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
rsbeck
887 posts
 
SACD sounds more natural -- the differences between CD and
SACD are subtle, but profound.
thedautch
329 posts
 
Stuart--I too have the 9000ES, and it's important to remember that this particular player isn't exactly a godsend on redbook. In other words, there are other SACD players that provide a less "flat" presentation on CD, and I one day hope to be able to upgrade to one of them. SACD players have improved by meaningful strides, especially with redbook presentation, with each passing generation.
czbbcl's avatar
czbbcl
1,752 posts
 
SACD is for real no gimmicks.
jayctoy's avatar
jayctoy
4,248 posts
 
Of course there is a big differrence on SACD,
the SACD is way much better than redbook,I
have the sony 9000es signature mode with tube
output,SACD shines on this player,its true
also if the recording are bad,then its bad,
what can you do, play it on the boombox.
my peso opimion.
tonyp54
130 posts
 
Jb3, if you decide to go high resolution, do yourself a favor and get a universal player that can handle both SACD and DVD-A so you won't be a victim of the format war when it finally ends.
More to discover