Post by Julien August 10, 2007 (11 of 24)
|
|
amatala said:
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.
That is mainly because we are much more advanced in terms of player technology for CD than SACD. The fair comparison would be between the best SACD players we have now and the best CD players from 1990 (10 years of development).
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/MoFiDSD.htm
I just bought a Sony player modded by Allen Wright for a bargain price, and I'm really looking forward to it. From Allen's experience, he can upgrade the playback level of both CD and SACD drastically, but also it even increases the difference between CD and SACD.
|
|
|
Post by amatala August 10, 2007 (12 of 24)
|
|
That is mainly because we are much more advanced in terms of player technology for CD than SACD. The fair comparison would be between the best SACD players we have now and the best CD players from 1990 (10 years of development).
Well, this seems to be a common belief these days...
However I still have in my collection a Marantz CD-73 player from 1983, one of the first CD players ever built. This player used to cost the equivalent of 1200 euro when it was launched and uses a 14-bit Philips TDA-1540 chipset (yes, not even 16-bit!!!), which is the model which preceded the famous TDA-1541 (most hardcore HiFi fans will know what I am talking about). I couldn't find any modern CD player within the same price range which sounds better than this old CD player (the players which come closest to it are the Exposure CD players, but still they do not surpass it).
I am still using on a daily basis a Marantz CDA-94 DAC produced before 1990 and based on THE TDA-1541 itself (please take off your hats when you see its name mentioned ... :) ). Even if I can afford a new expensive player, I am not going to get rid of this DAC any time soon.
So, based on my personal experiences, I would rather not comment on the progress made in CD decoding techniques in the past 10 years...
|
|
|
Post by Julien August 10, 2007 (13 of 24)
|
|
Maybe you're right about the CD players. I think it's more about the extra challenges with SACD (disc spinning speed...), and most SACD players not keeping the DSD signal path simple enough.
|
|
|
Post by RedFox August 11, 2007 (14 of 24)
|
|
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!
my very first sacd player was the same as yours: Philips 763SA.
i liked it very much. a year ago i bought a marantz sa15-s1 and
for this reason i can make some comparisons:
(a) both the cd performance and the sacd performance have become
better.
(c) however there still is a significant difference between
the two.
my system a year ago:
Philips 763SA cd, sacd etc. player,
Audio Innovations 300 MK-ii (tube amplifier),
Audio Note AN-J/Spa speakers,
Audio Note AN-S standard level silver interconnect,
Audio Note AN-L copper speaker cable,
Audio Note standard steel stands.
today:
Marantz SA15-S1 CD player,
Audio Innovations 300 MK-ii (tube amplifier),
Audio Note AN-J/Spa speakers,
Audio Note AN-S standard level silver interconnect,
Audio Note AN-L copper speaker cable,
Audio Note standard steel stands.
further remarks:
(c) the new system is stereo only
(d) i bought the philips for about 500 usd.
the price of the marantz was about 1800 usd.
the improvement is not directly proportional
with the price i.e. less than
1800/500=3.6
according to my personal experience the sonic quality is doubled.
(e) in spite of that i am very pleased with the changes.
i do not believe that the cd performance is getting closer
to that of the sacd performance if you buy a top player.
both can be improved significantly and perhaps this fact
might make you feel that they are getting closer to each other.
(the difference in percentage may be smaller).
|
|
|
Post by 51surr August 11, 2007 (15 of 24)
|
|
RedFox said:
i do not believe that the cd performance is getting closer
to that of the sacd performance if you by a top player.
both can be improved significantly and perhaps this fact
might make you feel the they are getting closer to each other.
(the difference in percentage may be smaller).
In reference to CD vs SACD quality. My player ,McCormak UDP-1, was reviewed when it first came out as state of the art CD quality playback. I have never heard the sound of a CD come close to the sound of a SACD or DVDA on my system. I can not listen to CDs at all on my system when I know what's available and I'm surprised the audio mags still talk about CD playback quality. Give me high resolution playback and I'm not talking the antique, vinyl.
|
|
|
Post by amatala August 11, 2007 (16 of 24)
|
|
Well, I can tell you that the best demo systems I have ever listened to (at various Hifi shows or expensive shops) were in the $100000 - $150000 price range and were all based on CD.
I have to admit that, even if I consider myself a big SACD and DVD-A fan, when listening to those systems I found myself wondering why do we even bother with SACD if plain CD can sound so good...
Of course these are extreme situations and not many of us can afford having such a system at home, but the point I am trying to make is that in the vast majority of cases poor or average CD playback does not come from the technical limitations of the format, but from the system itself...
I can guarantee you that if I had one of those expensive CD-based demo systems at home, I would never listen to another SACD or DVD-A in stereo again (multichannel is a whole different story and it is out of discussion here)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust me my friend. A format is flawed if it cost $150,000 to make it sound acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by amatala August 11, 2007 (18 of 24)
|
|
HOOKEDONDSD said:
Trust me my friend. A format is flawed if it cost $150,000 to make it sound acceptable.
Well, this is one way of seeing it, of course. And it is perfectly valid.
Unfortunately good CD playback is very expensive.
A SACD player sounding as good as the best CD players is probably much less expensive. However, in the $150000 systems I've mentioned I have rarely seen a CD player costing more than $10000, the rest of the money went into preamplifiers, power amps and mainly the speakers which are the most expensive component in such systems. So even if you would replace the CD player with a less expensive SACD player performing equally well (or better) the overall cost of the system would not drop that much...
|
|
|
Post by Julien August 11, 2007 (19 of 24)
|
|
amatala said:
I can guarantee you that if I had one of those expensive CD-based demo systems at home, I would never listen to another SACD or DVD-A in stereo again (multichannel is a whole different story and it is out of discussion here)...
I understand your logic. But that is too categorical no? There is still much more information on DSD and high rez PCM formats than 16/44.1 format. So even in stereo, at the end if you can afford such a system you can get better performance than the already very good CD. Why wouldn't you listen to SACD in stereo then? Sometimes you'd have to...
But my opinion is similar to yours: once you get above 5000-6000 US$, there is so much choice in the CD players that some of those, in some aspects, can outperform the average SACD players of that price (not the best). Even if SACD has its "trademark" sound.
|
|
|
Post by enos August 13, 2007 (20 of 24)
|
|
amatala said:
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.
Hi Amatala,
I agree that CD playback on entry-level universal player is not the best you can get, but can be surprisingly good sometimes. Indeed, I have realized that my Philips 763SA plays SACD better than my dedicated CDP (2.000 euros) plays CD layers. Much better 3D image, upper and lower frequencies clearly extended. Just seem to sound a bit lean compared to my CDP and lacking emotions... Still, overall, a very good performance that stunned me for the price I paid it completely new (160 euros !!!).
If improvements can be noticed easily with dedicated SACD players in SACD playback, I just can not imagine how good it can be.
Since I am very happy with my current CDP, I will just look for auditioning some SACD players for SACD performance only. And if a 160 euros entry-level universal SACD players is almost as good as a dedicated 2.000 euros CDP, then some average (and not so expensive) dedicated SACD players should clearly outperform my CDP. For example, I would like to listen to the Marantz SA7001 and SA7001KI on my system to assess the real potential.
My system is pretty transparent (Sphinx and Stax) and differences can be easily noticed, so I expect to benefit from the upgrade.
I understand that going higher in the range do not make a lot of sense unless you want to replace your current CDP. In that case, yes, I would choose a Marantz SA-11S1 for example. At this point, I agree that your system need to be excellent to let you listen differences between CD and SACD playback.
Thanks a lot to all of you for sharing your thoughts.
|
|
