Vinyl or SACD?

[ColoKurt]

I'm considering adding either LPs or SACD as an added source for my system (B&K electronics & B&W 802N speakers) in addition to Redbook CDs. This is partly inspired by articles I've recently read by Mark Levinson (http://www.acoust.rise.waseda.ac.jp/...m2002/Mark.pdf), the man. Here's my list of pluses and minuses that I'm weighing for each.

Vinyl:
(+) Availability of music
(+) Make use of my 20 year old collection of LPs (~200, but some are beat up)
(-) Cost: ~$3k to do it right (Aries Scout + phono preamp + cartridge) plus LPs seem to be costlier than SACDs
(-) Convenience: back to flipping sides every 20 minutes

SACD:
(+) Cost: ~$1k for a Marantz SA8260
(+) Convenience (could be better since I still can't dump to a hard drive)
(-) Will it turn out to be another Betamax
(-) Availability (not too bad here since I mostly listen to Jazz)

Am I forgetting something here? All advice is appreciated in helping me make my decision. I'm leaning towards SACD.

[JazzGuyy]

Some other things to consider:

Vinyl - You will need a record cleaning machine. This should not be considered an option. You might be able to recover some of your old records with a thorough cleaning.

Vinyl + Good quality records can sometimes be found in thrift shops or other places.

SACD + I think SACD actually beats out vinyl; I would not say this about CDs.

Both - There is not a lot of new material issued in either format. This could be a plus because it can keep you from spending too much money on software.

[gostan]

I have been listening to sacd/dvd-audio for about two years now and while there is a reasonably good catalog of jazz recordings, my opinion is that the overall catalog of music is extremely lacking. Of the discs I have purchased, many sound very good and many sound just OK.

Recently, I scored a great deal on a minimally used Music Hall MMF-9 turntable and I have been nothing short of surprised at the extent of good pressings of all types of music (especially Jazz) which is available on the Net at Acoustic Sounds, Elusive Disc, etc., as well as in the many used record stores in Cambridge, MA. Yes, I do have to get off of my rear-end every 20 minutes or so (some of the new 45 re-pressings even quicker), but I find the analog lp's to be so soothing and realistic, even when compared to some top-notch sacd recordings. In fact, I enjoy the act of getting up and changing a record-because the music simply sounds so good.

The combination of the two gives me the best of both worlds-I just have to be very discerning as to which recordings to purchase in sacd form v. lp form.

With your Nautilus 802's you cannot make a mistake either way, but with blu-ray and hd-dvd, or the combo of the two recently announced, I would take the turntable jump and hold off on the sacd's until we see what the hi rez audio of the future comes about from the blu-ray/hd-dvd marriage of convenience.

Good Luck!

[ColoKurt]

Thanks JazzGuyy and Gostan, I appreciate the advice. Gostan, how long had it been that you were away from playing vinyl? I don't know how old you are, but did you play LPs in the pre-CD days? If so, does the "new" sound of LPs bear any resemblence to the old one? I'm guessing you don't have to worry so much about cheap pressings and lots of crackle and pops.

The entry cost is the biggest negative for me as far as vinyl goes. I do have a 30-year old Thorens table that I am considering refurbishing, but I'm not sure I have the time.

[ColoKurt]

One more question for Gostan or any other vinyl lovers. Do you see many LPs that are digitally recorded or mastered with PCM as opposed to analog or DSD? And if so, can you distinguish any difference between them in the listening experience?

[gostan]

Thanks JazzGuyy and Gostan, I appreciate the advice. Gostan, how long had it been that you were away from playing vinyl? I don't know how old you are, but did you play LPs in the pre-CD days? If so, does the "new" sound of LPs bear any resemblence to the old one? I'm guessing you don't have to worry so much about cheap pressings and lots of crackle and pops.

The entry cost is the biggest negative for me as far as vinyl goes. I do have a 30-year old Thorens table that I am considering refurbishing, but I'm not sure I have the time.

Colokurt:
I took my old AR turntable out of my hi-fi loop about 1991...so 14 years away from vinyl. Certainly some of my older vinyl has some of that snap, crackle & pop sound(s), but the new heavier 180 or 200 gram pressings are superior to the older pressings and have very little popping. The key is really to clean the vinyl often. An investment in a record cleaning machine or, in the alternative, a less expensive manual cleaner will keep the grooves clean of various particles.

Gostan

[DifferentLee]

I'm a big Super Audio fan but a really good turntable still has the edge sonically, perhaps due to everything staying in the analog domain.

For jazz fans, I believe there will remain a strong niche set of title releases in SACD. Vinyl is also strong here obviously but the upkeep in expenses is a multiple, maybe 2X, that of SACD. New cartridges, cleaning machines, various tweaks all add up plus you need new cables and a phono preamp of sufficient quality.

I think your list is generally accurate and I view both formats as being with us a while. The inclusion of SACD into the new Playstation 3 suggests continued Sony support.

If you do go vinyl do not miss Mike Hobson's Classic Records reissues. His work is impeccable.

[Phil Rose]

Dang!! I composed a detailed response on my experience and somehow got logged off and everything was lost so....

In summary, SACD will beat the pants off of vinyl at a much lower cost point. Not until you get into a really good table/arm/cart are you going to approach what a reasonably priced SACD will do. My vinyl rig is 3x my SACD and the SACD performs extremely well by comparison.

I had a Thorens TD-126 MkII which I always thought was great until I replaced it with a SME10. No comparison! If you want to resurrect your Thorens for your old media then that makes sense but, don't expect the same level of performance that you can get from SACD. As always, the mastering of the media plays a huge role in the sound you get out of your system.

My output components: Sonic Fronitiers Line 3SE, Bryston 7B-ST, N802

[gd]

Here comes a curveball.

I've had 'em all... vinyl is great... SACD is great... DVD-A is great... don't ask me to pick a favorite, they've all got their charms.

Redbook is where all the titles are... for the budget you've stated, would you consider an outboard DAC for your redbook collection, rather than add a format for which finding titles may be difficult?

I unloaded my vinyl a couple years ago (don't a$k), a collection that started in the early 60s... while there were certainly a few titles that sounded best on that format, I found that I don't miss them as much as I thought I would... the inconvenience of actually getting outa the chair to change sides wasn't so bad, but I really did get tired of bringing home LPs that looked clean in the store but were loaded with surface noise... (but even then, I've still got the TT and still occasionally buy an LP I can't find elsewhere).

Redbook production and mastering has improved quite a bit since the early days, and a proper DAC or upscale player can really deliver the music.

Plus, I just like throwing curveballs.

[DifferentLee]

Redbook production and mastering has improved quite a bit since the early days, and a proper DAC or upscale player can really deliver the music.

It's definitely gotten better but it is no where near the resolution you get from a good jazz SACD or LP. Jazz is very acoustic and 16/44 is just technologically capable of recreating the tonality of a sax or the natural shimmer of a cymbal.

Now if you do go the DAC route, get the Benchmark DAC1.

[ColoKurt]

I see your point GD, but after doing a lot of reading (but no listening!) I've come to the conclusion that DSD and vinyl should offer a better sound. Much of what Mark Levinson says about the Redbook CD listening experience rings true with me, and I want to spend some time with the DSD or vinyl sound. Of course, making sure you don't get a PCM-mastered recording is another story.

I'm definitely leaning towards SACD, mainly because of the high entry cost into the world of vinyl.

[Bob]

Do you plan on keeping your CD player? If so, why get a SACD player? The difference, or improvement, in audio quality will be marginal. What you would get by adding a TT to your system is the fun factor, or frustration factor, depending on your point of veiw. Either way, you have a completely different medium from digital to play around with, along with about a ga-zillion vinyl titles to pick from.
However, all the negatives mentioned are valid. Especially the cost.

[ColoKurt]

From what I've read, the differences between standard CD and a good DSD recording on SACD are not subtle. Do you disagree?

[Ovation]

The differences are not always subtle. However, a note about PCM masters for SACDs. A lot of commentary about this flies about on various sites, usually negative. However, I would argue that the quality of the master is far more important than the format. I have an outstanding SACD (Pletnev Plays Schumann) that was recorded in 24/96 PCM and transfered to DSD for SACD. If that recording is "sonically impaired", then I'm Wilt Chamberlain (and as a 5ft7in out of shape white guy--I'd make a poor Wilt Chamberlain). I've heard some direct to DSD SACDs that are no more impressive than a regular CD and I've heard PCM sourced SACDs that are extremely impressive. And the 50 year old RCA Living Stereo analogue masters demonstrate that the quality of the masters outweighs the formats.

Just my 2 cents.

[gd]

What Ovation said...

Like all other formats, it's a case-by-case assessment... how well was it recorded to begin with?... how well has it been mastered?... etc.

I've got a couple of SACDs that just kinda lay there, but most are vibrant and discernibly better than their redbook counterparts (on the few times I've been able to make the comparison)... some of those are DSD, some PCM, some unidentified.

I think your stated preferences will lead you to SACD rather than vinyl... I might recommend an upscale universal player (Marantz DV9500, Denon DVD3910)... or a separate DVD-A player to go along with the dedicated SACD -- DVD-A is every bit as involving as SACD, and expands your titles choices.

Time to go out and audition!

[gostan]

If I did not already have a Denon 2900 to play my cd's, dvd's, sacd's and dvd-a's and a pretty decent turntable and record cleaning machine, then, I would opt for the turntable and wait on the sacd-dvd-a player. After all, with the advent of blu-ray and hd-dvd just on the horizon, why not go for the vinyl and wait for the new cd-dvd players which will be coming out at the end of this year-beginning of next year. Keep playing redbook cd's on your existing cd player and have a lot of fun listening to new and used vinyl. My bi-weekly or once a month trips to the 6 or 7 used lp stores in Cambridge, MA have made this a much easier choice for me. And a fun time it is sifting through boxes and boxes of old, new, good and bad records.

Well it is time to take a sip of that Chianti Riserva I just opened, and to spin John Coltrane Blue Train, a magnificent 45rpm one sided pressing, which just blows away my cd and regular lp version. And I can refill the wine glass as each of the 4 discs finishes.

[DifferentLee]

However, a note about PCM masters for SACDs. A lot of commentary about this flies about on various sites, usually negative. However, I would argue that the quality of the master is far more important than the format.

Here's my view (I am an audiophile recording engineer part-time):

In order of importance:
1. Original recording process.
2. High resolution or not.
3. Quality of mastering.

Most SACDs are not from PCM masters, most are either Analog tape to DSD or pure DSD recording chain (sometimes with a 352k intermediary but not always).

Probably some 95% of all SACDs sound better than redbook counterparts, most of which the difference is night and day.

[georgev]

Probably some 95% of all SACDs sound better than redbook counterparts, most of which the difference is night and day.[/QUOTE]

Who or what are you quoting?
I would humbly beg to differ.
Th differences b/w good redbook cd's and their sacd counterparts are marginal if any(IMHO).
Get yourself a pretty good redbook cd player or transport and dac and you won't find yourself seeking the sacd's out nor the vinyl.

[ColoKurt]

Well, I just ordered a new Marantz SA-8260 SACD/CD player. I'd like to thank everyone for their input. In the end, it was mainly the cost that led me to choose SACD over Vinyl. Also, I think I'm still pissed off about all those crappy, cheap LP pressings I bought back in the 70s and 80s.

Gostan, I hope you enjoyed your Blue Train and Chianti--sounds like a great mix.

Georgev, this player is also supposed to have a very good CD sound, so I'll be able to judge for myself how big a difference DSD makes.

[Jack Keck]

How 'bout a mid-fi scenerio here. Do any of you think that a lowere end hi-rez machine, say a Pioneer 588 or the sub-$200 Samsung as a SACD or DVD-A player would best CDs playing on a Sony (NOT ES) cd player (early 1990s vintage)?

Should this be it's own thread?

[David Meek]

How 'bout a mid-fi scenerio here. Do any of you think that a lowere end hi-rez machine, say a Pioneer 588 or the sub-$200 Samsung as a SACD or DVD-A player would best CDs playing on a Sony (NOT ES) cd player (early 1990s vintage)?

Should this be it's own thread?

I'd leave it right here Jack. You've got good participation in this thread already.

My thoughts? Lower-end SACD units in a mid-fi system generally won't give you the breath-stopping increase in performance everyone expects from SACD material. To really hear what the fuss is about, it IMO takes a good-to-better system to resolve (and output) the extra range of data available from the hi-res format. You very well may hear some increase in performance on a less-resolving system, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Phil Rose]

I would expect that most modern ~$200 players will beat your early '90s vintage non-ES Sony on redbook. Players have gotten much better in the 15 years since yours was built. But, as David states, you might not hear a difference between hi-res and redbook on a less resolving system.

[DifferentLee]

Who or what are you quoting?

I'm quoting myself. I firmly believe SACD is a step change over redbook. I work as a live to 2 track engineer on the weekends and redbook technology simply has audible limits in my experience.

I also believe that the improvement in SACD can be heard in $1K to $5K systems as well, sometimes surprisingly so.

[gd]

How 'bout a mid-fi scenerio here.

Sure... my HT rig is modest -- Cambridge Audio Azur 540R receiver, Pioneer DV-563a uni player... not a world-beater... but the hi-res difference is clearly discernible... I'm sure it would only get better if I moved up the food chain, but I enjoy both SACD and DVD-A greatly, without a big investment.

The real reason to tread carefully is the seemingly wobbly future of the formats, and the availability of genres and titles you're personally interested in.

My own inclination is to pursue a DAC to give redbook a boost in the HT system... that's where the vast majority of my titles are... and have an economical hi-res player handy as an add-on.

[georgev]

Congrats on the purchase Colokurt. Enjoy the music.
Different Lee, I appreciate the fact that you work with music.
Ever done a blind A/B comparison b/w hi res music vs. redbook cd?
I am now talking about decent players /dacs involved?
I have done so in a reasonably "high end" system and I still lean towards redbook cd.(Perhaps the sacd player was not as high end).

[gostan]

Colokurt I am sure that you will be very happy with your Marantz SA-8260 player. EVERY upgrade that you make to your system improves your listening experience. Allocating the $$ to do so is always difficult and listening/exploring new equipment in our favorite hi-fi shops listening rooms always has me drooling for more. Enjoy and let us all know how the music sounds.

To Differentlee and georgev, I would say that you are both correct. It depends upon the individual recording. I do have some duplicate cd and sacd recordings and while in most cases the sacd recording does sound better, there appear to me to be other recordings where I am not able to discern a real difference between the two.

Somehow I have ended up with a cd, sacd and lp recording of Miles Davis Kind Of Blue (any recording with Miles, Coltrane, Bill Evans & Cannonball Adderley is well worth owning). I am going to a-b-c the three this weekend for the heck of it (in between a trip to the Cinema to see Episode III again). Will I be able to hear a difference....I will report back later.

[DifferentLee]

Ever done a blind A/B comparison b/w hi res music vs. redbook cd?

Yes, it is not even close between redbook and hirez. I have done one with DSD and another one with 24/96, all based on the same master tape.

[JonMarsh]

Congrats on the purchase Colokurt. Enjoy the music.
Different Lee, I appreciate the fact that you work with music.
Ever done a blind A/B comparison b/w hi res music vs. redbook cd?
I am now talking about decent players /dacs involved?
I have done so in a reasonably "high end" system and I still lean towards redbook cd.(Perhaps the sacd player was not as high end).

One person's high end may be another person's midrange. I've made this comparison a number of times. Yes, I will definitely take good redbook playback over midrange or low end SACD. And what I would call a "midrange SACD player" (the original Sony SCD-1 and SCD777ES) does not have CD playback that matches what you can buy in the best of the $1000 class DACs (such as Benchmark DAC1). OTOH, if I compare the CD layer of a good hybrid SACD like Alison Kraus "Forget about it" on the Benchmark, vs. the DSD layer on the SCD777ES, the DSD layer is the winner. And with a better SACD player, like an Ayre CX5e, it will be even more of a winner, IMO.

The better the system, the more this is apparent. Obviously, on a system like ThomasW's Acoustats + RD75 + ribbon tweeter array + IB sub, there's a very low distortion floor and a lot of resolution. But I hear the same differences, in midrange ease and top end smoothness and clarity on a well designed 8" two way (DIY). Not to the same degree and as immediately obvious.

Also, in most cases, I'd say unless you have some pretty nice speakers, upgrading them before making the change over to a $3K to $5K SACD player will be more worthwhile than upgrading your digital source.

The thing is, the better everything else is in the system, the more obvious these differences are which are related to source material.

My reference remains live unamplified sound, which as an ex-musician and someone's who's done live classical recording and built a couple of small studio's for other folks, I'm pretty familiar with, and make some attempts to regularly refresh. If you've ever listened to a decent drum kit in a studio sound room, and worked for 2-3 hours just to get the live sound feed on the board sounding SOMEWHAT like what the drums actually sound like, then you have an idea of what this is all about, and about how far short most home recordings and playback systems fall.

DSD is the least colored storage/playback medium I've heard. I can't truthfully say I know why, I just know what I've heard.

~Jon

[DifferentLee]

DSD is the least colored storage/playback medium I've heard.

I would agree but analog tape is up there as well.

[JonMarsh]

No doubt at all about the virtues of analog tape on a good machine, but when I start waxing eloquent about the Otari half track machine I used to record with back in the 70's, people's eyes start to roll, and they look at me like I'm some kind of fossil. All I can say is I resemble that remark!

[DifferentLee]

Jon,

You should hear the playback quality of some of the Tim de Paravicini (sic?) analog tape machines. They sound so natural. Many of these machines are being rebuilt for audiophile labels so many young engineers probably have some experience with analog tape, especially ones working for the boutiques like Chesky, Groove Note, etc.

[ColoKurt]

Any opinions on the Burwen Bobcat? Here's a link (http://www.stereophile.com/news/052305stalking/) if you haven't heard about it.

I agree with the concerns about listening fatigue with Redbook CD's, which is one reason I just ordered an SACD player. Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't cancel my order and wait for the Bobcat, since I like the notion of playing CD's from a hard drive. I haven't heard any info about when it will be commercially available, however, and I don't like the idea of it only working with Windows. The cost is supposed to be around $1500 with the USB DAC.

[bordin]

Some said XRCD is not bad and even beats SACD. I have some XRCD24 albums, and they sound really amazing (like vinyl, very natural - "true sounds") with no fatigue at all ! :T A friend of mine who has an SACD player, also thinks XRCD CDs (played on my Rotel RCD-1072 player) sound better than SACD CDs on his system.

[ColoKurt]

Thanks for the XRCD tip, Bordin. My SACD player is due to arrive on Friday (finally!). I'll have to try an XRCD on it as well.

[Bob]

I have been giving this question a lot of thought since it first appeared here. After much thought I think a third format should be thrown in the mix. Assuming that the system is two channel and only has a cd player and you only have the finances for one additional format. I think that a DVD player and tv would be a choice also to consider. Or, since just about everybody in this forum already has a DVD player, I would consider a DVD player for your car. Thinking along these lines let me go over the plus and minuses as I see them.

SACD player. Marginal audio improvement on some discs, only plus there is. Downside, the possibility that there is no improvement in sound from the redbook cd version, or even the possibility that the sacd disc isn't as good. Like new LPs, discs are expensive. It looks the same as a cd or dvd, the little box they come in is the same as a cd, looks like it will never get out of the small niche market, new titles could even stop with the advent of a new digital technology, also which will be a little silver disc, to me, that adds up to no difference in fun value than a cd.

DVD player. In car or home, huge fun value. You can see the performance. Having a visual reference makes a big difference in enjoyment. Good for watching movies as well. Surround sound, which is better in a car than your home, to me. Means you can also have a GPS system in your car. Plays cds as well, so you don't have to buy duplicate formats for car and home. Did I mention huge fun value?

Vinyl. Let's start with the sonics and get that out of the way. Like sacd, some records sound better than any other format except master tapes or live music. Some are no better than cds, and some are poorly mastered and/or scratched and don't sound as good as cds. Do not play well in a moving car :lol: There is often surface noise, some people care some don't. Records do need care, a cleaning machine is not important, though. This is one of those things that, for people that like to futz with things, is a plus.
On the plus side, many people find analog easier more relaxing to listen to. The album notes and cover art add to the collecting enjoyment. Turntables, arms, and cartridges are interesting to futz with. You have some control over the audio output through how you setup your cartridge and which one you choose. Turntables have a much, much longer mechanical life than digital players. Then of course there is the more obvious factors. There is lots and lots of music available on vinyl, and more new titles every month. Maybe even more new titles than SACD, not sure. Used vinyl is often very cheap, like $.50 to $1.00, often in perfect playing condition. For some, searching out and finding used vinyl is a hobby in itself. The software is large, fun to hold, is totally different than digital. The changing of sides with no remote control actually becomes desirable, I know hard to beleive for those of you that have never had any kind of audio that didn't have a remote. Like DVD, it has a huge fun factor that mostly consists of things outside the sitting down and listening to music part of it.

So, first of all, each his own. But for me, I'd rank what I would want in a two channel system in the following order:

CD player first, unless I didn't have a car.

DVD player with a tv second. Even if there is a dvd player in the car I would still rank it second because the inferior sonics which I find much more pronounced than the difference between a cd player and a SACD player.

TT third, unless I didn't have car then it goes to first and maybe even the only source.

SACD player, only if I didn't already have a cd player and the player played redbook cds as well as a equally priced cd player.

[csuzor]

You won't be dissapointed with SACD, I am sure. There are numerous examples of reviewers comparing the vinyl and the sacd versions on http://www.sa-cd.net, and in most cases for the sacd version,
"Sound quality is better on this release than in any of the various releases on vinyl and CD" or
"there is much detail and character to the sound that you would find missing on the original LP"

You made the right choice, and you've got the added possibility of surround sound.

[ColoKurt]

Thanks Csuzor, I received my new SACD player on Friday and have been enjoying it a great deal. I still don't have many SACD titles, though. My first impression is that I can tell the biggest difference in the bass definition.

[JoshK]

I'll throw in my $.02 even though Kurt has already pulled the trigger. I am 29yo, so I didn't exactly grow up on vinyl but I do remember playing my dad's large collection (which is now mine) even as a kid. I like the sound of vinyl and some of my recordings are my sonic benchmarks and don't come in CD or later but would hold their own against anything. I am not a big believer that the format wins all as I have found cases that argue both ways in any comparison. Usually recording matters most and to that your music preference should dictate what you get into.

I own all types of players. I have a Teres TT, Sony XA777ES SACD/CD (mediocre on redbook) and have a Pan DVD-rp91 DVD-A (although I don't own a single DVDA, b/c I won't turn on the tv just to listen to music). I only own a dozen or so SACDs and really only listen to maybe 4 or 5 of these. For me SACD was a bad choice, I wish I hadn't. There is just isn't enough music out there in the format, of those 4, 3 I have on other formats.

Vinyl for me is a love/hate thing. I love it, but sometimes hate that I spent this much money on it for a few dozen great records that I have. I wish I'd spent the money on great DAC, like my buddies Dodson 218, to get the most of most of my recordings. I have lived and learned, I love my Teres and its sound but honestly the money would have been better spent elsewhere.

I think the LPs by and large on my setup beat the CD in all but a handful of the cases. Beats a couple of the SACDs, but usually the SACDs win out. However, my system with the Dodson in play makes redbook beat the SACDs on my XA777ES, imho. I have a few thousand redbook CDs.

[Ovation]

I have a Pan DVD-rp91 DVD-A (although I don't own a single DVDA, b/c I won't turn on the tv just to listen to music).

90%+ of DVD-As will play whichever layer you set as the default (MCH or 2CH) without needing to turn on the TV. When you insert a DVD-A and hear the "menu music", just press play on the remote and it will access the group you've set. Just FYI.