Sa...cd?

ryanjoachim

Ok...I keep hearing people talking about these SACD's. I realize you have to have a special player to play them...

Here's my questions:

1: Are they worth it?
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with?
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs?
4: Are they worth it?

Thanks for any responses!

Face

1. Yes.
2. I'm not sure if there is such a good thing as a good and cheap player.
3. I purchase most of mine through Amazon.
4. I believe so.

(waiting for Jesse to respond)

AndyGwis

I have two "good" budget SACD players I am looking to sell. . . and two "very good" sacd players.

Let me know if you have interest in the following:
Denon DVD-2200 for $175 shipped
Sony SCD-C2000ES for $200 shipped
Denon DVD-5900 for $625 shipped
Marantz SA-8260 for $500 shipped

I think SACD's are pretty great, if you can find albums you like on them. I get mine here, Amazon, BB, etc.

engtaz

SACD's are great. Yes there worth it. Amazon for me also.

engtaz

cmy330go

AndyGwis wrote: »

.... if you can find albums you like on them.....

That right there is the key. There is a relatively small amount of music available on SACD, and not all of them are great mixes.

If you do decide to try SACD...The Sony outlet is offering a basic 5 disc changer for only $39. You might also consider an OPPO universal player. I've been extremely happy with mine.

xandra

: Are they worth it?

Likely - but first take a look at what's available - to make sure titles of interest to you exist. Fortunately, most SACD's now come in Hybrid formats (allowing you play the standard material) on other players.

I recently got a 5-disc Yamaha SACD player (DON'T Get that one - has possibly the worst interface ever).

Here's my impression of the format:
1. as mentioned above, quality of recordings vary significantly, IMHO the best standard format CD recordings sound as good as or even better than average - poor quality SACD's. But really well recorded SACD's will blow your socks off.

2. You'll need to forkup for some good quality multichannel cables to make it worth your while.
Be prepared to read the fine print (and endless asterisks) in both your receivers' and player's manuals (download the manuals in advance and search for SACD, DSD, and Super Audio CD) see more on this below. I chose the Yammie cuz it had SACD thru HDMI (thinking I could avoid constant switching), but to this day I've yet to find a way to get unadulterated data to the receiver via HDMI. Worse yet: to switch from HDMI to Multichannel on the player is a real pain- involving awkward submenus (Likely less onerous with other brands).

3. In choosing SACD players be careful to check for other formats of interest to you i was surprised at the number of SACD players missing formats I come to expect as standard (ex: JPEG, full mp3 support etc).

My old $99 5-disk Panasonic played EVERYTHING but SACD's: DVD-Audio, MP3s (at all bitrates) CD-Text, HDCD (a really nice dead format).
In comparison: my $400 Yammie: doesn't display MP3 data in list view, only handles MP3's up to 320kbps, doesn't display SACD text, and occasionally chokes on certain disks.

----
Summary: If the music you like is available in SACD, you probably won't regret it, but be prepared to finely research the player for your other needs OR BETTER STILL: go with that Sony deal mentioned above, and keep your old player/or get a new one for other purposes.

janmike

As the informed one told me, Make sure that the SACD player you purchase has good Redbook playback as well. Then again, if you only plan on purchasing SACD format, then Redbook playback does not have to be considered. For me, SACD was a gigantic move forward. Good luck.

xandra

janmike: How can you find out if a player has "good Redbook playback"? further, what specifically does this effect?

tonyb

Your ears.......and redbook means basically a standard CD.So you want a player than can play both SACD and regular CD well.For a cheap intro player,alot of people here seem to like the oppo.

DesertPilot

I am currently using a Denon 2910 as my SACD/DVD-A player. The Denon uses 6 analog cables to pass multichannel sound to my pre-amp. I agree that the recording engineer has a lot to do with the quality of the sound. But, when you find "gems" in your collection...and if you love multichannel sound...SACD or DVD-A is the only way to truly enjoy music.

I purchase most all of my titles on line. My most recent purchase was the Lord of the Rings - Return of the King soundtrack on DVD-A. It is very expensive...but in my opinion, well worth the price. It comes with both CD version of the soundtrack and DVD-A multichannel. There are lots of SACD reviews on line...hunt them down to avoid bad purchases.

I will be upgrading my pre-amp soon to one which will allow HDMI ver 1.3a input. I am considering replacing my Denon with an Oppo. Why? I prefer the pre-amp to do the Digital to Audio Conversion (DAC). So, my SACD/DVD-A player only needs to be a transport to get the digital information (via HDMI) to my pre-amp.

... a side note. If you go SACD and find the quality and multichannel capability wonderful...you will be frustrated that SACD as a format has not been widely accepted. But, my collection is large and will always be available to me no matter what happens to the format. Also, with BluRay as now the dominant video source with superb audio capability as well...we may see music titles shift to BluRay. I am thinking about Operas, Symphonies, Music Videos, etc.. This should give you music on a par with SACD...and also the video (if desired).

Marcus

Yashu

They would be worth it if it wasn't a dying format.

The only thing I can hope that is that Sony's recent victory with Blu-Ray will bolster their other proprietary format, SACD. In a perfect world we would have open formats for next gen, one could say CD took off because it was such an open format, and I think SACD hasn't because it is a very closed format, but SACD sounds good, though there is no way to play them except for an SACD player. You can't rip them onto a computer, you can't make a backup of them, you can't make a mix CD with them, you are limited to what Sony want's you to be able to do with them...

Personally... I think we all should not reward Sony for creating a closed format with so many restrictions, and if you want a hi-rez format, invest in vinyl.

Fongolio

The March 2008 issue of The Absolute Sound magazine has an editorial and a feature that deals with the topic of multichannel sound and will now have regular sacd reviews. They don't believe the format is dead or dying. Just that it hasn't taken like the big labels would have liked. Now, like vinyl, it has a niche market. Once you've heard multichannel on a good setup, like me, you may be hooked for life. As for a "good cheap" sacd player, as mentioned above, a very good starting place is an Oppo DV-980 or DV-981 universal dvd player. SACD and DVD-Audio capabilities and very good video playback via HDMI.

Yashu

Just that it hasn't taken like the big labels would have liked.

This is the exact problem. The big labels no longer control the music industry. The *only* way SACD will ever become more than a big label niche, (even vinyl has a ton of indie support) is if more than just the big labels have access to the format, and even just to be driven to go for it. Every indie multichannel release I have ever owned is in DVD format. The reason for this is because DVD is practically an open format. SACD is closed... Sony proprietary format that the large labels control... except the large labels are no longer the source for most new music once you get past the Top40 lists. Even that is not correct... the number one album of 2007 was a self released album, no label, no nothing.

Unless Sony opens the format up to everyone, SACD will always be a niche pop music format. Sure... you can get some of the old classics remastered, but I don't see any indie or self promoted artists recording to SACD... Even if Sony would allow them to use the format, the cost would negate the advantage of being free from these large, corrupt labels.

I have several releases that include a multichannel DVD, but beyond Top40 classics and some of the better known classical and Jazz (IE, established, not necessarily better) groups, you aren't going to see much creative advancement with SACD.

CD, and DVD, thanks to the work on opening DeCSS, are going to continue to dominate the landscape of creativity... They are open formats, low cost of production, no Sony intervention and cost.

Sony has a history of keeping a tight grip on their formats... it's one of the reasons why so many of us are not happy about blu-ray dominating the HD video format war. You are going to see the same thing with movies as you are with music... two camps. One camp sticking with open formats that are easy to produce and distribute, this is where the innovation in music will be. Then 2nd, big budget, big label/studio music, some good classics, but the future looks grim. With the current climate in the music industry, to say it bluntly, the time is coming where it doesn't matter the resolution or number of channels, until the big labels, the RIAA, ect, clean up their act, musicians equate making a deal with Sony with signing over your creative soul. Selling out, as they say.

SACD needs to die, we should let it die... we should not blindly accept a closed format that gives a corporation control over your media, and your artists. Hi Rez, or multichannel audio will never take off until there is an open format, easy to produce, easy to backup, to rip for mixtapes, ipods, computer audio, ect. It isn't because we don't want improved sound, it is because very few musicians think it is worth the cost of working with Sony. Without the music, the format is nothing.

Open formats are what sells, both consumers, and the artists now see the light. I wish the movie studios weren't so blinded, though, the movie/tv industry has a bit higher cost of entrance, which is probably why they didn't care... they just wanted the format war to be over so they could get to selling HD movies and TV, and Sony paid off quote a few companies to get them to drop the idea of a more open format.

DVD-A was a good idea, and so was HD-DVD. Sony used their weight to crush them because then the control over the format. 'Sony Approved' artists, approved movies, no ability to use the music you buy under fair use? do you really want that?

HDMI is yet more control, except this time it's over 'approving' the equipment you own... I doubt it's going to stop there.

TroyD

There are over 5K titles released in SACD. It's far from a dead format.

True enough, it will never be mainstream however, there is a LOT of great material available on SACD. Who cares if mainstream pop is released in SACD? In most cases, that amounts to polishing a ****.

You have to look at your listening tastes and so forth. If it tends to mainstream pop, I wouldn't bother. If you listen to classical/jazz etc, it's WELL worth it.

I personally don't give a faak about mainstream support, same thing with vinyl...there is a LOT of great stuff being released on vinyl. More than I can keep up with. So who gives a rats **** if you can't get the latest Britney Spears record in high rez? The stuff that I care to listen to is on SACD and/or vinyl. THAT is what drives my decisiosn, MY tastes.

BDT

Yashu

Read Troy... Read... where did you get the idea that I was applauding SACD's mainstream appeal?

Who cares if mainstream pop is released in SACD? In most cases, that amounts to polishing a ****.

This is exactly why I say SACD is a dead format. If only mainstream music can be approved by Sony and afford to release SACD, then it's worthless. Top40 **** is something I could care less about. I like music. I listen to jazz, classical, blues, post rock, jazz fusion, progressive rock, shoegaze/newgaze, blissbeat, IDM, dub, psy, space rock, avantegarde, experimental, minimal, krautrock, industrial, ethereal goth, and crossovers between many of those and more. If it's "charted", chances are, I don't own it... which means chances are none of it is in SACD.

That was my point. Sony controls production, distribution, even the artists that are allowed to use the format. It is a closed format designed to make you go out and re-buy some of your old vinyl classics in SACD, maybe some Rolling Stones, or the token jazz standards like Miles and Coltrane. Some people seem to buy into the format just to hear Norah Jones' voice .001% better. The rationale behind the continued support for this silly format always amazes me. As long as SACD is a closed and controlled format, with no access to fair use, then it will never take off. It is a dying format and we should let it die. It is keeping so many artists from taking the plunge into multichannel and high resolution digital. Nobody wants to sell their soul to Sony, except for, what...a couple thousand people in a planet of 6 billion?

SACD has 5,000 titles... you say that and then you defend it? If your musical scope is so limited that 5000 measly titles gets you to spend all this money on new players and discs, then I don't think I would be able to convince you anyway. There are millions of artists just itching for the chance to dip into high rez or multichannel, but even if Sony approved them for the format, they would never sign onto a closed format. Music is an art, not a commodity.

Let me put it a different way... other than the multichannel, there is nothing on SACD that is not on CD or vinyl. Two open formats there... that sound pretty damn good to this day. I would rather have .001% less dynamic range (or equal, depending on if we are talking redbook or vinyl), just to be able to listen to the music I buy in whatever way I want, wherever I want. Artists know this. SACD will die without a significant amount of "new blood".

There are probably more laserdisc movies out there than SACDs... to put it in a little perspective.

TroyD

I'm offering my opinion....not trying to refute yours.

Get over yourself already.

While I'll admit to not knowing about the legalities of SACD.....there are a lot of non-Sony titles out there.

BDT

Yashu

SACD has several copy prevention features at the physical level which, for the moment, appear to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole. These include physical pit modulation and 80 bit encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the disk that is only readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[7]

The quick defeat of so-called protection methods used on HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc, when they accounted for only 4% of digital movie sales in 2007, shows that even a marginal market share can create demand for technologies that enable consumers to use their fair use rights.

Basically... Closed format means dead format. Interesting that everything I wrote was before I researched these cites, meaning, there are more people out there that think like I do than you may want to believe.

TroyD

Do I give a faak about copying or playing an SACD back on a computer nor was it the original question? NO, in both cases.

For me, and many audio enthusiasts there is more than enough media and equipment available to support my continuing interest. That's my opinion. As to the original question:

1: Are they worth it?
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with?
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs?
4: Are they worth it?

1. The sound quality can be fantastic
2. A cheap SACD player isn't really worth it. A very good CD player will sound better than a 150 dollar SACD player, IMO
3. Amazon is where I get mine as well as acousticsounds.com
4. That's subjective...see above. Depends on your listening tastes and what you perceive as 'value

Yashu, you are more than welcome to your opinion. In the case of mainstream appeal, I agree, it's not viable. However, audiophilia has nothing to do with mainstream appeal. New SACD's continue to be released containing material that I like so I will continue to support it. I don't care what you do. Ultimately it's for the individual to decide.

BDT

Yashu

However, audiophilia has nothing to do with mainstream appeal.

That's the problem. Nothing I listen to is on SACD Audiophiles tend to have obscure tastes. 5,000 titles really is nothing. I am not dogging you for appreciating the SACD titles that you like, I am only saying that it is not a music lover's format. Music is an art, not an commodity. As an audiophile, the music matters to me, just as much as the gear. If SACD was not a closed format, if Sony did not have to approve of artists on the format, and if it was easy for bands to release an SACD (meaning, open computer support is 100% necessary, as well as access to production and distribution), then maybe it would have faired a bit better.

The mainstream market doesn't even register on my radar, but all the recordings I have, it would be neat to have 24/96 versions of them, especially some of the jazz, post rock, shoegaze, ect... I wish there was an open format that was inviting to the artist. Remember, in the music business, we are not the customers, the artists are... they are not going to invest themselves into a format like this, not when there is so much freedom with redbook, and even vinyl. The big labels already own a ton of music, and it isn't hard for them to just re-release it on SACD, but without fresh blood, the format will be just for that, a better way to hear the classics. It's not bad to have that opportunity, but is it really worth supporting these corporations in taking away your fair use rights? You may not use those rights, but they deserve to exist, we deserve to have them.

So, instead of arguing, I am going to simply answer the OP's question.

1: Are they worth it? No.
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with? You get what you pay for, cheap SACD player may sound worse than a standard CD player of the same price.
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs? Online. There are not very many titles, and they are not generally carried in record stores around town.
4: Are they worth it? No. .001% better resolution is not worth supporting Sony and the other RIAA labels, but Sony in particular since you now know buying SACD is supporting the loss of our fair use rights. We need to protect these rights as much as we can, but we also need to protect the musician's ability to distribute their work on their terms.

TroyD

So, instead of arguing, I am going to simply answer the OP's question.

I guess there is a first time for everything.

BDT

F1nut

Wow! Yashu, I don't even know where to begin. Your opinions seem to be as peculiar as your taste in music.

Nothing I listen to is on SACD

So, you haven't actually listened to anything on SACD, yet proclaim that it's only .001% better!?! :rolleyes:

If SACD was not a closed format, if Sony did not have to approve of artists on the format, and if it was easy for bands to release an SACD (meaning, open computer support is 100% necessary, as well as access to production and distribution), then maybe it would have faired a bit better.

Closed format? Yeah whatever, it sounds better and that's what I care about. Sony doesn't control the format like you think they do. Here is but one example. Make note of the tools for use on computers.

Sonic Studio Takes Over Philips ProTech DSD & SACD Products
Sonic Studio has announced that they are taking over ownership of the ProTech line of recording studio DSD and SACD hardware and software tools from Philips. ProTech is a division of the Intellectual Property & Standards (IP&S) group at Philips operation in the Netherlands. Philips IP&S is the same group that is responsible for the licensing and standards of both the Compact Disc (CD) and the Super Audio CD (SACD) as well as other technologies developed or co-developed by Philips while Sonic Studio is the maker of a number of Digital Audio Workstation and Authoring products for recording studios and recording professionals including SACD.1, an SACD authoring system.

Philips Describes ProTech Products
High Fidelity Review readers will recall that the Philips ProTech group in the Netherlands developed and released a number of such tools for use on both the PC and Macintosh computer platforms over the past year. These included software tools that allowed transfer of Pro Tools files from the PC and Mac platforms to Direct Stream Digital (DSD) format.

Philips notes that the ProTech DSD and SACD products being transferred to Sonic Studio under this agreement "includes comprehensive Super Audio CD authoring tools along with encoding, transcoding, metering, disc image building and image validation utilities. In addition, the unique Super Audio Verifier module is the only product that provides desktop playback of replication–ready, losslessly encoded Direct Stream Transfer (DST) data. The Verifier package includes a single board PCI solution that offers real-time DST decoding followed by real–time DSD metering for audio level verification in accordance with the SACD Scarlet Book specification."

Sonic Studio to Develop Future DSD and SACD Products for Recording Professionals Use
For its part, Sonic Studio has indicated that they plan to integrate the ProTech DSD and SACD authoring products into their recording professionals product line and develop these products further.

Sonic says that "Sonic Studio will invest in the cross–platform DSD technology, that ProTECH pioneered, as a strategic addition to its own production portfolio. Underwriting future development of DSD and SACD technologies, Sonic Studio will productize underdeveloped assets and further commercialize existing products. The company will also actively license their intellectual property to audio manufacturers looking for comprehensive production solutions."

Jayson Tomlin, Vice President of Sales at Sonic Studio noted that ”Sonic Studio has always supported pioneering and sonically superior formats, and this acquisition will complete our unique range of DSD mastering and SACD authoring tools. With our global reach into all major markets, we are poised to aggressively promote the SACD format, especially in the pivotal North American region, while reducing the cost barrier to DSD production."

Jon Reichbach, the President of Sonic Studio said that "This purchase strengthens our already trail blazing efforts in the DSD production space. We were the first group outside of the Sony/Philips family to bring a DSD DAW to the marketplace and now we’ve added Europe’s finest SACD knowledge to our product mix. Since we have been given the task of implementing version 2 of the Cutting Master Format, we will be reaching out to all professional audio manufacturers to collectively build consensus and raise consumer awareness."

Yashu

o, you haven't actually listened to anything on SACD, yet proclaim that it's only .001% better!?!

I never said I haven't heard SACD. There is one extreme high end shop here that I go to on a regular basis, they have a rack of SACDs, and a few $10,000 and up players in various treated rooms. I like the full multichannel planar room myself.

Anyway, yes, it is as controlled as I said it was. I quoted directly from Wikipedia on the format. Sony tightly controls the format, more than any other format in history. Musicians just don't want to sell their soul over to Sony... or Sony doesn't want their music on their format, either way, there are only 5k titles on what was supposed to be the next gen format.

I am not saying that 24/96 music isn't worth it... but for FFS, record it to a DVD using simple PCM. We already had media AND transports... we didn't need SACD. All we needed was 24/96 PCM audio on a DVD, played just like a CD, open format like a CD, no DRM, no license fees for artists, no having to get the approval of Sony, ability for all musicians to produce and distribute in high resolution or multichannel.

Sony is always trying to create a format we don't need just to have tight control. They are greedy, unethical, and no, SACD is not worth supporting that, not when we already had the media (DVD) and the format (simple PCM digital) and the transports (no shortage of DVD transports for both computer and component use, as well as car use).

The only way I can fathom the very existence of SACD is by considering pure greed on the part of Sony. With 5,000 titles after the format has been out for so long, I think it is safe to say that the artists have spoken, give us an open format, or they will continue to use redbook CD, or just do like I described, release a multichannel DVD along with their release for those that want multichannel.

We did not need a cumbersome format, with so many restrictions on both the listener and the artist, we just didn't need it. We already had everything we needed for a next gen standard, but I guess the labels didn't want us to have another open format like the CD. Pure greed. It's disgusting really.

TroyD

...and we all know that if it says so in wikipedia than it must be true.

Wrapping this up, if the material that you listen to is available on SACD, I think the sound quality, done properly, speaks for itself, which I think was the intent of the original query. Personal agendas aside, I, myself, am a big fan of it. I could give a **** less about the politics of it.

BDT

F1nut

Yashu, your information is incorrect and you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. I presented you one factual example of many that you're wrong and you totally ignored it, which is exactly what I'm going to do with you. Pffft.

ryanjoachim

yay, my first thread to turn into an epic battle!

Thanks for all the responses guys. And by *cheap*...I was just being cheap lol. I realize that to get really good sound, you usually have to fork out money.

That being said, is an SACD player that outputs sound through Optical (if there are any) losing any sound quality compared to analog outs?

I'm not really sure if my Onkyo 605 has the analog inputs anyways (I can't find my manual, and it's a **** to turn it around and look)

Face

bbeacham

ryanjoachim wrote: »

yay, my first thread to turn into an epic battle!

That being said, is an SACD player that outputs sound through Optical (if there are any) losing any sound quality compared to analog outs?

Interestingly, I am currently looking for an SACD player with I-link output. I am using a Dony 7100ES as a pre-amp and Sony will not accept SACD via optical and coax digital for copy protection reasons. So, at this time I am using analog for SACD and optical for DVD/CD.

The player I am looking at is the Sony 9100ES DVD player. Everywhere I read great reviews regarding its I-link SACD output. Plus, it would make a great spare DVD player. The only problem is that is still lists for $1299, which is about $700 more than I want to pay. Now that Blu-Ray is the standard for hi-def DVDs I hope Sony ends-of-life the 9100ES and reduces the price.

ryanjoachim

Thanks face! Now...educate me...

I don't know which ones are the analog inputs I would plug an sacd player into? (or is there analog inputs there for that use?)

Sorry for being such an idiot

venomclan

Yashu wrote: »

I like music. I listen to jazz, classical, blues, post rock, jazz fusion, progressive rock, shoegaze/newgaze, blissbeat, IDM, dub, psy, space rock, avantegarde, experimental, minimal, krautrock, industrial, ethereal goth

Damn, I have been under a rock. I have never heard of a lot of those types of music. Some funny names though.
I would love to hear:
Space Rock
Minimal Rock - only one instrument?
shoegaze/newgaze - I've got nothing
Venom

Face

ryanjoachim wrote: »

Thanks face! Now...educate me...

I don't know which ones are the analog inputs I would plug an sacd player into? (or is there analog inputs there for that use?)

Sorry for being such an idiot

Bottom center, DVD.

ryanjoachim

Face wrote: »

Bottom center, DVD.

thanks!