What is the opinions on SACD playback from Naim CD player owners?

Kuma

That will probably be the consensus amongst Naim-o-philes.

SACD does have a beguiling quality in terms of spatial information, but we come back to your point. I think it depends very much, what one primarily listens for.

The Sony SACD1 and the next model down (777 EX?) are beautifully engineered and tactile, with that sliding door and weighty brass puck.

What jars me off about those two models; is that it takes too long to work out what you've fed it with.

I once timed one at 28 seconds from hitting 'Play' to it producing music.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.N.:
That will probably be the consensus amongst Naim-o-philes.

---

This would have been my guess as well. And I agree with your impression on SACD sound. i.e. beguiling quality etc...
I am not a classical music listener. SACD so far I have listented to ( Sony SCD1 and NV500, Accuphase, Bel Canto, dcs ) they all seem to share the same traits and thought they might be more suited for traditional music over up tempo stuff. Even jazz materical seem to lack something.

quote:

---

What jars me off about those two models; is that it takes too long to work out what you've fed it with.

I once timed one at 28 seconds from hitting 'Play' to it producing music.

---

Yes it was a nuisance with Sony SCD1 as well as Accuphase flagship SACD player. ( I beilve they share the same transport ). Altho, Accuphase front loader SACD player was lot faster than the top loader.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joolz:
i much preferred the sound of dvd-a to sacd. i listened to a number of disc's all on the same multi format player. the only sacd that even came close to enjoyable was the multichannel mix of dsotm but that was more for the clever use of the surround than the actual qualities of the music.
cheers

---

Joolz,

I can't deal with almost all multi channel music. I have heard a decent DVD A demo few times using a disc with sensible mastering/mixing job. Most of the time, however, I almost always turn the surround off and use only front main. DVD A, assessing from my favorite Donald Fagan disc, was that it seems to have better bass dynamics than almost all SACD playback I have heard. ( then again, it's impossible to comare since the title does not come in both formats )

I haven't done extensive tests, however I much prefer my CDX/XPS to the SACD Accuphase players I have heard.

No real experience on the SACD front appart from placing my Philips DVD963SA into the Naim system and playing a borrowed copy of Yola. Yeah....not bad.

A very interesting article in the Nov/Dec hi-fi+ on the Classe Audio Omega SACD1 which is based on the topline Sony. Brilliant with SACD but hopeless with CD appartently.

Jay

I think it's going to take the specialist equipment producers (like Naim) to produce kit that can make SACD (and DVD-A) rock.
I mean, listen to the mass-market CD players! The idea that these manufacturers can suddenly produce great kit is a bit daft. It's not just about being able to extract the data from the media, it's about being able to process it in the follow-on stages to produce the best sound.
What does the CD12 sound like with SACD?

Paul Rowlands

quote:

---

I think it's going to take the specialist equipment producers (like Naim) to produce kit that can make SACD (and DVD-A) rock.

---

But they do exist. Krell has just produced an SACD player (mixed reviews). Accuphase have had them for over a year, and it was hearing their version that finally convinced me that getting a CDS3 was worthwhile. The CDS3 is so far ahead of the Accuphase, (which isn't cheap) (IMO) that it makes you appreciate what is possible from CD.

First I agree there is nothing to touch Naim's CD re-play capabilities on a comparitive basis. I have a "bare" CDX2 which impresses as far as I am concerned.

The description of the sense of "air" in the SACD sound is true for me aswell. I Started with a SONY 555ES which only plays stereo SACD then moved to a 333ES which does multichannel aswell.

I have to disagree with Joolz about DVD-A vs SACD, as it comes out of my kit. That needs stressing because it is very equipment dependent. I feel SONY, and maybe Philips aswell, as co inventor's of SACD know the best way to get the aimed for sound out of it. The multiformat players to date have not impressed, by most reviewers accounts, because they are trying to be "all things to every format", though the latest are getting better by report (Denon 2900?).

As far as emotion and, "balls & timing" are concerned. Both my Sony's have made a good try at that IMHO though cannot touch NAIM. I am talking now about SACD played in stereo mode through my 282/ 250 combo vs the CDX2 doing CD. Some SACD discs have some balls, it is very much a function of the orignal material type and remastering done. I have examples of Grover Washington, Babyface, Spyrogyra, Keb Mo, James Taylor and others which do have pace and timing. I also have quite a lot of discs that could be described as "dead on arrival" so it is clear there is a long way to go.

I do feel the decoding process can be well enough done. Either It's the disc content itself that needs more work OR the "signature" of the decoders from different players is much more variable than common with straight CD.

Incidentally I do hear a small benefit, a sort of lift in the spatial feel, from HDCD discs on the CDX2 aswell. Anyway considering the addition of an XPS2 and ultimately a CDS3 head unit can go even further, as it stands right now SACD and DVD-A which is typically even worse to my ears, have a very long way to go.

PS I have no idea how much 40,000 pounds + of DcS Elgar, puccini and the 3rd part(forgotten it's name) sound like and never will

GEOFFP

My only experience of SACD worth mentioning is a friend's Linn Unidisk. It's a very good machine (if you like the Linn sound) and I trust that they would be in a position and possess the knowledge to make SACD work properly.

On the Unidisk, the difference between the CD and SACD layers of a few hybrid discs my friend has was pronounced, but not exactly staggering. The SACD layer always had a bit more air, a tad more resolution -- imagine a source upgrade concentrating only on that kind of thing.

One problem in assessing SACD is that hybrid discs don't always offer a fair comparison, namely when the encoding process is not the only thing that is different (apparently, the CD layer of DSOTM is mastered with more compression than the SACD layer and even goes into clipping on some bits). If the discs we compared are anything to go by, the whole hoohah surrounding SACD would have gone unnoticed without the hype, there's simply not much to it as things are, and I suspect the mastering end of things still holds much more potential (with regard to both formats).

To sum it up, I don't think SACD lacks balls and timing per se, it's probably just a question of building the right player and getting good software. Once that's done, SACD may be a good bit better than CD.

IMO you're better off investing in a better CD player, which also keeps you from wondering whether you really need Sting's shite new album just because it's one of the few rock/pop SACDs available.

Thomas

[This message was edited by Thomas K on MONDAY 24 November 2003 at 15:37.]

quote:

---

To sum it up, I don't think SACD lacks balls and timing per se, it's probably just a question of building the right player and getting good software. Once that's done, SACD may be a good bit better than CD.

IMO you're better off investing in a better CD player, which also keeps you from wondering whether you really need Sting's shite new album just because it's one of the few rock/pop SACDs available.

---

No doubt that the quality of software influences the playback. But so are for redbook CDs. And on-going lack of software titles, albeit 5000 pluses for SACDs, does not make me dump my current CD players.

I have not heard Unidisk. Perhaps, Linn pulled it off right and preserved their house sound whereas the brands I have heard so far are not known for pace'n'bass.

Hello!

I agree with Thomas.
The Linn Unidisk is (very) good, although the sacd-part is just a little bit better than the cd-part: more air, softer voices and more resolution. Everything seems to be a little more further away (soundstage), but the Unidisk has PRAT and the player is quite dynamic and lively.
Another serious sacd-contender could be the (new) Teac/Esoteric DV-50. This one has got very good reviews in all magazines at half the price of the Unidisk. The German magazine (Stereo) said that it is almost as good as the Unidisk. It (only) cost 5000 euro!
In January 2004 appears a review in Stereo and I guess this will be raving review too. I wonder when the first Naim-sacd will appear. I guess it will take years.

Alligator

quote:

---

PS I have no idea how much 40,000 pounds + of DcS Elgar, puccini and the 3rd part(forgotten it's name) sound like and never will

---

In a Nagra based system, DCS SACD stacks sounded the best out of bunch. They did the 'natural organic things' in spade. But, they, too sounded too comfortable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by greeny:

quote:

---

I think it's going to take the specialist equipment producers (like Naim) to produce kit that can make SACD (and DVD-A) rock.

---

But they do exist. Krell has just produced an SACD player (mixed reviews).

---

I've read MC's review with much interest as I am predisposed to Krell sounnd and lived with both kps25s and 28c. (they've got balls but iffy on pace ) I can see they needed to cut corners to keep the retail pricing down, but if Krell SACD Standard (in both playbacks ) are slower thier other CD players as stated in MC's review, it only confirms my suspicion.

The US review was more favourable but I am skeptical of his assessment since he never lived with any of kps series gear. I am not sure what he uses for his reference now , but if I remember correctly it was Theta for a while. And their stuff is all about stage'n'tone so, even the *slow* Krell might sound more exciting comparatively. ( his impression of timing property on the SACD Stadard runs counter to MC's and goes on to say it had a *naim like* sound )

hmm.... I highly doubt that.

quote:

---

It's not just about being able to extract the data from the media, it's about being able to process it in the follow-on stages to produce the best sound.
What does the CD12 sound like with SACD?

---

True.

But all things equal, ultimately having more information ( DSD not PCM ) I'd think it's a good thing for digital playback, no?

What would be interesting is to compare CD12 redbook vs. SACD playback on Unidisk.

quote:

---

True.

But all things equal, ultimately having more information ( DSD not PCM ) I'd think it's a good thing for digital playback, no?

---

You have to be carefull about that. It's about what gets through all the "filters" to your ears. The filters I am talking about are the ones that attack the supposedly ïnaudible high frequency above 20Khz, particulalrly on up to the 50Khz which is "available" from SACD (and beyond that to the 100Khz theoretical potential of DVD-A).
This by the way is not me talking, this is from an interesting article by Keith Howard in HiFi News:
1) Microphones for recording:
The vast majority of high quality studio mikes in current use (and therefore used in previous times when a lot of source material was recorded) max out below 30Khz!
2) Pre-Amps
Check the specs. A lot of pre-amps don't go up to 50Khz
3) Power Amps
A lot of power amps are bandwidth limited on their output end way below 50Khz.
4) Speakers
The performance of high quality tweeters is not spectacular above 20Khz (example B&W N805 tweeter falls away steeply beyond 27Khz, and that's a good one!)
Supertweeters are available but are very very directional (an example test showed the response falling away to almost nothing even as little as 10 degrees off axis)
5) Interconnects and Speaker cable
Even high quality interconnects have capacitance. You can loose everything above 30Khz in a cable quite easily. The same sum can hold true for speaker cable particularly as the speakers resitive load drops to quite normal values such as 4 ohms.

So how much of this extra frequency information gets to our ears? Looks like hardly any!

This may explain why we can't hear this magical improvement that is supposed to be offered by SACD. Even as inaudible frequency's that nevertheless add something, It never reaches us!!

regards
GEOFFP

GeoffP, it seems at these frequency extremes of 30Khz and above only passing bats and GCHQ can benefit from extended frequenccy recordings!

dennis

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geoff P:

quote:

---

True.

But all things equal, ultimately having more information ( DSD not PCM ) I'd think it's a good thing for digital playback, no?

---

You have to be carefull about that. It's about what gets through all the "filters" to your ears. The filters I am talking about are the ones that attack the supposedly ïnaudible high frequency above 20Khz, particulalrly on up to the 50Khz which is "available" from SACD (and beyond that to the 100Khz theoretical potential of DVD-A).
This by the way is not me talking, this is from an interesting article by Keith Howard in HiFi News:
1) Microphones for recording:
The vast majority of high quality studio mikes in current use (and therefore used in previous times when a lot of source material was recorded) max out below 30Khz!
2) Pre-Amps
Check the specs. A lot of pre-amps don't go up to 50Khz
3) Power Amps
A lot of power amps are bandwidth limited on their output end way below 50Khz.
4) Speakers
The performance of high quality tweeters is not spectacular above 20Khz (example B&W N805 tweeter falls away steeply beyond 27Khz, and that's a good one!)
Supertweeters are available but are very very directional (an example test showed the response falling away to almost nothing even as little as 10 degrees off axis)
5) Interconnects and Speaker cable
Even high quality interconnects have capacitance. You can loose everything above 30Khz in a cable quite easily. The same sum can hold true for speaker cable particularly as the speakers resitive load drops to quite normal values such as 4 ohms.

So how much of this extra frequency information gets to our ears? Looks like hardly any!

This may explain why we can't hear this magical improvement that is supposed to be offered by SACD. Even as inaudible frequency's that nevertheless add something, It never reaches us!!

regards
GEOFFP

---

quote:

---

You actually owned a kps25s? Ouch!
I thought those only existed for Stereophile reviewers --

---

I still do. I was running it paralell with CDX2. Adding a PSX2 definitley put this player in the same league or better this point than kps25s. Altho, kps25s still is used for a preamp duty.

I see why MC avoided a direct comparison between CDS3 and kps25sc.

BTW, No US reveiwers would be caught dead with Krell in their rig.

quote:

---

GeoffP, it seems at these frequency extremes of 30Khz and above only passing bats and GCHQ can benefit from extended frequenccy recordings!

dennis

---

Yep perfectly true in principle. So what is SACD & DVD-A all about?
Well there is an argument that though we do not truly hear the frequencies above say 20Khz we sense their presence and possible derive a greater sense of, call it "space" from this and from harmonics of these frequencies which are audible.
One of the arguments about the superiority of Vinyl playback is that it has frequncy response above 20Khz which is just not there on standard CD.

The basis of my previous thread is that if it is correct that this extended frequency range of SACD is benefcial to the sense of the reproduced audio, it is pretty futile if these frequencies hardly get through to the listner.

regards
GEOFFP

quote:

---

he basis of my previous thread is that if it is correct that this extended frequency range of SACD is benefcial to the sense of the reproduced audio, it is pretty futile if these frequencies hardly get through to the listner.

---

Geoffp,

A good point. However, what about those frequency the systems CAN pass through? i.e. midrange and low frequencies

With SACD it is apparent that something is definitely added to the top frequency for ambient enhacement. Even on a entry level SACD player, a resolution in the midbad gets lot better. ( this is something for sure we can hear without a doubt )

What I don't get is that it has a smearing and blurring effects even in the area that systems are able to produce.

BTW, once I've tried a speaker with famed Scan Ring tweets said to produce up to 50khz ( this particular pair were specked at 35kHz. Way above my speakers threshold at 20kHz ). Yet, the trebles sounded rolled off and no added benefit to this as far as I could hear.

To answer the original question:

IMO SACD is bollocks (at the moment).

Problem with SACD and DVD-A is the fact that you have to put it thru a UNIVERSAL machine.
Jack of all trades, master of none.

Take price of DVD/SACD etc player, divide by 4 or 5 =approximate ability of CD replay.
I tried a Denon DVD2900 vs a Rega Jupiter and the Jupiter ate it, cold, just out of the box. And the Denon was on for hours.

Surprisingly, I agree with Toon...

Joe90

quote:

---

A good point. However, what about those frequency the systems CAN pass through? i.e. midrange and low frequencies

---

Surely this is the point. SACD should have the potential for better sound between 20hz- 20kHz, this is what really matters. Being theoretically able to produce 20kHz - 50Khz is an irrelevance.

It will take some guts for a manufacturer to produce an SACD only (no CD) machine aimed at the high end. But it should be easier to produce a good one that really challenges the likes of the CDS3.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. A. Toon:
Or do you just keep it to impress any visitors with its (allegedly) very "sexy" transparent lid mechanism thing (which you'd never get to see in action, seeing as you don't use it as a CD player!), and the "ooh" factor that accompanies its tank-like exterior and build?

---

CDX2 was intended for a second system to go with my headline and speaker set up.
I had no intention of replacing the 25s originally in the main rig but it worked out better than I expected thus, CDX2 along with XPS2 are stayng indefinitely.

The rack placement in the room demands balanced connections to the amp and unfortunatley Naim does not support 'em. As a valve amp owner, I can't have accidentaly ICs dislodging while amps are on. Krell's preamp is ok at best but there aren't many good balanced preamps out that I can see so for now, overkill it is, I continue to use it for a sake of convenience more than anything. Besides, Krell remote works just as fine with Naim cdp, so I dont' have to fiddle with Naim's horrid one.

Impress visitors? Nah. It is quite unassuming yet delivers the goods as Naim. (BTW, the lid closes faster than CDS3 )

quote:

---

It will take some guts for a manufacturer to produce an SACD only (no CD) machine aimed at the high end. But it should be easier to produce a good one that really challenges the likes of the CDS3.

---

Producing SACD only players for very limited market is a fiscal suicide for speciality companies. I invest in redbook players simply because music I listen to only exist in this format. ( or vinyl but I don't go there )

Theoreticaly, DSD should be able to get it right, but, so frustrating that none has voiced 'em to my liking.

quote:

---

I feel SONY, and maybe Philips aswell, as co inventor's of SACD know the best way to get the aimed for sound out of it

---

There wasn't any "aimed for sound". SACD is entirely about producing an uncopyable CD, not producing a better sounding CD. As David Rich concluded in a technical article examining SACD in Stereophile a few years ago, "It is likely that SACD was brought to market not as a way of bringing audiophiles closer to the music, but of making digital audio more difficult to copy."

quote:

---

As David Rich concluded in a technical article examining SACD in _Stereophile_ a few years ago, "It is likely that SACD was brought to market not as a way of bringing audiophiles closer to the music, but of making digital audio more difficult to copy.

---

Well that's interesting! Not surprising, just interesting.

Jay