SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

compact disc, dacs, mp3 players and streaming audio
Vinylfreak86
long player
long player
Posts: 1179
Joined: 07 Jan 2016 16:02

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Vinylfreak86 » 06 Sep 2019 19:39

Hybrid SACD is what has left from SACD idea, because it is both in one disc (SACD and standard CD) and you can play it on a normal CD player. In reality I think they are not worth the money. The best and cheapest idea is to go to store with new CD`s and search for an hour and you will find some AAD releases for 5-6 eur and at home on a decent CD player they will sound awesome.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 07 Sep 2019 03:12

Vinylfreak86 wrote:
06 Sep 2019 19:39
Hybrid SACD is what has left from SACD idea, because it is both in one disc (SACD and standard CD) and you can play it on a normal CD player. In reality I think they are not worth the money. The best and cheapest idea is to go to store with new CD`s and search for an hour and you will find some AAD releases for 5-6 eur and at home on a decent CD player they will sound awesome.
The Hybrid SACD disc with multi-channel SACD is getting a second chance, since lots of folks today have surround sound AVRs and PrePros, which have been paired with very economical Universal Disc Players that output multi-channel SACD via HDMI connection. In other words, because most home theaters today will play multi-channel SACD without any expense but for the disc, folks are indulging in the multi-channel SACD experience, which they appear to like for its breadth and depth not heard from CDs or stereo SACD. And the media for this pleasure is relatively inexpensive. Most titles can be purchased today for as little as $9.99 and no more than $29.99. It's state of the art audio for a cost less than the equipment needed to play inferior alternative recorded mediums.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 07 Sep 2019 03:21

VinyldechezPierre wrote:
18 Aug 2018 17:41
In the process of listening/comparing my SACD and CD by Norah Jones. This test is being conducted with two CD players; my DVD/SACD player has developed a new problem and is not available...

Right now, I have to say I am not convinced.

The CD is in the lesser (quality) player, a Pioneer PD-F1007 (300 CD jukebox kinda player) and the SACD is in a Marantz CD-60. But honestly there is not a whole lot of difference in sound quality between the two. This Pioneer way exceeded my expectations when I got it.

Now, there is a sound quality difference. The SACD is clearer. But not enough in my opinion to warrant the price difference even though I got this SACD for about the same price as a new CD. The thing is, I haven't bought a new CD in years. Well, ok, not quite true; I do buy some CDs new when I can't find them used but that is very rare.

So either the 16€ for the new SACD or an average of 1 to 3€ for a used CD, my choice is made.

Still one test to make when my DVD/SACD player is fixed.
Wanna be impressed, play multi-channel SACDs. CDs and stereo SACDs are no match for the breadth and depth multi-channel brings to the sound stage. There's no going back once you've experienced the pleasure.

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 264
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Agrippa » 11 Sep 2019 03:02

That's rather too universally conclusive. I for one much prefer stereo to multi-channel music.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 11 Sep 2019 12:34

Agrippa wrote:
11 Sep 2019 03:02
That's rather too universally conclusive. I for one much prefer stereo to multi-channel music.
Hybrid SACDs give you a choice for either stereo or multi-channel pleasure. So far I prefer multi-channel to any recordings of same music in stereo. I particularly like the Living Stereo and Living Presence Series which are three channel recordings of classical music. Until multi-channel SACD came along these recordings could not be enjoyed as they were original recorded in 3 channels without very expensive reel to reel recorders made by AMPEX in the mid 1950's. At any rate, there are few arguments that can stand today for stereo such as "I will have a better stereo system with my budget than I could have on a multi-channel system". This is because awesome AVR's are cheap these days, allowing for a very nice 5.1 system that can be put together for no more money than an equally impressive stereo system; plus, a 5.1 system will better manage bass and even allow for use of a passive subwoofer. Great speakers have also become more affordable. All of these technologies make multi-channel SACD more attractive than ever.

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 264
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Agrippa » 11 Sep 2019 13:06

Certainly. Attractive if you like multi-channel. I don't, I know plenty others who don't, and lauding it as universally preferable to stereo is a simple fallacy. Just like most things to do with music it is entirely subjective and hence subject to immense variance.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 12 Sep 2019 00:09

Well, you can have it all, no need to limit yourself to stereo. At any rate, no fallacy, your opinion is just not factual.

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 264
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Agrippa » 12 Sep 2019 15:37

You are cathegorically stating that it's not factual that I and others I know prefer stereo to multi-channel? Okaaayyyy.... It's vaguely tempting to ask on what basis that ludicrous statement is made, but I don't think I'll bother as the terms factual and fallacy obviously mean nothing to you.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 13 Sep 2019 11:40

I am stating your preference is not what the market for recorded music and video in general want today. They want Surround Sound.

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 264
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Agrippa » 13 Sep 2019 18:36

Which wasn't my point at all. No need to reply, I'm out.

terry-a
senior member
senior member
Posts: 924
Joined: 05 Jan 2013 03:11

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by terry-a » 14 Sep 2019 16:57

I find it hard to believe the "market" wants recorded music in surround sound. I'd be interested in seeing documentation that suggests this is the case.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 15 Sep 2019 12:55

The market wants equipment to enjoy surround sound. From 1989 to 2004 my advertising agency represented 2 midwestern audio/video retail chains. In that period the market for audio and the market for video (VCRs) became integrated via the AVR and Multi-channel Prepro, which destroyed stereo equipment sales; and, today, with their multi-channel equipment, folks want multi-channel music to enjoy from their home theater systems but music producers resist offering it. That's now changing because indeed multi-channel does have more breadth and depth than stereo causing folks who become aware of it to seek it out. In other works folks don't prefer stereo over multi-channel, it just that it's all the market for recorded music has been offered by record producers for the most part since stereo's inception.

terry-a
senior member
senior member
Posts: 924
Joined: 05 Jan 2013 03:11

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by terry-a » 15 Sep 2019 14:50

That's mind boggling.

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 728
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by Sterling1 » 16 Sep 2019 08:54

Revised post for grammar and clarity: The market wants equipment to enjoy surround sound from videos and music. From 1989 to 2004 my advertising agency represented 2 midwestern audio/video retail chains. In that period the market for audio and the market for video (VCRs) merged via the AVR and Multi-channel Prepro, which destroyed stereo equipment sales; and, today, with their multi-channel equipment, folks want multi-channel music to enjoy from their home theater systems but music producers resist offering it. That's now changing because multi-channel is no longer costly; and, it has more breadth and depth than stereo, causing folks who become aware of it to seek it out. In other words, folks don't prefer stereo over multi-channel, it's just that stereo is all the market for recorded music has been offered by record producers for the most part since stereo's inception. The exceptions, early quad excursions and even multi-channel SACD in the early 2000's, were costly, not fully standardized, and resisted by retailers. At any rate, the bottom line is when there is no choice there can be no preference.

raphaelmabo
long player
long player
Sweden
Posts: 1827
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 21:01
Location: Askersund, Sweden
Contact:

Re: SACD vs. SACD Hybrid

Post by raphaelmabo » 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.