I just bought my first SaCd, Pink Floyd "The Dark Side Of The Moon"
The Musical quality of the cd is much superior to regular cd's and blows mp3’s away, I might even start paying for music again… hrm… what a novel though..
The receiver I have is a Marantz SR6300 and a Marantz MM9000 amplifier. I have an epic 60 system, with a vp150 center, and I am currently using only 1 surround, due to the constraints of my room. But even with 1 Qs8 the sound is killer, the surround sound.
I was wondering if any of you have any SaCd's and if so which ones do you have, and where did you find them? I went to circuit city and they only had like 7 SaCd’s, then I went to Best Buy and they had more, but still not much of the music I listen to….
Anyhow, for those of you who do not own any SaCd’s and have a player that will play them, Go out and buy one! You will not regret it…
Don't be fooled into thinking that all SACD's sound the same. Just like on regular CD's, the quality of mixing and mastering still applies. I also have the Pink Floyd album (which is awesome) and I have Aerosmith Greatest Hits and Michael Jackson's Thriller. The Aerosmith SACD is also impressive (albeit in 2 channel), but the Thriller SACD is actually a downgrade (in my opinion) to the redbook version. DSOTM sets the benchmark, but not all SACD's are of the same quality. But I do think that for the most part, the mixing engineers take the SACD version a bit more seriously.
I have the same SACD as well. I agree it sounds great! I have an Epic 80 system (minus the sub, went with HSU), powered by a Denon 3805.
Sounds amazing..
FYI: One of the best places to buy SACDs = amazon.com
I agree w/ player8. Not all SACDs are created equal. You just happen to listen to one of the best mastered SACDs. Unfortunatley, you'll find that a lot of titles may say SACD or DVD-A, but the mix is AWFUL. Buyer beware...
That being said, welcome to multichannel audio. As you can see, w/ the right set up and right disc, it sounds AWESOME.
Enjoy.
Dak, it's good that you're enjoying that particular SACD, but as I've previously commented, what counts is the technical expertise used in the the recording, mixing and mastering of a performance; whether it winds up on a CD, DVD-A or SACD makes little or no real difference(except for the multi-channel aspect, if present).
And as I've said before... the medium is not the message. If the next D.O.A. or Anti-Flag album is only available on 8-track, I'm dusting off a player... same if I'm given a choice between Mel Brooks' History of the World in mono DVD or Jay and Silent Bob Eat Steakums in 9 discrete channels.
Bren R.
Well, the multi-channel aspect IS what makes them better (ASSUMING the mastering and recording was done correctly..)
The added resolution of DVD-A and SACD is also imprtant for older analog recordings because there is more of the recording on the disc. So when you hear a guitar note, you not only hear the strings, but also the fingers sliding on the strings. But again, I would recommend reading reviews of SACD's and DVD-Audios before buying them because they can be poorly mastered or mixed.
One site I enjoy is www.highfidelityreview.com
i will check that
site out, thanks..
bigjohn
I'd like to see numerical proof of that. I can hear fingers sliding on strings from CDs just fine, given good cans, good recording, and/or good speakers. I just don't buy that analog naturally has higher resolution, or that that higher resolution would result in audible change.
{edit} No, I'm not trying to start another 10 page long flamewar.
In reply to:
I just don't buy that analog naturally has higher resolution, or that that higher resolution would result in audible change.
There is really no "resolution" as such to analog audio. It's like the difference between a painting and a scan of the painting. No matter how high a resolution you scan the original at, it could still be a closer representation at a higher resolution. But the longer you wait, the more the analog source deteriorates (paint goes back to the earth, analog tape does too) so there's a tradeoff there as well.
Bren R.
In reply to:
I just don't buy that analog naturally has higher resolution, or that that higher resolution would result in audible change.
Neither do I...especially when you know how the album and needle work together.
Point, point... I just thing there's a bit of diminishing returns happening here.
In reply to:
Point, point... I just thing there's a bit of diminishing returns happening here.
Of course... I just like pointing out how far CD audio and especially DVD video have missed the mark by. People treat this stuff like it's gold, and that you need the newest best and brightest to get the most of out it.
Bren R.
The painting analogy is perfect, the higher the resolution of the scanner, the more accurate the digital image will be to the analog original.
Music works the same way, the less the compression, the more accurate to the original recording the digital product is likely to be.
And at some point, you just can't tell the difference. I contend that that point comes at the CD level, but I admit I have no hard data to back that up at the moment.
Ken, you may have already read this, since I've cited it a couple of times before, but my reply in
this thread links to an explanation by "soundhound"(now uses "Hal 9000")who's highly qualified to dispel some of the hogwash floating around about "higher resolution".
In reply to:
Music works the same way, the less the compression, the more accurate to the original recording the digital product is likely to be.
Well, not even the compression - to take the analogy further, the compression (MP3, etc) is like having a JPG of Starry Night.
Sample rate and number of levels (bits) are more the issue here... the Nyquist limit says effective high frequency is half sample rate... 44100 samples per sec for CDs - nominally 22.05KHz, but that's really a bit misleading. A 22KHz sample will not be lost and will not "beat" or "flutter" if at least two samples are taken each spike, but it hardly approximates the waveform.
Take the samples below:
^12000 Hz sine wave sampled at 16 bit, 44.1 kilosamples per sec ^
^12000 Hz sine wave sampled at 16 bit, 132.3 kilosamples (3x CD) per sec ^
Which more closely approximates the original sine wave?
Bren R.
Hmmm... Given the choice between the first graph or the second graph... Uhhhh, the box! I'll take the box!
Let's see whats IN the box!
Nothing! Absolutely nothing!
Stupid! You're so stupid!
I have an almost identical system. I have a Denon 2200 DVD/SACD/DVD-A player, an Onkyo TX-SR800 which I use as a pre/pro, a Marantz MM9000, and M60's for mains, VP100, and M2's for rears. I also have 2 QS4's I use as side surrounds for movies. DVD-A's and SACD's sound fantastic.
It is clear that the High res formats are the ultimate in musical reproduction today, it's just that there are so few titles! I would love to see the entire Pink Floyd catalogue from "Meddle" through "The Wall", the entire Alan Parsons and Mike Oldfield catalogues, and many others come out in one of the new formats. I would also like to see more new releases.
Mark
P.S. How do you like your MM9000?
P.S. How do you like your MM9000?
i Fn Love it man, sonically almost perfect.. no signs of it stressing to push the speakers at what ever volume... i have also never had any of the clipping lights come on, so the amp is more than powerful enough to push the m60's, and also will make the m60's sufficiently loud to keep up with the EP350.
I dont think that i will ever need another amp, but if i know myself, i will end up doing another HT system, and i know that i will most likely not find another amp that will be able to compare dollar for dollar that we paid for our MM9000's..
In reply to:
I will most likely not find another amp that will be able to compare dollar for dollar that we paid for our MM9000's..
I agree. I'm running a 7.1 system using the 9000 to power my M60,s, VP100, and a pair of M2's. These are the 5 speakers I use for DVD-A and SACD playback. My Onkyo powers my QS4's, and I figure 100 watts is more than enough for the QS4's. I also figure my Onkyo can really deliver 100 watts since it is only driving 2 channels.
I have never seen any of the clipping lights come on either, and I have played the thing pretty loud. My only lingering doubt is that the deal seems too good to be true. A 170w x 5 amp by a well respected manufacturer which originally retailed for over $2k for only $700? Somethimes I think that something's got to be wrong with my 9000, but I can't for the life of me detect it.
Mark