Would you purchase a SACD player right now?

[wappinghigh]

Yep. There is STILL a role for good ol analog out.....teds right...make sure whatever player you get has a decent analog stage....

 

[ted_b]

also go buy a $50 Monoprice HDMI de-embedder and send 24/88 PCM to the Peachtree. Make sure you check to see what the player sends as DSD-to-PCM. Some new Sony's truncate to 16 bit.

 

[Trev or Trevor]

I'd also like to say that sacd ripping is so easy it can be done

blind folded. I know because I'm blind and I do it on a regular

basis. I do need someone who can see to start the app, but after

that, it is as easy as two clicks of a button. And you can attach

an usb drive to the ps3. You just can't do it from the mac. My

only complaint is you can't run the scarletbook app from a mac or

linux.

 

I play the dff files on my Sonore Signature with the latest beta

from Jesus R. It converts to pcm on the fly. I compared the sound

to the same files converted with saracon and I can't hear the

difference.

 

There is also a fair bit of rock and pop titles available from

cdjapan and new titles are being released each month. They're

expensive, but I've been happy with the quality.

 

 

[wappinghigh]

I'd trust your ears anyday wap.

 

[ted_b]

This gives me more resolve to do more ripping (I only have like 20% of my SACD catalog ripped so far). Thx

Ted

 

[Sri]

I am one of those HD-Tracks naysayers. I won’t go into the issues around the fact that there is scant evidence that anyone can hear the difference between high resolution and standard resolution, but just HD-Tracks in particular. The nay I am saying is as follows.

 

In reviewing their DG releases, the only FLAC files DG sells are standard CD resolution. They are selling downloads of material that DG only makes available as physical media. This raises a number of issues.

 

First, it’s a clear violation of the DCMA to rip encrypted content. Ask Real Networks about their RealDVD, which if it hadn’t been stopped by a court order would have protected the publishers by making its ripped copy only playable on the system where it was ripped, not the unprotected copies that HD-Tracks sells.

 

The only way that can approach being legal is if they have special a special agreement with DG. There’s no evidence that they have such an agreement.

 

If they are ripping without permission, they should at least purchase a copy of the physical media for each ripped copy that they sell. There’s no evidence they are doing that and I’m sure that none of you would be surprised to that hear business that consists of only a web site with no physical address or phone number would cut corners.

 

Lastly, if they are doing what they seem to be doing, when the overly aggressive RIAA lawyer finally focus on them, their customers will be included in their overly broad dragnet. I, for one, don't want to receive that letter.

 

[ted_b]

n/t

 

[wappinghigh]

This wet ya appetite! And rock SACD DSD 5.1 titles as well!

 

Lets hope we see a revival of quad rock in this format. Heck ANY format!

 

http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?14883-WB-JAPAN-5.1-SACDs-Up-Close

 

And the prices are quite reasonable

 

Get em while you can guys!

 

[Mark Powell]

You mention telling the difference between 44.1 and hi res.

 

A UK magazine now checks the resolution of all so-called hi res music they review, and publishes the relevant charts. Many are upsampled 44.1 material.

 

HD Tracks is the worst offender. Their emailed "Sorry we didn't know, will try to do better" excuses have made them a laughing stock among knowledgeable users in the UK. But no one, including HD Tracks, have disputed the magazine's findings.

 

No address, no phone. No wonder. Cowboys.

 

[wappinghigh]

Thanks..and links..I'd like to know..

 

 

 

[pacwin]

CD is most certainly not as goood as it gets.16 bits is not enough and DSD's impulse response makes it in my view the superior digital recording format. To sonically benefit from SACD you are going to need an above average system. Not insanely expensive but you would need in my view to spend at least 1k on the player and have commensurate downstream playback (I'm assuming stereo listening here rather than multichannel/receiver). On the other hand what are your musical tastes. If you like Western classical music from the last 500 years SACD definitely makes sense. Extensive back catalog and hundreds of new recordings each year most of them the best recordings on the planet by fastidious obsessed audiophile recording engineers. Many in SACD's native format DSD which is considered the premium source for SACD. Cant go wrong with SACD in that case.

 

There is a lot of reissued jazz but what you really want is newly minted recorded stuff. SACD can certainly breath life into a 1955 mono recording of Ella Fitzgerald but good modern jazz which is everywhere on redbook is not readily available on SACD. There are maybe 10 new jazz releases a year impeccably recorded but not usually first class performances by well known performers. Often the same old warhorses are trotted out and there is a lack of imagination in selecting reissue candidates. More choice here via downloads for the newer stuff. High resolution jazz (i.e ECM) are still only dabbling their toes in the water.

 

If you like rock and pop there's big doubts in my mind as to whether there will be reliable repeatable sonic benefits (unless again multichannel recordings) over redbook and existing SACD releases are but a tiny drop in the bucket of that vast universe and almost always reissues on SACD of last centuries well knowns. Vinyl might be a better genre to be in since the choice is pretty large there. SACD releases in this space have been boosted in the past 18 months by the release of classic material in the SHM-SACD (different polycarb formula, green good coatings for laser diffraction reduction and/or rubidium clocking on the glass master) format from Universal Japan but these retail for circa US60.00 and that run seems to be coming to an end.

 

Bluray is largely a lemon. What releases I have seen hardly bother to take advantage of the technology. A lot of blu ray audio esp live concerts is 24/48 no advance really on DVD. As for downloads. I'm ambivalent. If there is an SACD version I prefer the actual artifact (I also almost invariable purchase/privilege DSD recordings). If its an outstanding performance I will cave in and get the download but I ultimately resent poorly scanned pdf liner notes and files that basically have no resale value. The highest quality downloads often exceeed in price the equivalent SACD (Linn, Channel Classics etc).

 

There is no one right answer for all cases. You have to figure out where the land lies for you.

 

[wappinghigh]

I think the ONLY way for the future, is for ALL labels and record companies to establish their own hirez stores, where customers can buy in faith and confidence and have the choice of whatever format they want...mp3...redbook....24 bit pcm...right thru to dsd.dff. stereo and surround.

 

I know this is stating the bleeding obvious...but let's face it. It is now beyond belief why this has not been done.

 

Why oh why this seems so difficult in circa 2011 is totally and utterly beyond me.

 

Now, if industry won't do it by themselves, then It's almost come to a point that government needs to step in and legislate that it happens. France or someone. Protect the consumer, and enforce a mandatory provision of ALL formats and resolutions. Something like..."well if you want a licence to open a music selling business..even to sell discs", then you have to have the same content available in digital download to sell as well at all available resolutions from the original recording.... Something like that. So mandatory standards need to be set. It's almost come to that IMHO...

 

Governments are doing just that with digital TV. So why not digital tracks?

 

[Mark Powell]

It's

 

HiFi News & Record Review, website www.hifinews.co.uk

 

Personally I don't think the website is very good, it is mainly a hardcopy monthly magazine.

 

Regards.

 

[mcatucci]

A local guy is selling a Sony SCD-CE595 for 75.00 Looks like a very good deal. I am not a fan of cd/sacd changers but I really like the dedicated SACD player versus a universal. I think for 75.00 I will give it a shot. Not a lot to lose with that type of investment.

 

[Mark Powell]

Not just for music. Most people buy it for films. Here in the UK the machines are reduced in the stores from hundreds of pounds (wisely we aren't in the Euro) to tens of pounds. The general public is sick of 'This weeks new format'.

 

DVD film resolution is perfectly adequate for 99% of the population, and on the audio side, people are not that interested in high resolution crashes, bangs, and explosions!

 

In the UK they are now trying to sell us 3D televisions. You have to wear silly glasses. The interest is zero.

 

This thread is supposed to be about SACD players. Personally I have never seen an SACD let alone heard one. So I would rather spend money on a mad dog than an SACD player.

 

[dallasjustice]

"So I would rather spend money on a mad dog than an SACD player."

 

Now that's an idea for a new thread: "Purple Drank or New SACD Player"

 

Just teasing Mark. In America Mad Dog is more synonymous with a low grade intoxicant than a dog. :-)

 

[Mark Powell]

My wife frequently visits the US to see her daughter and grandchildren (They are nothing to do with me, yeronner).

 

I will have her bring a few back. :-)

 

[Panelhead]

This is a Houston classic cocktail. Codeine laced cough strap mixed in Dr Pepper. People carry gallons of this stuff around their cars. Including a few celebs.

I guess I spent too much on my recent DVP-S9000ES disc player. But then Mad Dog is cheaper than "drank".

Looking forward to extracting DSD from the 100+ SACD's in the racks. Can a DVD recorder read these today?

 

 

George

 

 

[barrows]

This is some of the most irresponsible, unsupported, commentary I have ever read:

 

"In reviewing their DG releases, the only FLAC files DG sells are standard CD resolution. They are selling downloads of material that DG only makes available as physical media. This raises a number of issues.

 

First, it’s a clear violation of the DCMA to rip encrypted content. Ask Real Networks about their RealDVD, which if it hadn’t been stopped by a court order would have protected the publishers by making its ripped copy only playable on the system where it was ripped, not the unprotected copies that HD-Tracks sells."

 

On the one hand, I am not even sure what you mean regarding the FLAC files which DG sells, as this has nothing to do with HDTracks. Nothing in your comments actually raise any "issues". It is clear that the high resolution files which HDTracks distributes from the DG catalog have their origin in titles that DG previously released as SACDs: just check the titles! Additionally, of course HDTracks has a license from DG to release these titles, any speculation to the contrary is nonsense and you are just making it up. HDTracks distributes SACD format titles as 24/88.2 (or sometimes 24/176.4) PCM files.

I have purchased many high resolution albums from HDTracks, and for the most part they sound great. Additionally, while it is clear that HDTracks has had some problems, the vast majority of the titles they offer are exactly what they claim.

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Just my $0.02, but it is silly to invest in SACD when computer audio can easily match or exceed the quality right now, and unlike the limited physical format of SACD, has essentially no barriers to increased quality.

 

At least, no physical barriers. Cost on the other hand, is really the only barrier in CA between much much better sound. It's expensive to record, master, and distribute. At least for now.

 

-Paul

 

 

[ted_b]

SACD catalog already in existence, then? What if you are a huge classical fan? I can tell you that ripping via PS3 just to get them into a hirez PCM format is good, but not the answer. Either a good SACD player or a DSD DAC (with ripping being done previously, of course) is really what is required to take advantage of these titles. I'd like to think that more and more downloads will be DSD but that currently seems like a stretch, market-wise.

 

[Paul R]

Hi Ted -

 

You make a good point.

 

I spent a few minutes Googling to try and find some hard facts to back up what I think is the case, but I could not find any worth publishing, so here goes.

 

Really good digital can make 16/44.1 sound way better than most people have ever heard, and there are at least 80K titles available on CD for classical music. At least, and that is before you get into things like classical Chinese music.

 

I would simply tap into that until more and more high quality releases become available. In fact, that is exactly what I have done. We have a personal collection of about 700 classical CDs.

 

That's just me though. I don't see making a lot of investment in a format that I believe will soon be about as common or relevant as Betamax tapes. Speaking of SACD disks, I mean.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Well said.

 

But the fact remains that a considerable proportion of HD Tracks material is upsampled 44.1 material, sold as 'hi res'. There is of course no definition of what that means. If they said 'higher res' then one might ask 'Higher res than what?' but they don't. The evidence is clear to see (I refer you to HiFi News & Record Review). Also they have not denied it, just emailed two long letters to the magazine consisting of excuses, which of course is an admission.

 

[Miska]

I would simply tap into that until more and more high quality releases become available. In fact, that is exactly what I have done. We have a personal collection of about 700 classical CDs.

 

CD doesn't contain 5.1, 5.0 or 4.0 channel hires version.

 

Most SACDs contain CD-layer and 2.0 + mch DSD areas.

 

Price difference is minimal and you get three versions of the material at once.

 

That's just me though. I don't see making a lot of investment in a format that I believe will soon be about as common or relevant as Betamax tapes. Speaking of SACD disks, I mean.

 

Some people have been saying that for years, but I have not noticed any change in steady flow of new SACD releases.

 

Some (same?) people have been saying the same about vinyl...

 

 

[Paul R]

Yah gotta good point there. Still, the number of classical music releases on CD dwarfs the SACD releases. I'm not sure, but even the online releases might exceed the number of SACD releases now.

 

I'm not sure SACDs are comparable to vinyl, analog format comparisons against digital format comparisons are not always intuitive.

 

-Paul