source, IC's, or amplification. With the same $$ with Nu-Vista, those SACD players should be good enough and I don't think they are the source for edgy details. Unless you tell me that you try to use a low end SACD player to compare with your Nu-Vista.

Also get a SACD recorded recently, not some reissued from 10 or 20 years ago. The mother tape is already old, your CD was coded when the mother tape was fresh. You are comparing a raw fish sashimi with a well cooked old fish.
If the fish is too old, a better wasabi can't save it.