SACD disks, yes or no? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : SACD disks, yes or no?



gjpham
03-14-2007, 09:34 PM
Gents,
Before I aim to buy some SACD for myself, I'd like to know if I'll be able to hear any sound improved, or perhaph, any diff from SACD compare with regular CD's sound. I have never heard its sound quality before, so those listeners already have listened to or owned SACD disks, please chim in with your thoguhts. Thankyou.
FYI: My system:
- New DVD Pioneer Elite DV-79.
- New Anthem Preamp and Amp.
- Old JBL speakers.

Dusty Chalk
03-14-2007, 09:59 PM
I have no idea whether or not you will be able to hear the difference. I certainly can, but it depends on what you find important in audio reproduction. I'm a big fan of prat and non-overly-compressed musics, and I have been getting more and more disenfranchised with what I call "digititis". If you feel that CD isn't the best sound possible, then yes, SACD will be an improvement, but I will echo the advice I heard in a similar thread: try to hear it if you can. You won't know right off what you're hearing, so make sure you can get some dedicated listening time. It's not like it's going to whump you over the head and say, "wow, that's different" -- like when you connect your second speaker, and the overall sound just got 6 db louder. It's basically the same, just better.

That said, by all means, give them a chance, they are better.

PeruvianSkies
03-14-2007, 10:04 PM
Are you going to be able to play back the multichannel DSD of the SACD or not?

Feanor
03-15-2007, 06:07 AM
Gents,
Before I aim to buy some SACD for myself, I'd like to know if I'll be able to hear any sound improved, or perhaph, any diff from SACD compare with regular CD's sound. I have never heard its sound quality before, so those listeners already have listened to or owned SACD disks, please chim in with your thoguhts. Thankyou.
FYI: My system:
- New DVD Pioneer Elite DV-79.
- New Anthem Preamp and Amp.
- Old JBL speakers.

I believe that SACDs sound better in general -- not necessarily every disk. There are three reasons for this as I see it.

If you have or would ever consider a multi-channel setup, for sure buy by the M/C SACD version. M/C, properly done, provides a level of realism that stereo simply cannot.
SACDs are usually produced with audiophiles in mind; the producers and engineers therefore strive to produce a better-sounding product. The better sound might or might not extend to the CD version of the recording or to the CD layer of the hybrid disc.
To some ears and on some equipment, SACD's higher resolution advantage translates to superior sound, (even in stereo). To my ears and on my equipment, this is the least important reason to by the SACD version.I'm a classical listener and I always select an SACD version of large-scale orchestral and choral works. I do this primarily for the 1st and 2nd reasons above, even though I do 90% of my listening in stereo.

gjpham
03-15-2007, 10:03 AM
Thanks all,
Hummm, so there is a slightly diff.between the two. THat's interesting. Such a close call but it'd probably be fun to find out.
I've been spending hours and hours listen to one part of music when I tried to squeeze and squeeze to hear differences between my high-end Kimber Kable RCA interconnect and many other $2.99 to $20.99 ones. This is me: "Oops, was that high note hit 10Khz or 15khz? Let's hear it again." Yup, that's me....so, I shouldn't have problem spending time and play with it. Thanks guys.

PeruvianSkies
03-15-2007, 01:33 PM
Ummm, just out of curiosity...how do you plan to place multichannel with your current gear?

bobsticks
03-15-2007, 03:00 PM
I'm quite pleased with most, if not all, of the SACDs I own. On a very few titles can I not hear the difference and on a few I might just not like the engineering on the SACD mix. That said, I will invariably buy the higher rez format if it is available.

PeruvianSkies
03-15-2007, 03:34 PM
Hey gang..

Maybe we can list a few SACD's to be weary about...I know I have a few that were not necessarily that great...

1. DANCES WITH WOLVES Soundtrack
2. Any of the Eric Claptons
3. O' BROTHER WHERE ARE THOU? Soundtrack
4. THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY Soundtrack
5. Any of the Creedance Clearwater Revival (unless 5.1 import)

gjpham
03-15-2007, 05:08 PM
Ummm, just out of curiosity...how do you plan to place multichannel with your current gear?
* I've never owned SACD before so I will have to play around with my Preamp. Because I currently love the sound sonic of the 2 channel analog RCA so who knows.... You ahve any suggestions for a rookie?

Rock789
03-15-2007, 08:10 PM
definitely go SACD!!!
I am not familar with your speakers, but with Anthem preamp/amp, you definatly can pump out the sound!!!

what Anthem equipment do you have?

PeruvianSkies
03-15-2007, 08:57 PM
* I've never owned SACD before so I will have to play around with my Preamp. Because I currently love the sound sonic of the 2 channel analog RCA so who knows.... You ahve any suggestions for a rookie?


Well, your pre-amp or receiver needs to have the 5.1 analog inputs if you are going to do 5.1, otherwise you will only be able to do 2.0.

gjpham
03-15-2007, 11:52 PM
Well, your pre-amp or receiver needs to have the 5.1 analog inputs if you are going to do 5.1, otherwise you will only be able to do 2.0.
* My DVD right now is set to play music either digital RCA or Toslink 2ch, or 5.1 ch, or a 2 ch analog. But after a massive of time tessting out, I chose to stay with analog RCA 2ch. I haven't tried to set up analog 5.1 but with whole bunch of RCA cables laying around here, I could probably give it a try.
* Hi ROCK, my preamp is AVM-30 and the amp is A5. I'm tempting to replace my beloved, the old timmer JBL speakers, but I haven't found/audition ones that fit my taste and budget.

Dusty Chalk
03-16-2007, 12:38 AM
I keep forgetting about multi-channel -- my answer was from the stereo perspective -- comparing stereo CD to stereo SACD.

PeruvianSkies
03-16-2007, 12:42 AM
Ok,

It seems like the Anthem Amp/Preamp you have are very good, I have never actually heard them before, but based on the specs that I have seen and the raves they seem good. So what you will need to do is take the 5.1 analog outputs on your Pioneer Elite player (which means 6 RCA cables) and send them into the 5.1 analog inputs on your pre-amp/processor. Make sure you match up the correct channels. Upon doing so you will probably have to tell the pre-amp/processor to play the analog signal path and once doing so you will be rolling with SACD, of course you will need to play an SACD in the player and also make sure in the settings under the menu on the DVD player that you have Multi-channel selected if you want to play 5.1, otherwise you can choose SACD stereo or CD layer. Your pre-amp will also need to run to your amp through either the RCA outputs or the XLR outputs on the back of the pre-amp and then run a cable from the subwoofer out to your sub.

Are you using JBL for all 5 of your speakers and sub?

gjpham
03-16-2007, 01:00 AM
Ok,

It seems like the Anthem Amp/Preamp you have are very good, I have never actually heard them before, but based on the specs that I have seen and the raves they seem good. So what you will need to do is take the 5.1 analog outputs on your Pioneer Elite player (which means 6 RCA cables) and send them into the 5.1 analog inputs on your pre-amp/processor. Make sure you match up the correct channels. Upon doing so you will probably have to tell the pre-amp/processor to play the analog signal path and once doing so you will be rolling with SACD, of course you will need to play an SACD in the player and also make sure in the settings under the menu on the DVD player that you have Multi-channel selected if you want to play 5.1, otherwise you can choose SACD stereo or CD layer. Your pre-amp will also need to run to your amp through either the RCA outputs or the XLR outputs on the back of the pre-amp and then run a cable from the subwoofer out to your sub.

Are you using JBL for all 5 of your speakers and sub?
I will keep this thread for future set up reference.
All 5 JBL speakers? No, more like our United States country, All 5 diff brand, How sad.

Rock789
03-16-2007, 04:53 AM
* Hi ROCK, my preamp is AVM-30 and the amp is A5. I'm tempting to replace my beloved, the old timmer JBL speakers, but I haven't found/audition ones that fit my taste and budget.

I built my system for multichannel sacd's, but it sounds very good with 2ch as well ;o)
The A5 is a nice amp man! and I am wondering if I made a mistake waisting the money on the AVM50 for video compared to the 30 but what the heck, it sounds good...lol

If you are looking at upgrading your speakers, I would suggest 5 like speakers for multichannel... This also is very nice for movies ;o)

later
Mike

Woochifer
03-16-2007, 08:25 AM
Feanor nailed it with his response -- you may or may not hear a difference, and the degree of difference depends on whether you're listening in multichannel and how the engineer tweaked with the original master during the SACD transfer.

Keep in mind that when you go with SACD, the higher resolution is only part of the difference you hear when comparing different versions. For one thing, many of the CDs out there were compromised during the mastering stage. They might have had the dynamic range compressed in order to boost the average levels, they might have had other processing applied during the transfer, they might have used a backup analog copy instead of the original master, or they might have incorrectly transferred a master source originally optimized for LP mastering.

Lots of other variables to consider, but I would say that in general SACDs seem to benefit from greater attention to detail when compared to most CD versions. Multichannel will usually result in the most radical difference in sound quality, not just because the sound is remixed for 5.1 channels, but because older analog recordings are remixed from the original multitrack masters, which affords an opportunity to eliminate the processing and compression that might have been used to create the original two-channel mix. The degree of improvement with two-channel mixes will vary from disc to disc, but not necessarily result in quite as radical a change as the 5.1 mix because they are typically done from the same two-channel mix used in the CD version.

As far as speakers go, the best match for the vintage JBLs on the market right now would probably be the Definitive Technology tower speakers. They're more refined than the vintage JBLs, but they retain the same aggressiveness and punch. I'm not a huge fan of that particular sound, but if you listen to a lot of classic rock, you might like the Def Techs. You might also want to look into Canadian brands such as Paradigm, Energy, and PSB. Many of JBL's specialty dealers switched to those brands, among others, when they started dropping JBL in droves during the 80s.

topspeed
03-16-2007, 10:20 AM
Feanor's post was so spot on, I gave him rep points, whatever those are :lol:

If you're going to dive into mc hi-rez, you will need to timbre match your speakers. There's just no way around this. Unlike movies, mc hi-rez actually use the surrounds quite a bit, enough that you'll notice the discrepency in the tonal balance between your front stage and everything else. Keep that in mind if you plan on making the jump.

The difference between rbcd and sacd is subtle. In cases where the rbcd was well recorded, such as John Mayer's Heavier Things, the difference is almost impossible to hear. That particular dual disc had me going back and forth trying to pick up on certain cues. To me, the differences lie in the body of the music. Notes are more fleshed out and sound, uh...rounder? There's more information on the attack and decay of the note I guess. It's hard to explain...at least without sounding like a complete moron. Naturally, on mc mixes there is no comparison to 2ch rbcd.

Bottom line, I'm glad I have a hi-rez player. I just wish there were more titles readily available.

Carl Reid
03-16-2007, 12:50 PM
I believe that SACDs sound better in general -- not necessarily every disk. There are three reasons for this as I see it.

If you have or would ever consider a multi-channel setup, for sure buy by the M/C SACD version. M/C, properly done, provides a level of realism that stereo simply cannot.
SACDs are usually produced with audiophiles in mind; the producers and engineers therefore strive to produce a better-sounding product. The better sound might or might not extend to the CD version of the recording or to the CD layer of the hybrid disc.
To some ears and on some equipment, SACD's higher resolution advantage translates to superior sound, (even in stereo). To my ears and on my equipment, this is the least important reason to by the SACD version.I'm a classical listener and I always select an SACD version of large-scale orchestral and choral works. I do this primarily for the 1st and 2nd reasons above, even though I do 90% of my listening in stereo.

I haven't had the opportunity to check out SACD yet, but all the points listed seem reasonable. Though I do have a question about the first point:

Does muti-channel playback actually have greater realism than redbook? I can understand saying that it is a more immersive experience or even just that it sounds better. IMHO Stereo is much better than Mono, so I can easily see Mutichannel sounding better than Stereo.

BUT, how can mutlichannel sound more realistic, when you are having music played from all around you? I could understand if you had say 6 speakers set up in front of you, and each speaker was producing the sound from a different instrument or singer. That would probably be more like a live experience. But since I've never gone to a concert/live show and been seated somewhere in the middle of the band, I'm a bit confused as to how this sound could be more realistic.

Please Note: This is not intended to be an attack on anybody. It's just something I've been wondering, since I've heard mutlichannel described as being more realistic several times.

Carl Reid
03-16-2007, 03:26 PM
First off, there are many ways to mix a multichannel recording. Just because an engineer can spread the musicians all around the listener, does not mean that he/she actually will. It's a misconception to assume that a 5.1 mix is supposed to aurally place you in the middle of the stage.

For classical music, the surround channels are generally used to convey the hall ambience. In terms of realism, a two-channel recording does not adequately render the space around the listener that they would observe when actually seated in the audience in a concert hall. With the two surround channels, the listener has that hall ambience which is an integral part of what you actually hear in a concert setting.

As an example, the San Francisco Symphony's ongoing and much acclaimed Mahler series sounds great in two channels. However, if you want an insight into how someone sitting in the audience would hear how the orchestra actually sounds inside Davies Symphony Hall, the multichannel mix is the way to go. I was in the audience when the SF Symphony recorded Mahler's Fifth, and as nice as the two-channel mix sounds, it does not capture how the sound reverberates inside Davies nearly as well as the 5.1 mix does. The multichannel mix can more insight into what happens to the sound as it leaves the stage area and interacts with the hall. For example, Davies Hall has issues with its acoustics, and the multichannel mix does not candy coat these issues.

With studio recordings, the goal is not really about "realism" per se, since most pop albums are multitracked with individual parts recorded separately and then mixed together later on. A multitracked recording mixed down to two channels is every bit as artificial an environment as it would be mixed down to 5.1. With the better 5.1 mixes I've heard for rock/pop recordings, the surround effect is not designed to surround the listener with instruments popping out from all sides, but to use the surround channels to create a depth perception and solidity to the side imaging that two channels alone cannot accomplish.

Keep in mind that in order to really hear what multichannel is capable, you need to have a properly calibrated and timbre matched system. This would include proper speaker placement, level matching, and delay timing. And unfortunately, the vast majority of audio retailers out there, including most of the high end stores I've visited, don't have their systems properly calibrated and positioned. But, once you've heard how multichannel is supposed to sound, it's easy to understand how it can render a sense of realism that you haven't heard from two channel.

Thanks Wooch. That's exactly what I was trying to understand: The theory behind using multi-channel to provide greater realism.

Hopefully, one day I'll hear a properly setup multichannel system, so I can decide if I want to take the plunge into SACD or not....

Woochifer
03-16-2007, 03:36 PM
BUT, how can mutlichannel sound more realistic, when you are having music played from all around you? I could understand if you had say 6 speakers set up in front of you, and each speaker was producing the sound from a different instrument or singer. That would probably be more like a live experience. But since I've never gone to a concert/live show and been seated somewhere in the middle of the band, I'm a bit confused as to how this sound could be more realistic.

First off, there are many ways to mix a multichannel recording. Just because an engineer can spread the musicians all around the listener, does not mean that he/she actually will. It's a misconception to assume that a 5.1 mix is supposed to aurally place you in the middle of the stage.

For classical music, the surround channels are generally used to convey the hall ambience. In terms of realism, a two-channel recording does not adequately render the space around the listener that they would observe when actually seated in the audience in a concert hall. With the two surround channels, the listener has that hall ambience which is an integral part of what you actually hear in a concert setting.

As an example, the San Francisco Symphony's ongoing and much acclaimed Mahler series sounds great in two channels. However, if you want an insight into how someone sitting in the audience would hear how the orchestra actually sounds inside Davies Symphony Hall, the multichannel mix is the way to go. I was in the audience when the SF Symphony recorded Mahler's Fifth, and as nice as the two-channel mix sounds, it does not capture how the sound reverberates inside Davies nearly as well as the 5.1 mix does. The multichannel mix can more insight into what happens to the sound as it leaves the stage area and interacts with the hall. For example, Davies Hall has issues with its acoustics, and the multichannel mix does not candy coat these issues.

With studio recordings, the goal is not really about "realism" per se, since most pop albums are multitracked with individual parts recorded separately and then mixed together later on. A multitracked recording mixed down to two channels is every bit as artificial an environment as it would be mixed down to 5.1. With the better 5.1 mixes I've heard for rock/pop recordings, the surround effect is not designed to surround the listener with instruments popping out from all sides, but to use the surround channels to create a depth perception and solidity to the side imaging that two channels alone cannot accomplish.

Keep in mind that in order to really hear what multichannel is capable, you need to have a properly calibrated and timbre matched system. This would include proper speaker placement, level matching, and delay timing. And unfortunately, the vast majority of audio retailers out there, including most of the high end stores I've visited, don't have their systems properly calibrated and positioned. But, once you've heard how multichannel is supposed to sound, it's easy to understand how it can render a sense of realism that you haven't heard from two channel.

Feanor
03-16-2007, 03:37 PM
....
BUT, how can mutlichannel sound more realistic, when you are having music played from all around you? I could understand if you had say 6 speakers set up in front of you, and each speaker was producing the sound from a different instrument or singer. That would probably be more like a live experience. But since I've never gone to a concert/live show and been seated somewhere in the middle of the band, I'm a bit confused as to how this sound could be more realistic.
....

Wooch has stated very well and I can only reinforce that. As mainly a classical music listener, I evaluate MC in that context. Not all MC is equally good of course. Some classical recordings too put you in the middle of the orchestra -- not a position that I'm likely to experience in real life. On the other hand some do right and extremely well.

I like to say the the good MC recordings move you from the back of the hall, or a doorway, into a good, 8th row seat. If you haven't experience this, you have a treat to look forward to.

Carl Reid
03-16-2007, 03:49 PM
There's something wrong with this thread.

I thanked Wooch for his response, yet my post appears (10 mins) before the post I'm responding to.....

Anyway, In case it got missed.... That explaination is exactly what I was looking for.... to understand the Theory behind mutli-channel being more realistic......

The idea of it reproducing the concert hall effect makes sense to me.....

audio_dude
03-16-2007, 05:28 PM
There's something wrong with this thread.

I thanked Wooch for his response, yet my post appears (10 mins) before the post I'm responding to.....



OK... who's been messin' with the space-time continuum again??

bobsticks
03-16-2007, 06:14 PM
OK... who's been messin' with the space-time continuum again??


Sorry, sorry...that was me. I thought I was hitting "Reheat" and hit that silly "Space-Time Continuum" button instead. These Apogee microwaves are an ergonomic nightmare. :D

audio_dude
03-16-2007, 07:00 PM
Sorry, sorry...that was me. I thought I was hitting "Reheat" and hit that silly "Space-Time Continuum" button instead. These Apogee microwaves are an ergonomic nightmare. :D


apogee makes MICROWAVES NOW?? wow, wait 'till Flo hear about this! he'll freak! :lol:

Dusty Chalk
03-17-2007, 12:20 AM
No, not yet, but they're going to.

jrhymeammo
03-17-2007, 06:20 AM
This is coming from a 2ch guy with a very modestest system.

So, I can't tell you much about Multi-ch mixing. But just like what others have already stated it's all about the recording. Some SACD I own are just plain horrible, but others are great.

Herbie Hancock Gershwin's World is a great album. I burned a copy on a CD-R, and it sounds better than 95% of CDs I own.

DarkSide of the Moon on the other hand, I was listening to it last night, and I ended up taking it out in the middle of the 3rd song. But I did sit thru both sides of the 30th anniversary reissue.

audio_dude
03-17-2007, 07:52 AM
Yeah, some recording, i just find they sound BETTER on vinyl, these are of course the albums that were originally mastered to vinyl...

gjpham
03-19-2007, 10:03 AM
I got a hand on one but not sure it was SACD or not. I figured if SACD is more advance and expensive then it should have SACD printed on the cover but I didn't see any. The CD was :" On The Moon" by Peter Cincotti. http://www.petercincotti.com/ the website is playing the songs that I have right now. What a beautiful voice!!! Does anyone have it? is it SACD or regular CD?
The sound quality was great. It mainly played man vocal, bass guita, and trumpet. I made two copies with two diff speed just to see any differences, one at 4x and one at 40x; all three CDs sound identical.

AmpNow
03-22-2007, 10:57 PM
I am not sure if you will notice any difference.

_________________
McIntosh MA6500 Integrated Amplifier (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/mcintosh-laboratory-inc-1500/ma6500-integrated-amplifier-5971.html) - Get the MA6500 Integrated Amplifier Catalog by McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.

hermanv
03-23-2007, 02:43 PM
All the comments and opinions below apply to 2 channel SACD only.

My good friend wanted SACD due to some limitations of standard Redbook CD. He has a truly first class system and the better Redbook recordings when played on his system are as good as I've heard anywhere.

He bought a used Sony 777, SACD player. SACDs played on it did not rise to the overall quality of his Redbook system which does have an outboard Levinson DAC. Some aspects of SACD were as good, maybe better particularly symphonic pieces where the whole ochestra is going at it full tilt. The congestion of the Redbook recordings was improved. But in many other areas a good Redbook disk sounded at least as good and often better.

He sent his SACD player in for a set of modifications from Vacuum State Technology (Swiss company) they were not cheap. After return and break-in, finally a clear improvement over Redbook. Note that Redbook CDs played on the new modified player were still not quite up to the sound of Redbook through the Levinson.

The problem is that only about 10% of Redbook CDs actually seem to make use of the full Redbook quality, most others suffer from various kinds of problems upstream. I assume that SACD will also have some limittions on the percentage of good disks, because the source material and the studio work may be the limit rather than the actual technology used to make the disks. His current 30 title SACD library is too small to validate this point.

So given enough money there is a reliable improvement, the difference is not stunning but quite noticable. I suspect that any SACD player below $2,000 will NOT outperform a quality brand CD player at the exact same price point because the Redbook technology is just more mature. At higher prices SACD appears to win.

gjpham
03-23-2007, 08:42 PM
....So given enough money there is a reliable improvement, the difference is not stunning but quite noticable. I suspect that any SACD player below $2,000 will NOT outperform a quality brand CD player at the exact same price point because the Redbook technology is just more mature. At higher prices SACD appears to win.

Thanks for the input.

rreid66
04-26-2007, 05:56 AM
I just recently connected the Pioneer DV-59AVi DVD/CD player to the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver using the i.LINK connector, eliminating six standard RCA connectors. Fred Manteghian's December 2006 review of the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver recommends

"Another feature you won't want to overlook is the receiver's i.LINK connection. Commonly referred to as FireWire (or even IEEE1394), i.LINK lets you send a multichannel digital audio stream to the receiver where bass management can then be performed in the digital domain, instead of using six analog cables that necessitate a roundtrip from the digital to analog realms. i.LINK, or the lack of it, is what got my last Elite kicked out of my country club, to be replaced by the Integra Research RDV 1.1 universal player. The Pioneer identified the Integra immediately by name. With that one thin cable, you'll likely get better sound, better bass management for multichannel audio discs, and less of that Snakes-On-A-Plane feel behind your equipment rack." (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/1206piovsx/)

The VSX-84's operating instructions state that when the i.LINK interface is used, a precision quartz controller in this Pioneer receiver (and perhaps others as well) eliminates distortion caused by timing errors (jitter), allowing for the best digital-to-analog conversion from the digital source.

The i.LINK connection also senses automatically what type disc is being played without your having to do additional button clicks for multi-channel.

How does the i.LINK connected equipment sound? Glorious! Both SACD and CD benefit from a more fully dimensioned soundstage with the detail of SACD revealing itself even more obviously. Instrument and vocal timbre is certainly augmented. Minidiscs and even old vinyl LPs gain audibly as well.

Remember, i.LINK is a superior audio connection, and has nothing to do with video. Since I cannot at present use the HDMI connection, and must make do with component video.

Rock789
04-26-2007, 06:13 AM
I just recently connected the Pioneer DV-59AVi DVD/CD player to the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver using the i.LINK connector, eliminating six standard RCA connectors. Fred Manteghian's December 2006 review of the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver recommends

"Another feature you won't want to overlook is the receiver's i.LINK connection. Commonly referred to as FireWire (or even IEEE1394), i.LINK lets you send a multichannel digital audio stream to the receiver where bass management can then be performed in the digital domain, instead of using six analog cables that necessitate a roundtrip from the digital to analog realms. i.LINK, or the lack of it, is what got my last Elite kicked out of my country club, to be replaced by the Integra Research RDV 1.1 universal player. The Pioneer identified the Integra immediately by name. With that one thin cable, you'll likely get better sound, better bass management for multichannel audio discs, and less of that Snakes-On-A-Plane feel behind your equipment rack." (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/1206piovsx/)

The VSX-84's operating instructions state that when the i.LINK interface is used, a precision quartz controller in this Pioneer receiver (and perhaps others as well) eliminates distortion caused by timing errors (jitter), allowing for the best digital-to-analog conversion from the digital source.

The i.LINK connection also senses automatically what type disc is being played without your having to do additional button clicks for multi-channel.

How does the i.LINK connected equipment sound? Glorious! Both SACD and CD benefit from a more fully dimensioned soundstage with the detail of SACD revealing itself even more obviously. Instrument and vocal timbre is certainly augmented. Minidiscs and even old vinyl LPs gain audibly as well.

Remember, i.LINK is a superior audio connection, and has nothing to do with video. Since I cannot at present use the HDMI connection, and must make do with component video.
thanks for the info, but as this is your first post, are you a sales rep for pioneer?

rreid66
04-26-2007, 10:49 AM
thanks for the info, but as this is your first post, are you a sales rep for pioneer?

Our audio/video gear includes Sony, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi equipment along with Cambridge Soundworks speakers, none of which a Pioneer rep would have.

PeruvianSkies
04-26-2007, 11:25 AM
Am I the only person who feels that the mix on the 5.1 verion of Dark Side of the Moon is a bit awkward and rather poor? It has some interesting mix portions like the money bags and various intricacies on songs like "Money", but overall it was not really a good mix in my opinion. In fact, I think there was an article by the engineer about how he was unhappy with the end result on the SACD. I would say this is one of my least listened to SACD's, despite being a favorite album of mine. I much prefer THE WALL though and would be curious to hear that in 5.1, I do own the Roger Water's THE WALL SACD, which is decent, although not as good as my German Import DVD of THE WALL in Berlin, which is in DTS. The SACD offers more clarity and refinement, but the DVD w/ DTS sounds more like a concert...full, engaging, and just flat-out-rocking!!!

Rock789
04-26-2007, 11:33 AM
I am not happy with DSOTM in 2ch mode...
5.1 channel I like, but it was one of my first multichannel sacd's so this may be the reason...

hermanv
04-26-2007, 12:49 PM
I just recently connected the Pioneer DV-59AVi DVD/CD player to the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver using the i.LINK connector, ...edit...

How does the i.LINK connected equipment sound? Glorious! Both SACD and CD benefit from a more fully dimensioned soundstage with the detail of SACD revealing itself even more obviously. Instrument and vocal timbre is certainly augmented. Minidiscs and even old vinyl LPs gain audibly as well. ...edit.... Based on my personal experience I have long believed that the DAC (and analog out buffer) has far more to do with sound quality than any other part of the digital music chain. I upgraded to an external DAC and then to a far better and more expensive external DAC. I never regretted that expense, it paid off handsomely.

Your experience is that the DAC in the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver is better than the one in your DVD/CD player. Dedicated stand alone DACs may have even more to offer. I have steadily advised anyone who asked that a dedicated DAC was probably the best place to spend upgrade money. Too bad no outboard SACD DACs currently exisit or are likely to due to the recording industry paranoia about digital copying

The industry continues to forget that the compact cassette tape did not destroy their business, if anything the easy distribution of music helped sales. For example you made a cassette copy of a new LP (or even CD) and played it in your car, friends would ask "Who's that?" and a new album sale was made. The industry continues to exhibit low sales numbers, blaming them on copyright theft, I suspect the real culprit is the unabashed garbage they are trying to sell. Please; the scantily clad barely legal teens are quite good looking, none can sing.

Rock789
04-26-2007, 01:00 PM
Please; the scantily clad barely legal teens are quite good looking, none can sing.

WOOT! for hot chicks!!!

Darn them for not being able to sing!!!!

:rofl:

rreid66
04-26-2007, 01:14 PM
Your experience is that the DAC in the Pioneer VSX-84TXSi receiver is better than the one in your DVD/CD player. Dedicated stand alone DACs may have even more to offer.

You are probably right. It's something that I should try. Almost anything is worthwhile to improve sound.

jrhymeammo
04-26-2007, 06:31 PM
This is coming from a 2ch guy with a very modestest system.

So, I can't tell you much about Multi-ch mixing. But just like what others have already stated it's all about the recording. Some SACD I own are just plain horrible, but others are great.

Herbie Hancock Gershwin's World is a great album. I burned a copy on a CD-R, and it sounds better than 95% of CDs I own.

DarkSide of the Moon on the other hand, I was listening to it last night, and I ended up taking it out in the middle of the 3rd song. But I did sit thru both sides of the 30th anniversary reissue.

WFT is this?

jrhymeammo
04-26-2007, 06:34 PM
Now it's gone and is on hermanv's post. Am I the only one who's seeing the gray square box? I think the server used by AR needs to be mated with better shielded wires... Power conditioner? Space Rocks?

Rock789
04-27-2007, 04:44 AM
looks like a normal quote to me :dunno:

Rich-n-Texas
04-27-2007, 11:37 AM
Now it's gone and is on hermanv's post. Am I the only one who's seeing the gray square box? I think the server used by AR needs to be mated with better shielded wires... Power conditioner? Space Rocks?

I'll go along with the power conditioner idea, but... Space Rocks? :idea:

Nice avatar jr. :thumbsup:

hifitommy
04-28-2007, 02:59 PM
sacd has the relaxed, satisfying sound of analog (like vinyl) that isnt immediately identifiable but noticed over a period of time. the high end IS better and has more shimmer due to the higher sampling rate.

i listen in stereo with dynaquad passive surround and dont miss the mc mixes. i have a nu force pre/pro but not enough amp channels for 5.1 but another thing keeping me where i am is that the center channel speaker must be tonally equal to the L/R fronts to be effective. not an easy task.

i buy sacd when available unless the price is prohibitive like mofi. the title has to be exemplary to justify 30-40 bucks for one disc.

most of these discs are no higher than $20 or so. take the plunge, oppo players are affordable enough and sound good enough to take the gamble.

jrhymeammo
04-28-2007, 07:09 PM
A friend of mine just bought a Denon DVD-1920 floor model for $200, and he's absolutely thrilled. BTW, his system is more modest than mine.