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
dturbatie272
6 posts
 
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.
rlb61
789 posts
 
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.
bluefin
111 posts
 
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.
rlb61
789 posts
 
Bluefin,

Well, there's the rub. The SACDs I've heard (on an SCD-1) were reissues of older titles. Quite frankly, I've yet to hear any "pure" DSD recorded stuff. Perhaps those will sound better, although the titles don't thrill me. And, I'm not about to replace my entire music library with SACD of titles I already have if they generally sound as fatiguing as they do.

This may be the key to the ultimate failure of SACD and DVD. If the new mediums only sound great on music recorded specifically for them (rather than reissues), why would anyone choose them? Personally, I find that a well-remastered redbook title usually sounds fabulous and beats the pants over SACD reissues. In this instance, the well-cooked, raw fish wins.
gofaststang
32 posts
 
I do not have a SACD player, but have bought several hybrid discs for comparison at a local store. They have a Sony 999ES in a room with Krell/B&W equipment. The sales person was intrigued by SACD and had been trying to hear a difference. All he had was a Stones SACD and he could not hear much improvement between the layers.

I played an original DSD disc on this system from APO by "Wild Child Butler" titled Sho' Nuff. All it took was 10 seconds and the SACD was obviously superior to the CD layer. Smoother, more dynamic, bigger soundstange. No contest.

I was not very familiar with the setup and would probably hear more difference on my home system. But I've heard enough to be convinced that SACD is clearly superior. So is the salesman. He placed an order for a new Krell player. If you do not hear the difference, please consider that it may be due to an older recording or the associated equipment.

I am debating whether to buy a SACD player, like an upper end Sony, and have it modified, and sell my Theta. Or buy a mid-range Sony (like the 9000ES) to use as a transport for the Theta and accept lower quality SACD sound for now. I do not want to go backward in CD sound and am not ready to spend big bucks for a truly top end player.

Any thoughts on this decision are welcome.

I enjoy the discussion on this thread and wish you all happy listening.
More to discover