I recently purchased a Marantz Pearl Lite SACD player. I bought this primarily because I wanted to take advantage of the growing number of classical CD's that I own that are in the Hybrid format. However, when I listen to an SACD in SACD format and then instantly again to the same CD in CD playback, I can't tell any discernable difference. This of course is very disappointing. Could it be because I have a 2-channel stereo setup and that SACD's ony realise their true potential, through a multi-channel surround sound setup? Any thiughts?
You should be able to tell the sacd sound with its very clean and spacecous delivery.
It is strange to hear that you cannot spot the differences. For me I owned a lot of SACDs and my ears tell me that they are a hell lot better than CDs. More space, dynamics and cleaner sound.
Enjoying music from a dream hi-fi system in a well treated room.
have a read of that, maybe you won't be so suprised. if the cd and sacd versions sound different, look to the mastering rather than the format.
Synology NAS + Audio Station - ATV2 - Benchmark DAC1 HDR - Event Opal
Cirrus Logic CS4398 high-performance 24-Bit, 192 kHz D/A converter
The above is the DAC of your player. No wonder the CD playback is as good as SACD. Actually, almost - You should still be able to spot a difference - it will be audiable mostly in the low and high freq's where the dynamic range of the SACD extends better.
And the rest of system has to have the ability to take advantage of the better source - what amp and speaks do you use? How deep in the bass the speaks can go.
I am listening right now to the album "The World Is Out" of Jaco Pastorius in SACD and no doubt there is a difference.
I found this too, but only after buying a couple of SACDs to try. I stopped buying the SACDs as they seem to me to be a waste of money. This also applies to DVD-A.
Any differences seem to be down to remastering, so the high res discs are in some cases, from different masters than the CD versions.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
quote - The above is the DAC of your player. No wonder the CD playback is as good as SACD. Actually, almost - You should still be able to spot a difference - it will be audiable mostly in the low and high freq's where the dynamic range of the SACD extends better.
The speakers are Neat Petit SX and the amp a MK1 Roksan Caspian. Please note that I am comparing like for like ie the sacd and cd against each other on the same cd disc.
... SACDs ... my ears tell me that they are a hell lot better than CDs. More space, dynamics and cleaner sound.
Thanks for that. Unfortunately, I didn't understand a word of it!
That pretty much mirrors my findings. I too have a Pearl-Lite and listen mainly to classical.
What I can say is that the Marantz does a wonderful job at extracting the "music" from any disc, and the finding that CD and SACD seem to have little difference between them (on this player) really does highlight the fact that the original format was entirely adequate for audio when correctly deployed.
Yes, pretty much what I have found as well. I bought an SACD player a while back, admittedly an old one, just to see what differences there were between the SACD discs and redbook cd. I also came to the conclusion that the difference is more in the mastering than the format itself.
System : Michell Gyrodec SE with RB300 & Ortofon Cadenza Black / Trichord Dino / Arcam DV135 / Naim NAC112x/NAP150 / Monitor Audio RX6
The mastering of the recording to hand more than the very fact that it just happens to be on an SACD disc has more influence. Simply being an SACD disc is no guarantee of anything.
Anyone who heard the butchered effort that the Genesis 1976-1982 SACD boxset will be more than aware of this, particularly if they'd already heard the wonderful Barry Diament masters for Trick of the Tail or Wind and Wuthering on the Atco label. Wouldn't have made any difference labelling SACD all over the box; they crucified that one. Give me a great mastering anyday, irrespective of the digital format.
Onkyo TX-8050 / Tannoy Revolution DC4 / Marantz SA7001-KI / Apple TV 3 / Sony PS3 320Gb / Denon DVD-3930
The idea behind SACD as I understand it is that when you decide to step up in your audio system it gives you more headroom. So it is for more ambitious audiophiles I think. The format will not be the limiting factor for resolution, range and dynamic.
Now, what is paradoxal is that the best players are the ones which come equipped with the best CD converters and there the difference is actually much smaller
I listen to my music with Sony XA-5400ES CD/SACD player, the chip is the Burr-Brown 1796
the quality of CD sound is incredible and CD vs. SACD difference is not so big I think in comparson to my other Sony Cd player where CD playback is not as good. SACD is very good on both but I have never made any tests or compared.
the dynamic range of the humble cd is FAR greater than ANY audio system, and, where you ever to hear that full dynamic range, it would probably deafen you. when a sacd sounds better than the equivalent cd, it is because more care has been taken with the mastering. same thing with 'high res' downloads. just like high res downloads though, worth having if enough of your favourite music is available in that format, but only because there is the potential for a better, or more pleasing, master - nothing to do with the format itself.
It is quite a big statement to say that SACD doesn't have a reason to sound different from CD.
Firstly because it does and secondly because there's a good reason why it does.
There is also a good reason why both SACD and DVD-audio formats were designed instead of using the old CD format in DVD's for example.
The SACD format and the DVD-audio format are vastly superior to the CD to respond to more demanding customers with correspondin level of hi-fi equipment and needs.
You dont care? Your ears not to the point of hearing it? Audio system quality too low to make a difference?
If you are color-blind it does it mean the color TV's don't make difference.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing