What is the point of SACD?

I've waded thru the 11 pages here and thought I'd ask a question in regards to hardware.
I'm currently doing multi-channel SACD on the cheap. A NAD (T-763) avr was given to me, I bought a used Sony SACD player, and I've got 4 EPI speakers (need a 5th). My limited understanding of SACD is that to do multi-channel I need to continue using analog out from the player to analog in on the amp ( or pre-amp). My question is in regards to back-up and/or upgrade equipment. For the player its obviously an Oppo player. But what about the Amp? I don't see much out there that will accept 5.1/5.0 analog input. SACD multi-channel will not output to digital is what I keep hearing. What would a modern SACD system look like. I plan on continuing to do this "on the cheap".
 
I'm no expert on it, beyond my own system. But what I see in SACD can go mainly two ways.

First, there is the full-blown audiophile two-channel system. That is how I use my SACD player currently. I do have an HDMI output going to a monitor, but it's rare (maybe once every two months) I'll actually try video through the player. In this case, I use the analog outputs directly to my preamp. I can't see wanting a better DAC, as at this level, I'd probably have to spend a few thousand more to get a noticeable (to me) change in sound quality. As an option, I can add a second power amp (perhaps a 3-channel amp) to the rear and center outputs directly (the player has its own volume control) if I wanted to get back into surround.

In fact, that is one option--a 5-channel power amp fed directly from a player that has a volume control.

Second, I would think most SACD surround applications are going into an AVR these days, using whatever digital input/output method would transfer the DSD signal to the receiver. I know that in the past, Pioneer's Elite universal players could output DSD to their Elite receivers. I am sure others do as well, and I believe they use the HDMI interface to do so. As I don't follow surround or AV equipment anymore, I don't really know what else is out there. With HDMI being so popular, it makes me think that analog 5.1 inputs are probably a dying breed.

But yeah, I definitely would always want 5.1 analog outputs on a player or a DAC, without needing an AVR.
 
I've waded thru the 11 pages here and thought I'd ask a question in regards to hardware.
I'm currently doing multi-channel SACD on the cheap. A NAD (T-763) avr was given to me, I bought a used Sony SACD player, and I've got 4 EPI speakers (need a 5th). My limited understanding of SACD is that to do multi-channel I need to continue using analog out from the player to analog in on the amp ( or pre-amp). My question is in regards to back-up and/or upgrade equipment. For the player its obviously an Oppo player. But what about the Amp? I don't see much out there that will accept 5.1/5.0 analog input. SACD multi-channel will not output to digital is what I keep hearing. What would a modern SACD system look like. I plan on continuing to do this "on the cheap".

You can't *rip* a SACD (not easily, anyway, there are ways... don't ask me though, even though I do have an Oppo 103, whic his one of the pieces of equipment that you apparently need to do this, I don't actually own any SACDs) but you can get a multi-channel digital output over HDMI.
 
I didn't see any mention of ripping SACDs, but I can attest to the shrinking space on my network server that ripping SACDs is actually a lot simpler thanks to using the Oppo method. ;) It's a matter of putting a single folder with three small files in it onto a USB thumb drive and sticking it in the player--the player's ready. Then using a computer on the same network, you run a small utility to start the rip, and (optionally) extract the pure DSD files. We just hope they don't patch the players in the future to close that loophole!
 
I've waded thru the 11 pages here and thought I'd ask a question in regards to hardware.
I'm currently doing multi-channel SACD on the cheap. A NAD (T-763) avr was given to me, I bought a used Sony SACD player, and I've got 4 EPI speakers (need a 5th). My limited understanding of SACD is that to do multi-channel I need to continue using analog out from the player to analog in on the amp ( or pre-amp). My question is in regards to back-up and/or upgrade equipment. For the player its obviously an Oppo player. But what about the Amp? I don't see much out there that will accept 5.1/5.0 analog input. SACD multi-channel will not output to digital is what I keep hearing. What would a modern SACD system look like. I plan on continuing to do this "on the cheap".

I've done some research and have come to the conclusion that there are players and amps that do pass SACD multi-channel via HDMI. Looks like I'd have to be careful and make sure that each unit is compatible with DSD or multi-channel audio. Is this correct? My NAD T-763 has a terrible reputation for reliability (though it has lasted this long). Some day I'll need to replace it.
 
I've done some research and have come to the conclusion that there are players and amps that do pass SACD multi-channel via HDMI. Looks like I'd have to be careful and make sure that each unit is compatible with DSD or multi-channel audio. Is this correct? My NAD T-763 has a terrible reputation for reliability (though it has lasted this long). Some day I'll need to replace it.

If you are considering current (or recent) components, I'd recommend looking through their respective owner's manuals. For example, there are many current home theater receivers that will accept and process an incoming DSD bitstream via their HDMI inputs. On the other end, make sure the player can output the raw DSD bitstream through the HDMI output. So, yes, it can be done with one single HDMI cable for multi-channel SACD.
 
Second, I would think most SACD surround applications are going into an AVR these days, using whatever digital input/output method would transfer the DSD signal to the receiver. I know that in the past, Pioneer's Elite universal players could output DSD to their Elite receivers. I am sure others do as well, and I believe they use the HDMI interface to do so.

You can go to Walmart and buy a $100.00 Sony Blu-ray player (one that states it can play SACD) and output the native DSD bitstream through its HDMI output. With a player that can output DSD through the HDMI output, you are just moving where the DSD decoding takes place.

But yeah, I definitely would always want 5.1 analog outputs on a player or a DAC, without needing an AVR.

Multi-channel analog outputs (on a player) and inputs (on a home theater receiver or pre/pro) are very rare nowadays. Oppo is just about the only manufacturer that have multi-channel analog outputs on all of its players (including the new 4K Blu-ray 203 model).
 
Oppo is just about the only manufacturer that have multi-channel analog outputs on all of its players (including the new 4K Blu-ray 203 model).
I was somewhat surprised to see that on the 203, but I'm glad they kept it.
 
Somewhat to my surprise I found the Samsung BD-J7500/ZA Blu-ray player has multichannel outputs for < $200. Connect that to a slightly older AV receiver that has multichannel inputs, which most have, and you're in business. Many of the non HDMI AV receivers can be found for pennies on the dollar used. Even many less recent HDMI receivers have multichannel inputs. And already mentioned, there inexpensive SONY Blu Rays that carry SACD over HDMI.
 
to the original question, my input is that yes, you can tell the difference between all the formats, all the mastering, and everything else.

before anyone knocks the 50+ year old recordings, they were 2-track custom monsters running at 15 or 30 IPS. no doubt some of
the best recordings in time. and using tubes in the sound chain.

then came the recording engineers who mastered the tapes and had target goals - mono, initial stereo (and various pre-RIAA), LPs,
reel-to-reel, cassette, CD, mini-disks, SACDs, DSD (various bitrates), and perhaps, sometimes soon, the original recordings
without processing (mastering) that is downloadable.

each time it's re-mastered the ceilings are raised but the walls are also. limitations in the target media (CD compression), LPs
(bass excursions, time limitations, IGD, constant angular velocity), cassettes (dolby processing), etc all cause compromises
that, the next media/re-master, fixes.

my objection is paying for all the various versions, each promising a better sound experience. So a long time go, I decided
to stick with LPs. along the way people dumped their LPs and I grabbed them . Nowadays, CDs seem to be going through the
same process.

one note, my SACD player only outputs analog via RCAs. CDs can also come out Analog but can be routed through optical
outputs bypassing the internal DACs, in many cases, the CD sounds much better through an external DAC. That minimizes
the differences, although I haven't done critical listening as such.

Bob
 
Really late in checking out the cutting edge forum---thus my lateness to this topic.

Not having a golden ear I will say my ear can tell the difference.
Have a Sony SACD player in the home theater for when I choose to listen to a multi channel presentation.
In my main listening room I have a TEAC 2000.
Mainly I listen these days to LPs. However when I play a CD in the TEAC versus an SACD the difference is night and day.

The best way I can say is the SACD experience is startling. The clean dynamics just outpace other formats except for perhaps bluray audio (IMO with MY system).

Another bonus is the TEAC player has built in streaming capability via USB from the computer.

Also I have noted plenty at the on line outlets: new LP 35$, used scratched record at a shop 7 to 20$ depending on title, SACD on sale 25$. Especially
for artists that I have no vinyl, in this scenario I would grab the SACD every time.
 
a golden ear is not necessary, but a TRAINED ear, yes. or, maybe not as in the case of a non-audiophile i once counseled. i told the guy to just carefully listen over an extended period of time, months, to music that he had on both LP and CD, to see if he didn't notice the more relaxed, and fulfilling sound of the vinyl vs compact disc.

about three months later, i saw him and he volunteered to me that it was true, he could definitely sense just that. a more satisfying and yes, relaxed feeling after hearing vinyl but not on CD. SACD also has these characteristics that allow the relaxation and to hear the more vividly alive music in comparison to Cd.

i many times will buy the SACD when it's likely that an original LP version of the music (such as Mingus' "Ah Um") would be prohibitively costly or quite thrashed vs buying a pristine sounding SACD. new vinyl tough is usually a better buy for ultimate sound quality and that word used by tas-verisimillitude.

that word captures the essence of why vinyl playback is more involving. used records can be nearly as clean if you limit yourself to mint or near mint status which is always included in the description of the item for sale. getting yourself a Spin Clean ($120) record cleaner of for a lot more money (~$600), an ultrasonic cleaner, will take you steps closer to VERY pristine sound from used records.

so, yes SACD is a worthwhile investment in hardware to play it and the software to play.
 
about three months later, i saw him and he volunteered to me that it was true, he could definitely sense just that. a more satisfying and yes, relaxed feeling after hearing vinyl but not on CD. SACD also has these characteristics that allow the relaxation and to hear the more vividly alive music in comparison to Cd.
Granted, part of it was the crappy player I had (a Pioneer DV45A), but there were times I would listen to CD and get a headache after an hour or two. Yet with SACD or DVD-Audio, I noticed much less of a headache. Vinyl? Never. I realized that what I was doing was clenching my teeth unconsciously whenever a CD was playing (which also explained my sore jaw). At any rate, one day I was working and sitting not too far from one of the speakers, and I noticed that anything in the high frequencies had sort of a "buzzy/raspy" sound on the CD (if you're familiar with a sawtooth waveform...that's what it faintly sounded like), which was absent on a vinyl version of it. Strangely, my Pioneer 100 CD carousel was actually slightly smoother sounding than that DV45A.

I have noticed now that since I have moved to a more musical player, I can tolerate CDs longer, and SACD (and high-res in general) more approaches that liquidity (that sense of naturalness and relaxation in the reproduced music) I would get with the better vinyl in my collection. Once I got the player in my system, I heard how much better digital could sound, heard how close SACD and high-res could sound to pure analog, and it made me understand why some listeners out there will drop several thousand dollars on digital playback equipment (transports, streamers, DACs, etc.).

Some SACDs I still don't trust (primarily, imported SACDs where the sources are unknown...hell, they could be a CD rip for all we know), but for companies like MoFi and Analogue Productions who actually remaster to SACD, I will buy those if I see some titles I like. I have heard some really nice reissues. Very lifelike and musical. :)
 
I have a couple of Sony SCD-CE595 changers with these analog outputs. This was a sleeper player in which Sony, in an effort to increase interest in SACD's, used one of their better implemented chips.

My wife and I took turns in a double blind A/B test between the Sony and a Marantz SA8004 and could tell no difference between the two playing separate copies of the same SACD. The last one I bought at Goodwill cost $7.00.

604081-sony_scdce595_sacd_player.jpg
 
I have a couple of Sony SCD-CE595 changers with these analog outputs. This was a sleeper player in which Sony, in an effort to increase interest in SACD's, used one of their better implemented chips.

I had this SACD player....used a customized Burr-Brown DAC chip. I paired it with a pair of Grado SR-60 headphones and a Technics HT receiver used as a headphone amp (no headphone jack on the SCD-CE595). Sounded great!

For those who wants to pick up some inexpensive SACDs, importcds.com has some MoFi SACD titles on sale.....

http://www.importcds.com/search?mod=AP&ft=SACD&lb=Mobile Fidelity#!?pagenum=1&sortby=PriceLowHigh
 
i had a wonderful sounding sony ns500v that i had read about in tas that also was a real sleeper new, $169, delivered. it also had the analog outputs. when i played rbcd discs, they sounded so much better on it that i felt that my rbcd collection was now worth more to me.

eventually, its sacd function failed, now i have an oppo 203 awaiting hookup.
 
i had a wonderful sounding sony ns500v that i had read about in tas that also was a real sleeper new, $169, delivered. it also had the analog outputs. when i played rbcd discs, they sounded so much better on it that i felt that my rbcd collection was now worth more to me.

eventually, its sacd function failed, now i have an oppo 203 awaiting hookup.

I guess you probably wouldn't be happy to know that I found mine in a thrift store for ~$15. :p

If it makes you feel any better, I had to solder some header pins back together (doesn't look like they were ever soldered from the factory) to get the display working, and also had to spend a few more bucks to get the remote off a certain auction site...

I don't actually have any SACDs though...
 
i bought my sony near the beginning of the sacd life cycle and paid about the price of a list price CD which was worth THAT price, not their list price. i acquired quite a few in hopes that if we supported the format, it would live. well, it didn't live a full life but they are still being made and are usually about $30 now. for less than the cost of a pristine LP of legacy music (blue notes and some other titles), you can have a very good transfer that will not become noisy.

my second unit of the ns500v was about $40 on ebay and it worked in sacd, for a while.

here is a source of sacd at decent pricing: http://www.importcds.com/music/sacd this was posted by soundboy above.

please note that i had put the wrong link but NOW the right one is there


cd
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom