SACD Players

[ForeverAutumn]

I've been toying with the idea of getting an SACD player. What should I be looking for?

I went into Best Buy last night and the only SACD player that they had was a Sony DVD player that was SACD compatible. Is this generally how SACD players are sold...doubling as DVD players? Or can I buy a separate SACD component? I don't want to replace our existing DVD player as it doubles as my CD player and is a 5-disk carousel...unless I can get a comparable machine (i.e. 5-disk) that is also SACD. Cost will also be a huge deciding factor here. The Sony DVD player was $200. That's about my limit. If I have to spend more than that, I'm not buying it right now.

What do I need to know as I contemplate this purchase?

[kexodusc]

I've been toying with the idea of getting an SACD player. What should I be looking for?

I went into Best Buy last night and the only SACD player that they had was a Sony DVD player that was SACD compatible. Is this generally how SACD players are sold...doubling as DVD players? Or can I buy a separate SACD component? I don't want to replace our existing DVD player as it doubles as my CD player and is a 5-disk carousel...unless I can get a comparable machine (i.e. 5-disk) that is also SACD. Cost will also be a huge deciding factor here. The Sony DVD player was $200. That's about my limit. If I have to spend more than that, I'm not buying it right now.

What do I need to know as I contemplate this purchase?

Hi FA -
A few months back I ordered an inexpensive DVD-Audio/SACD combo unit...Toshiba 4960. I think it sold for $150 here in Canada at the time...It plays both of these new audio formats.
You can spend a lot more money and buy a dedicated SACD only player. The sound quality will be incrementally better, but if you're audio system isn't incredibly advanced, I don't think there's much value in it...the cheap SACD players will still sound much, much better than normal CD and give you multi-channel audio.

I like the Toshiba - my first one did fry on me, but I called them, and they sent a courrier on their dime to pick it up, and replaced it within 5 days....NB to Toronto...that's fast!!!
You will need 5.1 analog RCA type stereo cables if you want to do the multi-channel audio thing. You can get those cheap at Radio Sha--...err...The Source.

[BinFrog]

My first SACD player was a $225 Sony player, and then I upgraded to a middle of the line Onkyo universal player which I love. It plays everything. Eh, hence 'universal'. The Sony player was great for an entry level SACD/DVD player, but I wanted something nicer that would also play DVD-A as well. I think if you just want a basic SACD player for now, the Sony will be fine for your needs.

[Dusty Chalk]

Yes, that is how they're usually sold, but you don't have to use the DVD portion. There should be a current model that is CD and SACD only, though -- Sony is fighting DVD-A...

You're right, though, that you should get one that is audio only, as, especially at the entry level, DVD is more of a detriment to the audio portion, although barely so.

The Philips player that is out of print is supposed to be a good one. I'm also quite happy with my Sony SCD-CE775, which is also out of print (superceded by a newer model, presumably).

If I had it to do all over again, I'd just get a universal player and be done with it. Something like the Pioneer 47Ai or whatever its nomenclature is...

But then again, I kind of do have it to do all over again, as, although I have several DVD players, I don't have a HT system...in which case, I'd probably get either one of those all-in-one systems (again, universal) or one of those two-unit sets, like the corresponding rcvr that goes with the aforementioned 47Ai.

[shokhead]

I've been toying with the idea of getting an SACD player. What should I be looking for?

I went into Best Buy last night and the only SACD player that they had was a Sony DVD player that was SACD compatible. Is this generally how SACD players are sold...doubling as DVD players? Or can I buy a separate SACD component? I don't want to replace our existing DVD player as it doubles as my CD player and is a 5-disk carousel...unless I can get a comparable machine (i.e. 5-disk) that is also SACD. Cost will also be a huge deciding factor here. The Sony DVD player was $200. That's about my limit. If I have to spend more than that, I'm not buying it right now.

What do I need to know as I contemplate this purchase?

Get a player that plays everything,they are fine. Something like the Yamaha C750 plays every disc there is and is a 5disc and under or at 300 bucks. Its gotten nice reviews.

[Hyfi]

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/pr...%20CD%20Player

Well maybe not but don't buy mass market Best Buy crap. Get a high quality player with good components and electronics.

[ForeverAutumn]

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/pr...%20CD%20Player

Well maybe not but don't buy mass market Best Buy crap. Get a high quality player with good components and electronics.

The Force would certainly be with me.

[Dusty Chalk]

Didn't Best Buy start selling Denon?

[The Grudge]

I have heard/read that DVD audio offers far better sound performance than SACD. I will go out on a limb and predict that DVD A wins and SACD becomes like the Beta with the notable exception that unlike the Beta, SACD is not the technically better format. The bottom line from my understanding is that all of the extra room on DVD disks allows for all of the sound information that current CD formats, including SACD can't fit. DVD audio doesn't need all of the mumbo jumbo associated with SACD and thus the sound information can be provided without all the technical veiling. Less is more they say. Just some thoughts.

[shokhead]

I cant tell any difference between DVD-A and SACD,none.

[N. Abstentia]

Everything I've heard/read is the exact opposite. SACD seems to be the better format because DSD is clearly the way to go. Telarc seems to agree as well. But from my experience the problem is not 'which one is better' but 'which one has the better mix'.

I have probably an equal number of both SACD and DVD-A discs (around 20 each) and SACD by far has the better music. Too many DVD-A's are simply too gimmicky and sound like they were mixed by a machine. But off the top of my head I can't think of a bad SACD that I have. But the best DVD-A's I have (Yes-Fragile and Porcupine Tree-Deadwing) are on par with SACD's, I just enjoy SACD more.

I have heard/read that DVD audio offers far better sound performance than SACD. I will go out on a limb and predict that DVD A wins and SACD becomes like the Beta with the notable exception that unlike the Beta, SACD is not the technically better format. The bottom line from my understanding is that all of the extra room on DVD disks allows for all of the sound information that current CD formats, including SACD can't fit. DVD audio doesn't need all of the mumbo jumbo associated with SACD and thus the sound information can be provided without all the technical veiling. Less is more they say. Just some thoughts.

[Dusty Chalk]

I've heard that they're both good. When one gets to the point of these high-res formats, it gets to the point of trade-offs. For example, there was an article in one of the British magazines that looked at the phase correctness, and, other than analog, it beat all of the PCM formats. Unfortunately, as a nature of the design, there's also a lot of high-frequency "hash" generated. So in that respect, DVD-A is better (no high-frequency hash).

Either way, they're both better than redbook.

Also, I will get up on my podium about this to the bitter end -- IT IS NOT A FORMAT WAR!!! There is no reason -- OTHER THAN POLITICAL -- for a player to be able to play all formats. Unlike the VHS/Beta wars, where -- although it was possible for one player to play the others format -- it was inherently one or th'other.

[Mike]

Also, I will get up on my podium about this to the bitter end -- IT IS NOT A FORMAT WAR!!! There is no reason -- OTHER THAN POLITICAL -- for a player to be able to play all formats.

I'm sorry but what about convenience.

How long has SACD/DVDA been up and running now? outside of audio circles nobody has even heard of it, it seems to me it would make a bigger impact if players could play all formats. It gives the impression of a format war and that's exactly why even those in the know stay away.

Cheers
Mike

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've heard that they're both good. When one gets to the point of these high-res formats, it gets to the point of trade-offs. For example, there was an article in one of the British magazines that looked at the phase correctness, and, other than analog, it beat all of the PCM formats. Unfortunately, as a nature of the design, there's also a lot of high-frequency "hash" generated. So in that respect, DVD-A is better (no high-frequency hash).

Keep in mind, the hash is so high up in frequency it is not audible with regular program material. Where DVD-A has a problem is that you cannot fully get rid of the "digital glaze" that affects the sound of most PCM based sources. This problem doesn't effect DSD streams.

Either way, they're both better than redbook.

Man, did you say a mouth full.

[Dusty Chalk]

Yeah, unfortunately, it depends on how the disk was authored, it's not in the spec. It should be required that way, though.

[C-Z]

Where DVD-A has a problem is that you cannot fully get rid of the "digital glaze" that affects the sound of most PCM based sources.

This kind of unsubstantiated, vague statement drive me crazy. It is the sort of thing that manufacturers of ridiculously priced audio products will say - for example audio cable companies. I am fully aware of the technical issues associated with digitizing music, but what the heck is "digital glaze" - do the French use it on pastries? It tends to smooth out the pastry, so is that good or bad?

FA - I would definitely get a universal player so you can buy any title and not worry about compatibility. Pioneer makes a cheap player that works fine for most applications. I myself have one of them downstairs, and a Pioneer Elite 47AI in the main home theater.

Both SACD and DVD-A can sound great if done properly - a function of the engineers etc. that made it.

My issue with SACDs is that many are stereo only - I want multi-channel too! Like that you can play the CD layer in cars etc.

DVD-As have DTS, so anyone with a DVD player can play multi-channel, which is fun, if lower res. Do hate the menus - hard to play them without the video on.

CZ

[Audio Girl]

FA, if you decide to replace that receiver, you might check out the Rotel RSDX-02 (about $1250 new, can possibly buy it for less used on audiogon). It's a surround sound receiver with built-in DVD-A with excellent video and audio capabilities. We installed this unit in our master bedroom system in the previous house, and it was excellent. We paired it with an on-wall plasma, the B&W Cinema Series in-wall speakers (2-front l/r, center, 2-rear l/r) and a B&W ASW-650 sub. Nice little system. We haven't decided where we are going to install it in the new house...possibly may move it to the family room (to replace an eons old Yahama receiver).

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, if you decide to replace that receiver, you might check out the Rotel RSDX-02 (about $1250 new, can possibly buy it for less used on audiogon). It's a surround sound receiver with built-in DVD-A with excellent video and audio capabilities. We installed this unit in our master bedroom system in the previous house, and it was excellent. We paired it with an on-wall plasma, the B&W Cinema Series in-wall speakers (2-front l/r, center, 2-rear l/r) and a B&W ASW-650 sub. Nice little system. We haven't decided where we are going to install it in the new house...possibly may move it to the family room (to replace an eons old Yahama receiver).

You had all that in your BEDROOM??? Wow. The most technologically advanced thing in my bedroom is my clock radio with REALLY BIG numbers so that I can read it without my glasses on. Hehehe.