Should I buy an SACD player?

[cpt998]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier

I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp

Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?

Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?

[aevans]

I have the Denon in question, I would not recommend it for audio, unless you upgrade the output stage. Although it does have a pretty good dac in it, you can read my post here for more information:
Burson Audio Output stage upgrade tested

Overall the Marantz is probably the cheapest route to good sound.

[Dusty Chalk]

If you don't know anything about SACD, then I wouldn't recommend it. You would have to buy special SACD's to play in it (which I do, and I recommend at least hearing it before you decide), which you probably don't have yet. Peoples' biggest complaint is lack of catalog available on SACD.

I personally find the fidelity of SACD superior to redbook (CD), so if you can hear the difference, then I would definitely recommend it. Do you like vinyl/records? That's probably a good test. If you think analog is superior to CD's, then you'd probably like SACD as well. If you're happy with CD's, then continue being happy with CD's.

[bobsticks]

At the very least it is worth investigating. If there is a boutique store within reach I recommend that you audition SACD in a decent environment. I am a huge proponent of hi-rez music and, like Dusty, find it to be worth my time to search out titles.

That said, what kind of music do you favor? The SACD catalogue tends to be deepest within the classical and jazz genres.

If you are a strictly rock'n'roll kind of character that Marantz may be the way to go. I doubt you'll find too many units at that price point that will outperform it. If SACD is something that appeals to you I would recommend saving up a bit more cheese and moving up the Denon ladder to the 2930CI. Also an option, you might be able to find boxstock of the Denon 2910, the precursor to the 2930, at a very reasonable price. I can't imagine that unit not meeting your expectations.

[Feanor]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier

I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp

Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?

Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?

First: do you like classical music? The SACD catalogue is heavily weighted towards this genre. Check this link for info and virtually all SACD releases ...
http://www.sa-cd.net/

Second: do you have a multi-channel system? (The info you provided suggests not, but if so ...) Most SACD releases are multi-channel, and good M/C recordings provide a level of realism than surpasses anything possible with stereo.

Third: do you have a "golden ear"? That is, do you care about the best possible sound? SACD provides this -- yes, it beats vinyl, IMO. Bear in mind though, that 90% of sound quality has to do with the recording process, not the medium in which its delivered.

If you can answer "yes" to two out of three of these questions, (or feel strongly about the 3rd), then SACD should be a "go" for you.

A couple more things. No, you don't have to have a special amp or receiver to support SACD; (multi-channel receivers ought provide 6 channel, discrete input: most do). And finally, don't be unduely concerned about SACD becoming obsolete: most SACDs are "hybrid", that is, they can be played on standard CD players, (though at standard CD resolution) -- and CDs are going to be around for a long, long time.

[shokhead]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier

I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp

Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?

Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?

Yes,get one.

[cpt998]

I am going to purchase the Marantz player. It is in my budget, I can get one for a good price, and SACD does not appeal to me. I do not listen to classical music/blues heavily, so I don't think I would really benefit from the format. Maybe if/when it becomes more mainstream I will invest.

First: do you like classical music? The SACD catalogue is heavily weighted towards this genre. Check this link for info and virtually all SACD releases ...
http://www.sa-cd.net/

Second: do you have a multi-channel system? (The info you provided suggests not, but if so ...) Most SACD releases are multi-channel, and good M/C recordings provide a level of realism than surpasses anything possible with stereo.

Third: do you have a "golden ear"? That is, do you care about the best possible sound? SACD provides this -- yes, it beats vinyl, IMO. Bear in mind though, that 90% of sound quality has to do with the recording process, not the medium in which its delivered.

If you can answer "yes" to two out of three of these questions, (or feel strongly about the 3rd), then SACD should be a "go" for you.

A couple more things. No, you don't have to have a special amp or receiver to support SACD; (multi-channel receivers ought provide 6 channel, discrete input: most do). And finally, don't be unduely concerned about SACD becoming obsolete: most SACDs are "hybrid", that is, they can be played on standard CD players, (though at standard CD resolution) -- and CDs are going to be around for a long, long time.

'

1. Not particularly
2. No
3. I'm practically half deaf

Until SACD becomes more 'maintstream', I'll pass on the player. Sounds like it will be around for a while, as you described. I'll pick up the marantz. Thanks for the suggestions.

[bobsticks]

...and good luck with the Marantz. I suspect you'll be pretty happy as they generally make solid stuff.

[shokhead]

Its as mainstream as its going to get and my CCR or SRV ,Police and others isnt classical . Me,i wouldnt buy a player nowadays unless its a universal. You can find plenty at the right price. Why limit yourself.

[hugh9269]

The Denon does play DVD-Audio as well, which will help broaden the catalog along with Super Audio Disc's. I have about 10 DVD-A's for my car, since it can play the format.

I was in the same boat trying to find a Universal DVD player that had great audio quailty. I ended up buying Oppo DVD player and Arcam 73T for CD's.

Couple other Universal DVD options for you:

http://us.marantz.com/Products/2047.asp
http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html

[jrhymeammo]

I agree with Da Shoky. If you can get a solid SACDP or a Univ. P for around 400, then why not? I'm sure their RBCD playback capability would be just as good. You can always get a disc of two of your absolute choice. Why wouldnt that be a plus? As long as CDP exists, SACD format will not die out. DSD function would be nice, but not sure if sub $400 players would support that. I'm not sure. What happened to all the Cambridge Audio recommedations? They make some budget universal players as well.

[Woochifer]

I would suggest that you scan the sa-cd.net site and look through the SACD releases available. If any of them are on your "desert island" disc list, then a SACD player might be worth exploring.

In general, the companies that issue SACDs have put a lot more care into the mastering process on those releases. Thus, in most cases with the actual discs themselves, the SACD version will sound noticeably better than the CD version (whether this improvement is due more to the extra resolution or to the attention to detail at the mastering stage is a source of endless debate).

In addition to the higher resolution, SACD also lets you hear favorite recordings in 5.1 surround. This not only provides an extra dimension of imaging, but it can also dramatically improve the sound quality. The sound quality improvement happens because the 5.1 remix require going all the way back to the original multitrack master tape. With many older recordings, the stereo mixdowns were done using inferior analog tape players that audibly degraded the sound with each mixing pass. And to create a strong stereo image, many of the mixes required extensive processing and signal compression. By remixing these original tapes with modern high res digital equipment, and no longer having to process the signal to squeeze the multiple tracks down to two tracks, the 5.1 remix can greatly improve the sound clarity.

Also, most SACDs are hybrid discs with a separate CD layer that you can play on a regular CD player, and in many cases the CD layer also improves the sound quality over the previous CD version.

I bought my SACD player primarily so that I could hear the SF Symphony's magnificent Mahler series in their full resolution and in multichannel. As great as they sound with the CD layer, the SACD layers are even better. Those recordings were originally done in the one-bit DSD format, which is what SACD uses.

Getting a SACD that was originally recorded in DSD is basically a one-for-one transcription of the master recording. And hearing those recordings in multichannel brings the listener that much closer to how it actually sounds sitting inside Davies Symphony Hall (I usually attend 3-4 SF Symphony performances a year, including one of the recording sessions for the Mahler series)

[Carl Reid]

I am going to purchase the Marantz player. It is in my budget, I can get one for a good price, and SACD does not appeal to me. I do not listen to classical music/blues heavily, so I don't think I would really benefit from the format. Maybe if/when it becomes more mainstream I will invest.

'

1. Not particularly
2. No
3. I'm practically half deaf

Until SACD becomes more 'maintstream', I'll pass on the player. Sounds like it will be around for a while, as you described. I'll pick up the marantz. Thanks for the suggestions.

The Marantz is a great choice... IMHO it's easily one of the best value for your money CD players available....

It's cheap enough that if later on you want to buy a more expensive SACD/DVDA player, you won't feel bad about the money you spent on the Marantz...

I'm not a fan of cheap universal players.... I find it very hard to believe that a company can produce a player that does justice to Redbook CDs, SACD and DVDA all for around $400... I'd say get the Marantz and later if you really find that there are SACD titles that you are interested in, then upgrade from the Marantz 5001 to the 8001....

[cpt998]

I am only running a 2 channel system. Some of the SACD's appeal to me,and I purchased the Marantz 5001 for a very good price.. are there any SACD players in the $400 range that will work as well as the Marantz? I know little about either.

[audio_dude]

how is the 5400 (the previous model before the 5001) compare? I can get one used for $200CDN no takes and shipping included. good deal?

[Rock789]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier

With your equipment, an SACD will sound better
I have a Marantz 6500 all in one player, and it plays SACD's very nicely

SACD's may be 2 or multi channel...
my marantz player actually has both multi ch and 2ch outputs... (I have both going to my preamp)

later
Mike

fyi, the Marantz 6500 was ~$450 2 years ago... maybe find it cheaper now?

[P mac]

You will need Three sets of rca cables .

[Feanor]

You will need Three sets of rca cables .

A pair is fine for stereo.

[shokhead]

[Rock789]

shokhead, are they real?

[shokhead]

What?

[Rock789]

What?

[shokhead]

Oh! Beats me. For me,it just does'nt matter.

[Rock789]

lol good point ;o)

[basite]

Oh! Beats me. For me,it just does'nt matter.

boob-o-phile...

IMO, they're quite big...