What is the point of SACD?

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 Sony NS500V as well, and like yours, it developed that issue with recognizing SACDs. But while it worked, it sounded great.

Btw, the TAS article had the NS500V go up against a Rega Planet and it was able to go toe-to-toe with the (way) more expensive machine.
 
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 the same exact changer and I really like it. I paid $11 from Deseret and got a $8 remote from eBay. I just got a Marantz DV6001 and can hear no difference between it and the Sony......but I cant hear any difference in two channel mode between SACD and CD so my opinion may not mean much. Regular CDs have such a low noise floor, especially compared to to LPs, that I would need to listen to very quiet classical music at huge volumes to hear a difference.
 
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'm pretty sure my first one was the same unit. Came with a copy of Kind Of Blue.
Good info on the pins. Mine is stored away as a backup unit, but I recall near the end of it's used life it had that funky display thing going on.

I really liked it as a player, sounded pretty good. The video quality with DVDs was horrid, though.
 
SACD was made solely to provide discussion fodder for Complainers. Those who find their life's satisfaction in griping about every tiny little inconsequential occurrence and item. Sony thus invented a format to which the complainers can devote years of their seriously outraged lives.

Nobody realises that SACD really stands for Satisfies A Complainer's Disposition. It has been a boon for online pedants having provided fuel for decades of irrelevant arguing.
 
SACD was made solely to provide discussion fodder for Complainers. Those who find their life's satisfaction in griping about every tiny little inconsequential occurrence and item. Sony thus invented a format to which the complainers can devote years of their seriously outraged lives.

Nobody realises that SACD really stands for Satisfies A Complainer's Disposition. It has been a boon for online pedants having provided fuel for decades of irrelevant arguing.


A close second was the HDMI cable.......
 
I have had a few SACDs for years now but only recently got a player. Dark side of the moon is impressive. I'm looking for more stuff to buy, and notice the glut of Callas on SACD. I like Callas and I like SACDs, but is there much benefit from putting these old recordings onto the format? Another question is about these sampler compilations, particularly the Venus ones, are these any good please? I can't seem to find reviews.
 
I like Callas and I like SACDs, but is there much benefit from putting these old recordings onto the format?
I have many SACDs that were analog transfers direct to SACD and they sound wonderful. I'm talking about the old Living Stereo and Living Presence recordings that were praised on original vinyl, and they sound even better on SACD. No they are not the same as current-day digital recordings but for their time (and considering they are circa 60 years old), they are still impressive. Analogue Productions has also taken the initiative to transfer older analog recordings to SACD with similar results--their versions of some of their reissues (like the Bill Evans SACDs, the CCRs, etc.) have drawn a lot of praise for the mastering and the clarity of the sound. Good SACDs done right are a real treat. It's knowing which are good, and which to avoid, that become difficult.
 
I have had a few SACDs for years now but only recently got a player. Dark side of the moon is impressive. I'm looking for more stuff to buy, and notice the glut of Callas on SACD. I like Callas and I like SACDs, but is there much benefit from putting these old recordings onto the format? Another question is about these sampler compilations, particularly the Venus ones, are these any good please? I can't seem to find reviews.

Maria Callas, the opera singer?
 
I just received the Getz/ Gilberto album on SACD. I've had this album on vinyl (original press) for a while and play it quite often. I was a bit dubious about what SACD could do for a relatively old album from the 1960s, but I'm impressed. I haven't done any side by side comparison but it's very easy to listen to, and it's easy to forget the recording is over half a century old.
 
I haven't done any side by side comparison but it's very easy to listen to, and it's easy to forget the recording is over half a century old.
RCA's first stereo releases dated to 1954, on 2-track 7.5 IPS tape, and some of those were released on the Living Stereo SACD series by RCA. The first stereo title released was Also Sprach Zarathustra, recorded 1954 with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Fritz Reiner cond.). Mono LPs of these recordings were also released at the time, but when the Westrex stereo cutting head was available in 1958, RCA reissued these titles on stereo LP. I own a few of these titles on SACD (which were mastered at Soundmirror) and for being up to 66 year old recordings, they still sound surprisingly good. My favorite is the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra (Chicago/Reiner) from 1956. (Analogue Productions also made both a fine SACD and 180g LP of this title in recent years, which also sounds excellent.)

A lot of these analog recordings from decades ago still sound excellent. Unfortunately tapes can and do get damaged due to time or wear (for popular titles). But for the most part, good analog transfers to DSD usually sound the best if the mastering is up to par.
 
RCA's first stereo releases dated to 1954, on 2-track 7.5 IPS tape, and some of those were released on the Living Stereo SACD series by RCA. The first stereo title released was Also Sprach Zarathustra, recorded 1954 with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Fritz Reiner cond.). Mono LPs of these recordings were also released at the time, but when the Westrex stereo cutting head was available in 1958, RCA reissued these titles on stereo LP. I own a few of these titles on SACD (which were mastered at Soundmirror) and for being up to 66 year old recordings, they still sound surprisingly good. My favorite is the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra (Chicago/Reiner) from 1956. (Analogue Productions also made both a fine SACD and 180g LP of this title in recent years, which also sounds excellent.)

A lot of these analog recordings from decades ago still sound excellent. Unfortunately tapes can and do get damaged due to time or wear (for popular titles). But for the most part, good analog transfers to DSD usually sound the best if the mastering is up to par.
Those RCA Living Stereo recordings were originally recorded on tape with a center channel and those recordings reissued on SACD's have the center channel. Regular CD's are only capable of two discrete channels.
 
Those RCA Living Stereo recordings were originally recorded on tape with a center channel and those recordings reissued on SACD's have the center channel. Regular CD's are only capable of two discrete channels.
The earliest RCAs were only recorded in two-channel, but they added the center fill not too long after. I never did listen to the 3-channel versions as I no longer have my system set up for surround, but it's good to know it's there if I ever should want it. Some jazz recordings at other labels were also in 3-channel--I'm thinking maybe some of the late 50s Columbias?
 
The oppo 981-HD does not play sacd thru the digital out if using an external DAC. The few sacd's I have (yo miles) sound pretty good using the 981-hd as s a cd transport to a topping d-30. The sacd only goes through using the analog RCA s. Sounds slightly better to me in cd mode digit out to the dac
 
i have one sacd,dire straits ,bothers and arms,
i have this on standard cd also,
the player i use is a sony dvp-s9000es ,
i do hear improvements with the sacd recording , so i do think sacd is better ,
however the cost of the discs are high and hardish to find in my part of the world ,
im always looking for good titles
just what i think
mike
 
Hopelessly Dependable Media Interface ! ;), :rflmao::rflmao:
HDMI is a PITA but it does simplify connections.

While there's no technical reason 1080 could not be passed via three wire component video, that would still require six channels of analog audio connection. So, that one HDMI cable replaced nine analog cables. This doesn't even take into account later developments like 7.1, HDR and other things that came after it was initially introduced.

[edit] make that four cables. Three video and one digital audio. My setup is a universal player which is configured for SACD as well as video.
 
Last edited:
HDMI is a PITA but it does simplify connections.

While there's no technical reason 1080 could not be passed via three wire component video, that would still require six channels of analog audio connection. So, that one HDMI cable replaced nine analog cables. This doesn't even take into account later developments like 7.1, HDR and other things that came after it was initially introduced.

Yes it does, and "they", more importantly, couldn`t implement HDCP(AKA as DRM control) in a Component analog 1080P video environment.

My first, ever purchased, in 2009, BR/DVD universal player was/is a Sony with HDMI, Component, S-Video, composite video outputs.
And at that time, I had my house`s 5 rooms Ethernet cable wired for Component video distribution, along with 3 other video signal types around the same time, and my Sharp flat screens reported 1080P when a BluRay disc was played in that Sony..

And I was happy with staying away from HDMI, & it`s influx changing versions, until 2 Sony corp. owned BR movies would not play on the Sony player, even though it was currently updated + wasted time e-mails with Sony`s customer service who didn`t/couldn`t/wouldn`t provide solutions to my BR movie non-playing problem.

So my B&M A/V store contact suggested I buy a OPPO BDP 103 universal player, which I did, and while that fixed my inability to play the BR`s that the Sony wouldn`t play, it required that I invest in large amounts of money to restructure/upgrade my Ethernet cable video signal distribution setup to utilize1080P HDMI ..

One of the existing passively distributed analog video signals( from the A/V rack Computer VGA) required 2 Ethernet cables, & if I wanted to add HDMI, without paying(labor expensive) for another 5 room additional Ethernet cable feed + jack plates, I had to convert/encode the laptop`s analog VGA feed from passive to digital to be able to use only one existing Ethernet cable feed using HQ(AKA expensive) headend active encoder multi output distribution, and 5 room end point active decoders back to VGA.

And then, the same similar, but pricier investment for the 1080P HDMI encode/decode active distribution to now use the now freed up existing Ethernet cable leftover from the original passive VGA video signal distribution.

Yes Skipper, I have some knowledge/experience with HDMI/HDCP handshake, both positive, & negative for over 10 yrs, and my B&M A/V store`s owner advised me that HDMI/HDCP issues have cost his, and any other A/V seller/installer untold amounts of lost money dealing with "warranty service" call issues caused by HDMI/HDCP at customer`s homes, that didn`t exist in the Component Video signal BluRay player environment prior.
And he was the person who advised me what his version^^^ of HDMI should stand for, over a decade ago, after I told him mine !!
 
Back
Top Bottom