2. digital
  3. 1037037271

SACD- my intial thoughts....

Having now given my Sony DVP 900 close to 350 hours break in I thought I would report back with my findings.
First off cleary this Sony machine is not at the top end of Sony SACD players but from what I can gather it's fair to consider it a mid-range player.
As an aside it's a great machine in terms of build,picture quality and seems to have a very good transport.
As a CD player it's decent.
From my limited listening experience on SACD I have came to the conclusion that it is a format that has potential but does not exhibit sonic differences that blow you away.
The presentation on SACD is smoother, less edgy but to my ears doesn't offer much more detail.
In some ways it is preferable to CD however I do find on some tracks CD sounds better wether that's because I'm used to CD sound or due to something else isn't clear to me.
The latest Stones CD/SACD hybrids show the effect up clearly,to my ears there really isn't much to choose between the layers in any sonic aspect.
The CD layer has a bit more spikiness or edge.
I have had two friends remark that the CD layer is actually slighty more suited to the Stones sound.
I concede perhaps the Stones aren't the best band to show off sound reproduction but there is the odd really well recorded track where SACD doesn't really come through superior on any aspect of it.
Whilst I have only heard about 25 different artist's on SACD and some dozen or so discs, to me the key to any new format is early on recognising this is clearly an improvement from what I've heard before.
Perhaps my expectations are too high but to me SACD has major problems in surviving and growing.......
ben_campbell
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
Tstart makes a few key points which I ommited to be brief on my original posting.
The lack of new releases (by this I mean new albums just out) is awful I would have though by this stage it would at least a handful every month,no chance.
The Stones one hits the nail on the head,the new remastering is the BEST sound so far heard for the Stones on digital but the actual difference between SACD and CD layers is marginal-so what is to be gained by having an SACD player?
Czbbcl could you please clarify the pure DSD recordings by naming the titles?
I still think the format has potential but..........
bluenose
387 posts
 
Just a comment. This week our local Zellers store had a sony dream system in its flyer...yes, sacd for the masses at zellers.....Is this a sign that sacd is gaining momentum? Also, future shop on the web is cleaned out of sacd players. A friend of mine is having his sony modded....I'll give that a listen when it happens....what we need is a under 1,000 universal machine that does everything well then trickle that down. In the meantime vinyl is lovley....ps, Zellers here in Canada is like your K-mart in the states.
brianmgrarcom
1,317 posts
 
Maybe I am a minority, but I am not dissatisfied with CD; we all have a few wonderfully recorded CD’s, if we could just get the industry to up their standards on recording as some already do, this would make me happy. I have said many times that I do not doubt to potential of new formats being better than CD, they should be able to do better by now.

SACD has been out for 3+ years now and progress is slow going, there are not a lot of players and software selections are few, IMO. I owned the SCD-1 for a short time and there was only one SACD title being produced that I wanted; I purchased two SACD titles that I would not of chosen had I not wanted to try SACD. As with some experiences others have found, neither of my two choices set any new standard for me, this is not saying there are not better choices. I chose to sell the SCD-1, I was not a big fan of the player, and purchased a very good CD player that lets me enjoy all my software that I have now and that is available.

I think Tsrart brings up a good question.

Many have invested good money into CD, both hardware and software and some people wonder why others are not that excited about the new format? We all tweak our systems the best we can to get the most from them; we are to buy a player that plays the majority of your software ok and a few (a very few) excellent, rather buy (or keep) a player that plays our software it’s best.

This is irrelevant, but I feel the new formats were not brought about in hopes of making a superior sounding format, but rather one where protection could be encrypted and incorporate multi-channel.

Bluenose, that may be a good sign, for SACD. Where I live, when I asked retailers if they carried SACD’s, I got that strange stare and then the would slowly repeat back, S.A.C.D, what is that?
czbbcl's avatar
czbbcl
1,752 posts
 
Ben

Go to www.elusivedisc.com and puruse their web site under SACD/DSD there is a heading titled pure dsd.

Chuck
tbadder
103 posts
 
I went the middle route and purchased the Sony 9000ES. Then I sent it off to Modwright for 1600 bucks worth of upgrades. The SACD is really, really, good. Especially in that it's so not-fatiguing (I can listen up to 12 hours at a time, never more than 2 or 3 with redbook). As a Redbook player it's better than my BC DAC2 because of the Superclock upgrade and all the Bybee filters (5 in all). If Sony/Columbia released everything in hybrid disc it would take all of two years to dominate the market. And why shouldn't hybrids be the new standard? Why does one format have to win out?
More to discover