Topic: Integrated SACD/CD/DVD Players

[audioslave]

I still have to see Dedicated SACD Players like the high ender's dream, Sony SCD-1, which has a SRP of US $ 5,000.

Most locally available SACD Players are the integrated SACD/CD/DVD Players in the likes of Sony DVP-NS915V. With SACDs levelling at reasonable prices and with new title releases surpassing the DVD-As, this digital medium is slowly inching its way as the preferred digital format to most music lovers.

The Sony DVP-NS915V will approximate the CD reproduction of dedicated CD Players if the CD DIRECT option is selected. With its AUDIO FILTER, one can choose the SHARP setting to get a wide frequency range and spatial feeling or the SLOW setting to get a smooth and warm sound. Compatible CD's will also display song titles, artist name and disc titles with its CD Text function.

This thread aims to identify the available SACD Players in the market and their unique functions in CD playback.

[nels76]

Medron na nga bang Dedicated SACD Player?

I am more inclined to this format than DVD Audio.
This has transparent sound compared to DVD-A na may coloration.

But i like the sound of the XRCD and 96/24 CD when played to my
surplus high-end Denon CDP before.

But that was not a fair comparison as the DENON was a dedicated high-end CDP while the palyer I use for SACD is a universal one.

Kaya nga gusto ko makarinig ng SACD sa dedicated SACD Player.

[audioslave]

Sony SCD-1

The Sony SCD-1 represents a total re-thinking of high fidelity design and construction. This formidable two-channel player embodies Sony's most rigorous anti-resonant design with 5-mm thick base plate. Sony's most extravagant disc transport system tracks your discs with utmost precision. And Sony's most extensive approach ever to 1-bit digital sound includes Accurate Complementary Pulse density modulation (ACP) and Synchronous Time Accuracy Controller (S-TACT) for unprecedented fidelity.

MSRP: $5,000.00

[audioslave]

Meron na nga bang Dedicated SACD Player?

But that was not a fair comparison as the DENON was a dedicated high-end CDP while the palyer I use for SACD is a universal one.

Kaya nga gusto ko makarinig ng SACD sa dedicated SACD Player.

meron na! the Sony SCD-1 is the present flagship model of Sony.

if your player is Pioneer, in most likelihood it doesn't have the Direct Stream Digital (DSD) decoder needed to truly process a 1-bit signal at an astonishing 2,822,400 samples per second, which is 64 times the sampling frequency of any regular CD. They claim that DSD bit streams closely resemble that of analog and therefore DSD sound is remarkably like analog.

I understand some Pioneer DVD Players are just SACD compatible and not SACD playback capable like the Sony's.

[j3d]

Sir Audioslave do you know if the Toshiba SD4960 or Samsung HD841 has a DSD decoder? or by any chance know how much the cheapest player with a DSD decoder is going for? sorry medyo ot kasi both of the players i mentioned plays dvd-a as well, just want to know inexpensive players that has DSD decoder that plays dvd-a too. thanks

[nels76]

Medron na nga bang Dedicated SACD Player?

I am more inclined to this format than DVD Audio.
This has transparent sound compared to DVD-A na may coloration.

But i like the sound of the XRCD and 96/24 CD when played to my
surplus high-end Denon CDP before.

But that was not a fair comparison as the DENON was a dedicated high-end CDP while the palyer I use for SACD is a universal one.

Kaya nga gusto ko makarinig ng SACD sa dedicated SACD Player.

Thanks audiosalve.

Binabawi ko na statement ko na mas-gusto ko sound ng XRCD and 96/24 CD when played
through my previous Surplus DENON CDP. This afternoon I made some adjustment to my 655A and played the "Intro to SACD" album. Wowow. The transparency has improved.
And yet the 655A is not yet equipped with the DSD algorithm. Paano pa pag DSD na.

SACD is the format to go.

Angmahal  ng SONY SCD-1 na iyan.

Read this po: (Got this from Philips Electronics' Website) date posted: 07/22/03

Royal Philips Electronics (NYSE: PHG, AEX: PHI) today announced that Pioneer Corporation (NYSE: PIO) will use Philips’ Super Audio CD (SACD) single-chip solution, the SAA7893HL chip. Pioneer will integrate Philips’ SAA7893HL chip into its DVD Player (DV-563A-S) and Home Theater System (HTZ-830DV) targeted at the U.S. market, providing consumers with sound quality superior to that of a CD. SACD is a key feature for multichannel audio in DVD players, and Philips’ SAA7893HL chip is the ideal semiconductor solution to seamlessly and cost-effectively add SACD capabilities to DVD devices.

“The SACD format has been gaining momentum in the DVD market, presenting a growth opportunity for chipmakers,” according to Michelle Abraham of leading industry analyst firm In-Stat/MDR. “By 2005, 35 percent of all DVD players will include SACD as a standard feature.” Co-developed by Philips, the SACD format represents the next level of audio reproduction, and offers DVD manufacturers an easy-to-integrate solution that provides consumers with a high-quality audio experience — equivalent to that of a live concert performance. Equipped with Philips’ SAA7893HL chip solution, Pioneer’s new Player and Home Theater System will offer DVD-V/SACD and DVD-A playback.

“Using Philips’ SAA7893HL chip made it straightforward to integrate SACD into our new range of advanced DVD video players,” said Hiroshi Ohtsubo, general manager of video planning department at Pioneer's Consumer Video Product Division. “SACD delivers the highest possible multichannel audio quality, and therefore presents a compelling feature in our premium DVD video players.”

“We are providing our partners cost-efficient, flexible chip solutions to bring the latest innovations and developments in laser optics to the market,” stated Jeroen Keunen, general manager of consumer and multimedia, Philips Semiconductors. “Pioneer’s expertise in DVD applications combined with Philips’ leadership position in optical storage proved to be a strong combination, pushing the frontiers of multichannel audio within DVD players and recorders.”

Philips’ SAA7893HL chip is a flexible and cost-effective single-chip hardware and software solution offering complete SACD functionality, avoiding the need for continual redesign and re-integration of SACD into various applications. The SAA7893HL chip can support many different DVD platforms because of the integrated multiple loader and host interfaces. It enables manufacturers to introduce DVD video players that can support six-channel SACD and DVD-A playback. The six-channel DAC outputs of the DVD host are routed via the chip, which provides a DAC switch function between SACD mode and DVD mode. Offering a complete solution, including Annex J+ level SW API, the SAA7893HL chip also incorporates a full SACD software stack.

[bayonic]

SACD compatible[/b] and not SACD playback capable like the Sony's.

sir,
can you please elaborate on the differences between SACD compatible and SACD capable ...
ty

[av_phile1]

Maybe the terms mean the same thing.  Just a matter of how the SACD playback is implemented.

I think this has something to do with the fact that, in order to keep its SRP well within consumer budget, some Pioneer universal players use a single chip that buffers the DSD stream of SACDs into PCM prior to D/A conversion.  It's much cheaper to do this than to have a separate more expensive DSD chip to do the D/A directly from DSD to analog.

This has spawned a lot of advertising from other brands that banner "genuine SACD decoding" to differentiate them apart from brands that do this.  The difference in sound is almost indistinguishable but on the most revealing set-up.  Afterall, the DSD native sampling rate of 2.82Mhz lends itself mathematically a multiple (64x if not mistaken) of the PCM's 44.1khz sample rate.  There shouldn't be any signal loses in the transcription.  Noise floor levels, however, are increased.  Jitter also increases.  SACD is said to be not susceptible to jitter which PCM is heir to. 

I think this was most prevalent in last years model series and may not be so for the new models as the DSD chips have gone down in prices.   It's interesting to note that those Denon and Onkyo universal players in the P40T++ range actually use separate PCM and DSD chips and circuitries for SACD and DVD-A - something to look for in a universal player.

[Philander]

Marantz have dedicated SACD players.. not to mention expensive.

[Philander]

See more here:


This list is updated:

http://www.dvd-a.dk/start.php?page=P25


SACD player priced as much as $75,000.00 (Php 4.2M)

[av_phile1]

Yup, have seen this before in another site.  The Linn Unidisk brand seems to enjoy a comfortable acceptance among serious audiophiles as the one exhibiting analog qualities.  In some forums I've visited, they're pooh-poohing those mega-buck players that can't be sonically distinguished with $200 Universal players by subjects in a bias-controlled double-blind tests.     But should I care?  A Goldmund is still a Goldmund, not a Pioneer.   (Although some hi-end brands are said to be just rebadged pioneers if you look inside. ) Inggit lang nila, right? 

[audioslave]

can you please elaborate on the differences between SACD compatible and SACD capable ...

Some mid-priced Pioneer audio systems (like most of you have) still use a technology called Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) in their SACD compatible players. Just like AV-phile said, the DSD stream of SACDs are buffered as PCM signals prior to its D/A conversion. Unfortunately, the PCM process is not as superior as that of the DSD process because it exposes the music to a "decimation" filter during recording and an "interpolation" filter during playback. These two filters smear the sound and corrupt the sense of spatial feeling of the music.

In audio, the simpler the processing of an audio signal - the better the output quality of the sound, as it will impart a more natural and neutral sound closely resembling that of the recorded material. The Direct Stream Digital (DSD) process is far simpler than the PCM digital process because there are no decimation and interpolation to speak of. SACD eliminates the decimation and interpolation filters and the result is getting more superb frequency response and more dynamic range.

So, a true SACD Player should not pass the DSD bit streams to the PCM signal processing chips. And these manufacturers of mid-priced universal players are simply correct when they advertise their products as SACD compatible as distinguished from SACD playback capable players like that of Sony's and Philips' - the co-developers of SACD Technology.

[edboy7]

 very well said audiosalve .  heres a sony player that has been getting praises from the  net   Sony rin ang may pakana ng DSD
Sony DVP-NS999ES

[krets pulpol]

how about this one?

http://www.shanling.com/CD-T200C.htm

 

[bayonic]

Some mid-priced Pioneer audio systems (like most of you have) still use a technology called Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) in their SACD compatible players. Just like AV-phile said, the DSD stream of SACDs are buffered as PCM signals prior to its D/A conversion.

thanks for the reply.  and to av_phile too
i have a Pioneer universal player and to play the few SACDs that I have , I have to fiddle through the set-up menu otherwise the player cannot read the pure SACD tracks.

[jerix]

thanks for the reply.  and to av_phile too
i have a Pioneer universal player and to play the few SACDs that I have , I have to fiddle through the set-up menu otherwise the player cannot read the pure SACD tracks.

Bro how do u do this? thnks

[av_phile1]

Just so we know what we are getting.  There are SACD and DVD-A remixes made from PCM master digital tapes that recorded the performance at 20-bit or 24-bit at 44.1hz or higher.  Telarc's famous 24-bit soundstream is one of them.  They now have reissued most of their great PCM digital masters in SACD format.   Most if not all musical recordings under the SONY wing have been tanscribed to DSD's 1-bit/2.8Mhz for archving purposes as they can easily be converted to PCM anytime for CD versions without generational losses.  The interconversion between PCM and DSD is mathematically very convenient and lossless as the 2.8Mhz samling rate in DSD is just 64x that of the 44.1khz in PCM. 

There's often very little a consumer can do except to reject labels they think have inferior mix or recording technologies.  In recording, there are benefits going from PCM to DSD, although some pundits would opine the differences are more subtle than dramatic.  So purists may again scrutinize a recording to make sure it was done in DSD, not PCM.  What SACD does is essentially bring the level of HOME Playback to greater heights that Hi-fi technologies can allow at this time.    Sooner or later, lossless DTS is expected to lord it over DSD-based SACD and MLP-based DVD-A.  In the meantime, we can all indulge in the formats available.   

[odyopayl]

The interconversion between PCM and DSD is mathematically very convenient and lossless as the 2.8Mhz samling rate in DSD is just 64x that of the 44.1khz in PCM. 

SACD REALLY BETTER THAN DVD-A TECHNICALLY!
For DVD-A & SACD higher (bitrate) formats are playable for 2 channels only! I've noticed that most DVD-A & SACD are old records (I mean most of them came from Analog recording) so no matter how good your record transfer format is, still limited to the original recording quality.

Anybody tried to compare identical album of different format lets say XRCD & SACD? (PCM & DSD)?

[odyopayl]

Sony SCD-1

The Sony SCD-1 represents a total re-thinking of high fidelity design and construction. This formidable two-channel player embodies Sony's most rigorous anti-resonant design with 5-mm thick base plate. Sony's most extravagant disc transport system tracks your discs with utmost precision. And Sony's most extensive approach ever to 1-bit digital sound includes Accurate Complementary Pulse density modulation (ACP) and Synchronous Time Accuracy Controller (S-TACT) for unprecedented fidelity.

MSRP: $5,000.00

I saw this on a Magazine, correct me if I'm wrong this is just playable for  2 channel recording only?
for US$5K bibili na lang ako ng worth 3K na TT & 1K speaker $ 1K na vinyl hehehe

[av_phile1]

The interconversion between PCM and DSD is mathematically very convenient and lossless as the 2.8Mhz samling rate in DSD is just 64x that of the 44.1khz in PCM. 

SACD REALLY BETTER THAN DVD-A TECHNICALLY!
For DVD-A & SACD higher (bitrate) formats are playable for 2 channels only! I've noticed that most DVD-A & SACD are old records (I mean most of them came from Analog recording) so no matter how good your record transfer format is, still limited to the original recording quality.

Anybody tried to compare identical album of different format lets say XRCD & SACD? (PCM & DSD)?

Ofcourse, the original analog Open REEL half-inch formats that mastered many recordings in the past, and still does in many titles, is the limiting factor in any transcirption or mastering to any format.  Many on the net have opined that no analog system comes close to the 50khz bandwidth and 96db headroom of those analog professional open reel masters.  If analog is superior to digital, it would have to be half-inch open reel, not LP.   But the DSD, 20-bit, 24-bit, even 32-bit Open reel digital remastering have made these quintessential analog recordings not only forever reproduceable and made pristinely immortal on digital high resolution master, but are made readily accessible to the public more conveniently and faithfully than ever with the newer MLP and DSD-based formats.   Many SACD mixes revisited quadraphonic open reel masters of many great classical performances of the 70s.  Thus, some SACD titles only have 4 channels, not 5.1. (And there are many SACDs with only 2 channels, the early ones mostly.)   These orginal tape reels are multichannel recordings themselves, often employing independent 8-track recordings.  That is why mixing them down to 5.1 is often a breeze, rather than squeezimg them all into 2-channels.  And that is why it was so easy taking out Nat King Cole's voice from  one track of a 1950 reel tape to be mixed with Natalie Cole's in one of her recent albums to sound like a live duet.    And separating instruments so that the orchestra is at the back while the rhythm section is in front is made possible by such multi-track multi-channel recordings on open reels. 

I have the CD of Grover Washington's Winelight album and the DVD-A transcription.  It's almost unfair to compare between stereo and mulit-channel mixes of the same title on a well-made set-up.  I am a happy stereo listener, as most of my collection are in stereo.  But I must say the Multi-ch MIX is an entirely different listneing experience.  The wide enveloping soundstage (180 degrees as I position the surround speakers to the sides, not the back) and the instrumental detailing is simply too awesome that after a bout with a excellent multi-channel mix, I simply have no compulsion to listen to the same material in plain stereo ever again.  I cannot say multichannel is better, it's just one hell of a sonic experience.  Having said that, given two choices of a title, one in stereo and the other in MC, I'd choose an MC.  Same impression with the Fourplay DVD-A comparing just one track with another in CD format.  Same with the Doobie Bros DVD-A Long Train Running track.  Santana Abraxas DTS-CD and the Marvin Gaye DTS-CD.  I can't wait for the lossless DTS format soon to become standard for HD-DVD and music HD-DVD (said to replace SACD and DVD-A).  I've had goose-bumps with many excellent Telarc, Linn, Sony and Chesky releases in stereo CD, but the multi-channel experience is simply another thrilling ride altogether in this aural self-gratification hobby of ours.  You simply must hear one, not on any HT set-up, but on a rig meant for high-res multichannel music.

With regards the stereo tracks on DVD-A, they do have higher resolution.  But frankly speaking, whenever I plunk-in such formats, I go to multi-channel mode at once, rather than stereo mode.  So I can't say if they sounded better than or so-so with ordinary CDs.  Can't comment on HDCD and XRCD, though I'm sure they're better than ordinary CDs (that's their intention anyway). 

And comparing between formats is not my preoccupation these days.  Being new to the formats, I did.  Not anymore.   I really couldn't care less which format is better sounding.  They all sound gorgeous to me.  As long as I can get the titles that I want and play them to my aural satisfaction, that's enough.  Whether stereo or multi-channel, I just grab which format is available that strikes my fancy.  I recently bought a couple of Patricia Barber SACDs.  And they're both 2-channel mixes, no multi-ch track.  Though I still have to get my hands on a really good SACD player.    My time for this hobby is just too short to waste comparing formats, I just want to enjoy those that are readily enjoyable. 

[bayonic]

Bro how do u do this? thnks

In the INITIAL SETTINGS/OPTIONS/SACD PLAYBACK menu of my DVD player , there are three choices :
2CH area , Multi-CH area and CD area ...
depending on the type of SACD , the correct choice for the area must be selected.
it still is pretty much vague to me ... plus i have three different types of SACD discs ; pure SACD ... hybrid SACD ... and mixed SACD ( e.g. Chesky Sampler )
to add to the confusion , I have to change another setting on my AVR for SACD playback.

[jerix]

OK, Bro Bayonic thanks for the info--  u have to choose pala the correct area. 

[audioslave]

got my taste of SACD this weekend. bought a Rebecca Pidgeon-The Raven (Chesky SACD). I purposely chose that title as my baptismal purchase for the simple reason that I also have a Chesky CD by the same title. I had an A-B comparison of the two formats using Sony DVP-NS915V for the SACD and NAD C542 for the CD. The SACD Player was hooked to Consonance m99+ tube amp using Tara Labs Prism 5 interconnects while the CD Player was linked to the same amp using Ixos 1014 Gamma Audition II Interconnects. The 2 interconnects have the same or similar characteristics being copper-based ICs. The speaker is inconsequential but for the sake of mentioning - it is a pair of Mordaunt-Short 914 floorstander.

The result: The SACD is no good or to put it plainly, it did not exceeded my expectation that it would sound a lot better than a good CD. In fact there were even times when I can say that the CD copy has more bits of resolution than the SACD copy. So, if I were you guys, don't waste your funds trying to appreciate the over-hyped and misplaced superiority of an SACD. If you have a better equipment than mine, I would gladly bring my NAD C542 and have it compared to your SACD Player on a two-channel shoot-out. and I'll bet, your SACD Player will not trample my CD Player or any CD Player in the same price range.

But that's just me.... you might have a better SACD Player. 

[Philander]

got my taste of SACD this weekend. bought a Rebecca Pidgeon-The Raven (Chesky SACD). I purposely chose that title as my baptismal purchase for the simple reason that I also have a Chesky CD by the same title. I had an A-B comparison of the two formats using Sony DVP-NS915V for the SACD and NAD C542 for the CD. The SACD Player was hooked to Consonance m99+ tube amp using Tara Labs Prism 5 interconnects while the CD Player was linked to the same amp using Ixos 1014 Gamma Audition II Interconnects. The 2 interconnects have the same or similar characteristics being copper-based ICs. The speaker is inconsequential but for the sake of mentioning - it is a pair of Mordaunt-Short 914 floorstander.

The result: The SACD is no good or to put it plainly, it did not exceeded my expectation that it would sound a lot better than a good CD. In fact there were even times when I can say that the CD copy has more bits of resolution than the SACD copy. So, if I were you guys, don't waste your funds trying to appreciate the over-hyped and misplaced superiority of an SACD. If you have a better equipment than mine, I would gladly bring my NAD C542 and have it compared to your SACD Player on a two-channel shoot-out. and I'll bet, your SACD Player will not trample my CD Player or any CD Player in the same price range.

But that's just me.... you might have a better SACD Player. 

Its fair...

Wanna try your SACDs to my Sony 9000ES? Hhheheheh..

But yes, I think you should try more SACDs... like we always say... some CD recodring are better than SACD and vice versa...

So dont end your hope...   

[JT]

got my taste of SACD this weekend. bought a Rebecca Pidgeon-The Raven (Chesky SACD). I purposely chose that title as my baptismal purchase for the simple reason that I also have a Chesky CD by the same title. I had an A-B comparison of the two formats using Sony DVP-NS915V for the SACD and NAD C542 for the CD. The SACD Player was hooked to Consonance m99+ tube amp using Tara Labs Prism 5 interconnects while the CD Player was linked to the same amp using Ixos 1014 Gamma Audition II Interconnects. The 2 interconnects have the same or similar characteristics being copper-based ICs. The speaker is inconsequential but for the sake of mentioning - it is a pair of Mordaunt-Short 914 floorstander.

The result: The SACD is no good or to put it plainly, it did not exceeded my expectation that it would sound a lot better than a good CD. In fact there were even times when I can say that the CD copy has more bits of resolution than the SACD copy. So, if I were you guys, don't waste your funds trying to appreciate the over-hyped and misplaced superiority of an SACD. If you have a better equipment than mine, I would gladly bring my NAD C542 and have it compared to your SACD Player on a two-channel shoot-out. and I'll bet, your SACD Player will not trample my CD Player or any CD Player in the same price range.

But that's just me.... you might have a better SACD Player. 

I had auditioned the same Rebecca Pidgeon-The Raven (Chesky SACD) to an audio shop and I find the results the other way around.  SACD is better than the CD.

Did u set your SACD player to 2 channels when u did the comparison? 

Anyway,  para sa akin eh ang main purpose of having SACD/DVD-Audio eh para sa multi-channel capability kaya no comparison to a stereo (2ch) output.

[audioslave]

I had auditioned the same Rebecca Pidgeon-The Raven (Chesky SACD) to an audio shop and I find the results the other way around.  SACD is better than the CD.

Did u set your SACD player to 2 channels when u did the comparison? 

Anyway,  para sa akin eh ang main purpose of having SACD/DVD-Audio eh para sa multi-channel capability kaya no comparison to a stereo (2ch) output.

If you're quite familiar with the SACD version of The Raven by Rebecca Pidgeon, it doesn't have a multi-channel version but only a Stereo layer and CD layer being a hybrid SACD. Obviously, I did my A-B comparison setting the player on stereo output using the supplied remote control. but even if i hook it to the fronts of the 5.1 channel out, then toggle it to multi-channel mode, the result is the same.

I agree with Philander when he said that some CDs may sound better than their SACD counterparts and vice versa.

If SACDs are meant to be enjoyed in multi-channel formats, why do high end SACD Players like the Sony SCD-1 be designed and made as stereo player only and not a multi-channel player? 

don't worry kid...  i'll buy more SACDs and will try it out again next time... hopefully with positive results 

[nels76]

Audioslave,

dont jump to conclusion muna. There are same SACDs na hindi maganda ang tunog.
My Mariah Carey SACD ang sama ng tunog talaga. Bright-sounding.

Anong analaog out ba ang pinagkabitan mo ng IC?

Because on my Pioneer player, I use the front analog out for stereo listening
and not from the stereo analog out.

[JT]

If you're quite familiar with the SACD version of The Raven by Rebecca Pidgeon, it doesn't
have a multi-channel version but only a Stereo layer and CD layer being a hybrid SACD.
Obviously, I did my A-B comparison setting the player on stereo output using the supplied
remote control. but even if i hook it to the fronts of the 5.1 channel out, then toggle it to
multi-channel mode, the result is the same.

I agree with Philander when he said that some CDs may sound better than their SACD
counterparts and vice versa.

If SACDs are meant to be enjoyed in multi-channel formats, why do high end SACD Players like

the Sony SCD-1 be designed and made as stereo players only and not multi-channel players? 

don't worry kid...  i'll buy more SACDs and will try it out again next time... hopefully with
positive results 

Based on the demo (on 2 channels) I heard in one of the audio shops here in Singapore,  I find the SACD much better compared to the CD and using this Rebecca Pidgeon SACD also that's why commented on your post. May have something to do with the equipment.
 
You used Sony DVP-NS915V (which I think can be set as 2ch or multi-ch output) and since u
didnt mention setting it to 2ch, I mentioned it to see if thats the culprit. Maybe u should try again and better if you are accompanied with a pinoydvd member who has experience in this so that u can have meaningful and reliable results.

I also agree that not all SACD are superior to CD and I didnt impose that SACDs are meant to be enjoyed in multi-channel formats.

Initially Sony/Philips intends SACD to be on 2 channels only until DVD-Audio arrives and they have to make it multi-channel also. when was this Sony SCD-1 SACD player released... 1999???

[av_phile1]

The result: The SACD is no good or to put it plainly, it did not exceeded my expectation that it would sound a lot better than a good CD. In fact there were even times when I can say that the CD copy has more bits of resolution than the SACD copy. So, if I were you guys, don't waste your funds trying to appreciate the over-hyped and misplaced superiority of an SACD. If you have a better equipment than mine, I would gladly bring my NAD C542 and have it compared to your SACD Player on a two-channel shoot-out. and I'll bet, your SACD Player will not trample my CD Player or any CD Player in the same price range.

But that's just me.... you might have a better SACD Player. 

You probably had very high sonic expectations from an SACD player in stereo mode.  I had about the same expectation and experience with DVD-A in stereo.  Do try multi-channel.  Given a choice, I rarely listen in stereo for the same title offering both stereo and multi.     Multichannel almost fits the multi-track sources of orginal masters (analog or PCM), preserving the nuances and detailing of instruments assigned to each track that were somehow lost or drowned out in stereo downmixing.  But that's just me.

[iceman90a]

got my taste of SACD this weekend. bought a Rebecca Pidgeon-The Raven (Chesky SACD). I purposely chose that title as my baptismal purchase for the simple reason that I also have a Chesky CD by the same title. I had an A-B comparison of the two formats using Sony DVP-NS915V for the SACD and NAD C542 for the CD. The SACD Player was hooked to Consonance m99+ tube amp using Tara Labs Prism 5 interconnects while the CD Player was linked to the same amp using Ixos 1014 Gamma Audition II Interconnects. The 2 interconnects have the same or similar characteristics being copper-based ICs. The speaker is inconsequential but for the sake of mentioning - it is a pair of Mordaunt-Short 914 floorstander.

The result: The SACD is no good or to put it plainly, it did not exceeded my expectation that it would sound a lot better than a good CD. In fact there were even times when I can say that the CD copy has more bits of resolution than the SACD copy. So, if I were you guys, don't waste your funds trying to appreciate the over-hyped and misplaced superiority of an SACD. If you have a better equipment than mine, I would gladly bring my NAD C542 and have it compared to your SACD Player on a two-channel shoot-out. and I'll bet, your SACD Player will not trample my CD Player or any CD Player in the same price range.

But that's just me.... you might have a better SACD Player. 

interesting input - as i have been wondering how a universal player playing orig SACD's will sound against my CD player playing CDR's

Sir - did you try switching IC's? did your impression of the sound change?

thanks