The Secret Life Of Super Audio Compact Discs (SACDs)

Not many people are aware that non-expensive SACD players convert DSD to PCM. For the audiophile, this is a no-go. But it’s true: SACDs are VERY expensive compared to CDs (a SACD can easily cost me 37 Euros, sometimes 50 Euros, a CD between 6 Euros [back catalogue] to 19 Euros [new arrivals]. The same holds true for really good SACD players, which can handle DSD without revonverting it to PCM, which normally cost several thousand. Considering that my last stereo set (Accuphase / Dynaudio) served me for 33 years without complaint, I didn’t mind investing some money in a new high-end stereo set recently. It will give me endless pleasure and presumably survive me. Since 1985 I have collected about 4000 CDs, of which maybe 250 are SACDs.

I think it’s the combination of a superb recording in the first place, plus pristine audio sources for the reissue, excellent re-mastering and the use of DSD and SACD plus first-class audio equipment for play-back that makes for a perfect listening experience. Whether SHM makes a good recording and mastering better, I cannot judge. In theory, a single layer (instead of 3 layers) should diminish possible interferences and make it easier for the laser unit to fulfil its task, but this is just speculation.
P.S. By the way, there are some interesting videos on the website of PS Audio on DSD und the SACD; look for “Ask Paul [McGowan] videos” (summer 2020).

I’m a real advocate of DSD but SACD is a really bad way of trying to champion it. It’s 21 year old technology using DSD64 spec’ whilst most DSD recordings these days utilise DSD256 meaning a down modulation to get them on the format. Also most SACD capable players convert the DSD to PCM anyway. The best thing about the format was the multi-channel ability.

I’m a huge fan of SACDs. Sony continues to frustrate the hell out of me when they develop something only to forget about it. My listening format preferences are usually vinyl first, SACD second. Good 5.1 SACDs sound truly amazing. All of the Elton John releases are standouts, as are the San Francisco Symphony Mahler performances. With “Tapestry” Carole King is “ in the room with me.” Crazy good.

I think most of us would agree that excellent mastering makes a bigger difference than more bits and a higher bitrate. Yes, I’d rather have a SACD than a CD (or LP) but first you have to have great masterering.

I got into these for a couple of years and a few of them really are mind blowing good. But mostly I had to listen hard & studiously to be pleased with what they offered & in the end the payoff wasn’t worth it for me.

Fun fact – the Playstation 3 can recognize and play SACDs. So, if you have a PS3 hooked up to your sound system, you don’t necessarily have to get a dedicated SACD player.

The SACD format was a typical Sony adventure. Sony and Philips come up with some really great developments and then keep them sort of a secret. I remember reading an article back in the 1990’s and that was it. Last year, with the launch of the Marantz “Ruby” SACD player and partner amplifier released, I “re-discovered” the format and delved into it.

The Classical SACD re-releases of the 1950’s RCA “Living Stereo” releases brought my wife to tears from emotion, that the CD track could not. It is an amazing format that can have a terrific market for those that appreciate great audio. And yes, the production and care at mixing plays a huge factor. I do now own a few “meh” discs now and wonder what they were thinking. I actually went to the front panel of the player to make sure I was in SACD mode.

It’s fairly obvious from the (otherwise good) article that many SACD releases of the recent years are under-represented in Discogs, in particular releases from Japan and in classical / opera / baroque where Discogs is not as big as in pop-rock.

Another element to highlight is that SACDs can be ripped, thanks to the work of a small group of people on tech forums around the world. So SACDs have become much more user-friendly and the musical content can be ripped to high resolution FLAC or WAV files fairly easily nowadays, which was not the case in the early 00s. This contributes to creating a small but active collectors’ market for the existing catalogue.

Mobile Fidelity continues to successfully release hybrid SACDs. Even on average equipment the SACD is clearly better (if an SACD player is the gear).

As for Discogs, we’re selling one or two every day- even some without any of the original packaging.

Argh! The infamous Meyer-Moran study was *NOT* specifically about SACD; it was about whether people could detect high resolution recordings downconverted to 16/44.1 SACD and DVD-A just happened to be the only widely-adopted consumer formats for high resolution audio at the time.