Thread: SACD Newcomer – Advice needed

Posts: 25
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by Sambucus June 29, 2007 (1 of 25)
Hi I’m new to this forum and to SACD – so all you guys are experts to me! I want to get into SACD, but naturally I need to start with a player. Looking at some of the key manufacturers in the SACD player market e.g. Marantz, Esoteric, Denon etc, there seems to be a clear and consistent steer towards two channel SACD. This becomes more marked as the players get more expensive. It seems the line is: for “high-end” audio go for two channel SACD. Only the cheaper and older models, or those that include video, seem to be multi-channel.

I don’t need video. But I do have a large collection of red-book CDs which the new player will have to reproduce at least as well as my current (good quality) CD only player. So the two channel option for SACD is attractive. But what do you guys think? Will the software producers take note of this trend and issue future releases in two channel SACD? Or would I be missing out big time by not going for multi-channel?

Post by Peter June 29, 2007 (2 of 25)
All multi-channel releases (bar a very, very small handful) have separate two channel and multi-channel SACD programmes.

You or your player will select which to listen to.

If you decide to go the stereo route, you will be at no disadvantage as far as software is concerned.

Post by andrewb June 29, 2007 (3 of 25)
I bought a fairly high end multi-channel SACD player (over £2000) and listened in stereo to SACDs for over a year, until I could afford to buy a multi-channel amplifier and extra speakers. Although I now listen to SACD in multi-channel almost exclusively, I believe the main benefit of SACD, the more detailed and refined sound, is available even though just using stereo. Multi-channel is very good to have, in that it generally gives a more natural sound compared to stereo, but it is expensive and awkward to position.

If SACD had never been updated with multi-channel I would have been very happy just listening to it in stereo. I feel the benefits of SACD are about 75% in the improved sound and 25% in the multi-channel feature.

Your decision may also depend on the type of music you listen to, I listen to classical and so my views are based on my experience of listening to that kind of music.

Esoteric sell a player or some players that have a stereo analogue output plus an ilink output that provides multi-channel sound, but then you need an amplifier to accept the ilink input and there are very few of those around, plus ilink seems to be on its way out, maybe in the next year some players and amplifiers will be available that implement HDMI (version 1.2 or 1.3) to carry the DSD signal fom SACD.

It is a very difficult choice and I never found a hifi shop that could demonstrate high quality multi-channel sound.

Post by Sigfred June 29, 2007 (4 of 25)
The real difference in sound quality is not between RBCD and stereo SACD but between RBCD and multi-channel SACD.

Post by Sambucus June 29, 2007 (5 of 25)
Thanks for your input guys, much appreciated. andrewb your assessment of the benefits of SACD being 75% improved sound and 25% multi-channel – is very interesting and confirms my impression. I think rear channels could add a little useful ambiance, but I have real problems with a centre channel. My current red-book stereo system produces tangible, solid centre images with plenty of stage depth. There’s nothing for a centre channel to do! I’m more interested in sound quality than a multiplicity of channels, so I think you’re confirming my leaning towards two channel SACD.

But Sigfred are you disagreeing with this? Does the additional ambiance make that much qualitative difference?

Post by pgmdir June 29, 2007 (6 of 25)
The benefit of the rear channels has a lot to do with the people who mixed the recording. I find that I like some recordings multi while others I prefer 2 channel. If I had to be limited to one form, it would be 2 channel. I can always add some L-R to my rear speakers to recover ambience. It is nice to have both, however.

You are correct in assuming that the center channel is of little benefit outside of the home theater environment. In fact it adds to the complexity because you certainly DON'T want even the slightest voicing difference between your center and your front left and right speakers.

Post by Sambucus June 29, 2007 (7 of 25)
That’s really interesting pgmpdir. Excuse my ignorance, but is it possible to configure SACD to run with four channels i.e. L R plus the two ambience channels without loss of information? On the face of it that would seem the optimum multi-channel set-up for music as opposed to cinema.

Post by pgmdir June 29, 2007 (8 of 25)
Sambucus said:

That’s really interesting pgmpdir. Excuse my ignorance, but is it possible to configure SACD to run with four channels i.e. L R plus the two ambience channels without loss of information? On the face of it that would seem the optimum multi-channel set-up for music as opposed to cinema.

Absolutely--- you simply tell the player-- and/or the receiver what you don't have, and it takes care of it. It mixes the center with the left and right for a phantom center--- You should also tell your player and or receiver that your speakers are LARGE so that bass will be fed to those speakers. I prefer to do that even when using a sub woofer.

Set up is pretty easy on these players. Reading the directions is hard.

I have two different systems--- my main is 4 good sized Bang & Olufsens and no sub-woofer. My secondary is 4 smaller but still full range monitors and a sub.

It all seems a bit complicated, but a logical person can handle it just fine.

Post by The Seventh Taylor June 29, 2007 (9 of 25)
Sambucus, have a look at this recent thread. I'm sure this opinion will interest you:

/showthread/22031//y?page=first

If you're looking for a decent quality multi-channel SACD player you may want to consider the Marantz DV9600 or DV7001.

Post by pgmdir June 29, 2007 (10 of 25)
Steven and Arthur have a point, depending on the recording--- but the problem is still having a center that does not fully duplicate the range of the left and right speakers.

One thing you can do: run 3 speakers--- left, center, and right--- use one of the rears as a center. If you feel that the center adds something--- then spend the money. I feel that benefits are marginal, and then ONLY if you have 3 of the same speakers in front.

We all love to disagree with each other. But that is the benefit of the way the stuff is set up. You can build as you like.

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed