I'm starting to see more of SACD and HDCD. I'm thinking about getting some Rotel equipment that supports HDCD. My question is if I have a CD Player that supports SACD, does my receiver have to support SACD or HDCD as well to get the full benefits? If anyone could explain the two in more detail it would be greatly appreciated.
My theory is to take the lessons of the past. As hindsight is 20/20, I am sure my father would not have spent $400 on a Betamax player 20 years ago. As such, I am going to wait until a specified format is available and widely adopted by all major players. SACD, DVD-A, HDCD, who knows if any will be successful at all.
The last thing I worry about is the missing digital-out on the back of the players. It is great to have a hi-fi player, but connecting it analog has me a bit worried.
Both SACD and DVD-A usually require 6-channel analog inputs (not just a single optical/coax input) . As long as your receiver has input jacks for that, it should fully support those formats.
Personally I think the high res formats SACD and DVD-A are worth while, especially the multichannel releases (some are just stereo). However I don't attribute the benefit primarily to the high res sample rates, but to the careful remix/remaster process and a quality surround remix. Note these aren't guaranteed, and depend on the engineer.
Negatives are that six channel analog input is required (several cables), and if you have a fancy receiver with digitally implemented bass crossover, speaker distance, equalization, etc, it can't be used for analog SACD/DVD-A imputs.
Positives are a quality multichannel SACD/DVD-A release on Axiom speakers are the best thing you've ever heard. Some supreme examples of this are Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon (SACD), Elton John Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (SACD), Eagles Hotel California (DVD-A) and Fleetwood Mac Rumours (DVD-A).
The Pioneer DV-563A ($179) is a "universal" player that does both SACD and DVD-A. However since DVD-A discs usually have a multichannel Digital Dolby 5.1 or DTS 5.1 track, Sony SACD/DVD players (or any old DVD player) will play these. SACD seems to currently be winning the high-res material war, and SACD doesn't have a downward-compatible multichannel fallback like DVD-A. For this reason make sure your player has SACD capability in addition to regular DVD.
Depending on your musical taste, there's not much high-res material, but the quality stuff is so good IMO it makes the limited incremental investment of SACD/DVD-A playback worthwhile.
DVD Audio and SACD are spectacular (with well recorded material). HDCD is bogus. Just my opinion.
I agree with that assessment. I'd also add that well recorded/mastered CDs are spectacular, too.
Agree with you there PMB. I've had DVD Audio (Toshiba SD9200), SACD (Philips SACD 1000) and yet the Ah! Njoe Tjoeb tube output CDP with upsampler is the most listenable of the bunch. Not as dramatic as the HiRez sources, but just downright beautiful, especially with a tube amp.
Gah! You're giving me that tube itch again.
Do your ears and soul a favor and scratch that itch!
In reply to:
and yet the Ah! Njoe Tjoeb tube output CDP with upsampler is the most listenable of the bunch.
I know what you mean. I have SACD and its wonderful but I keep gravitating back to my tubed California Audio Labs Alpha DAC and Pioneer CDP(transport) like a moth to flame. When I do listen to SACD it's alwaws in 2 channel. I don't like music in multi-channel.
I agree with you 100% about HDCD. As hard as I try, I can't hear any difference between HDCD and regular "red book".
I do not have a DVD-A player, but I do have some DVD-A discs that I play on my Sony DVP-CX777ES (not a reference player at all). But I do still want to make some listening comparisons between DVD-A and SACD.
I will tell you this though. The Bob Dylan sampler that came with the player sounds fantastic. None of Dylan's material had been remastered until the SACD transfer and it's mindboggling how good it sounds. I listened to Dylan on LP when my parents had it on when I was growing up and like some of it quite a bit. But Dylan on SACD blows me away.
Based on what I've read about the two formats, I need to do some side-by-side comparisons. DVD-A bitstream "wordlength" is supposedly longer and more complex to decode leaving some detail out of the music. SACD is supposedly easier to decode since it's closer to regular CD letting more of the music out. But finding the same title in DVD-A and SACD will be somewhat tough. The only title that comes to mind is Deep Purple's "Machine Head".
I'll do some more research on my own, but I welcome comments on my perceptions.
Todd
It'll be next to impossible to make a fair DVD-A vs SACD comparison, as I don't think there are any titles available in both formats. Listening to two different titles will bring in so many variables, it could be any one of those variables that will make one sound better than the other.
As I said, I believe Deep Purple "Machine Head" is one of the titles that exists in both formats. Diana Krall may be another one, too. If there are no duplicate titles, you are absolutely correct. Making comparisons between the two formats will be impossible due to variables between any two titles in the same format.
Thanks
Todd
Todd
Todd, I'd suggest that even if there're duplicate titles, no accurate comparison between the two formats would be possible. As others, including the motion picture music editor I've previously quoted have pointed out, differences in remixing and remastering the same performance(even different tracks on the same disc) change the sound significantly and could account for any difference in what was heard, rather than some inherent difference in the two formats. The improvements often heard in the new formats can be attributed to this and to the use of multi-channel surround(if present). It's highly unlikely that differences in bits or sampling rate between the two or regular CDs are audible.
Beck Sea Change is also available in both SACD and DVD-A. Personally, I think both SACD and DVD-A are outstanding when done right. I have a Denon 2200, and both hi-rez options have the capability of sounding great.
To my ears, SACD is a bit warmer sounding than DVD-A, which is a great blend with the Axioms. But DVD-A is still a nice blend with Axioms.
I agree that HDCD is bogus.
There are a lot of Universal releases on both formats:
Ryan Adams- Gold
Beck- Sea Change
3 Doors Down- Away From the Sun
Diana Krall- The Look of Love, When I look Into Your Eyes
Shania Twain- Up!
I have the DVD-A's of almost all of these titles, so if anyone in CA has the SACD versions and wants to do a comparison, give me a PM.
Other great DVD-A's are:
Yes- Fragile
Fleetwood Mac- Say You Will
Linkin Park - Reanimation
Steely Dan- Everything Must Go
Grateful Dead- American Beauty
Flaming Lips- Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
In reply to:
I agree that HDCD is bogus.
hehehehe....HDCD technology is owned by Microsoft.
HDCD and Microsoft--ironic I suppose.
But I'm with those who agree HDCD is bogus. My ex HK AVR7000 receiver and FL8550 CD player both supported HDCD, but I could hear no difference. The few HDCDs I bought sounded no better than their original release.
I do own Diana Krall "The Look of Love" on CD. When I've got a few extra bucks, I'll buy the DVD-A and SACD versions so that I can attempt to make a comparison between the three.
Todd
I would have to emphatically add Emerson, Lake and Palmer's "Brain Salad Surgery" to the list of great DVD-A's. Agree with "Rumours" and Fragile". I also like Fleetwood Mac's new release "Say You Will"
Mark