# SACD Players Do You Have One?



## Lenfer

I apologize for posting yet another thread I'm not trying to hog the forum, I just have so many questions. :angel:

May I ask do you have a SACD player and do you think they as good as "they" say? 

As you may know I listen to my music via my computer and it annoys me slighty that I have some Hybrid-SACDs and I can't get the Super Audio part. I may buy myself an SACD player - preferably with Blu-ray playback - could you recommend one please? The cost doesn't matter however the cheaper I can get one for the more money I will have for CDs 

Sorry about my spelling in option 3 it should read "No but I'd like one..."


----------



## TxllxT

Yes, I have an Arcam (made in Britain). SACD discs tend to be very spaciously recorded (for example the new Gergiev Shostakovich cycle) and sometimes feature dynamics to make your ears scream for mercy and your stomach overturn. So only when you have no neighbours to be enjoyed. Overall I'm not so convinced with the invention. I think the real reason was to make a disc that cannot be easily copied.....


----------



## Lenfer

Thank you *TxllxT* for your reply. I'd still like one or at least to try one first before I buy but if I could get one with Blu-ray play back it would be worth the extra cost. I do think it's a tad odd that CDs are still around many years after SACDs launched, maybe your right about the copy protection.


----------



## Ukko

I don't know if the Oppo brand is available where you are. Their current blu-ray/SACD/DVD-Audio/DVD-video/CD/MP3... and most of the other formats, is, I think, the 95. I have a 93. According to 'them that's in the know', you can't find a better deck for 3X the money. Previous to the Oppo i bought a Yamaha that handled about all the formats except blu-ray (it was inexpensive - ~$100). It started skipping in a few short months. Will I ever learn?


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't know if the Oppo brand is available where you are. Their current blu-ray/SACD/DVD-Audio/DVD-video/CD/MP3... and most of the other formats, is, I think, the 95. I have a 93. According to 'them that's in the know', you can't find a better deck for 3X the money. Previous to the Oppo i bought a Yamaha that handled about all the formats except blu-ray (it was inexpensive - ~$100). It started skipping in a few short months. Will I ever learn?


Dear *Hilltroll72*, I will have to find an *Oppo * and have a look. I don't know much about audio equipment but Blu-ray is a must for me as I love cinema. Thank you for suggesting *Oppo* the *Yamahas* are quite costly in the *UK * goes to show you need to know your stuff before parting with the money. I'll let you know how I get on thanks again. :tiphat:

Edit: *Oppo * do region free Blu-ray players! I want one of them badly. -_-


----------



## Polednice

Personally, I've never been at all bothered my sound quality, so I stick with cheap, easy, portable, always-available MP3s on my phone and laptop.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> Personally, I've never been at all bothered my sound quality, so I stick with cheap, easy, portable, always-available MP3s on my phone and laptop.


Okay,...so THIS is a perfect example of why we don't only need a 'dislike' option but a 'whachu talkin' 'bout?' one too!!!


----------



## Lenfer

Thanks for your comment *Polednice *, I very quickly decided that lossless was the way to go depending on your brand of MP3 player/phone Flac or Aapple Lossless would be an easy way to upgrade your sound and it wouldn't cost you a penny. I'm not an audiophile or anything like that I would be but there too much tech know how required.


----------



## Amfibius

I have one of these:










... it is a Playback Designs MPS-5 SACD player. The difference between standard CD and SACD are immediately noticable on my system. I have been an SACD supporter since the format was released.

With SACD players, you have to be careful that it is supplied with a DSD DAC. Most cheaper players which have SACD capability will read the SACD layer, but convert the data into PCM for use in a PCM DAC. The Oppo BDP-95 does this, as does every universal player I am aware of. If you listen to SACD on an Oppo, and if you are underwhelmed - this is the reason why. Using the same DAC as standard CD will homogenize the sound _downwards_ so that it sounds similar to standard CD. You lose the hi-res advantage of SACD.

The most affordable dedicated SACD players were made by Marantz and Sony. If your budget does not stretch to exotica such as DCS, Esoteric, Accuphase, EMM, or Playback ... you should look for a secondhand Marantz or Sony SACD player. Secondhand Musical Fidelity is also a good choice. Avoid all universal players.


----------



## World Violist

I thought it would be nice to have one, but I don't particularly care about them anymore. I find that sound quality doesn't make much difference to my listening experience, and there are music-related things I'd rather spend money on/get as presents.

So I voted "No, and I'd rather not have one" purely because there wasn't a "No, and I'm indifferent" option.


----------



## Guest

I have a Sony 5400ES SACD player. The difference is astonishing. It's much warmer, has more detail, depth, better imaging, and the spaciousness and sense of realism when played on a good multi-channel system is staggering. It makes two-channel stereo sound flat and sterile. I used to be a recording engineer, so good sound is important to me. Of course, I'm not willing to sacrifice musical performance for better sound--I want both!


----------



## TxllxT

I have both a good multi channel system as well as a very good two-channel stereo (Von Schweikert). In the long run it is not this (multi vs. two-channel) what is decisive, but the quality of the recording itself. Many SACDs suffer from a too distant recording technique (listen to Gergiev on his Shostakovich cycle: disastrous), which causes me not to get involved. Warmth, detail, imagining: my Von Schweikerts present it already with good CD recordings. The SACD is then not such a big step ahead. The merchandising talk of multi being better than two: get to listen to really good two-channel and you'll be healed from these bugs.


----------



## Lenfer

Amfibius said:


> I have one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it is a Playback Designs MPS-5 SACD player. The difference between standard CD and SACD are immediately noticable on my system. I have been an SACD supporter since the format was released.
> 
> With SACD players, you have to be careful that it is supplied with a DSD DAC. Most cheaper players which have SACD capability will read the SACD layer, but convert the data into PCM for use in a PCM DAC. The Oppo BDP-95 does this, as does every universal player I am aware of. If you listen to SACD on an Oppo, and if you are underwhelmed - this is the reason why. Using the same DAC as standard CD will homogenize the sound _downwards_ so that it sounds similar to standard CD. You lose the hi-res advantage of SACD.
> 
> The most affordable dedicated SACD players were made by Marantz and Sony. If your budget does not stretch to exotica such as DCS, Esoteric, Accuphase, EMM, or Playback ... you should look for a secondhand Marantz or Sony SACD player. Secondhand Musical Fidelity is also a good choice. Avoid all universal players.


Dear, *Amfibius* thanks for taking the time to answer in such detail. I could afford to get a new one, the SACD player I have seen are only about £600 - £1000 but of course I'd like to get one as cheaply as possible. I didn't know about DSD DAC I've heard of DAC before I'm painfully ignorant of this sort of thing. I'll make sure it has a DSD DAC, I may as well buy one new from a shop so I know what I'm getting. Thanks again this was a big help. :tiphat:


----------



## Lenfer

Dear *Txllxt* thank you for your comment. You make a very valid point, i have never had a good stereo system as I prefer listening to my music via computer. Even if I was to upgrade my sound card I am unsure if I'd ever get the same level of sound perhaps I'd need to invest in a good stereo system as well? Shame as I like not needing to switch disks on the computer.


----------



## Ukko

Lenfer said:


> Dear, *Amfibius* thanks for taking the time to answer in such detail. I could afford to get a new one, the SACD player I have seen are only about £600 - £1000 but of course I'd like to get one as cheaply as possible. I didn't know about DSD DAC I've heard of DAC before I'm painfully ignorant of this sort of thing. I'll make sure it has a DSD DAC, I may as well buy one new from a shop so I know what I'm getting. Thanks again this was a big help. :tiphat:


Your young ears would probably appreciate the DSD DAC - provided that the rest of your hi-fi system is up to snuff. Chances are real good that your computer ain't cutting it. I'm guessing that you can hear no difference between 256kb mp3 and flac using that beastie.


----------



## Lenfer

Dear, *Hilltroll72* I can hear the difference even using an MP3 player I can hear it. I don't have a stero of any kind so perhaps I'd be better buying one of those "stack" systems with all the different parts, what do you think?


----------



## Artemis

I have never thought it worthwhile purchasing an SACD player for the simple reason that I'm not aware of any reputable hi-fi magazines ever coming out with a recommendation in favour of one compared with a conventional CD player at any price break you care to mention. 

I've long favoured the magazine "What Hi-Fi?" as my source of impartial advice on these matters, and looking at the latest set of recommendations there's no mention of any SACD player in their best buys. Whenever they have tested one, they tend to get only a lukewarm reception as far as I can recall compared with more conventional CD player competition for similar price.

Besides, I rather believe that the choice of a good amplifier and pair of loudspeakers is probably more important than CD player, within any given budget range.


----------



## Lenfer

Thanks *Artemis* I've only ever had 1 Hi-Fi System that was given to me as a gift but that was long ago and it was disposed of against my wishes while I was away at school. I have seen "What Hi-Fi" stickers on CD players before but to be honest I didn't think an expensive CD player was any better than a "everyday" one. I will have to reconsider and look at getting a Hi-FI system and who knows with or without SACD player.


----------



## Artemis

Lenfer said:


> Thanks *Artemis* I've only ever had 1 Hi-Fi System that was given to me as a gift but that was long ago and it was disposed of against my wishes while I was away at school. I have seen "What Hi-Fi" stickers on CD players before but to be honest I didn't think an expensive CD player was any better than a "everyday" one. I will have to reconsider and look at getting a Hi-FI system and who knows with or without SACD player.


The "What Hi-Fi?" magazine awards each year are coveted by the various manufacturers. The magazine updates its list of "best buys" each October in each of various price brackets, covering the whole range of sound and vision products. The last list refers to 2010.

I have purchased a lot of equipment based on advice from this source and I have always been pleased with the result. I have no idea of the size of your intended budget but I'd reckon on spending at least about £300 for each main item (CD, amp, speakers) and then allow another £100 for a good interconnect and speaker cable. Of course, you can buy a lot cheaper, but it won't sound too good if you are at all fussy, as it would seem you are. Remember that classical music requires a particular type of amplifier and speakers if it's to sound OK.

The best advice I can give you is to go into a good hi-fi shop, smile nicely, and ask for a demonstration explaining that you like classical. It's usually best to pre-book a demo. In the past I have usually gone to "Sevenoaks Hi-Fi", in fact their HQ branch in Sevenoaks, but any branch should do. They are very well equipped and won't push any old rubbish onto you.

I spotted elsewhere that you like chamber music. I would suggest taking along a CD of something you know well. If it were me I would take Schubert's String Quintet D 956, and just play the second movement. You'll maybe have the salesman drooling all over the piece. If it doesn't sound quite right to you, tell him what you aren't happy with and ask for an alternative, but stick with your budget. You may need to spend a bit more on one item but possibly save on another. These people know far more about these things than ... (well you can possibly guess what I mean).


----------



## Lenfer

Dear *Artemis * I was planning on sending you a priviate message to thank you, however you don't have the link on your profile page.

I could comfortably spend about £1500 on a Hi-Fi system without SACD with SACD possibly another £600 - £800 these are only figures in my head, I've yet to do my homework. I'd be able to stretch my budget without compromising on the other parts of the Hi-Fi without ending up in any financial trouble. I may just have to skip going out for shoes and other treats this month.

However I'm not sure where my nearest hi-fi shop is, I'd rather buy blind from the interent. I know that is a cardinal sin but I hate going into these types of shops. I'm not a very gizmo freidnly and sales people can smell that a mile away. I appreciate your advice though and will keep this all in mind. I am not one of those people who will be forever upgrading their AV equipment, if I can get a "very good" system for my budget as long as I don't over pay I'd be quite happy with it till it dies.

I'll pick up October's issue of What Hi-Fi and start from there, thanks again for everything *Artemis*.


----------



## Amfibius

Artemis, you don't think What Hifi is a little parochial? That's why I stopped reading that magazine years ago. It would prattle on and on about "UK sound" and most of the equipment that made the best buy list were all from the UK. I just took a look at their CD player best buys and sure enough, 3 of the 4 recommendations are from the UK.


----------



## Ukko

Ah yes, I can see where this thread is headed. 'Here we go loop-te-loo, here we go loop-te-la", each loop an assertion from some glade in the hi-fi jungle. Good luck _Lenfer_.


----------



## Artemis

Amfibius said:


> Artemis, you don't think What Hifi is a little parochial? That's why I stopped reading that magazine years ago. It would prattle on and on about "UK sound" and most of the equipment that made the best buy list were all from the UK. I just took a look at their CD player best buys and sure enough, 3 of the 4 recommendations are from the UK.


I don't think they are deliberately biased in favour of UK equipment. They obviously need to take account of what's available in the UK, and I know from scanning several previous hi-fi threads in this forum that a good deal of the kit that overseas (from the UK that is) members recommend is not stocked here.

Here is a link to their latest recommended best buys. Scroll down about half way and there's a link to their recommended budget, mid-range, high end equipment. The "budget" list comes to £910 for amp, CD player, speakers, excluding cables. That's not cheap, and is probably way beyond what many people would be able to spend. Two of the three items are from overseas. The speakers are UK, but British built speakers are generally very good, and the ones recommended here should be fine: Monitor Audio Bronze.


----------



## Artemis

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah yes, I can see where this thread is headed. 'Here we go loop-te-loo, here we go loop-te-la", each loop an assertion from some glade in the hi-fi jungle. Good luck _Lenfer_.


All I've done is suggest that the OP looks in a proper hi-fi mag for advice, or even better go to a reputable dealer, rather than take pot luck with a lot of generally amateurish advice that's likely here. Do you have any better suggestions to make?


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah yes, I can see where this thread is headed. 'Here we go loop-te-loo, here we go loop-te-la", each loop an assertion from some glade in the hi-fi jungle. Good luck _Lenfer_.


Thank you *Hilltroll72* I smiled at this. Thanks to you as well *Artemis* for the link and your comments in general on this thread have been very helpful. If I decide to buy a Hi-fi or SACD player I will update this thread. :tiphat:

The mid range items on* What Hi-Fi * look like they'd do me fine *Artemis*, I'll wait until October and then I can start planning for *Christmas*. I also saw these *"Grado SR80i"* I think they'd be a good replacement for my old headphones.


----------



## Ukko

Artemis said:


> All I've done is suggest that the OP looks in a proper hi-fi mag for advice, or even better go to a reputable dealer, rather than take pot luck with a lot of generally amateurish advice that's likely here. Do you have any better suggestions to make?


My comment was of general import. This subject tends to involve input from multiple experts, along with the "generally amateurish advice", with no consensus anywhere. It's an "I'll raise you two Arcams, and add a Nefurbisher 2007x" thing. Far be it from me to give you any direction whatsoever, but if I were so presumptuous it would be to lighten up.


----------



## Philip

Polednice said:


> Personally, I've never been at all bothered my sound quality, so I stick with cheap, easy, portable, always-available MP3s on my phone and laptop.


Actually, this isn't far from being the most reasonable answer to this thread yet. In most cases, a high quality MP3 will sound indistinguishable from its lossless source in a blind test. The same can be said for electronic equipment operated within specs, eg. DACs, amps... all sound the same under experiment, believe or not.

The link in your hi-fi chain that offers the most (or only) audible impact is the loudspeaker or headphone. The quality attributed to the SACD is due to the mastering, not the SACD player, nor the DSD format.


----------



## Lenfer

Philip said:


> Actually, this isn't far from being the most reasonable answer to this thread yet. In most cases, a high quality MP3 will sound indistinguishable from its lossless source in a blind test. The same can be said for electronic equipment operated within specs, eg. DACs, amps... all sound the same under experiment, believe or not.
> 
> The link in your hi-fi chain that offers the most (or only) audible impact is the loudspeaker or headphone. The quality attributed to the SACD is due to the mastering, not the SACD player, nor the DSD format.


Very well put *Philip *, I'd still like a nice Hi-Fi and SACD player though. I do think I will invest in a good pair of headphones first but the smae problem occurs how much to pay and what ones to get. At the end of the day I guess it comes down to how well you hear things and how well off financially you are. My hearing is very good, I play by ear most of the time on the cello, I don't know if that means my hearing is better than the average persons though I wouldn't think so though.

The same argument can be made with DVD and Blu-ray a well mastered transfer on DVD can look better than a badly done Blu-ray but over all I prefer Blu-ray to DVD. Can't say the same about SACD over CD yet as I haven't heard an SACD played on a SACD player yet. :tiphat:


----------



## bachman

I must concur with the advice from Amfibius:

1. Make sure you purchase an SACD player that does DSD->analogue natively. Most universal players do NOT do so, so avoid them. Marantz have an entire line-up of native SACD players ... in particular, the Marantz SA-8004 / Marantz KI Pearl Lite players are highly regarded and have won lots of awards and are quite reasonably priced.

2. in my own case, purchasing a SACD player re-invigorated my interest in purchasing new releases. I had a large CD collection, but stopped buyings CDs because ... well, to be frank, they seemed like a bit of a rip-off at full retail prices. By contrast, SACD actually provided something new ... a very noticeable quality improvement ... a warmer, more natural sound that I find far more attractive. For chamber music, I would equate the SACD sound with listening to a brand new vinyl LP ... it is just natural and warm and wonderful ... without any of the harshness of CD. For orchestral music, you get the fantastic dynamic range and clarity of sound. I hardly buy CDs anymore ... almost only SACDs ... and there are about 7000 titles available now. 

3. Not all SACDs are brilliant - you have to check how they were recorded ... some titles exist on SACD because they have multi-channel content ... but offer nothing in extra recording resolution over standard CD. This happens far less today, as most new recordings are high-rez. So you need to check the recording resolution on the box.


----------



## bachman

Artemis said:


> I have never thought it worthwhile purchasing an SACD player for the simple reason that I'm not aware of any reputable hi-fi magazines ever coming out with a recommendation in favour of one compared with a conventional CD player at any price break you care to mention.


lol - you seem a bit out of date there. Here you go:

-----------------------> Hi-Fi Choice Issue 350 August 2011 (Jimmy Hughes)
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...ecorders/krell-cipher-989164/review?artc_pg=2
Playing SACDs on the Cipher forcibly demonstrates the limitations of conventional Red Book CD. SACD offers a transparent openness, plus a wealth of fine detail that even the best CDs can't match. There's a predictable 'sameness' about CD that SACD eliminates - the latter has a far wider range of tone colours and dynamics.

------------------> Ken Kessler (Sept 2009, Hi-fi News & Record Review)
" The fact that all SACDs these days are dual-layer means it's no big deal to compare SACD with normal CD. And despite reports by the mainstream press naysayers about the public not hearing the difference, any music lover who can't needs a session with an ear-wax remover"

---------------------> Brian Kahn - Home Theater Review (9 Sept 2009)
Sonically, SACD is pretty much the highest level of audio you can hope to get in a high definition audio system and this ultra-stable player offers smooth highs and beefy bottom end performance when directly compared to Compact Disc sources.

etc etc


----------



## Artemis

bachman said:


> I must concur with the advice from Amfibius:
> 
> 1. Make sure you purchase an SACD player that does DSD->analogue natively. Most universal players do NOT do so, so avoid them. Marantz have an entire line-up of native SACD players ... in particular, the Marantz SA-8004 / Marantz KI Pearl Lite players are highly regarded and have won lots of awards and are quite reasonably priced.
> 
> 2. in my own case, purchasing a SACD player re-invigorated my interest in purchasing new releases. I had a large CD collection, but stopped buyings CDs because ... well, to be frank, they seemed like a bit of a rip-off at full retail prices. By contrast, SACD actually provided something new ... a very noticeable quality improvement ... a warmer, more natural sound that I find far more attractive. For chamber music, I would equate the SACD sound with listening to a brand new vinyl LP ... it is just natural and warm and wonderful ... without any of the harshness of CD. For orchestral music, you get the fantastic dynamic range and clarity of sound. I hardly buy CDs anymore ... almost only SACDs ... and there are about 7000 titles available now.
> 
> 3. Not all SACDs are brilliant - you have to check how they were recorded ... some titles exist on SACD because they have multi-channel content ... but offer nothing in extra recording resolution over standard CD. This happens far less today, as most new recordings are high-rez. So you need to check the recording resolution on the box.


According to THIS Wikipedia article on SACD, various statistical tests have questioned whether people can genuinely notice any difference between SACD and CD: see the section on "_Audible differences compared to PCM/CD_."

I would also be interested to know what CD player you were using before you bought your SACD player. It would be useful if you could possibly provide details of what it was and which SACD you bought as a replacement. Also when you bought your SACD player did you do any comparisons with conventional CD players, and if so which ones?

I wouldn't wish to deny that you probably think there is a big improvement in your SACD player over the original equipment, but in my experience when some people upgrade (whether it's a piece of hi-fi, or another type of consumer durable) it often turns out that the original equipment was a piece of junk relatively speaking, and that almost anything they could have bought as a replacement at the same price level would have sounded/performed much the same as each other, but a lot better than the orginal kit if it was old and worn out. However, they often swear that only the particular product they happened to have bought gives the added quality. That's human nature, I'm afraid.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I don't have a SACD player, but can play surround-sound CDs in my 5.1 DVD player. The quality of the surround-sound mixes varies, but, when done well, can add a real dimension to the listening experience by creating the aural illusion of actually being in a concert hall, rather than in one's sitting room.


----------



## Artemis

bachman said:


> lol - you seem a bit out of date there. Here you go:
> 
> -----------------------> Hi-Fi Choice Issue 350 August 2011 (Jimmy Hughes)
> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...ecorders/krell-cipher-989164/review?artc_pg=2
> Playing SACDs on the Cipher forcibly demonstrates the limitations of conventional Red Book CD. SACD offers a transparent openness, plus a wealth of fine detail that even the best CDs can't match. There's a predictable 'sameness' about CD that SACD eliminates - the latter has a far wider range of tone colours and dynamics.


This thing costs £12,250.


----------



## Amfibius

Artemis said:


> According to THIS Wikipedia article on SACD, various statistical tests have questioned whether people can genuinely notice any difference between SACD and CD: see the section on "_Audible differences compared to PCM/CD_."


Do you have any direct experience with SACD players, or are you going by what you have read on Wikipedia?


----------



## Artemis

Amfibius said:


> Do you have any direct experience with SACD players, or are you going by what you have read on Wikipedia?


As I said before, I'm not aware of any reputable hi-fi magazines which have recently recommended an SACD player over a conventional CD player in the kind of price bracket which I assumed the OP was interested in. Since I already have a large CD collection, I wouldn't want to replace it with SACD format discs (to enjoy the claimed extra "benefits" of SACD sound) as the cost would be prohibitive. I'm also perfectly happy with the CD player I have, so I have have no need to listen to any others. Amplifier and speakers are, to me at least, more important items to than a CD player to focus upon from the point of view of tailoring the sound to one's own requirements.


----------



## Chris

It would be interesting to listen to a genuinely stereophonic work like Berlioz' _Grande Messe des Morts_ on SACD


----------



## regressivetransphobe

It seems new, so I don't like it.


----------



## Ukko

I consider SACD an advance from CD Redbook - for the added channels. I play them in my movie DVD setup (which is also my #1 audio setup). My elderly and abused hearing doesn't have the chance of a fart in a hurricane of detecting the difference between DSD and PCM. I recommended the Oppo back there because it plays everything - reliably - not because I thinks it sounds better than my sister-in-law's apple pie tastes.


----------



## Amfibius

Artemis said:


> As I said before, I'm not aware of any reputable hi-fi magazines which have recently recommended an SACD player over a conventional CD player in the kind of price bracket which I assumed the OP was interested in. Since I already have a large CD collection, I wouldn't want to replace it with SACD format discs (to enjoy the claimed extra "benefits" of SACD sound) as the cost would be prohibitive. I'm also perfectly happy with the CD player I have, so I have have no need to listen to any others. Amplifier and speakers are, to me at least, more important items to than a CD player to focus upon from the point of view of tailoring the sound to one's own requirements.


I'll take that as a "no" then.

You seem to have some very strong opinions for someone who has never listened to an SACD player.


----------



## bachman

Artemis said:


> I wouldn't wish to deny that you probably think there is a big improvement in your SACD player over the original equipment, but in my experience when some people upgrade (whether it's a piece of hi-fi, or another type of consumer durable) it often turns out that the original equipment was a piece of junk relatively speaking,


Nope - there seems to be a misunderstanding.

Any SACD player plays all your existing CDs, and also SACDs. 
AND SACD discs usually contain 2 layers ... the hi-rez SACD layer + the lower resolution standard CD layer (so you can play them in the car or wherever).

So, say you buy a disc of say ... Pieter Wispelwey playing Beethoven Cello Sonatas ... You can tell your player to play the SACD layer or tell it to play the CD layer from the same disc ... and compare the sound ... on the same machine ... using the same D/A converter ... everything the same ... except that the CD version of the recording has only about 25% of the original recording information that is on the SACD layer ... the rest gets thrown out when they place the recording onto CD, because CD can only contain 600 MB of data, approximately.

Buying a new standalone CD player today makes no sense. Instead, you can buy an SACD player that plays all your CDs, ... and play hi-rez SACDs too ... at basically no extra cost.

All the audiophile players are now SACD/CD machines. Companies like Krell and Mark Levinson don't even make standalone CD players anymore ... moved to SACD. Marantz have essentially moved their entire line-up to SACD/CD players: I think they may have one CD player left ... the main line-up is all SACD/CD now.


----------



## Artemis

bachman said:


> Nope - there seems to be a misunderstanding.


No misunderstanding at all, I can assure you.

What I said is that if one already has a large stock of conventional CDs and you don't want to buy the whole lot again in SACD format, there is no point buying an SACD player since ordinary CDs won't sound any different when played on a SACD player (cetiris paribus). Do you agree?

I'm still waiting to hear your response to the fact that the price of the SACD player in the "hi-fi Choice" you first referred to is £12,250 (= approx USA $20,000). I didn't look at any references, as I was quite astonished at the ludicrous price of the first one.

And you haven't yet told us what SACD player you actually purchased, what CD player it replaced, and what conventional CD players you took into account when you purchased your SACD.


----------



## haydnfan

I had an SACD player once. Some of the sacds sounded the same as cds, some sounded better. For those that sounded better I played the cd player on my other player and still found that they sounded warm, vibrant and detailed. That was when I discovered that it wasn't the sacd format but the engineering. If only all cds were so carefully done! SACDs are audibly identical in sound to cds but they cost more. I've sold my player and never looked back.

BTW I voted for no! and never instead of not anymore because I like the stronger no! statement.


----------



## bachman

Artemis said:


> No misunderstanding at all, I can assure you.


Quite the contrary, every aspect of your reply suggests there is a misunderstanding. I'll respond part by part:



Artemis said:


> No misunderstanding at all, I can assure you.
> 
> if one already has a large stock of conventional CDs and you don't want to buy the whole lot again in SACD format, there is no point buying an SACD player since ordinary CDs won't sound any different when played on a SACD player (cetiris paribus). Do you agree?


I have a large stock of CDs ... several thousand ... I play them on my new SACD player. I don't have to replace them ... they work just fine as CDs.

If you are saying: "I have lots of CDs and I never want to buy anything else" - well that's fine. But that's not the question posed by the original poster ... she is looking for a new player .. and she probably plans on buying more discs in the future. She has more options with a SACD player ... not less.



Artemis said:


> I'm still waiting to hear your response to the fact that the price of the SACD player in the "hi-fi Choice" you first referred to is £12,250 (= approx USA $20,000).


The price of one machine in one review is irrelevant. You said words to the effect: "No respected magazine prefers SACD", and so I provided 3 respected reviews that clearly consider the sound from the SACD layer of a disc to be far superior to the sound from the CD layer of the same disc ... on the same player. tis all.



Artemis said:


> And you haven't yet told us what SACD player you actually purchased, what CD player it replaced, and what conventional CD players you took into account when you purchased your SACD.


This again misses the point. The only comparison that matters is listening to the same recording, on the same machine, comparing the SACD layer to the CD layer of the same recording. What CD machine I had before is irrelevant ... I am not comparing to the past. I am comparing the same recording on the same new SACD player ... played either in hi-rez (SACD) or standard rez (CD). That is all that matters.

[ Since you are curious, my previous CD player was made by Madrigal ... an offshoot of Mark Levinson. My new SACD player is made by Marantz ... It is not expensive // it costs about 1/3 the price of the Madrigal Cd player it replaced ... The Marantz sounds better (playing the SACD layer of a decent hi-rez recording) than any CD player I have heard anywhere. Full stop. But that's not the point either ... the point is how it sounds playing the hi-rez SACD layer of a disc compared to how it sounds playing the CD layer of the same disc. That is all.]


----------



## Philip

bachman said:


> Nope - there seems to be a misunderstanding.
> 
> Any SACD player plays all your existing CDs, and also SACDs.
> AND SACD discs usually contain 2 layers ... the hi-rez SACD layer + the lower resolution standard CD layer (so you can play them in the car or wherever).
> 
> So, say you buy a disc of say ... Pieter Wispelwey playing Beethoven Cello Sonatas ... You can tell your player to play the SACD layer or tell it to play the CD layer from the same disc ... and compare the sound ... on the same machine ... using the same D/A converter ... everything the same ... except that the CD version of the recording has only about 25% of the original recording information that is on the SACD layer ... the rest gets thrown out when they place the recording onto CD, because CD can only contain 600 MB of data, approximately.
> 
> Buying a new standalone CD player today makes no sense. Instead, you can buy an SACD player that plays all your CDs, ... and play hi-rez SACDs too ... at basically no extra cost.
> 
> All the audiophile players are now SACD/CD machines. Companies like Krell and Mark Levinson don't even make standalone CD players anymore ... moved to SACD. Marantz have essentially moved their entire line-up to SACD/CD players: I think they may have one CD player left ... the main line-up is all SACD/CD now.


Most SACDs are recorded in DSD, mixed in PCM then converted back to DSD, rendering the whole concept of DSD irrelevant. Although there is an advantage to dealing with SACDs (other than hardware encryption), from a manufacturing point of view, all that is needed to decode a DSD waveform (actually a PDM waveform) is a low pass filter. Very convenient indeed...

And sorry to break it to you, but Krell and Mark Levinson are both major scams.


----------



## Artemis

Amfibius said:


> I have one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it is a Playback Designs MPS-5 SACD player. The difference between standard CD and SACD are immediately noticable on my system. I have been an SACD supporter since the format was released.


When I first spotted this post I must admit that I didn't take much notice of it because I hadn't heard of the brand "_Playback Designs". _

I have now delved into a bit further and it would appear that this is top-end product with a price tag of some USA $15,000. Moreover, I couldn't find a UK retailer selling this product. The best I could fund is a 3 year-old second-hand one for sale in the UK at £8,000.

I for one wouldn't dream of spending anything like this amount on just one item in a hi-fi system. I would have thought that the price player is so outlandish that it's hardly worth mentioning it in a thread of this nature where the person asking for advice in this instance is presumably not interested in taking out a mortgage on the product.


----------



## Artemis

bachman said:


> Quite the contrary, every aspect of your reply suggests there is a misunderstanding. ]


Oh dear me, I don't quite what I've got to do to make you understand the very simple point I'm making, but I will have one more go.

I am fully aware that ordinary CDs can be played on a SACD player. Likewise, SACD discs can be played on ordinary CD players. But if you play an ordinary CD on a SACD player it will obviously sound no different than if you played it on an ordinary CD player.

Hence, if someone already has a large CD collection which they don't intend to replace with SACD discs there is little point buying a SACD player, since they won't haer any difference. The only "advantage" in doing so would be that if they buy any further CDs they could get the SACD version which would then be able to utilise the extra functionality of the SACD format. This point of course I would accept, but then one has to look to see what you get for your money, and I haven't seen any group tests where an SACD player is favoured over a conventional player, which would mean that the existing stock of conventional CDs would not sound so good if played on the SACD player.

I would be interested to hear if you can refer me to a reputable hi-fi magazine which has actually recommended recently an SACD player in preference to an ordinary CD player in a group test where the items under comparison are similar in price and under say £1000. I'm not interested in one-off reviews of individual SACd players, because this is where the magazines tend to into over-drive with their exaggerated blurb; it's a proper group test only that I'm referring to, where they have to come out in favour of a product.

As for your reference to a SACD player costing £12,250, that's a ridiculous price to pay and is hardly relevant in a thread of this kind where the focus of discussion is clearly on products with much more down to earth price tags.


----------



## bachman

You are saying ... If you only want to play your old DVDs, why should you buy a Bluray player? Why indeed.


----------



## Amfibius

bachman said:


> You are saying ... If you only want to play your old DVDs, why should you buy a Bluray player? Why indeed.


Looks like that to me, too. As you say - an SACD player gives you more options.

BTW, it's not only the hi-res aspect of it. If they wanted to, they could cram an entire Wagner opera into a single disc and play it back at CD resolution. I have an SACD somewhere of Bach's entire works on organ crammed into five discs, at CD resolution. That is normally 16-18 RBCD's.


----------



## Philip

Amfibius said:


> Looks like that to me, too. As you say - an SACD player gives you more options.
> 
> BTW, it's not only the hi-res aspect of it. If they wanted to, they could cram an entire Wagner opera into a single disc and play it back at CD resolution. I have an SACD somewhere of Bach's entire works on organ crammed into five discs, at CD resolution. That is normally 16-18 RBCD's.


By definition DSD has the lowest resolution possible for an audio signal, ie. one bit. The sampling rate is very high in order to compensate for this.


----------



## Amfibius

I will say. 2.8MHz ... as opposed to 44.1kHz.

I remember when 2.8MHz computers were considered fast.


----------



## Philip

Amfibius said:


> I will say. 2.8MHz ... as opposed to 44.1kHz.
> 
> I remember when 2.8MHz computers were considered fast.


Actually, to be fair, it's 2,890,137,600*2 vs 44100*2^16. Which is a ratio of 2:1.

So yes it is really a shame that PCM can achieve transparency with literally half the amount of possible levels, and 4096 times less coded bits... but I'll admit that it does take a marketing genius to sell a $15,000 low-pass filter.


----------



## Amfibius

Philip, do you have any experience with SACD or hi-res PCM, or are you going by what you have read on the internet? There's one of those in this thread already, we don't need another. 

I have had SACD for 10 years, and I can easily hear a difference.


----------

