HDCD or SACD?

Terrax · October 2003

I would like to tap into the vast experience I know that exsists here.

For 2 channel audio, which would you prefer? Which do you feel has more to offer?

F1nut · October 2003

SACD hands down! Much, much better sound.

HDCD has all but fallen by the wayside.

HBombToo · October 2003

hdcd is retired to the cave

Twin

dorokusai · October 2003

SACD/DVD-A owners, sleep on old discarded HDCD discs. I grind them up and feed them to my neighbors dogs.

Terrax · October 2003

doro,

I grind them up and feed them to my neighbors dogs.

Ouch....... hehe

Thanks guys, for your replys. I value you guys opinions. I just wanted to get some input for future investments in the 2 channel area.

hoosier21 · October 2003

Would like to take all those nasty HDCD's off your hands, send them to me.

steveinaz · October 2003

Originally posted by hoosier21
Would like to take all those nasty HDCD's off your hands, send them to me.

I'll second that! HDCD has gone to the cave? huh? HDCD offers 2-channel sound equal to SACD, IMO; and HDCD players reproduce redbook CD's extremely well--something SACD machines haven't pulled-off yet. Finally, HDCD encoded CD's sound beautiful on standard (non-HDCD) Redbook CD Players!

Quote me on this: "SACD/DVD-A will go the way of the DAT machine." You saw it here first. Not that I have anything against the formats---it's just the way they were both marketed, too slow on software, and no technical innovations to improve upon the millions of Redbook CD's that consumers have already purchased.

Let me explain myself; the "timing" is all wrong for SACD and DVD-A, just as it was for DAT. DAT was a wonderful idea, unfortunately, it appeared just after CD's, so there was no market for it. You could lay CD tracks down on a hi-fi VCR and get very close to the same results--albeit, not digitally. Your average consumer is tired of re-buying their computers, software, music, and movies everytime the "industry" decides to earn their money and create something notable. Now, right on the heels of every consumer re-buying their movie libraries (DVD), SACD and DVD-A comes out---sheesh; now I've got to re-buy my music library??!! Psychology is another aspect; look at your "average consumer." They aren't "audiophile geeks" like we are; and I'd bet my next months pay check that the average consumer thinks that you have to have a surround system to even play SACD and DVD-A, of course audiophiles know better--but we are the serious minority in this age of "ipods" "mp3's" and downloaded (dare I say...) music.

Do you see where I'm going with this? SACD/DVD-A FANTASTIC ideas and innovations---but the timing is all wrong.

I wouldn't put that final nail in HDCDs' coffin yet.

dcarlson · October 2003

I have more important places to spend audio dollars on, so, I'm holding off on SACDs for a very long time. I already have a couple of hybrids (Stones, Floyd). Get yourself a quality cd player and you should be fine. I just can't justify an SACD player for the amount of titles out there and the price of the players.

As for HDCD, my cd player decodes them, they do sound better than redbook cds and I never go out looking for them. When I pop a cd in my CD player and the HDCD light turns on it's a definite bonus.

polkatese · October 2003

Steve,
I am into hirez format and have play all of these formats. One of the strong supporters of HDCD format is Heads Up label. Their recording quality is top notch. I have to disagree with you, as far as which format will survive the longest. I have come to the conclusion that SACD/Hybrid will have the staying power, followed by DVD-A, and lastly HDCD. A couple data points to back my statement:

1. The profileration and adequate supply of *affordable* universal players.

2. More and more titles come out on Hybrid/SACD multi-channel format, and its downward pricing trend. Hybrid layer is very comparable to HDCD layer, SACD is a notch better than HDCD.

3. I don't believe Microsoft has any real intention to actually spend marketing dough on HDCD format.

4. Several major labels have clearly made the strategic decision of investing in SACD/Hybrid format.

I, personally enjoy all format, regardless of what's going to be the surviving format. But, in case someone want to direct his investment dollar on gear to a specific format, no one can go wrong going with universal player. However, it would be a mistake to invest on a HDCD only player at this point.

For reference, I have Denon DVD-3800 for HDCD and DVD-A, and Philips SACD-1000 for SACD. My collections are 60% SACD, 30% DVD-A, and 10% HDCD (these are exclusively the Hi-rez format only, in addition to about 500 RBCD). Given the availability of RBCD and SACD/Hybrid format for a given album, I would pick SACD/Hybrid format every time. It makes a lot of sense since the price diff. is only a buck in most cases.

shack · October 2003

Originally posted by steveinaz
and HDCD players reproduce redbook CD's extremely well--something SACD machines haven't pulled-off yet.

I disagree! I know from listening and comparing the Sony SCD-C555ES to a Rega Planet 2000 that the Sony's redbook is every bit as good (if not better) than than the Rega which is considered to be an excellent redbook player. My SCD-C222ES and SCD-CE775 both do very nice jobs on redbook. I've also listened to a Rotel RCD-991 and even though I could not do a direct comparison for my ears the Sony SACD machines are as good. I would be willing to bet that F-1 will concur on the redbook performance of the SCD-XA777ES. If you are talking about the all-in-one DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-A players then that may be a true statement...but many SACD/CD only players are excellent machines both in SACD and redbook.

steveinaz · October 2003

I understand and agree with many of the points you make, however "marketing" is where the problems lie ahead for SACD and DVD-A.

Audiophiles like you and I (and the rest on this board) will seek out and purchase "audiophile" recordings and probably even re-buy (relunctantly) most of our music libraries, because we're perfectionists about our music/systems. But again, for anything to be successful, it has to appeal to the masses.

I think 2 things might save the hi-rez formats; Companies need to get software on the shelves...YESTERDAY. And as you stated, prices need to continue to drop on the players.

F1nut · October 2003

I concur, redbook playback is superb on all the SACD players I've listened to.

steveinaz · October 2003

I stand corrected on the Sony SCD-C555ES, as I have seen the review on this and it clearly stated that it's Redbook playback was very good. But from the reviews I've seen, this player is the exception--not the rule.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one; I saw no less than 3 Stereophile reviewed SACD machines get knocked-down from an "A" to a "B" rating because of their redbook CD playback.

Now I ask you, if 80% of your music is redbook, wouldn't you prefer a machine optimized for redbook playback?

I know my next CD Player (Santa, you listening?) will be one of the following:

1. Rega Planet 2000...$895
2. Music Hall MMF CD-25 (HDCD) (probably this one)....$535
3. C.E.C. CD-3200...$499

Don't get me wrong, I like the quality brought by SACD/DVD-A, but I don't see them succeeding in the market-place.

shack · October 2003

Originally posted by steveinaz
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one; I saw no less than 3 Stereophile reviewed SACD machines get knocked-down from an "A" to a "B" rating because of their redbook CD playback.

How many SACD players have you actually listened to for redbook or otherwise? This is not a knock just a question. I have never bought any piece of gear based on any "audio mag" recomendation. The mags and e-zines are a good source to keep up with what is out there but....they are business concerns and they do have adgendas...but I digress. Stereophile is fine...but one days "A" is next days "B" and then back again. There are two things I look for whenever I travel (which is quite a bit). A good golf course and a good AV/Stereo shop. I try to spend time listening to nice gear that I may never own but it is fun to demo. I've listened to a Linn Sondek CD12 set up with all the right gear and it was wonderful (and for $20M it should be). I've also had the chance to listen to the Sony SCD-1 (but only SACD material so I can't comment on it's redbook performance - but people that have say it is quite good).

Now I ask you, if 80% of your music is redbook, wouldn't you prefer a machine optimized for redbook playback?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree...but in my limited (but somewhat varied) experience I find most of the "good" SACD players have excellent redbook performance. Given that conclusion I would pick the Sony SCD-C555ES or the SCD-XA777ES over any of the players you have listed (don't get me wrong - I know the Rega is a nice player and I'm sure the others are too) because they would give me the best of BOTH worlds!

JMO

steveinaz · October 2003

What the Stereophile ratings do, is confirm to a degree that SACD machines are usually (not always) a compromise if your running redbook cd's thru them.

Do what you want, it's your dime. But I'm waiting it out until I see SACD/DVD-A firmly planted in the market.

I agree, if Terry is looking for a good machine to experience SACD that will still do justice to his redbook collection, and doesn't want to sell the farm to afford it, the SCD-C555ES would be my pick. But Terry asked for opinions on the future of different formats, and I gave him mine.

polkatese · October 2003

Originally posted by steveinaz
But I'm waiting it out until I see SACD/DVD-A firmly planted in the market.

your wait is over, Steve...check out Denon DVD-5900 or Marantz DV8400. Two of the solid machine out there, now, I am waiting for actual users feedback, more on its reliability than anything else.

F1nut · October 2003

I did a quick scan of Stereophile's recommended list and only saw one mention of HDCD, a Toshiba SD-9200. I did a search for HDCD on their website, one quick mention since 2001 and that was for a recording company that also stated they were going into SACD.

This was taken from CEA's top 5 list of things coming up in the next year:

"And last, but certainly not least to audiophiles, is high-resolution audio in the form of SACD and DVD-Audio. The CEA reports that the new high-rez formats are "seeing growth similar to that of the compact disc, and are likely to grow even faster as the technology becomes more innovative in the coming years."

I do believe that if you're seeking the best from CD's you have to buy a high quality CD only player or a high quality SACD/CD player. The cheaper universal SACD/CD/DVD players are compromises at best. I also believe hybrid SACD is here to stay, not so sure about DVD-A. That camp reports a better technology, but none of the software comes close to supporting it. Plus they can't work out their problems in developing a hybrid disc.

Terrax · October 2003

Thank you all, for very insightful replys. As I stated in another post here somewhere, I am formulating a plan to have a Denon 5900 in house in the next few months. And as it turns out I would have what seems the best of all three worlds audio wise with the 5900. But it is interesting to hear all the opinions regarding these formats. Nice discussion.

Terry

dorokusai · October 2003

I own the Sony 555ES, and another Sony 5 disc changer, non-ES. I did A/B demos, and there was a difference in Redbook playback. Certainly that doesn't prove anothing but that instance, but thought I would offer that detail.

Internally there are quite a few differences, but who gives a crap, it sounded better, is better...so the old one is boxed up.

GO SACD!

What about a SAC8? Like Super Audio 8 Track player? That would be sweet!

Wardsweb · November 2003

I just bought a new CD and opted to not get the SACD version. I auditioned the SACD and while it does give you some more, it's at a cost. For me, the additional bang for the buck wasn't there.

shack · November 2003

So is the Shanling CD T-100 what you purchased?

tonyv1 · November 2003

Why compromise your CD performance when getting a SACD player? I have a Rotel RCD-951 connected to a MSB DAC III w/ upsampling for playing my CDs and a Sony DVP-NS500V (stereo only setup) for playing my SACDs. I might some day connect the SACD player to the DAC. I know people who have two turntable setups, one for 33/45 LPs and the other for 78 LPs. There are turntables with more than one tonearm for this purpose or for using different cartridges with certain types of music. So why limit yourself only to one player. I've got a Nakamichi tape deck just gathering dust on my rack that gets play rarely, BUT I'll never part with it.

gmorris · November 2003

I don't mean to be the only one dumb enough to ask this, but what do you all mean by "Redbook" CD's? I've figured this means just regular, run of the mill CD's, but what is Redbook? I've never heard of that before reading it in this (incredibly well written) thread.

Wardsweb · November 2003

Yes it is and I must say the difference between the tube output and the solid state output is not suttle. Also, not that I pay a lot of creedance to reviews, but the 100 won out over the 200 by most reviewers. For me it was the better deal. I still get a fantastic source and at a better price. Upgrading the output tubes to some NOS WE 396As took it to the next level.

dorokusai · November 2003

GMorris - Redbook is a standard of the way audio is written to a disc. RB's carry a 44.1 sampling rate, regardless of the original master. RB = Regular discs, just like you thought.

gmorris · November 2003

dorokusai, thanks for the answer.

Any idea as to what or why the term Redbook is used?

dorokusai · November 2003

I do not know, have to defer that one to the group

tonyv1 · November 2003

Redbook history:

Red Book

The Red Book is the 1980 document that provides the specifications for the standard compact disc (CD) developed by Sony and Philips. According to legend, the document was in a binder with red covers, originating the tradition for subsequent adaptations of CD specifications to be referred to as variously colored books. The Red Book described the CD's physical specifications, such as the tracks, sector and block layout, coding, and sampling. Sony and Philips referred to the discs as CD-DA (digital audio), defined as a content medium for audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1KHz) and in a range of 65,536 possible values (16 bits).

dorokusai · November 2003

You can't get a better explanation that that one

HDCD or SACD?

Comments