SACD vs Redbook impressions...

steveinaz

Equipment used:

SACD: Denon DVD-2910 via Kimber Hero
Redbook CD: CEC CD-3300 transport w/Benchmark DAC1 via Toslink

I have only 1 SACD, Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon, so I used this along with the 24 bit remastered Redbook version to test with. I started both players on track 1, so I could switch between them via my preamp remote.

I could not level match, and this was a problem because the SACD was notably louder than the Redbook at a given preamp level. I attempted as best I could to quickly lower and raise the volume upon switching--but it was difficult.

The SACD came off as sounding a bit softer overall, yet a touch deeper in the bass. Midrange differences were very noticeable as the midrange was more forward through the SACD--almost irratatingly so. I did detect what appeared to be better treble in that cymbals had a more lifelike sound to them--but this was fairly subtle. The forwardness of the midrange made it difficult to hear fine differences however. Probably not a fair comparison using a Denon universal player against a $1600 redbook front-end.

Conclusions? I'm a little disappointed. Again, I think the Denon was probably not up to the task, and a dedicated SACD player would have faired much better. I was really put-off by the midrange; it sounded contrived and over-done. When I would switch between inputs it was like sliding the 3kHz slider on an equalizer up & down---that noticable...strange I thought. Bottom line, I preferred the redbook 24bit remaster thru my CEC/Benchmark combo over the SACD thru the Denon.

Don't get me wrong, the SACD sounded good. It had a very smooth, easy way about it that really got you into the music, and thinking less about the equipment. I just didn't hear enough differences and/or improvements to justify replacing a redbook library---

heiney9

Just what I’ve been saying. While the 2910 is no slouch and certainly isn’t an entry level player you need to spend some big bucks on a no compromise SACD to beat out a stellar redbook set-up. Many people on here don’t want to believe that or perhaps aren’t as anal as I am about the nuances of recordings. If you are going to go SACD you need to go all the way. There is nothing wrong with redbook if you know how to assemble a proper source. SACD on a budget is certainly worth entertaining if A) you don’t already have a great redbook player. you understand a great redbook set-up will beat it most times.

EDIT: typo on Denon model # thanks for pointing it out RT1

reeltrouble1

Denon 2900 and 2910 are different machines and price points. The 2900 was replaced by the 3910 in the line, there is no 3900.

Glad you gave it a try Steve, pretty much agree. I ended up going with a player that could do both extremely well, not cheap but well, its just how I did it. I would never replace my redbook library, I am doing all the sources right now and pretty much loving audio life.

RT1

Dennis Gardner

I know you can't A/B compare, but how does the Denon compare CD to SACD on those same tracks?

I find that it is disc dependent on playback of both on my Marantz 8260. Even on a dual disc, the mastering of the two tracks may have been done by separate engineers. There simply isn't enough, difference between the two formats in general for most listeners to care about.

I-SIG

Makes me feel better about my Rotel/Kimber/Bel Canto front end. I know several have said the Oppo sounds pretty good, but I think I may hold off on any serious SACD ventures.

Thanks, Steve.

Wes

shack

I respect what you have heard and attribute much to the quality of your current setup. It would be interesting to see if a SACD player equal to your current rig would fare better.

On the other hand, I am aware that your setup is 2 channel only, and that being the case, DSOTM is not the SACD I would use to audition the format. SACD is like anything else, the result is only as good as the input. DSOTM was a showcase for multichannel SACD. I have seen several opinions that feel the redbook layer of the disc may be as good, if not better than the stereo SACD layer. The bass is thought to be a bit bloated and the instruments harsh and somewhat "pinched" on the stereo layer of the SACD. (sounds a little like what you've reported) A review I read felt the 2 channel SACD came from a different master than the quad LP which in the reviewer's mind was the pinnacle for the album. He felt the multi-channel SACD layer was definitely remastered from the original muti-channel tapes. DSOTM (as I have often stated on the forum) is the ONLY SACD that I prefer in MC vs stereo. The stereo layer is not bad per se, just no where near as good as the MC layer IMO. This is not the case with any other SACD I've listened to. If your remastered CD was remixed from the better master tapes and was mixed for optimal stereo reproduction, it does not suprise me at all that it will sound better to you. Add the quality of your gear and the result is probably spot on.

You might try the redbook layer of the SACD on your CEC and see how it compares. I am not one to run out and get SACDs of every album I like. In some cases I have purchased SACD copies of a redbook CD that I own and have been blown away by the difference and find they sound better than even a good vinyl copy. On occasion I've been disappointed that the SACD isn't that much better.

Good for you for giving hi-Rez a shot. I don't know that I would come to my final conclusion based on one SACD. Try a couple more and maybe even "borrow" a better quality SACD player. I know you quest for the best sound possible and SACD CAN lead to that. Take it from someone that is not trying to get that last bit of quality sound from his rig (I'm more of a just "enjoy the music" type) but I am a fan of SACD and find it to be a very good format (most of the time). If you never buy another SACD, chances are you will be content with your rig. If you happen across that ONE that blows you away...well...

Enjoy the music!

schwarcw

Nice writeup Steve, interesting perspective. I agree that the DSOTM is probably not the best SACD to do an A/B comparison. Like anything, the better the equipment, the more you'll notice a difference. Your system would bring out the best of SACD if you had a mid to low hi end SACD player. The hybrid disks are going to keep SACD around a while. SACD new releases and players continue to be produced. It's not growing like Sony and many audio enthusiasts would probably like. But I think that's a function of our I-Pod generation's choice of music. Hi end audio is a slow growth industry. I think this generation will change as they mature and maybe a new and hopefully better hi rez format will evolve.

DarqueKnight

schwarcw wrote:

...maybe a new and hopefully better hi rez format will evolve.

Another format? Please, not in my lifetime.:mad:

venomclan

Nice write up Steve. I would be curious to know how the 2910 would sound on redbook as a transport with the Dac1. You can then test each units ability as a transport only. If there is a discernable difference from the CEC, that can be a wider margin as to why the Denon underperformed.

I use my 2900 with the Bel Canto Dac 1.1 and I think I prefer that to my Marantz cd player as a transport. I have never tried SACD though.
Venom

pblanc

I don't have a huge collection of SACD (about 50) but like shack, I find that the difference in SQ between the SACD/Redbook version or the Redbook layer of a hybrid CD varies a lot depending on the disk. In some cases, there is no great advantage to the SACD version. In other cases, the difference to me is rather stunning. In general, I have preferred SACDs recorded in stereo rather than multichannel. I suspect that some people's dissapointment with SACD is because of the particular disk(s) they auditioned, or the known limitations of bass management that most SACD players have. I have used
small, stereo subwoofers hooked in line with my LSi15s so I am not dependent on the subwoofer channel of the SACD player to provide bass and this works for me.

steveinaz

Dennis: I was able to A/B, but had a bit of a level match problem. I had both the SACD verision, and a seperate Redbook 24bit remaster of DSOTM for comparison.

Shackster: The DSOTM SACD I bought has no redbook layer.

Venom: I have tested the 2910 thru the DAC1, although it worked very well, the CEC was better as a transport overall.

I agree that 1 SACD is not enough to make a sweeping judgement call, I guess I was just expecting to be "wowed" and I wasn't. Aside from the midrange anomaly, the differences between the 2 were less than I've heard with a good cable upgrade. Also agree that the 2910 was probably not enough SACD player to make a fair comparison.

shack

steveinaz wrote:

Shackster: The DSOTM SACD I bought has no redbook layer.

Steve, something doesn't add up. As far as I know, DSOTM was ONLY issued in hybrid form by EMI. I've checked EMI records website, and pinkfloyd.com and there is no mention of any issue that is not hybrid. Is yours listed as multichannel and stereo SACD?

steveinaz

I'll have to check it again tonight. I'll try to play it in my CEC. It has no mention of being hybrid and only says SACD on the label.

reeltrouble1

Could it have been a Russki booter??? I have the one Shack has, hybrid, and dont have that mid-range pump you are hearing, the disc sounds good both ways to me, for you fans I enjoy Roger Waters in the Flesh, for SACD pink floyd stuff more than DSOTM, I know a bit of sacralige for Floyd purists.

RT1

SLOCOOKN

reeltrouble1 wrote:

Could it have been a Russki booter??? I have the one Shack has, hybrid, and dont have that mid-range pump you are hearing, the disc sounds good both ways to me, for you fans I enjoy Roger Waters in the Flesh, for SACD pink floyd stuff more than DSOTM, I know a bit of sacralige for Floyd purists.

RT1

How about Roger Waters RADIO K.A.O.S...I love that album!

snow

reeltrouble1 wrote:

Could it have been a Russki booter??? I have the one Shack has, hybrid, and dont have that mid-range pump you are hearing, the disc sounds good both ways to me, for you fans I enjoy Roger Waters in the Flesh, for SACD pink floyd stuff more than DSOTM, I know a bit of sacralige for Floyd purists.

RT1

AGREED. ROGER WATERS IN THE FLESH IS MY FAVORITE OF THE PINK FLOYD RELATED MATERIAL. IT IS AVALIABLE ON DVD CD AND SACD AND HAS A TOTAL OF 24 LIVE TRACKS, WHICH MAKE IT A BARGIAN IN MY MIND. DELICATE SOUNDS OF THUNDER IS NEXT. FOLLOWED BY PULSE. THEN DSOTM. REGARDS SNOW

organ

Thanks for posting your impressions, Steve.
I tried SACD vs redbook too but my universal dvd/sacd/dvd-a player just didn't cut it for me. The same music sounded better on my cd player.
Makes me wonder how much one have to spend on a dedicated player to hear a substantial improvement over rebook.

hearingimpared

>>>>>>>>just subscribing to this thread as I want to read it tomorrow . . . going to bed, feeling really sick.

steveinaz

Damn, I forgot to check that SACD to see if it was hybrid...

reeltrouble1

This thread is going places, well at least I think its an issue to sink your teeth into.

Its just so subjective in the end, yes the science of an SACD says thousands of more samples and millions of more quantization levels resulting in a much decreased reliance on the players interpolaters. Then the issues of the signal path, power supplies, capacitors, resistors, remotes, and so on for each machine to reach that potential.

After all you put the disc in the player sit down and have an experience, maybe just a few minutes or hours away from things, but your time to forget everything and live in that moment.

As far as a dollar amount, well I have a couple of universal players in the racks which had retail price points in excess of 1,000.00, when they were new, in my rooms I have found these players provide a better experience with sacd discs than my hi-end source does with redbook, each rack is different and the gaps in between the formats are different and unique to each rack.

I was actually looking for Redbook source when I bought the MF player as I was pretty happy with the high resolution capabilites of my players but not with the Redbook playback. The MF with the gear in the Shed is great with both SACD and Redbook. That said, there is a significant difference between the two formats when A-B'd on that machine, with the SACD taking the prize, one caveat, it has to be there on the disc or it will sound like, well, it wont sound good.

RT1

RT1

hearingimpared

steveinaz wrote:

Damn, I forgot to check that SACD to see if it was hybrid...

Okay I'm confused again. Are SACD hybrids any less quality than non-SACD hybrids. I remember asking Jesse this question but his answer slipped my mind because I had asked him a dozen other questions. LOL

steveinaz

In the end, I think it all comes down to what we've all said all along...If a CD or SACD are well engineered, either will sound great. I think redbook has, and always has had, the potential to be the end-all do-all format, when executed properly. Having said that, I think SACD has the potential to squeeze a little more performance...the question is, is it enough to expect consumers to replace existing libraries? Sadly, I don't think so. Now if Sony would have pushed a large inventory out there, made prices at or below CD, then later down the road raised prices a little to compensate; they may have been successful--but you gotta throw consumers a bone.

Let's face it, audiophiles are a small niche group. Surely Sony saw this coming. How are you going to introduce a new format that requires that you replace your library, to the 80 percentile who wouldn't know the difference between a coat hanger and Nordost Vahalla speaker cables? It's like Sony had a group of undergraduates come up with the marketing plan for SACD, and that's a shame. Talk about poor execution, it's almost laughable.

In the BEST of circumstances, SACD would have struggled to stay afloat---just for the reasons given above; add to that the marketing debacle, and you have a recipe for disaster.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote:

In the end, I think it all comes down to what we've all said all along...If a CD or SACD are well engineered, either will sound great. I think redbook has, and always has had, the potential to be the end-all do-all format, when executed properly. Having said that, I think SACD has the potential to squeeze a little more performance...the question is, is it enough to expect consumers to replace existing libraries? Sadly, I don't think so. Now if Sony would have pushed a large inventory out there, made prices at or below CD, then later down the road raised prices a little to compensate; they may have been successful--but you gotta throw consumers a bone.

Pretty much sums up my POV. I don't feel the need or have heard the need to go out spend big bucks on both an SACD player and the music to go along with it when my Redbook set-up is 99% there already. If my current system and cd's were to all go away tomorrow and I was starting fresh, a hi-end SACD player would be a consideration. The amount of $$$ i'd have to shell out at this point for a top notch player and software in no way justifies the better performance I might realize.

I still feel a mediocre SACD/universal player will not compete with a high end Redbook set-up regardless of the software (cd). If you are going to go SACD go all the way and get a nice high end player or don't go at all.

reeltrouble1

Well, there are over 4,000 titles on SACD who knows how many really good ones. For the format to shine you need to have really good music with texture, dynamics, rythym and tone.

Enter Classical and Jazz. Music which has stood a much longer test of time than pop/rock. Enter vinyl has the king for many listener's who enjoy the Classical and Jazz genre's. A big competitor for SACD to overtake.

There are some great pop/rock/blues sacd. I doubt there will ever be a huge number, as the material may be lacking and the money boys want their share, but I find enough of them to keep my interest peaked. Most recently I have started exploring the DVD-A side of the coin, all balanced against the anticipated improvements in house servers and so on.

It may very well be the studio's who produce, sell and control things are well aware of the situation and spending alot of time in determining how best to seperate you, me and everyone else from their dollars, as many times as they can.

For me good SACD trumps good CD every single time.

RT1

shack

heiney9 wrote:

I still feel a mediocre SACD/universal player will not compete with a high end Redbook set-up regardless of the software (cd). If you are going to go SACD go all the way and get a nice high end player or don't go at all.

I will disagree...not from just mere speculation...but from hearing an average SACD go head to head with a very good redbook machine. If the SACD is done well, and an average SACD player does it's job the results can be excellent. Of course this is just my opinion...and that of many others.

As we have discussed many times, SACD will not become maninsteam. MP3 has seen to that. It will probably not go away either. There is a niche market...just like vinyl. There are those who will replace their music library if it is important to them. We all probably know someone who has several different copies of the same album in different formats. The HT crowd has its share of this phenomenom as well. Everyone replaced their favorite VHS tapes with DVDs (and some had already bought the laser discs - only to relace them with DVDs). Some titles were replaced with the "Superbit" copies and now the HD DVD and BlueRay discs will replace many of the old discs.

It really depends on what you want. Redbook can be excellent. If done right, Hi-rez is even better.

F1nut

Are SACD hybrids any less quality than non-SACD hybrids.

No.


SACD, to my ears, always sounds better than the redbook counterpart. That's not to say that there aren't great sounding redbook CD's because there are, but if they are mastered to SACD, they become even better. It's much like the difference between average redbook and great redbook, it's not really WOW Holy ****, but obviously more satisfying. Subtle differences are what hifi is all about.

heiney9

shack wrote:

I will disagree...not from just mere speculation...but from hearing an average SACD go head to head with a very good redbook machine. If the SACD is done well, and an average SACD player does it's job the results can be excellent. Of course this is just my opinion...and that of many others.

As we have discussed many times, SACD will not become maninsteam. MP3 has seen to that. It will probably not go away either. There is a niche market...just like vinyl. There are those who will replace their music library if it is important to them. We all probably know someone who has several different copies of the same album in different formats. The HT crowd has its share of this phenomenom as well. Everyone replaced their favorite VHS tapes with DVDs (and some had already bought the laser discs - only to relace them with DVDs). Some titles were replaced with the "Superbit" copies and now the HD DVD and BlueRay discs will replace many of the old discs.

It really depends on what you want. Redbook can be excellent. If done right, Hi-rez is even better.

So you are saying a average off the shelf SACD capable player with no special design parameters like dual trans, isolation of circuits, premium parts will better a redbook player with all these advantages? That's what I'm talking about. I have a friend who bought a fairly pricey Sony SACD player (what I'd consider a mid-level player). Nothing fancy as far as build and my redbook set-up trounces it pretty handily.

I'm not really trying to be arguementative, but a mediocre SACD player cannot compete with a well thought out well designed redbook set-up. Head-to-head players with similar build and design, SACD will win (apples to apples).

You can't get something for nothing. One cannot possibly think that you can buy a $300 SACD player and it's going to perform better than a $2-3000 redbook set-up merely because of the SACD format. My only point is so many people on this board are going out buying a very middle of the road SACD capable players and then touting it as being the bomb and a giant killer and so much better than redbook. To me in my experience that's far from the truth. Apples to apples is all I'm saying.

shack

Yes. We will just have to disagree based on my experience and yours.

heiney9

shack wrote:

Yes. We will just have to disagree based on my experience and yours.

Respectfully disagree. One last question if you can get such great performance at such low cost then why hasn't the format steamrolled everything in it's path. Hell, if I didn't have to spend 2-3K on a redbook player and I could get better performance from a $300 SACD player I'd be all over it. So would many many others.

I know software is the most obvious debate. But besides that.

shack

As has been discussed over and over, the average consumer could care less about good sound and only cares if they can "steal" it over the internet and put it in a little box the size of a credit card. Hi rez has been a sucess in the world of "audiophiles"... ie the number of classical and jazz SACDs and the small independent labels producing the format. The SACD has been much more sucessful in Asia where they may be more fanatical with gear than the West. Review after review of the format on players such as the Sony SCD-CE775, SCD-CE595, and some of the Sony DVD players like the DVP-875V have commented how much the SACD compares favorably with their benchmark redbook players. One problem is that many of the universal players out there converts DSD to PCM which is inferior.

I have never said an average SACD will better a TOL redbook system hands down, but it can be it's equal (and on occasion better) given the right software.

An average SACD player (that does it right) with excellent software will outperform average software on excellent gear IMO. Apples, oranges, bannanas, lemons....whatever.

pblanc

I side with shack on this issue with the following qualifications: of course a "mediocre" SACD player is not going to "sound better" than a top notch SACD player for playing Redbook CDs. Not all SACDs are created equally. In some, the engineering masters really capture the potential of the format and its inherent advantages, and in other cases they don't. When they don't, a high end CDP wll no doubt sound better. But when they do, the inherent superiority of the SACD format can more than cancel out the difference in quality of the electronics. Furthermore, even modest Sony SACD players do a pretty damn good job with SACDs.
For myself, I would never now be satisfied with only owning a modest SACD/CD player. I have many more CDs than SACDs. If I had a choice between a "great" CDP and on "OK" SACD/CD or universal player, I would go with the great CDP every time. What I am saying, if someone already has a good CD player, and is interested in exploring SACD, they won't be wasting their money if they buy a modest Sony SACD player.