Dipping my toes into the SACD pool

[john5220]

If I'm just starting to get into the SACD area, isn't it better to invest in a good SACD player and the SACD discs than just playing the SACD discs on a standard CD player? I assume I'm losing a good bit of the benefit of investing in the SACD disc by playing it on a standard player?

Right or wrong/

 

[hjames]

Yes - SACD is a Sony specialty, tho others have used the technique. Tho some SACDs are Hybrid and can be played in a standard CD player,
you do need a proper SACD player to get the resulting higherRes contents off the disc.
My Oppo disc players can decode SACD content as well (Oppo 970HD, and BDP 103D).

 

[john5220]

As I understand it, a SACD has "normal" resolution info and "super" resolution info, and a regular CD player reads the former, and a SACD player reads the latter. Does a higher quality basic CD player read any of the "super" resolution information, or was I hearing it sound better only the power of suggestion?

TIA

 

[TomD62]

I recently purchased a Sony DVP-NS900V SACD player off the bay for $99 plus shipping. This was a $1K deck when new. You could try one out first to see what you think before laying out real money. Just a thought.

 

[linuxfan]

As I understand it, a SACD has "normal" resolution info and "super" resolution info

Yes, but only if the SACD has been authored as "hybrid" - the SACD layer being physically higher on the disc, with the conventional CD layer being 0.6mm lower on the disc.
But there are some SACD's which are SACD-only, they don't include the conventional CD layer.

Does a higher quality basic CD player read any of the "super" resolution information

No. They lack the necessary special laser.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I assume I'm losing a good bit of the benefit of investing in the SACD disc by playing it on a standard player?

Unless you're into multi-channel surround stuff, or the DSD layer happens to be recorded from a different master than the PCM one, you won't lose anything. You just need to make sure the SACD is a hybrid, so a normal CD player can read it. But most of them are.
DSD doesn't sound intrinsically better than PCM. If both layers are two-channel stereo and the same master was used for both, you won't hear a difference. Not to mention that most (if not all) SACD players with stereo output convert DSD to PCM anyway.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with a dedicated SACD player unless I wanted to have 5.1 surround (and then I'd have to hunt down SACDs that are actually mastered like that). For standard stereo it's not worth the trouble and expense; it sounds the same.

But of course, this hobby teaches us that what's real and what our brains hear isn't always the same thing. If you're convinced that DSD is better, then the SACD layer will sound better to you indeed, particularly after having spent a lot of money on a dedicated player.

 

[Duane]

I also have an OPPO BDP-103 and from my limited experience with hybrid SACDs, The sound when selecting DSD output has a bit more weight to it than using PCM. Multichannel is hit and miss. I finally got tired of chasing SACD as a medium because in comparison to the cd, I could not tell much difference between them. I've sold off the few that I have and only have 1 remaining. However, I prefer the SACD case over the CD case if that matters.

 

[soundboy]

No. They lack the necessary special laser.

Not to mention an internal DAC that can decode a SACD's DSD bitstream.

 

[soundboy]

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a dedicated SACD player unless I wanted to have 5.1 surround (and then I'd have to hunt down SACDs that are actually mastered like that). For standard stereo it's not worth the trouble and expense; it sounds the same.

Almost all current dedicated SACD players on the market now are 2 channel stereo only models. After all, SACD started life as a 2 channel stereo format; multichannel capability and CD compatibility were added only later to compete with DVD-Audio.

 

[goodmore]

I recently dipped my toe into blue ray audio with the purchase of Wish You Were Here. One of all time favorite albums. The Dolby Atmos track is really something. Being a stereo only guy for my music I was amazed at some of Atmos effects. I heard things on the recording I never heard before. So my point is that I might have been converted to the multi speaker music concept.

 

[KeithD]

Unless you're into multi-channel surround stuff, or the DSD layer happens to be recorded from a different master than the PCM one, you won't lose anything. You just need to make sure the SACD is a hybrid, so a normal CD player can read it. But most of them are.
DSD doesn't sound intrinsically better than PCM. If both layers are two-channel stereo and the same master was used for both, you won't hear a difference. Not to mention that most (if not all) SACD players with stereo output convert DSD to PCM anyway.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with a dedicated SACD player unless I wanted to have 5.1 surround (and then I'd have to hunt down SACDs that are actually mastered like that). For standard stereo it's not worth the trouble and expense; it sounds the same.

But of course, this hobby teaches us that what's real and what our brains hear isn't always the same thing. If you're convinced that DSD is better, then the SACD layer will sound better to you indeed, particularly after having spent a lot of money on a dedicated player.

I would agree with this. Sometimes I hear a difference between 2 channel SACD and CD, but then I wonder if it's just the difference in the original recording. I started buying SACD disks for the multichannel aspect, not because I thought the sound was better than CD. I've read lots of comments that DSD sounds better than redbook CD, but I can't say I've really heard that. Scientific studies will tell you human hearing can't tell the difference.

On the other hand, if you are interested in multi-channel recordings, SACD and/or bluray audio is probably the least expensive option to play multichannel source material.