2. misc-audio
  3. 1198866010

For best CD playback is SACD needed?

I’m looking to significantly upgrade my stereo. I am planning to use CDs as my only source and I listen primarily to Classical and Jazz. Should my CD player have SACD capability?

I ask this for two reasons.
1. SACD seems to be fading away. Many new high end players (like the Nagra CD player) don’t support it. Most new music releases are NOT in SACD, in fact it seems that the number of new SACD discs is on the decline.

2. Some would argue that even though SACD clearly has better numbers on paper, that in the real world it is impossible even for experienced listeners to hear a difference. I’m referring here to the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9).
hdomke
rar1's avatar
rar1
1,578 posts
 
Hdomke:

If you don't already own any SACD's, now would not be the time to start acquiring a collection. You can hear the differences between Redbook CD and SACD, it's just whether the difference is big enough or important enough to matter to you.

From my comments, it's may seem obvious that I own a SACD collection and a player that what was "A" rated by Stereophile five years ago. The format never really got traction and I find myself buying SACD's more because I own a SACD player, than any other reason. I listen to a lot of opera and there are few SACD offerings.

Buy the best Redbook CD that you can afford and forget about SACD.

Regards,

Rich
hdomke OP
40 posts
 
Rich,
"You can hear the differences between Redbook CD and SACD"
Are you sure?
If so, the difference does matter to me (and probably most others on this forum). But some research raises doubts.

Audio Critic wrote: "“In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), …a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD.”
nrchy's avatar
nrchy
2,111 posts
 
Hdomke why ask the question since you appear to have made up your mind.

My experience with most if not all of these engineering societies is that they have also made up their minds and will go through any gymnastics to prove their conclusion.

I have many of my favorite recordings on redbook, SACD, vinyl, and better vinyl pressings. I have had many non-audiophiles over and gone through the series playing the same track in the order already mentioned, and seen the shock on people faces. They thought SACD sounded better than redbook, but every vinyl source was so much better that people were on many occasions speechless.

Enjoy your conclusions!

O

o

.
tiger
313 posts
 
Yes, if you are interested in some of the vintage Jazz that were recorded in 3 track takes and are now being issued in hybird SACD. I think the best one is Miles/Blue, which was recorded mono, three tracks. I have all the others, vinyl, red book and regular SACD. The three channel sounds the best. I understand that Columbia will issue more of these, 3 channel, in the future. Of course they will only be the classic sessions. So, the only way to get a multi channel CD is SACD. The imaging is unbelieveable.
rar1's avatar
rar1
1,578 posts
 
Hdomke:

You ask for feedback. You get it. Then, you question my truthfulness and/or my ability to make distinctions. It's been awhile since I have been treated like a 3rd grader. Thanks pal.

So, why not just listen for yourself? If you like, compare the Redbook CD and SACD only versions of the following titles and see if you can hear differences and if those differences are important to you.

1. Mark O Connor "Hot Swing Trio"
2. Blood, Sweat, & Tears - 2nd Album
3. Louis Armstrong Plays Fats Waller
4. Louis Armstrong plays W.C. Handy
5. Byrds' Greatest Hits

Have fun,

Rich
More to discover