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
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.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
I am on my second universal player, Denon 2900 following a Pioneer DV45A.

With the Pioneer, both SACD and DVD-A were superior to CD, with the caution that all media are strongly impacted by the audio quality of the particular disc. However, I found that SACD was a disapointment after all the hype from Sony. DVD-A seemed better.

With the Denon, SACD matches DVD-A within the variable sonics from disc to disc. It isn't any better.

From this I conclude that SACD technology does not lend itself to good implementation in a low cost player (compared to DVD-A) and this does not bode well for the survival of the format in competition with DVD-A.
bomarc
501 posts
 
It depends, more than anything else, on the quality of the remastering job. Some of them have been great, and if you want to hear the best versions of some classic recordings, you've got to have an SACD player.
jwmazur
191 posts
 
I thought it was good, but not spectacular when I first heard it. Not enough of a difference to see what the hubbub was all about. Your "Life Jacket" in this is to either start with the stock player and have it modded and hot rodded or, just buy one that way. The Redbook soundstage sounds self-contained where the SACD modded sounds like your walls don't exist. Mind you though, there are some spectacular Redbook recordings that somehow manage to get the same result, Maplesahde being an example.
More to discover