Hiya I'm a newbie to the whole SACD thing. I just read Sony's description of the technology and have two basic questions:
1. Is the sound noticably better (in all cases)?
2. I just got a new receiver and new speakers, at the cost of about $2200.00 and didn't really think about SACD. My question is: if I get a SACD player, does my receiver have to be SACD "enabled" as well, or does it look just like any other digital audio source from the receivers point of view?
Due to the higher resolution, most SACD's would sound much better than conventional CDs. Multichannel SACD as well as DVD Audio playback requires analog 5.1 input on receiver or preamplifier. If your receiver has 5.1 input, you're ready to rock!
To answer your qeustion in all cases do SACD sound better, IMHO, no.
Some recordings are much better than others, for example Peter white new wave type accoustic guitar album Glow, Steely Dans Gaucho, America's Home comming, Grateful Dead American Beauty are fine examples of great mixing, I have other albums that are not as well mixed.
SACD in my opinion are not as well mixed as DVD Audio but that MHO based on the the 15 cd's I own, try to stick with the multi channel recordings if your into surround.
SACDs generally sound better than CDs, but not in all cases. 1) A well recorded CD can sound better than a poorly recorded SACD. 2) A CD played on a hi-fi player or transport/dac can sound as good as an SACD played on a mid-fi player.
To answer your second question, if you have a stereo receiver you can enjoy listening to SACDs on a SACD player in stereo. Most SACDs are formatted for stereo and multi-channel playback. If you have a multi-channel receiver, you can listen in stereo or surround.
SACD/DVD/CD players cost as little as $200. It's not that expensive getting into high-resolution audio. The main problem imho is the lack of selection in titles.
Michael: Adding a bit to what Two Cents has said: First, to get the full impact of SACD sound, you MUST have 5.1 ANALOG inputs on your receiver. Then you have to go out and get five or six good cables, with good connectors. We got our cables from Blue Jeans Cables - and are most satisfied. We don't use a subwoofer or a center speaker, so we just have front R & L and Surround R & L cables in place. Still it starts to cost a bit of money, and sure fills up your cabinet with cables! Remember that SACD will NOT play back in digital output - only analog. And then again - not all of the SACDs are well-recorded. As we listen mainly to classical and opera, there are a lot of SACD titles out for us. In the pop/rock field, you won't find as many, although more come out every year. Most people I know who are pop/rock listeners just go with regular CDs. And although Two Cents reports that you can get into SACD for $200, I would not suggest buying an "entry-level" player. Especially if, as you say, you've spent a lot on your receiver/speakers, etc. I'm very happy with my new Yamaha S5770 - same thing as their S1500, only silver, not black. Will cost you about $360 Online. From there, you might step up to a Denon 2910 - but now you're talking some $600 - and you've REALLY gotta want good SACD sound to spend that much! Hope this helps a bit. . .
My system: Yamaha S5770 CD/DVD player - NAD T763 receiver - Polk RTi6 speakers. (to be up-graded later to PSB or B & W)
If you have a system with a subwoofer, make sure the player you get has bass managment options, meaning it can take the bass content from the 5 channels and send it to the sub. Because pretty much all receivers skip this step if the signal is coming from the six analog inputs (external decoder inputs). Alternately, you can buy units to go between your player and your receiver to handle bass management, but that adds more $$'s to the project.
The few SACD and DVD-Audio discs I have sound really nice -- better than CD. The the prices of the discs are now comperable to CDs, too. There is definitely benefits to be had for rock recordings, too. At the very least, it's interesting to find out what more you can hear when the mix is all around you.
J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Posted on
"First, to get the full impact of SACD sound, you MUST have 5.1 ANALOG inputs on your receiver."
Larry, you've wounded my little stereo only heart.
Thanks for all the input! This really helps a lot. I'm surprised that SACD is handled via analog input. Is this just because there is no receiver technology to decode the "bitstream" of SACD data, so we have to pass it as analog?
Regarding the connection, I'm just a bit confused. If I have to use analog connections, doesn't this imply that the SACD player will provide a R and a L output (eg like stereo output) and that I would just need to plug these into my receiver? One of the posts referred to a "lot of cables" to get these two connected so you could benefit from the SACD. Guess I don't know why I would need more than the two cables?
I have a brand new receiver, the Pioneer VSX 1014K which seems to have most of the new bells and whistles, I would hope that it could take these analog inputs and route it to the right speakers (bass, etc)
I'm surprised that SACD is handled via analog input. Is this just because there is no receiver technology to decode the "bitstream" of SACD data, so we have to pass it as analog?
Nope, its due to copywrite issues.
Two analog cables will give you stereo sound. Six cables will give you 5.1 surround sound.
Jan V. - sigh - be careful, sir - you could hurt yourself when trying to talk with your tongue in your cheek! (grin)
Michael - Sem is right - Sony/Philips wanted a way to sell the discs WITHOUT all of us dishonest souls copying them and passing them around. So - in their "wisdom," they came up with a great recording format - but put onto discs in a way that is awkward, cumbersome, and so far at least, has prevented "piracy." The downside is that the SACD discs shove their digital content down to analog within the player, and you have to take a channel at a time, plug it into the receiver, and play whatever is there. Now - you COULD hook up just the front L & R cables, and get Jan V's beloved "simple stereo." However, SACDs are recorded with a pattern that included front, surround, and subwoofer. Your choice - you CAN listen in just plain stereo, but will miss a lot of ambiance. However, I give you fair warning - there are many on this forum who eschew those extra channels, and want only 2-channel stereo. So I come out here hesitantly! (grin) I've got only front and surround speakers - but with the chance that someday I'll be getting a subwoofer, I've got the sub interconnect from player to receiver hooked up. Doesn't do anything, as I've got subW "off" in the bass management. And remember, also, that many, if not most, receivers may have their own bass management, but it probably does NOT work on the 7.1 or 5.1 analog inputs. That's why you need a player with its own built-in bass management. Whew - too long. Sorry. I'll let more knowledgeable chaps such as Jan V., Sem, Kegger, et al explain it all the "right" way! BTW - when I just shifted over from an Onkyo 701 to a NAD 763 - HUGE SOUND DIFFERENCE! I'm totally impressed with the NAD!
Michael - going back and re-reading Two Cents' posting. IF you purchase SACD "hybrid" discs - and a lot of them are - you will get two layers, one SACD, the other "regular" CD stereo. You have the choice which to play. My Yamaha automatically scans and plays the SACD layer - but I can easily switch to the CD layer if I so choose. But that's ONLY on the "hybrid" discs - which are marked as such.
Larry R is correct. The direct 5.1/6.1/7.1 inputs on your AV receiver would bypass any preamp stage except the volume control so you need to enable bass management on the player.
J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Posted on
"you CAN listen in just plain stereo, but will miss a lot of ambiance."
Go ahead, Larry, you've got the knife in there, give a good shove and a twist. As to my tongue, there are plenty of tongues that have been bloodied a bit by remaining in cheek. But it hasn't damaged my rhythm.
Since SACD began life as a stereo only format it is possible to find two channel only SACD discs that offer the hi rez format and a Red Book layer both exclusively in stereo. As SACD evolved to compete with DVD-A the format was expanded to include a multi channel surround mix. Most current hybrid discs I come across include three mixes; a Red Book CD mix in stereo, a SACD hi rez mix in stereo and a SACD 5.1 mix. Often the three mixes are different from one another. By taking the signal from the "mixed audio out" or simply "analog out", depending on the player, the stereo mix is always present. Most dedicated SACD players can be set to default to this hi rez mix, ignoring the 5.1 completely. My understanding of universal players is this option is at the discretion of the maker. The Toshiba 4960 required the disc begin playing in 5.1 before you could switch to stereo output, there was no default that could be set.
Theoretically, you can use the two front L-R outputs of the 5.1 analog outs and fold the 5.1 signal down to stereo output that would include the "ambiance" information. This is done in the speaker set up menu. I have been told by several manufacturers this might lose some information in the downmix. I have been told in all cases this downmix has to be performed outside the DSS format and the signal is then also down sampled to a lower resolution, though no one has told me exactly what that resolution might be. Apparently it depends on the disc itself and can be one sampling rate on one disc and another sampling rate on the next disc.
If anyone can clear this up for me, I would appreciate the information. This seems to be another area where the designers, manufacturers and sellers have conflicting, if any, information.
Jan V. - whew! Thank God your rhythm hasn't been impeded! Close call, though! (grin) (gotta be more careful with my knives - note to myself) The SACD is turning out to be a large can of worms - and though I've tried to understand all the settings and results - I can't. So I just slip a SACD into the Yamaha, and it plays - in 5.1 format. As I have my surround speakers turned way down ( minus 4 db) it's almost as good as Jan's Stereo! The only time I run the surrounds at anywhere near "normal" volume is when I'm playing DVD movies. Then I really need them! But for just plain ordinary vanilla classical music - stereo 2-ch. is just fine. Indeed, when I first got the SACD player, I only had cables for the front L & R. Hooked them up, played stereo, and was quite happy. Then, when the new Blue Jeans cable set came, I got all hooked up. But please don't anybody ask me if it's "better sound," OK? OK! (big snarl here) The sound on my system is now pretty good - end of comment! Jan - in my next incarnation I'll clear up all of your confusion. . .
Wow that's a lot to consider :-) I have a better idea about the cabling but will have to study my receiver a bit more to put all the pieces together. Not sure if the SACD cabling is related to my receiver's "multi channel" abilities or if this is something entirely different..
Honestly, at this point though, I'm not missing what I haven't heard (SACD) and wondering if I should just ignore the whole thing for now anway....if the titles are so few and good hookups are a technical matter, how mainstream is this even likely to become? And who wants a music system that can't be copied *for backup purposes* ?? lol
My first impression playing audio cd's (stereo) with my new system (the Pioneer 1014 and the Axiom spekaers) was that it was not as good as my previous system and I was a bit disheartened.
But then I disvoered Pioneers setting for "7 Ch Stereo" which is some sort of algorithm to "turn" 2 channel into surround sound and it makes a huge difference, even though Im sure some of the music "purity" is compromised. I have not yet listened to classical music titles for comparison but will this weekend.
Michael - You sound as though you're a good candidate for staying with CDs and forgetting about the SACD issue! What kind of music do you"usually" listen to? If it's classical - there's LOTS for you out there in SACD format. As to your sound woes - been there! Consider that your speakers might sound better after they've been run for about 100 hours or a tad more. Yes, it really helps. Also - every receiver-maker seems to have his version of expanded sound - call it Dolby II, Neo:6, whatever. Some are pretty standard - others are unique to a brand. My NAD has "EARS" that nobody else has. If your expanded sound setting makes a "huge difference," hmmm - I'm wondering why? Are you used to listening in surround, not stereo? Do you perhaps have your bass management on the speakers set right? Front - large: Surround - small? Or perhaps large for all? If you have any set to small without a subwoofer, your sound will suffer. I know - too many options! Now, I've gotta get back to the NAD instruction book, which I may actually understand in about a week! Plus, I need to get out of the way so people with a LOT more knowledge on this forum get their say!