I also have owned and used a Sony CE-595 SACD/CD player for a couple of years, and before that, briefly had a Sony ES-series SACD/CD player. While I'm not in Canada, and can't directly respond to the original post, it has prompted me to share some thoughts for the first time on this site (which I've perused to my benefit for months).
I listen to 2-channel only, 85% classical, 10% vocal jazz, 5% misc. I was initially enthused about SACD -- who wouldn't want greater resolution, clarity, etc.? (Millions of I-Pod users, I suppose. But they don't take music as seriously as you or I.)
But I have grown disenchanted. I purchase approx. 2-5 discs per month. My primary criteria for purchase of new discs are composition and performance, with sound quality in third place. I'd rather hear a stellar performance of a great composition in average sound than hear an average performance of the same piece in great sound.
Unfortunately, I've found that there are relatively few SACDs of music I'm interested in that meet my criteria. For example, I would have liked to have bought a new set of complete Sibelius symphonies in SACD, but the only available set was Jarvi's, which received lukewarm reviews. I ended up with Segerstam on CD, which is terrific. Similarly, Chailly's Mahler set is, to my taste, clearly the best set in modern sound. But only two of the 10 symphonies are in SACD -- the Third (a great recording) and the Ninth (excellent). The standout of the set, to my ears, is the Fifth, only on CD.
Another example -- Beethoven. I have Vanska's 4th & 5th symphonies. They are good -- but the 5th is minor-league compared to, say, C. Kleiber's DG 5th, even in its CD version. And the 4th is similarly eclipsed by many other performances, in my view (for example, Barenboim in modern sound, or the magnificent live Klemperer from the Sixties). I have no desire to get the new Vanska 3rd & 8th.
I now own 13 SACDs (after trading in a few) -- compared to hundreds of redbook CDs.
So when I started thinking about upgrading my equipment a few months ago, I saw little point in restricting my search to SACD players.
I compared my Sony 595 to an Arcam CD-only player 6 or 7 times its price. In an at-home blind test of CDs (facilitated by my spouse), the Arcam was clearly better, with, for example, richer-sounding woodwinds, and more space around the music as a whole. But I sensed that there was more improvement to be had.
And there was. I ended up with an Opera Audio/Consonance Droplet CD player -- about 4 times the price of the Arcam.
It is superb. The Droplet brings out details in familiar, well-recorded CDs that I had no idea were present. Not only clarity of detail, but instrumental warmth, naturalness of instrumental and vocal tone, and the "physicality" of the music are considerably improved.
On either CDs or SACDs, the Sony 595, impressive as it is for the price, simply cannot compare with the Droplet.
So why did I not buy a more expensive SACD player instead of the Droplet? Well, I could have bought one -- but to get equivalent performance on CDs, together with SACD capability, I would probably have had to spend far more -- and I'd rather put that money elsewhere (e.g., new amplifier, or spend it on vacation, or buy something for my wife). And the vast majority of the discs I listen to are CDs. (In addition, the Droplet is a strikingly attractive piece of equipment, not just another metal box.)
At least as far as 2-channel listening is concerned, SACD has been something of a disappointment to me. On my sound system, using the Sony, on most SACDs, the differences between the CD and SACD layers is marginal, not great.
But I will continue to shop for SACDs, and buy them when they are likely to satisfy me. It seems that producers and engineers generally take great care in recording SACDs, more so than is generally true for CD-only recordings (but see ECM). And that care and attention to detail comes though on the CD layers of SACD discs. My amateur's guess is that the sonic superiority of SACDs in general is due more to recording techniques (DSD, etc.) than to playback format.
So this is not a final farewell to SACDs for me. I'm keeping the Sony as a spare. And I hope that, the next time I think about upgrading my playback equipment, probably in a few years, the market will present me with SACD player choices that I'll find compelling. But given the current state of SACD -- and also given my recent reading of audiophile magazines and web sites, where the enthusiasm for high-end SACD is not great -- I'm not optimistic.
|