2. digital
  3. 1068150027

SACD Opinions: Gimmick? Like it? Don't? Why?

I would like to hear some opinions from those who have (or have heard) an SACD cdp in a quality system. I am considering it, but in the area I live its hard to get a good demonstration of it. So before I go out of my way I'm trying to figure out if I even want to bother. I guess I'm a little skeptical.

What sets it apart from regular cd sonically, if anything?

I know it has multi-channel capabilities, but how about standard 2-channel performance? Is it even intended to be used with a 2-channel system?

Does regular cd performance suffer in any way (generally) due to the presence of sacd capabilities?

If you can't really answer the questions above in an "all else equal" sense, and rather "it depends..." then what does it depend upon?
Thanks for any opinions, Jb3
jb3
imin2u
392 posts
 
All I can say is WOW! The twinkling highs of Beck "Sea Change". The details previously lost and now found in Dylan "Blood On The Tracks". Even the unimprovable Roxy Music "Avalon" has been truly improved
If you have speakers with crystalline highs, jump right in. The "old" high-end ain't nothin' compared to even a cheap version of the "new" high-end. (I only have a 963SA).
And the multi-channel is a BIG plus when done properly.
ben_campbell
1,169 posts
 
Jb3-first of all if I were you,I'd do a search on SACD here on Audiogon,on previous posts.
You will find there various opinions on a lot of the questions you have,you will not find a definitive answer however.
In fact some threads were so heated they were deleted unfortunately destroying some decent debate.

Secondly what is a quality system?
There are those who will say that my £500 DVD/SACD player in my £8k system does not do justice to the format.
Perhaps if you did that search,you would see players in your price range debated.

Thirdly regarding does CD replay suffer,well again there is only debate surrounding that as well,it depends on your perspective and what is important in your price range.

From my perspective I believe the format has been debated to death on this forum and I have nothing new to say on it.
I tried it and got out of it.
If you need more info e-mail me direct but I think the majority of debate is still here in previous posts.

nrchy's avatar
nrchy
2,124 posts
 
I have a Sony SCD 777es which is a two channel player. I have no use for nor any interest in multichannel gear. I'm running Krell for amp and pre-amp if it matters.

I have had the Sony for about a year and have been very impressed with it. If you have seen my comments here before, as a rule I do not like CD for anything other than background NOISE. It is a flawed medium that has been tweaked to sound about as good as it can. SACD is another issue altogether. The sound is within a stones throw of vinyl, which I still consdier the superior medium.

Most of the design flaws inherant in redbook CD playback have been dealt with in the new format. Whether or not it will survive in the long run is anyones guess. It has potential, and if the better companies like; Krell, Levinson, CJ, or whoever take up the format and make better playback systems (unlike the current Krell SACD) the sound will be amazing, but people need to support it in it's infancy or it will never grow up!

CD sounded terrible when it was first foisted upon the listening public, but it is much better now. SACD now is much better than CD, if it gets the support required for capital investment it can grow into something worth having and keeping.
rcprince
3,079 posts
 
Ben is right--check the recent thread SACD vs. Standard CD--Minor Differences? for a debate on the subject. My observations, which are pro-SACD but recognize that the differences are not as night and day as some say, are in that thread. I think the differences become a bit more pronounced as you get into the best players like the EMM Labs, dCS and heavily modified pieces.
sogood51
2,157 posts
 
Never go in over your head with out a life jacket.
More to discover