SACD - worth a go?

don't waste your time, trust me, there is going to be no dual layer software or that that exist's is poor and old vynil re-mastered, imo
 
I have not heard SACD, but I do have some 24/96 classical music downloads from

http://www.gimell.com/

They are very good, but I have 16/44.1 CDs that are as good.

I am not sure if there is any advantage in going beyond CD standard for playback, but I do know that the quality of the musical performance and the standard of recording make a very significant difference to what I hear.

I would proceed with scepticism. At this stage you don't need another hardware player, but a way to play music files of many standards.
 
thrudge said:
I've never heard one. Is it way better than CD, as the hi-fi mags suggest?
Click to expand...
If care is taken in the production process both can be stunning. What I realised when being seduced by the potential of first HDCD then SACD was manufacturers were actually reduced to crippling CD performance in order to elevate SACD on some players. I eventually concluded that pursuit of the best masters was what mattered. Format was largely irrelevant.
 
i worked in the birth of SACD with sony and abbey road studios, whant to know more?
 
yes....what did they think of your typing and spelling?:)

I have only heard higher end SACD players like Unidisk and SA-1 but (AS EVER)
it's all about the software and the quality of the mastering.
DSOTM and Let it Bleed sounded better than any CD incl the MFSL and original
vinyl.

Comparing source hardware is like saying what's best Apples or Bananas?
you're not really comparing like for like.

To the O/P if you can find enough SACD with music that you like that has been
well mastered, then go for it.

If you already have a really good CD player then it may not be worth it unless
you get a high end SACD player.
 
quote

kt66 said:
yes....what did they think of your typing and spelling?:)

I have only heard higher end SACD players like Unidisk and SA-1 but (AS EVER)
it's all about the software and the quality of the mastering.
DSOTM and Let it Bleed sounded better than any CD incl the MFSL and original
vinyl.

Comparing source hardware is like saying what's best Apples or Bananas?
you're not really comparing like for like.

To the O/P if you can find enough SACD with music that you like that has been
well mastered, then go for it.

If you already have a really good CD player then it may not be worth it unless
you get a high end SACD player.
Click to expand...

what do you think of their spelling? and yours ,check, UNIDISK,
 
by the way KT what do you know about sampling rate on SACD reproduction? or why they tried to turn to word sampling? of a frequency more than 196khz!
 
p.s kt do not question me on my spelling until you can speak spanish,, japanese or scottish,
 
any way back to the subject of SACD, the one company that i believe good sounding "both" normal reproduction of normal cd's and sacd is teac, i have still a sony sa-cd1, just for keep sake, you may call it archive sake, but i think that everybody prefers their own personal way of how they want to listen to their music,
 
I think is sacd is brilliant, and far better than CD is stereo mode; add in multichannel if you can, and the results are amazing.
But...
it's got to be a good DSD recording; PCM transfers don't hack it.
You've pretty much got to be into classical

There are some really good classical sacds from the like of Channel Classics, Pentatone and others. Pentatone are interesting because they have released loads of Philips (good classical recordings anyway) 1970s SQ 4 channel analogue recordings that have been carefully remastered into 4 channel sacd.

If your musical tastes suit, there's nothing like sacd. My Philips 963 player easily beats a TAG DVD32R (on CD) when fed a well recorded sacd disc.
 
Labarum said:
At this stage you don't need another hardware player, but a way to play music files of many standards.
Click to expand...

Now that is a very good point, thanks for that. And thank you to everyone else for your help.

I reckon I'm going to leave SACD alone. I do enjoy classical, but I've already got a substantial classical collection on vinyl, so I'm not in a hurry to acquire more.
 
SACD is defintely a mixed-message technically. The format is awkward to edit native (i.e. no studios bought-in to Sony's ridiculous requirements, so all maastering hapens retrospectively) - and factually, SACD has less resolution than CD (44.1Khz / 16bit) above 10Khz thanks to the extreme noise-shaping the standard relies upon.

'Sounds different' is probably a fair bet.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top