Post by enos August 9, 2007 (1 of 24)
|
|
Hi all,
I am pretty new to the SACD format and sound, but recently discovered it on my universal player Philips 763SA, and damn, I liked it.
I do not have enough SACD yet to justify any investment in a new SACD player, but as I am curious, I was wondering if there are significant diferences (only for SACD performance) between an entry level universal machine (like my Philips 763SA) and a high end SACD player (Marantz SA15 or SA11 for example)...
I found the improvement tremendous on my Philips 763SA between SACD layer and CD layer (with a good DSD recording), but from what I can read, the improvement is not so dramatic with high end SACD players. It looks as if the CD performance is much improved on these top end players and almost reaching the performance of SACD.
Do you have any proper experience...
If you should establish a ranking for SACD playback only, what would it be? Are they really big diferences in SACD playback between a Denon DCD2000, a Marantz SA15, a Pioneer 868. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by Marc P August 9, 2007 (2 of 24)
|
|
Hi Enos,
I used to own a Philips SACD1000, and after about three years I switched to the Marantz SA11.
Both on CD and SACD the improvements were well worth the investment.
Take the time to find a good dealer where you can audition a couple of players, it will be worth it.
You will be amazed at how much better SACD can sound compared to your Philips. You are in for a treat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enos said:
Hi all,
I am pretty new to the SACD format and sound, but recently discovered it on my universal player Philips 763SA, and damn, I liked it.
I do not have enough SACD yet to justify any investment in a new SACD player, but as I am curious, I was wondering if there are significant diferences (only for SACD performance) between an entry level universal machine (like my Philips 763SA) and a high end SACD player (Marantz SA15 or SA11 for example)...
I found the improvement tremendous on my Philips 763SA between SACD layer and CD layer (with a good DSD recording), but from what I can read, the improvement is not so dramatic with high end SACD players. It looks as if the CD performance is much improved on these top end players and almost reaching the performance of SACD.
Do you have any proper experience...
If you should establish a ranking for SACD playback only, what would it be? Are they really big diferences in SACD playback between a Denon DCD2000, a Marantz SA15, a Pioneer 868. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts!
I can only tell you about ones I have some direct experience with:
Sony DVP 9000 ES
Sony DVP 999 ES
Sony XA 9000 ES
and one audition only
Krell SACD Standard
The first Sony was stereo only and is out of production. It plays DVDs and SACDs and redbook CDs but won't play CD-R or CD-RW. The sound is in my opinion as good as it gets except that it doesn't play multi-channel and for me that is a huge setback, although not in the application it is used for.
The second Sony is my dad's and I used it for about six months while he used my Sony XA 9000 ES. The DVP 999 comes close to the XA 9000 ES but doesn't quite make it in terms of overall sweetness of the treble. As far as dynamics are concerned, my recollection of it is that it is fine.
The XA 9000 ES is perhaps all I could want. I am not ENTIRELY sure about that but it seems that is so. I do have some specific treble issues and suspect with good reason (other's opinion on the web) that the problem is in the crossover in my Apogee speakers. I do not doubt however, that the EMM Labs products are superior in every way. I have heard that equipment at a friend's place but he not only was using the EMM front end, every other aspect of his system is vastly superior to mine....its hard to make comparisons of any specific item if all of them (plus the listening room) are different!
I heard the Krell in two different stores and (again all the equipment was different) felt that even though the Krell is 1000 USD more than the Sony, that I liked the Sony better.
A note on multi-channel. When it is recorded in such a way as to capture the reflections of sound off the side walls and back walls, and the multi-channel playback equipment is properly set up, this provides the listener with a startlingly realistic sense of having been transported into the recording locale, be it a concert hall, recital hall, church or whatever.
I suspect however that if you are not into acoustic music and your genre is electronically produced rather than recorded with the intent of capturing a living acoustic performance, then multi-channel would be meaningless to you.
PentaTone, BIS, Chandos, Harmonia Mundi, Tudor, Telarc and several others have produced multi-channel recordings that are simply wonderful in recreating the illusion that you the listener are in the concert hall!
I am so addicted to this multi-channel sound that with one rare exception, a few discs (CD-R) obtained of a favorite artist that are not commercially available, I don't find the question of how the player reproduces CDs to be important. With a collection approaching 500 multi-channel SACDS, I almost never listen to commercially produced CDs anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I suspect however that if you are not into acoustic music and your genre is electronically produced rather than recorded with the intent of capturing a living acoustic performance, then multi-channel would be meaningless to you.
Windsurfer,
Be careful here. I count myself to those who are more interested in electronically produced music rather than acoustically recorded music but multi-channel is far from meaningless. Contrary, with such music the importance of multichannel is far greater than the improved resolution that SACD provides (which is why I almost exclusively buy multichannel SACDs)
|
|
|
Post by Claude August 9, 2007 (5 of 24)
|
|
I notice a significant difference between SACD performance of the Philips DVD963SA and the Sony SCD-XA777ES. More detail, better instrument seperation, a sweeter top end.
The Philips is certainly a great performer for the money, but if you have a high end system you also need a high end SACD player to fully benefit from hi-rez.
It would be interesting to check if the Sony (list price $4000) would clearly outperform a good $1500 player, but as I bought it second hand for $2000 I did not ask myself that question.
BTW, I would not recommend buying a used Sony SCD-XA777 or 9000 because these players tend to develop problems with playing hybrid discs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Windsurfer,
Be careful here. I count myself to those who are more interested in electronically produced music rather than acoustically recorded music but multi-channel is far from meaningless. Contrary, with such music the importance of multichannel is far greater than the improved resolution that SACD provides (which is why I almost exclusively buy multichannel SACDs)
Thank you Steve,
I needed that come-uppance!
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
I would not recommend buying a used Sony SCD-XA777 or 9000 because these players tend to develop problems with playing hybrid discs.
I bought mine new and have had some problems but only about 7 or 8 discs in a collection that is now at 486 and maybe 430 are hybrids. Mostly it was some Membrans which I gave to my dad who's DVP 999 ES has no problem with them.
I also have a problem (which is overcome by changing text to time display) with a couple PentaTone RQRs in the Masur Beethoven collection. Oh and I have a 2L disc of Enescu and Strauss Violin Sonatas which only gets read as a CD. Morton replaced that for me to no avail and I gave it also to my dad! These are only a few discs in a large collection but it would be nice were Sony to issue a recall and fix whatever is wrong here. LOL right ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Philips DVD963SA is a very well-regarded entry-level player on at least one other audio forum of which I am aware. I agree with the advice that it is probably close enough that you need to hear it (whatever competition) for yourself to decide if it is worth the extra investment.
|
|
|
Post by enos August 10, 2007 (9 of 24)
|
|
Thanks a lot for all your feedback !
I understand from your different inputs that they do really exist sonic differences between SACD player in SACD playback, but it looks difficult to assess if it is worth the upgrade (looks harder than for simple CD playback).
As regard to the Philips 963SA, it is said to be a great performer on SACD for little money, while a top end product (SA-11S1) should bring the performance one step further, but at a much higher cost.
I am affraid that listenning to some SACD players is the only way to make my mind. It is a good thing though.
|
|
|
Post by amatala August 10, 2007 (10 of 24)
|
|
The huge differences between SACD and CD playback on entry-level SACD players come mainly from the fact that these machines play CDs very badly, but they play SACDs reasonably well (for the price).
Going higher in range to machines like the Marantz SA-15 you will realize that these machines play CDs much better than your Philips plays SACDs in stereo and they play SACDs even better (you do not actually need to go all the way up to the SA-11 to have vast improvements over your Philips in SACD playback).
It is also true that the higher you go in range, the gap between SACD and CD playback tends to diminish drastically, up to the point where differences are rather subtle or even not detectable by untrained ears.
One word of caution, though: the rest of your system has to keep up also. It makes no sense to invest in an expensive SACD player if you are going to connect this player to an A/V receiver. If you really want to hear what a higher end stereo SACD player can offer you, you should set up a stereo system with a good amplifier and pair of speakers which match the player.
|
|
