room for improvement for digital source?

[electrostatic_guy]

Hi all,

as my 30 year old Quad 66 cd player got problems I had to replace it. I bought a secondhand Marantz SA7001KI Super Audio CD Player (2009) but I had bad luck as sometimes it doesn't read a cd. It seems unreliable and therefore I bought a secondhand Onkyo DX-7355 cd player as this got a positive review by @NTTY and this player was very affordable compared to the Marantz.

I have one recording on both cd and SACD (separate discs), and played them both at the same time on the Marantz and the Onkyo. I bypassed the MiniDSP 2x4 HD wich I normally use to filter to my electrostatic loudspeaker and dynamic dipole line-array-woofers to exclude the extra ADC/DAC. (it is connected between the pre-out and power in of my Quad amps) So 2 cd players were connected to my Quad pre-amp, which was connected to the Quad main amp, which was connected to my DIY electrostatic panels which ran in full range mode. The Marantz played in SACD mode.

Both me and my girlfriend were unable to detect a difference in sound (quality).

That makes me question what the use of this SACD format / player is? The Marantz is way heavier, looks bulky, compared to the Onkyo, and was about six times as expensive, even secondhand. I'm aware of the Wikipedia page and other articles about double blind testings where about 50% participants were unable to hear any difference between the formats, only trained listeners were able to hear a slight difference. Or could it be the mastering of this particular recording which doesn't show the full potential of the SACD format?

Another question is if there is any room for audible improvement in my signal path? For instance, would an external DAC result in an audible improvement, of just a different digital source?

 

[LTig]

I have one recording on both cd and SACD (separate discs), and played them both at the same time on the Marantz and the Onkyo. I bypassed the MiniDSP 2x4 HD wich I normally use to filter to my electrostatic loudspeaker and dynamic dipole line-array-woofers to exclude the extra ADC/DAC. (it is connected between the pre-out and power in of my Quad amps) So 2 cd players were connected to my Quad pre-amp, which was connected to the Quad main amp, which was connected to my DIY electrostatic panels which ran in full range mode. The Marantz played in SACD mode.

Both me and my girlfriend were unable to detect a difference in sound (quality).

That makes me question what the use of this SACD format / player is?

There is no advantage at all for the user. If both CD and SACD layer are based on the same master they will sound identical.

The Marantz is way heavier, looks bulky, compared to the Onkyo, and was about six times as expensive, even secondhand. I'm aware of the Wikipedia page and other articles about double blind testings where about 50% participants were unable to hear any difference between the formats, only trained listeners were able to hear a slight difference. Or could it be the mastering of this particular recording which doesn't show the full potential of the SACD format?

If the SACD master sounds better than a CD version based on the same master would also sound better, identical to SACD.

Another question is if there is any room for audible improvement in my signal path? For instance, would an external DAC result in an audible improvement, of just a different digital source?

No.

 

[Mart68]

Aside from the potential multi-channel capability there's no inherent benefit to the SACD format over CD - any differences to the CD version are due to mastering (many recordings were remastered specifically for their release on SACD).

Sony (et al) did sell the format as being superior at the time of launch, regrettably with advertising copy containing many blatant untruths.

 

[pinger]

CD players all sound the same. As the two posters said SACD vs CD is also the same

 

[DSJR]

CD players all sound the same. As the two posters said SACD vs CD is also the same

NO, THEY BLOODY DON'T - at least 1980s and some popular 1990s models don't!!!!! SA-CD masters are rarely identical to the red book versions and sometimes, it was a good excuse to go back and beneficially tweak eq and so on to get a better tone - Martin Colloms did spectral analysis on a few early discs and found eq differences in a number of them (I can't remember the HFN issue I'm afraid).


To @electrostatic_guy


Back to the Quad 66, which I always used with a mains filter with sighted benefit (!!!). Can Quad do anything for it these days? If the laser has failed it may be curtains perhaps, but dry joints and general servicing may be possible and I used one as a full playback machine as well as (excellent) transport for a good while. The 'sound' was straight down the line Philips and basically 'honest' I feel. Well worth asking Quad's now excellent service department if any work is possible on it!

 

[sergeauckland]

NO, THEY BLOODY DON'T - at least 1980s and some popular 1990s models don't!!!!! SA-CD masters are rarely identical to the red book versions and sometimes, it was a good excuse to go back and beneficially tweak eq and so on to get a better tone - Martin Colloms did spectral analysis on a few early discs and found eq differences in a number of them (I can't remember the HFN issue I'm afraid).

Let me put it this way... I have never heard differences in sound of CD players going back to 1984! I would also like to know which players going back to 1983 didn't have a flat frequency response to within 1dB to 20kHz, vanishingly low distortion and noise, so what's there to sound different?

S

 

[somebodyelse]

CD players all sound the same. As the two posters said SACD vs CD is also the same

That's the sort of blanket statement that causes problems because of the unstated assumptions. It assumes modern, decently engineered and fully working CD players and undamaged CDs. It also assumes the same master is used on SACD and CD, which often isn't the case as others have mentioned.

Ability to play damaged CDs isn't the same on all players, but often isn't included in reviews. See the 'Testing the drive' section of @NTTY's reviews for examples, the TASCAM CD-200 being notable as the first drive to be able to play all the tracks on the error test CD.

Old players in need of a service may not work properly.

Ability to play discs that aren't Red Book compliant (so technically not CDs) is variable. These are from the time that labels were trying various tricks to stop ripping of discs with PC CD drives. Unfortunately as some CD players were using PC drive mechanisms, especially in cars, this had the side effect of stopping them playing in those too.

Ability to play gapless can no longer be taken for granted unfortunately. To me that's just poor engineering.

 

[DSJR]

Let me put it this way... I have never heard differences in sound of CD players going back to 1984! I would also like to know which players going back to 1983 didn't have a flat frequency response to within 1dB to 20kHz, vanishingly low distortion and noise, so what's there to sound different?

S

EFF the frequency response Actually, there's enough HiFi Choice and I recall, HFN tests which show the ultrasonic mush that many early players spewed out, which I'm sure could react with the often terrible IMD figures of amps back then (or the crude band limiting filters). I think we may tend to forget how much 'cleaner' amps are these days and much better the filters in dacs can be.

The rest of you should ignore this post as it goes totally against the ethos of many opinions here

Compare any of the early far eastern players (not the first Sony) from, say, Yamaha, with the Philips 14 bit and then cheaper 16 bit models, a Sony 502/552/555 with a Marantz CD94, or most 1980s Arcams ('voiced' to be used with the Audioquest mid priced RCA cables they imported). Oh, and what about earlier 'Bitstream' players and dacs with their soft velvety tones which could 'sound' cloying on some music. Come on Serge, you were a dealer too, but maybe using orchestral rather than close-up pop/rock/post-punk music as ultimate source material. (if you have the first issue of the Meridian 501 preamp, try to compare it with the 502 using music with a nice reverb or venue atmosphere. If you can hear a difference as I felt I could repeatedly and with different samples, this is what I'm banging on about The 501mk2 'sounded' identical to the 502s we'd had on dem, but no idea what was done inside)...

Yes, I was given a cheaper-chunky-plastic Philips machine not that long ago and it 'sounded' fine to me. I think it was a CD560 with mech and dac parts similar to the Quad 66 I think. I have an old Denon 1520 which works and 'sounds' honest and was surprised thatthe later and once well liked DCD 1510 'sounded' exactly the same despite far greater simplicity and a less slick mechanism.

Back then, the above mattered to me. It DOESN'T now, but the memories of comparisons I did many times stay strong. I'm delighted with the basic but well performing dacs I have (DS2 and SU1) and don't use the stuff enough to want better facilities or display etc. My audio-journey ended many years ago and I'm happy enough

 

[raindance]

You should make sure that the SACD player is actually playing the SACD layer and in DSD format. It's amazing how many people I've visited have an SACD player set to read only the CD layer (and they can STILL hear the difference, lol).

 

[DVDdoug]

as my 30 year old Quad 66 cd player got problems I had to replace it. I

Have you considered "ripping" your CDs? At least as a backup? That will allow you to play them on your computer, portable player, phone, etc.

If you rip to WAV or FLAC using an application that supports AccurateRip it can confirm that the data is bit-identical to the CD (or not).

SACDs (or the SACD layer) are copy protected so ripping is not straightforward. (I don't own any SACDs and I've never tried it.)

In case you don't know... FLAC is lossless compression. The files are almost half the size of the uncompressed WAV and as a bonus "tagging" (embedded title/artist/album/artwork/etc.) is better standardized & supported than for WAV.

And if you ever want a different format, you can make copies in any other lossless or lossy format. A good quality MP3 is about 1/5th the size of a CD quality WAV, and although it has a bad reputation among "audiophiles" it often sounds identical to the uncompressed original (in proper blind listening tests) or you have to listen very carefully and A/B to hear any difference. A lot of people keep a FLAC archive and then make MP3s for "portable use". MP4 (=M4A =ACC) is also lossy but it's supposed be an advancement over MP3.

Both me and my girlfriend were unable to detect a difference in sound (quality).

Good!!! Most people perceive a difference even when there isn't one! That's why you need controlled-blind listening tests.

 

[Robin L]

Hi all,

as my 30 year old Quad 66 cd player got problems I had to replace it. I bought a secondhand Marantz SA7001KI Super Audio CD Player (2009) but I had bad luck as sometimes it doesn't read a cd. It seems unreliable and therefore I bought a secondhand Onkyo DX-7355 cd player as this got a positive review by @NTTY and this player was very affordable compared to the Marantz.

I have one recording on both cd and SACD (separate discs), and played them both at the same time on the Marantz and the Onkyo. I bypassed the MiniDSP 2x4 HD wich I normally use to filter to my electrostatic loudspeaker and dynamic dipole line-array-woofers to exclude the extra ADC/DAC. (it is connected between the pre-out and power in of my Quad amps) So 2 cd players were connected to my Quad pre-amp, which was connected to the Quad main amp, which was connected to my DIY electrostatic panels which ran in full range mode. The Marantz played in SACD mode.

Both me and my girlfriend were unable to detect a difference in sound (quality).

That makes me question what the use of this SACD format / player is? The Marantz is way heavier, looks bulky, compared to the Onkyo, and was about six times as expensive, even secondhand. I'm aware of the Wikipedia page and other articles about double blind testings where about 50% participants were unable to hear any difference between the formats, only trained listeners were able to hear a slight difference. Or could it be the mastering of this particular recording which doesn't show the full potential of the SACD format?

Another question is if there is any room for audible improvement in my signal path? For instance, would an external DAC result in an audible improvement, of just a different digital source?

SACDs appeared at the moment CD sales started a steep decline. Record companies were looking for yet another way to sell the same album all over again to a willing mass of consumers. SACD was sold, in large part, as providing a sonic improvement over Redbook (CD standard). In theory, with greater bit depth and frequency response, it should sound better. But in practice, Redbook already encompasses the limits of human hearing. SACDs also could provide the best source (at the time) for 5.1 surround.

Another reason why SACDs appeared is because Sony (owners of the Columbia records catalog) was looking for a better way to "future proof" its catalog by storing those aging analog tapes in a more secure digital format.

I bought a lot of SACDs when they first appeared, still have about 85 and use a Sony Blu-Ray player that can also play SACD, have a few "single-layer" SACDs that require a SACD player (most SACDs are "hybrid", have a DSD layer and a CD layer, so they can be played on regular CD players).

The "Borders" store where I worked* was carrying SACDs, along with DVD-A and DTS surround CDs, and I found the SACDs sounded better (to these ears) than the CDs of the same titles. Later digital copies—CD, back then—sounded the same as the SACDs. Later digital versions sounded better/different than that (this is where the loudness war comes in). Now I've got Tidal, can hear really recent mastering work without spending much of anything. Some recent mastering work is crazy—AI remixes of early Beatles?

In any case, the differences between earlier CDs and those first SACDs was the quality of the mastering work. Some early CDs had exceptional mastering, most didn't. Those "future proof" digital back-ups had to have the best possible transfer. And those transfers first appeared on the first SACDs.

*2000-2007

 

[kyuu]

NO, THEY BLOODY DON'T - at least 1980s and some popular 1990s models don't!!!!! SA-CD masters are rarely identical to the red book versions and sometimes, it was a good excuse to go back and beneficially tweak eq and so on to get a better tone - Martin Colloms did spectral analysis on a few early discs and found eq differences in a number of them (I can't remember the HFN issue I'm afraid).

That's not the CD player sounding different, that's the master/mix sounding different. The same recording with the same mastering will sound the same if transferred to a CD. There's nothing inherent to the SACD format that results in audibly superior playback except for the potential for multichannel (but again that's still not the CD player making the same exact recordings sound any better, that's just enabling playback of a different recording).

 

[DSJR]

That's not the CD player sounding different, that's the master/mix sounding different. The same recording with the same mastering will sound the same if transferred to a CD. There's nothing inherent to the SACD format that results in audibly superior playback except for the potential for multichannel (but again that's still not the CD player making the same exact recordings sound any better, that's just enabling playback of a different recording).

That's what I said, the SA-CD mix often being different to the red book version

The CD player thing is a different thing again and lost in ancient history now.

 

[NTTY]

Let me put it this way... I have never heard differences in sound of CD players going back to 1984! I would also like to know which players going back to 1983 didn't have a flat frequency response to within 1dB to 20kHz, vanishingly low distortion and noise, so what's there to sound different?

S

Unfortunately, even modern CD players are not below 1dB, and that’s when then use very slow filters, such as the Marantz CD-6007. Many others use slow filters too, including Denon (AL filtering).
Now, that happens above 15kHz, and it would be difficult to hear into music, especially for older ears.
You’re right, most players of the 80’s had a "flat" FR (besides potential ringing due to poor filtering performances, and I still see that in 2025, eg Yamaha CD-S303), it was an engineering desire.
Same as you, I can’t hear a difference between all of them, but I appreciate more what I perceived and measure as a well engineered device

 

[electrostatic_guy]

hi all, thanks for all your responses! This confirms, at least for me, that all cd - and SACD players sound (almost) the same.

 

[Willem]

I think these days the easiest solution is to buy a (UHD)Bluray player with a digital output (sadly that universal anymore). That at least is what I did. The digital stereo audio goes into my ADI-2 (which determines the sound quality), and the video goes to my old plasma screen. The output from the digital cable set top box is connected in the same way. This gives me great audio for stereo music, and great stereo sound for movies and TV. Surround would be nicer for video, but my two Quad electrostat speakers and three subwoofers are large enough already, even in our large lounge. For us, the music takes priority.

 

[dualazmak]

An example objective-subjective comparison case between CD-Red-Book-layer vs. SACD-DSD-layer of same (I believe so) mastering sound in a SACD-CD hybrid disk; if you would be interested, please visit my post #42 on the thread "Does DSD recording benefit Japanese traditional instruments?"