advertisement


Recommend a SACD player please

Alex,

Alex S said:
Joe, I know that’s what you’re saying but to the best of my knowledge, when a 2 channel SACD layer is remastered the CD layer will be remastered also, and the same. (I don’t know about the technical level but same engineers).
Click to expand...

Not that it matters, but that's most definitely not true of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The CD layer on the SACD disc is mastered poorly, the SACD layer is very good. I also have an SACD disc with an error — the SACD layer and CD layer have completely different music on them. They are mastered so differently that the engineer grabbed a different tape for each layer!

Joe
 
wow&flutter said:
I’ve had both the Denon 3910 and 3930 over the years, both absolutely excellent. Worth noting though as it is a dvd, cd and sacd player it takes a few seconds longer than typical platers to reach the toc. Never bothered me but be aware of it.
Click to expand...
The 3910 is indeed a fine player, as is the 2910. I slightly prefer the presentation of the Pioneer w/SACD, but I couldn't call it objectively better. Just a bit different.
 
Alex S said:
Joe, I know that’s what you’re saying but to the best of my knowledge, when a 2 channel SACD layer is remastered the CD layer will be remastered also, and the same. (I don’t know about the technical level but same engineers).

PS I don’t have any single layer Japanese SACDs to compare.

PPS Probably need to fine tune my Keith orientation device.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is not accurate. Neither is your assertion on the majority of SACDs being dual layer. I have over 200 SACDs and 90% or so are single layer.

A decent player and system is required properly to appreciate what SACD can do. The player also needs to use DSD processing, not converting to PCM.

The differences are easily audbible. One of my favourite albums is 'Travels' by Pat Metheny. I have this on CD and SHM-SACD; the latter is significantly 'better' (same mastering). Many other examples.
 
I don't have a huge SACD collection. I went for a used Yamaha CD-S1000, £400 I think it was. I did think about a DVD player but just looks tacky next to the rest of my setup. Years ago I used a first gen PlayStation 3 which worked very well. I was more interested in multichannel back then.

Any ways it's rarely used but the few I do reach for are:

Steve Strauss - Just Like Love
Nils Lofgren - Acoustic Live
Herbie Hancock - Head Hunters

Acoustic Sounds in the US have a good selection of SACDs. I've bought a lot of high quality vinyl from them over the years. However with shipping ect it's only worth it if you getting a bunch at a time.
 
simon g said:
Sorry, but this is not accurate. Neither is your assertion on the majority of SACDs being dual layer. I have over 200 SACDs and 90% or so are single layer.

A decent player and system is required properly to appreciate what SACD can do. The player also needs to use DSD processing, not converting to PCM.

The differences are easily audbible. One of my favourite albums is 'Travels' by Pat Metheny. I have this on CD and SHM-SACD; the latter is significantly 'better' (same mastering). Many other examples.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment about DSD processing. I had a quick look through the 100 page manual of the 105D and there is no mention of how SACD audio is processed. Is there a reference of known players that process the SACD audio with native DSD and those that convert to PCM first?
 
Yes, Joe, Simon, I will admit that nearly all my SACDs are classical and I was basing my assessment on that. I do have DSOTM but can't remember playing it.

Nonetheless: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,57406.0.html

Andrew, I can only speak for classical (this seems clear I'm sure). Nearly all the Living Stereo releases are good, pretty much all the Mercury Living Presence. Unfortunately, you can't hoover these up for £8 any more. Pentatone SACD releases are of high quality.

"Are Rega CD players capable of playing SACDs?" No.
 
My experience of SACD vs CD has been that SACDs tend to sound more 'solid' - the instruments, ambience, etc, all have a more tangible feel to them, a sense of mass and 3-dimensionality that CD can lack. I also tend to notice that the dynamic range of SACD is wider, less compressed - I usually have to crank up the volume setting a bit if moving from CD to SACD. My SACDs are a small part of my collection, but tend to be classical, or jazz and the difference is definitely worth exploiting via a player that can handle them.
 
I'm very much into one single set of DAC+NAS+software for all my digital music so my SACDs have become DSD files. A bit time-consuming but worth it. Amongst other things the DAC is much better at its job than the audio circuits in the universal player could ever hope to be given the cost constraints.

PS: I already had the appropriate universal player - the only bit of home cinema kit that hasn't been sold off.
 
I should probably rip my SACDs before I sell the Oppo but the idea fills me with dread.
 
Sorry, but this is not accurate. Neither is your assertion on the majority of SACDs being dual layer. I have over 200 SACDs and 90% or so are single layer.
Single Layer - Single royalty to artist/Label
Dual Layer - Dual royalty
Most Buyers will only ever play the DSD layer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top