Exclusively SACD?

[Kontrapunctus]

Is anyone here an exclusively SACD listener/purchaser? I'd say I am about 95% SACD exclusive. I only buy RBCDs if the performance is so compelling, it is rare repertoire, or there's little chance of the recording being issued in SACD. (For instance, I just bought Arrau's Late Beethoven Sonatas on RBCD) After switching to a multi-channel system, I can barely listen to two-channel anymore--I usually use headphones for RBCDs.

[Scarpia]

Is anyone here an exclusively SACD listener/purchaser? I'd say I am about 95% SACD exclusive. I only buy RBCDs if the performance is so compelling, it is rare repertoire, or there's little chance of the recording being issued in SACD. (For instance, I just bought Arrau's Late Beethoven Sonatas on RBCD) After switching to a multi-channel system, I can barely listen to two-channel anymore--I usually use headphones for RBCDs.

If a release is available in both formats I will get the SACD version, even if it costs a buck or two more.  However, if I listened to SACD excusively 99% of the recordings I love would be off limits, and the great majority of the compositions I love would be un-represented.  And given the fact that even labels that used to release SACD regularly are doing it less often or not at all, I am not optimistic about the format.  I've seen claims that blu-ray will become the medium of choice for high-resolution music, but I've yet to see this happen.

[Wanderer]

If a release is available in both formats I will get the SACD version, even if it costs a buck or two more.

Ditto. Same for Blu-ray versus DVD releases.

[Kontrapunctus]

If a release is available in both formats I will get the SACD version, even if it costs a buck or two more.  However, if I listened to SACD excusively 99% of the recordings I love would be off limits, and the great majority of the compositions I love would be un-represented.  And given the fact that even labels that used to release SACD regularly are doing it less often or not at all, I am not optimistic about the format.  I've seen claims that blu-ray will become the medium of choice for high-resolution music, but I've yet to see this happen.

I still listen to old favorites. It seems that we have to put up with second rate performances in order to get superior sound! That's a bit of an over-generalization, as there are sporadic fine performances, but I've often never heard of the performers! A recent pleasing discovery is Russian pianist Igor Tchetuev on the Caro Mitis label--his Schnittke Sonatas and Beethoven Sonatas combine fine sound and performances. Between the two, I guess I'd take a revelatory RBCD over a pedestrian SACD performance!

[Todd]

I have hundreds of Hybrid SACDs, two machines that play SACDs, but I never listen to SACD playback.  My main system cannot play SACDs, and after dozens of comparisons between CDs and SACDs at home and at shops, the supposed benefit of SACDs has never made me want to upgrade my main system's CD player.  I'm focused on performance over sound, despite spending way too much on my stereos.  As physical media dies, I'll switch to high resolution downloads when available, and at least red book quality downloads otherwise.  As to multi-channel, I don't like it.  Stereo works fine for me.  Plus I don't have to spend extra money on the center and surrounds, which given my taste in gear is an expensive proposition.

[Kontrapunctus]

When I was single, I had a killer two channel system that cost more than a lot of nice cars (Mark Levinson/Martin-Logan)! When I got married, my wife endured separate audio and video systems in the living room for a while, but then she got tired of "living in an audio showroom"! So, we "agreed" to consolidate the gear into a single multi-channel system (Sony/B&W). Standard 2-channel recordings don't sound as good, but multi-channel SACDs sound more realistic and 3-dimensional overall.  I just added up what a multi-channel system of similar quality to my old system would cost--around $60,000. That would be a very hard sell...

[Daverz]

This thread reads like some kind of audiophile horror story.

[MishaK]

I just added up what a multi-channel system of similar quality to my old system would cost--around $60,000. That would be a very hard sell...

A friend of mine last year was looking to upgrade his audio system and was considering going the SACD-surround system route. I went with him to the shop to help audition speakers. The very helpful and honest sales person (when does that ever happen?) talked him out of the SACD-surround thing because to really hear any meaningful sound quality you do indeed have to spend nearly that kind of money as you describe.

[Scarpia]

A friend of mine last year was looking to upgrade his audio system and was considering going the SACD-surround system route. I went with him to the shop to help audition speakers. The very helpful and honest sales person (when does that ever happen?) talked him out of the SACD-surround thing because to really hear any meaningful sound quality you do indeed have to spend nearly that kind of money as you describe.

I will admit that I have never heard any noticable benefit from the high resolution of SACD compared with ordinary CD.   However, some SACD recordings do make excellent use of the surround sound.  Pentatone is a good example, and the Janowski Brahms symphony discs sound glorious in surround sound.  However, this is not the case in general, and most of the time, for instance, I find that Chandos SACDs sound better in simple stereo than in surround.

I'd say the principal benefit if SACD is that the record companies try extra hard on an SACD release, and this is a bigger factor than the format itself.  There are exceptions to that as well.  I have always liked Karajan's 1977 recording of Beethoven's 9th and it the sound is very good on the CD release.  However I got the SACD version, supposedly with a state-of-to-art remix.  It was just horrid.
 

[Kontrapunctus]

SACD is no guarantee of high quality sound, but in general, it sounds warmer, more detailed, and generally clearer than RBCD to my ears. Sometimes limitations/flaws of older master tapes are mercilessly exposed, though!

[petrarch]

When I was single, I had a killer two channel system that cost more than a lot of nice cars (Mark Levinson/Martin-Logan)! When I got married, my wife endured separate audio and video systems in the living room for a while, but then she got tired of "living in an audio showroom"! So, we "agreed" to consolidate the gear into a single multi-channel system (Sony/B&W).

Downgrade!

Luckily for me, my wife hasn't minded the huge planar speakers in the living room. As it turns out, she has the ear to notice the differences and can't stand your typical average system anymore.

With regards to surround audio, I don't really care for it; two-channel is my thing. But, if I have the option to get the same release on SACD, I will prefer it to the RBCD.

[Daverz]

One thing I've noticed is that the DSD masters from companies like Sony are leaps and bounds better than the other remastered CDs they've put out.  I'm thinking, for example, of some of the Szell reissues.  Who knew they could sound so good?  Whether this is because of the technology used or greater care being exercised, I do not know.

[Mirror Image]

I own an DVD region free player that plays SACDs/DVD-audio, but I haven't even hooked it up yet. In fact, I think it's still in the box. This is the player I own --- a Panasonic:

[asin]B001CF60R4[/asin]

I really need to hook this puppy up in surround sound. I've been wanting to hear a bunch of my CDs that are hybrid SACDs. I'm not one of these people who have 20 different units hooked up to my stereo. I prefer a pretty basic setup that allows plenty of room to make changes here and there.