SACD Players

[Ferretfancy]

My Meridian surround processor supports all the film surround options routing everything in digital format to the loudspeakers which have their own DACs and amps. It also has very good surround synthesis for two channel sources, with a range of choices including ambisonics and trifield. I usually use a preset which gives very good rear channel ambience without any obvious anomalies and with good imaging.

The one difficulty is that the processor does not have discrete outputs for SACD. Meridian were among the first developers of surround technology back in the analogue era, and claim that SACD has no special advantages. I can of course play compatible CDs on My G08 CD player using just the standard stereo layer, but full SACD performance would mean a complete change of my system.

The question is, would the performance on conventional CDs be improved if I bought a high quality SACD player, or just leave things as they are?
As it is, I get excellent results from all available sources including films on DVD and TV, and Radio via Freeview, the Meridian system handles them very well, and it did cost an arm and a leg at the time !

[Dave2002]

I think the answer is going to be "it depends". I think a good SACD player can do as well or better than a good CD player, but perhaps not everyone will hear the difference, and for conventional 2 channel material it might be better to go for high res downloads instead. I haven't done a cost comparison though. The equipment that the SACD or CD player is connected to will also make a difference. For multi-channel the situation is of course different, as regular CD doesn't do that, and the options appear to be SACD, DVD-A and Blu-Ray (ignoring obsolete forms of video disc) and perhaps some downloads, though there may not be many multi-channel downloads yet.

Finance might be an issue. I think you could get a reaonable SACD player plus an AV system to play the discs back for under £1000, and I assume you've already got speakers. You could get an SACD player for less, and it's possible to get small amps to drive two speakers for around £100 each which could be used for the surround channels, and you could use your existing system for the front channels. You wouldn't get the fancy set up features of a dedicated AV amp though with separate amps. Many of the newer AV systems now have setup features to compensate for time delays and other room characteristics. SACDs are still relatively expensive compared to CDs, though you may have a lot already.

[Ferretfancy]

[QUOTE=Dave2002;298836]I think the answer is going to be "it depends". I think a good SACD player can do as well or better than a good CD player, but perhaps not everyone will hear the difference, and for conventional 2 channel material it might be better to go for high res downloads instead. I haven't done a cost comparison though. The equipment that the SACD or CD player is connected to will also make a difference. For multi-channel the situation is of course different, as regular CD doesn't do that, and the options appear to be SACD, DVD-A and Blu-Ray (ignoring obsolete forms of video disc) and perhaps some downloads, though there may not be many multi-channel downloads yet.

Thanks for that Dave, but it isn't quite as simple. There are no analogue outputs on my system,the five channel digital outputs feed the speakers and the signal is then converted by internal DACS in them. If I wanted new speakers I would have to change the entire system. As it is, if I play a CD on the Meridian Player, I can choose stereo in the front quadrant, with no front centre speaker operating and rear channels also muted, or I can use one of the surround sound functions. These deliver digitally synthesised rear channel ambience on two channel material, and full surround on DVD sources ( Dolby DTS etc.)

In practice I play all my two channel sources using the Meridian's synthesise function for rear information, and get good results. The various options are much more sophisticated than in the analogue era of Haffler etc, and I don't get any spurious artifacts, but of course this is not fully discrete five channel sound. If you think that an SACD player on plain stereo material would not give an improvement, then I might be better enjoying what I already have. It's just a niggling thought, as I have not had the opportunity to hear SACD at its best and compare it with my system.

As for downloads, I'm sure that they are fine, but too much hassle for me.

Thanks again for your thoughts though, it's a bit of a minefield !

[Stunsworth]

As far as I'm aware the only way of getting a high resolution digital output from an SACD player is via an HDMI output. I think that is only allowed because the HDMI specification has DRM built into it, so little chance of the output being pirated.

Many SACD player do have a digital output, but that is limited to the standard CD format of 16/44.1.

Personally I now rely on downloads for any high definition recordings that I want to buy or replay. I realise it's not for everyone, but it works fine for me. I have a Mac Mini that is at the heart of my music replaying system, and haven't listened to a CD for a long time. As I say, this is not a solution that suits everyone, but it may be the easiest way of getting high definition recording played back on your system.

[PJPJ]

The question is, would the performance on conventional CDs be improved if I bought a high quality SACD player, or just leave things as they are?
As it is, I get excellent results from all available sources including films on DVD and TV, and Radio via Freeview, the Meridian system handles them very well, and it did cost an arm and a leg at the time !

I suspect you'd get a noticeable improvement from a decent SACD player. You'll need to connect via analogue unless the Meridian has HDMI. The Oppo 105 has had very encouraging reviews and it has high quality analogue output should that be necessary. Five-channel SACDs will be heard with five discrete channels rather than in synthesized surround and the difference should be something of an ear-opener. The other benefit will be far better focus of the sound even in stereo; several friends who are sold on high resolution downloads and SACD are committed stereo listeners.

However, the only way to find out whether it's a worthwhile purchase is finding a dealer who will happily loan you a unit for audition at home. The sound quality I get at home is far better than that of nearly all dealer demonstrations in their listening rooms. My experience is good dealers will either demonstrate at your home, or let you take a piece of equipment for a few days.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, the only possible way is to try a good one at home. For me, SACD seems a little suspect, if only because many of the discs available are converted from various pcm - i.e. 24/48/96 etc. And some SACD players don't keep the dsd conversion path separate from pcm, effecting a compromise at the output. The only one I trialled at length, the Arcam CD37, always came 3rd on SACD compared to my various CD systems and 24/96 downloads with the same recordings. Whilst very pure, sweet, clear and precise, it was audibly lacking rhythmic drive and dynamic range.

The current issue (July 2013) of HiFiNews has a review of the Benchmark DAC2 by the excellent Keith Howard, which has some discussion about dsd - a very experienced, technically astute reviewer, he finds SACDs or dsd downloads all too often "soft and homogenised", suffering from "blunted edges and hazed clarity" which of course can have an appeal if you prefer an easy listen.

Don't know which processor you have, but I feel SACD might only bring delights if you run it in multichannel; that might be a radical upgrade. But CD can be outstanding - a stunning bit of luck just came my way, I was offered a great 2ndhand deal on a highend DAC recently which has done remarkable things for my CDs - I haven't bought a download for weeks! All is relative - but do try an SACD player at home - it's the only way to know for sure. (Well worth finding out exactly what it's doing at the DAC stage though...)

[David-G]

And some SACD players don't keep the dsd conversion path separate from pcm, effecting a compromise at the output.

Jayne, could you translate, for those of us technically less knowledgeable... What exactly is pcm? And what is dsd?

[Dave2002]

Jayne, could you translate, for those of us technically less knowledgeable... What exactly is pcm? And what is dsd?

Sorry, I'm not Jayne!

Pcm = pulse code modulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
Dsd = direct stream digital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital

[neiltingley]

As far as I'm aware the only way of getting a high resolution digital output from an SACD player is via an HDMI output. I think that is only allowed because the HDMI specification has DRM built into it, so little chance of the output being pirated.
.

You can't plug a SACD player's digital out into a DAC because the bitstream is encrypted.

I think SACD quality is 24bit/88.2 kHz - many SACD titles are available as downloads these days.

[neiltingley]

Which CD player did you get? I got myself an Ayre CD5 MP (got it upgraded ). It sounds terrific.

[Dave2002]

You can't plug a SACD player's digital out into a DAC because the bitstream is encrypted.

I think SACD quality is 24bit/88.2 kHz - many SACD titles are available as downloads these days.

I'm not sure that's completely true, but I'm not absolutely sure. I think some SACD players can feed an output via an HDMI cable to an AV unit. However, it may be that the HDMI output is only pcm, and it might be converted at the SACD player to a lower resolution format. I have an earlier Oppo unit, and according to the manual I believe that there is an HDMI output feed. As I don't have a suitable AV amp I've not been able to test that.

Digital output via an optical or coax cable does not work - it gets blocked, but the audio from DVD-As does not get blocked. I'm guessing that the blocking is done by software inside the SACD player in order to comply with whatever standard. It may also be possible to output to a DSD unit, but these are mostly professional. I did find details of some once - think fairly expensive (£000s) - and virtually nothing in the consumer market, though I also heard that some very early PSP models could actually take a DSD stream and perhaps do something useful with it.

For most practical purposes your statement is correct for domestic users.

[jayne lee wilson]

You can't plug a SACD player's digital out into a DAC because the bitstream is encrypted.

I think SACD quality is 24bit/88.2 kHz - many SACD titles are available as downloads these days.

SACD is encoded at 1 bit x 2.8824Mhz. You could think of it as "super-bitstream". This is the pure DSD (Sony's DirectStreamDigital) medium, (theoretically bypassing PCM's need for digital filtering) which not all players actually out-put. Most SACDs are derived from PCM masters, whether at 24/44.1, 24/48 or 24/96 but what the actual CD/SACD Players get up to is very varied - some earlier Esoteric players converted back to 24/96 PCM, and were then praised for having better rhythm and dynamics than other SACD players!

The downloads you mention will be as above, 24-bit PCM, except for a very few explicitly offered as DSD downloads. Problem is, not many DACS (or computers) can deal with a pure DSD stream (the recent Benchmark DAC2 does - reviewed in HiFiNews for July by Keith Howard, he didn't like the results with DSD!)

Overall a native PCM file (FLAC etc.) should sound better than the SACD it's been converted into - less number-crunching - but of course your playback system is equally, if not more, influential! I would add that digital filters have become much better recently, especially with the more frequent use of "Minimum Phase" as opposed to Linear Phase, filters. The former usually have a better impulse response (sharper timing and dynamics etc.). Marantz's Ken Ishiwata has said recently that he's not including Linear filters in his designs anymore.

The use of computers has driven terrific inventiveness and improvements in DACs recently, and I've personally come to see SACD as a bit of a side issue. But if you love it, carry on listening! The problem today is too much choice.