# Any Affordable method to play SACDs?



## Fan66 (Jan 22, 2017)

Hi all:

Looking for affordable way to play SACDs. Is it possible to find a SACD player for under $300?

Thanks..


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Fan66 said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Looking for affordable way to play SACDs. Is it possible to find a SACD player for under $300?
> 
> Thanks..


In my country you can buy one( Yamaha) for under that price. I suggest put SACD in your google search and they do the work.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

There are also some Pioneers. I don't know how you feel about computer based audio, but some of the Pioneers use a chip that can be "hacked" to rip the SACD layer of SACD's.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...ppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true-29251/index2.html


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Try ebay, they may have some good deals on SACD players.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Define affordable.
Also, Sony Blu Ray players that go for under $100 in the USA play SACD


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Triplets said:


> Define affordable.
> Also, Sony Blu Ray players that go for under $100 in the USA play SACD


But check in advance. Not all do.

https://smile.amazon.com/Sony-BDPS3...8&qid=1487078941&sr=8-3&keywords=sony+blu-ray

And Sony doesn't even include the information in the specs sometimes.

https://smile.amazon.com/Sony-BDPS6...8&qid=1487078941&sr=8-4&keywords=sony+blu-ray

(Search the questions for SACD.)


----------



## Fan66 (Jan 22, 2017)

Thank you all for your suggestions. I have not even heard SACD. I will assume it is amazing?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

It can be (says someone with 450 SACD discs). But well-mastered redbook generally trumps (can I still use that word?) poorly mastered hi-rez.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> It can be (says someone with 450 SACD discs). But well-mastered redbook generally trumps (can I still use that word?) poorly mastered hi-rez.


I just smiled like


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

With equal mastering, a CD and an SACD will sound just about the same to human ears. If the mastering is better on one or the other, that one will sound better. If there is a good multichannel mix on the SACD, that is a definite improvement.

Personally, I find the odds of an SACD being better than the CD is too low to justify the added expense. I have 50 or 60 SACDs that I have the CDs for as well, and about 1/4 of them are worse than the CD (usually because of bad 5.1 mixes), half of them are pretty much the same as the CD, and 1/4 of them are better. Unfortunately, a lot of on line reviews of SACDs seem to be based on the premise that since it's an SACD it has to sound better, which isn't true. So most reviews don't help sorting out the duds. I find audiophile releases in general to be frustrating, so I don't buy them often any more.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

More than 10 years ago, Steve Hoffman, a well known engineer of audiophile releases posted this test:

"Get the SACD I mastered of Creedence 'Willy And The Poor Boys'.

"Play the song "FORTUNATE SON". Listen strictly to the first 15 seconds of the song to familiarize yourself with the echo on the snare drum.

"Now, play the SACD layer and listen to the echo. Play the CD layer and listen to the echo. See how there is not as much of it and how it does not resolve all the way to the back of the "chamber" like the DSD/SACD layer does?

"That's the difference between the layers. How dramatic it is I guess depends on how well your system resolves. Can you hear it?"

Every so often I try that test. Interestingly, although I can hear what he's talking about on the drums, I hear a greater improvement in the sound of the guitar.

Of course the Creedence discs are hardly audiophile recordings. And these masters date back to the earliest days of SACDs; there have been advances in the technology since. But the improvement offered by SACDs is in the little things - like the echo of a snare drum or the decay of a guitar note or the attack of a horn. Nevertheless, with well recorded material, the sound is simply more natural to my ears.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I've found that the CD layer on rock albums is often *deliberately* different than the SACD layer. Not just in sound quality, but sometimes a different mix or mastering. The volume level of the CD track is almost invariably slightly lower than the SACD track. (Louder sounds better to most people.) The correct way to check this would be to rip the SACD and transcode the track down to redbook and do a line level matched direct A/B blind comparison. I haven't done it with that particular track, but I've done it with others and I can't discern any difference.

The exception to the deliberate difference is classical labels like Pentatone who only release SACD/CD hybrids. I suspect that they know that a large number of their customers will only be able to access the CD layer, so they master it identical to the SACD layer.

It's very easy to know what the difference between an SACD and a CD will be... just look at the specs. The difference is in dynamic range and frequency extension. SACDs have more detail in the very quiet passages and higher frequencies than CDs do. But with dithering, a CD can achieve a 90dB dynamic range. In order to hear the quietest levels of a CD above the normal room tone of your living room, you would have to turn the volume up so loud, you would incur hearing damage. And CDs can reproduce frequencies perfectly up to 20kHz, the limit of human hearing. The only one who could possibly hear the upper frequencies in an SACD is your dog.

If the mastering is identical, CDs and SACDs are identical. The primary advantage of the SACD format is support for multichannel audio.

If you're interested in the subject, the article "CD Sound Is All You Need" in my signature file is a great read.


----------

