SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

compact disc, dacs, mp3 players and streaming audio
Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 845
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 18 Sep 2019 00:55

raphaelmabo wrote:
16 Sep 2019 09:11
I haven't found an album that exists both as single layer SACD and multi-layer SACD, so I don't know. I can only say that both sounds good and the hybrid SACD sounds better in my DVD-A/SACD than in my CD-player playing the CD-layer.

Re: surround sound, I don't have it at home, I have a 2-channel setup, 2 speakers. Even when I watch movies. This is sufficient for me. I've heard surround-sound music in other setups but I haven't been thrilled by it. It's for me not worth the extra investment in equipment.
I understand your satisfaction with stereo. I have enjoyed stereo SACDs since 2000 and only stereo SACDs, since my circa 2000 Sony DVP-S9000es is a stereo only unit; but, two years ago I purchased an OPPO 205 expressly to try out multi-channel music. I hooked it up to a Sony TA-P9000es analog multi-channel preamp; and, I've gotta tell ya, the multi-channel does not disappoint. The breadth and depth of it is just awesome; plus, bass management is easy to tailor to what ever music genre I want to play. At any rate, I am really enjoying multi-channel, very happy I bought the OPPO.

VinyldechezPierre
senior member
senior member
France
Posts: 650
Joined: 12 Mar 2016 22:09
Location: France

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by VinyldechezPierre » 23 Sep 2019 13:19

terry-a wrote:
14 Sep 2019 16:57
I find it hard to believe the "market" wants recorded music in surround sound.
So do I... I may be wrong since, unlike Eric Clapton, I am not God. :lol:

But, from talking to people here and there, most seem to be a bit lost listening to multi-channel music. As I am. After all, at a concert, except for some extremely rare occasions, the sound does not come from behind you.

And, a few more points: 1/Quadraphonic records didn't last; 2/from what I've seen, most HC systems don't play SACDs. Most consumers buy cheapo HC sets that barely give you a surround effect so that I don't see them upgrading to a more expensive one just to also be able to listen to music; 3/most people I buy gear from barely understand the difference between mono and stereo or the difference between a boombox and a hifi set...

That said, to each his own.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 845
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 23 Sep 2019 14:08

You don’t get a sound effect of music coming from behind you because multi channel music is not mixed as surround sound is mixed. It’s more like being closer to the sound stage or the stage being deeper. The only folks who are confused about it are those who perceive that multi-channel is synonymous to movie surround sound. Also, bass can be better managed with multi-channel equipment even when the source is stereo. And, the cost of multi-channel pleasure is inexpensive today, only requiring a cheap BD Player with HDMI output to a modern AVR. Finally, multi-channel may only be a three channel presentation, such as Living Stereo or Living Presence recordings, which have greater breadth than stereo versions of same. So, the bottom-line is why preclude yourself to stereo when you can have more pleasure from multi-channel’s greater breadth and depth.

terry-a
long player
long player
Posts: 1009
Joined: 05 Jan 2013 03:11

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by terry-a » 24 Sep 2019 01:48

Multi channel is a fun little novelty, but I prefer stereo.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 845
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 24 Sep 2019 13:59

terry-a wrote:
24 Sep 2019 01:48
Multi channel is a fun little novelty, but I prefer stereo.
Can you give an example, some details? What multi-channel SACD have you listened to which most strikingly caused you to prefer the stereo presentation.

terry-a
long player
long player
Posts: 1009
Joined: 05 Jan 2013 03:11

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by terry-a » 25 Sep 2019 01:17

I've had multi-channel music capability since 2007. My buddy had multi-channel music before that in the form of a universal multi-channel player by (IIRC) Philips, then later with a Marantz universal multi-channel player. These were both prior to or during blu-ray player development.

I have several multi-channel discs, and none of them caused me to prefer stereo. I like them just fine and I play them occasionally, but they don't strike me as representative of something better, only as something different.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 845
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 25 Sep 2019 20:07

terry-a wrote:
25 Sep 2019 01:17
I've had multi-channel music capability since 2007. My buddy had multi-channel music before that in the form of a universal multi-channel player by (IIRC) Philips, then later with a Marantz universal multi-channel player. These were both prior to or during blu-ray player development.

I have several multi-channel discs, and none of them caused me to prefer stereo. I like them just fine and I play them occasionally, but they don't strike me as representative of something better, only as something different.
Sometime when you want to hear how good multi-channel is today download the Seattle Symphony's presentation of The Firebird from Acoustic Sounds. It will blow your mind. It will require a player or multi-channel AVR/Processor which will accept a thumb drive since a DLNA connection will not support gapless play. At any rate, this presentation of The Firebird was like I was there, convincing me that multi-channel was worth pursuing and so far I have been pleased with the results of that pursuit.