Does a $200 SACD player sound better then a $5000 CD player?

[Flatso]

When taking the formats into consideration. Wouldn't that be true if the SACD format is so much better resolution then the CD format?

[Steve Hoffman]

Make the experiment and report back to us!

[cunningham]

It is bad for the economy and national security for you even to raise the question.

Next, you will be asking if we need 2 billion dollar bombers.

..

[sgraham]

Originally posted by cunningham
It is bad for the economy and national security for you even to raise the question.

Next, you will be asking if we need 2 billion dollar bombers.

..
Do they sound even better? I know they can play LOUD....

[SamS]

Do you mean on SACD vs. CD layer of the same recording or... CD vs. CD?

I think you mean the former. The answer is.......SACD IMO. I tried a similar experiment with a $800 Sony SACD player vs. Meridian $4K CD only player. With a Rolling Stones hybrid synced up to play simultaneously, it was close, but not thatclose. SACD won. The difference would probably be closer at your suggested price points.

[Claus]

NEVER!!! I can't believe that!

I better have a very good CD player before I waste my bucks!

[Metralla]

Originally posted by Claus
NEVER!!! I can't believe that!

I better have a very good CD player before I waste my bucks!
You do have a very good CD playing system (originally ~$20k). I feel that I haven't grasped your point.

If we consider that the $200 SACD player is heavily discounted and has a recommended retail price of $500, we are looking at a ratio of around 10-1 for the comparison in the subject line.

In your case, the question would be: would SACD through a Sony XA-777ES sound better than a CD of the same material through a Krell KPS-25s?

I would not be surprised if this were so.

Regards,
Geoff

[cunningham]

But, how will a redbook sound in the SACD vs in a high end CDP?

[Claus]

That was my opinion... a high end CD player will always bring a better sound than a cheap SACD player.

[Flatso]

Could that opinion be supported by fact?

[Metralla]

Originally posted by cunningham
But, how will a redbook sound in the SACD vs in a high end CDP?
That's not the question posed by this thread. It's a good question, but I do want to stay on topic.

Regards,
Geoff

[cunningham]

Originally posted by Flatso
Could that opinion be supported by fact?

I can guarantee it!

There.

And, if you believe that.....

[JohnG]

With the right sacd, yes I believe that a great sacd played on a budget sacd player could sound better than its cd cousin on an expensive cd player.

[aashton]

Originally posted by Flatso
Does a $200 SACD player sound better then a $5000 CD player?

I hope so :)

&ru

[Ed Bishop]

If you can afford to blow 5K on a CD player, you'd better have a sound setup that will drown out a crowd at a football stadium. Otherwise, you've wasted your money regardless of the extra resolution. Sounds like a fun idea, doesn't it:D

ED:cool:

[LeeS]

I have done this experiment with a $500 Sony SACD player and it sounds much better than a $5,000 Theta Digital DAC playing redbook.

The Super Audio format is a step change over redbook and can very easily bridge budget gaps.

[RetroSmith]

Isnt this kinda like, which sounds better, a 200$ Cd player or a 1,000 Nakamichi Cassette deck?

The limitations of the medium (cassette) itself are gonna show, no matter HOW much the player costs.

in this case, Im sure the Cd would win, especially a good CD.

In the SACd case, I'd have to bet on SACD. Isnt that the whole point of it??

[sgraham]

Originally posted by mikey5967
The limitations of the medium ... are gonna show, no matter HOW much the player costs.

In the SACd case, I'd have to bet on SACD. Isnt that the whole point of it??
The point is to find out whether in the real world the acknowledged higher resolution of an SACD played back on run-of-the-mill, inexpensive equipment that most of us can actually afford, sounds better than an insanely expensive piece of audiophile gear trying to squeeze the last bit of resolution out of a limited medium.

I'm certainly interested in the answer.

[petzi]

On a side note, red-book CD has higher resolution at high frequencies than SACD, so the CD player at least has a chance to win.

[cunningham]

A burning question. How many of us has redbook investemets large enough to question the very question, and when will the sacd creators create scads to cover our love with the cd issues of the past?

[Metralla]

Originally posted by petzi
red-book CD has higher resolution at high frequencies than SACD, so the CD player at least has a chance to win.
I disagree petzi. What would be the technical basis for your statement?

SACD has all the bases covered - bass, treble, sound stage, image specificity and depth, pace and rhythm, overall musicality and emotion. I have a $300 player and $6000 worth of discs. I certainly would not buy them if I thought they didn't have the edge.

I am upgrading my digital source very soon, and I'd be thrilled to get more out of my Redbook collection; but I expect that there will be an improvement in SACD sound too, and it will keep its nose well in front. We will see.

Arguments about the music available on SACD are not pertinent to this thread.

Regards,
Geoff

[Claus]

Okay... folks! I'm happy my audio dealer always support me with the newest stuff. So I have chance to compare all the components in my listening room.

At that time... I had Sony's entry-level SACD player for a couple days... I was a very disappointed playing (red book) CD's in comparison with my Krell CD player.

I think the best combination of red book and SACD is Accuphase DP-100/DC-101... sounds amazing. Absolutely high end on both sides... although my favorite SACD still is dCS. I also like very much Wadia's CD players... they even surpass the Krell in some ways.

My conclusion: I still keep my Krell for my red book CD's! But I'm looking for a very good SACD player very soon...

[Metralla]

Claus,

I envy your relationship with your audio dealer and the home trials you are able to perform - that's the only way you can really compare. I'm sure your decisions are backed by solid experience with the contenders, and I will be looking forward to see which SACD player you select.

I'm sure it's tough at the top. One thing stands out though, in the experience of many early adopters. And that is that some cheap SACD players sound far better than one expects. Such value for money is what's knocking a few of us out.

Regards,
Geoff

[Claus]

Originally posted by Metralla
Claus,

I envy your relationship with your audio dealer and the home trials you are able to perform - that's the only way you can really compare. I'm sure your decisions are backed by solid experience with the contenders, and I will be looking forward to see which SACD player you select.

I'm sure it's tough at the top. One thing stands out though, in the experience of many early adopters. And that is that some cheap SACD players sound far better than one expects. Such value for money is what's knocking a few of us out.

Regards,
Geoff

That's true... the entry level sounds far better today, when I have heard the first CD players at that time (unlistenable for me... my first player was a Denon).

I'd like to wait what happens at the CES in Las Vegas... I hope Mark Levinson or Krell will introduce a SACD player...

Claus

[petzi]

Originally posted by Metralla

I disagree petzi. What would be the technical basis for your statement?

It is a property of DSD that it gradually loses its accuracy as the frequency rises. I am not saying that this is so bad that it becomes unlistenable, but the effect is there. Note that 5kHz and above is really a high frequency, sonically.

Originally posted by Metralla
SACD has all the bases covered - bass, treble, sound stage, image specificity and depth, pace and rhythm, overall musicality and emotion. I have a $300 player and $6000 worth of discs. I certainly would not buy them if I thought they didn't have the edge.

The same could be said about my red book CDs as well. However, I would like to know that a new medium is actually an improvement in every way, and SACD is not an improvement in the highest octaves.

In fact, I believe that the main reason for promoting SACD is that labels think they could prevent casual copying with it, and sell more in the end. But that´s a different story. I´m buying more DVD-A now, but of course I appreciate a well mastered SACD, too. I am definitely not re-buying any red-book CDs that I have, in particular when red book CD and SACD use the same mastering.