Headphone Amp for SACD

[Charismatic 0]

Hi all,

 

Need advice from fellow forumers again.

 

From the specification of my creek headphone amp, the frequency range is

20hz-20khz. However, the frequency range for SACD is 5hz - 100khz. Thus, the question is that is my creek amp sufficient for SACD?

 

I had listened Norah Jones' and SONY demo SACDs with the xindak scd-2 and my creek amp at Xaudio. Comparing the Norah Jones SACD and Norah Jones CD, SACD was more ear pleasing and not fatigue and I actually turned the volume up from my normal 9 o'clock to 10-11 o'clock(that's loud), trying to get more.

 

Thanks a lot.

[fuwen 0]

I do not think that you need a special headamp for SACD listening, at least for the time being. The limit of human hearing is 20Hz to 20kHz so anything beyond u probably cannot hear (for normal people). I owned a SACD player and have seen a filter switch behind and apparently manufacturer recommended to use the filter when used with conventional equipment. Apparently with the filter off may damage some equipment (maybe speakers, I am not sure).

 

Most of the equipement I have seen are spec at 20-20kHz (speakers have a narrower range). Not sure about those very high end equipment like Gryphon or FM Acoustics.

 

Despite all these u can, at least after a while, clearly hear the difference of the SACD even when compared to XRCD. But unfortunately due to bad recording u are still likely to get a SACD that sounds horrible. So with very much more SACD titles available now u cannot assume all SACD recordings are good recordings.

[Charismatic 0]

Bad recording is independent from the format it's eventually copied to. Bad singer won't sing well with the best mic in the world.

 

In general, I would prefer to go for new recording SACD than those re-mastered SACD from vintage record.

[Rameish 0]

I'll share what little I know about audio recording.

 

The final quality (or lack of) on CDs, SACDs, DVD-A discs, LPs etc depends on several factors:

The original recording, quality of master tapes and post-production work done to it. It is independent of the actual equipment used. Master recordings of most Miles Davis stuff is generally very good to excellent while Santana's Supernatural albulm done recently sucks (the recording not the music).

 

So to blanket all old recordings as unsuitable for SACD not accurate while the latest digital equipment do not ensure good recordings. Just remember that Vinyl has no compression and till today tube hi-fi survives and is still thriving. Some of the best mics in the world are also tube mics. In short - dont right off old technology just because it's old - it has the least number of bugs because it has been debugged over a 50 - 100 year period. LOL

 

It boils down to the human element. There are excellent audio engineers and some that just suck. Soundtracks from movies are far more diffcult to produce well because of multiple layering. Individual groups of musicians are often recorded seperately and put togeher with the final product.

 

 

[iconic 0]

rameish, which sacds would you say are excellect quality? i have,

 

beck - seachange

ryan adams - gold

charles mingus - mingus ah um

bob dylan - blonde on blodone

pink floyd - dsotm

miles davis - kind of blue

carole king - tapestry

 

sort of what to get a reference. i really like the ryan adams sacd.

[jasonhanjk 0]

Tube sound nice but SACD sound accurate. All boils down to own personal tastes.

 

I like tubes....

[Charismatic 0]

Maybe u could consider getting a tube SACD player like shanling or xindak.

[Mackie 0]

Btw, do U known what's the idealogy (at large) behind SACD format? It's to avoid the somewhat cold and clinical sound of conventional cds and bring forth a sound closer to that of analogue ie. vinyl minus the clicks/pops and scratches. I've sat thru a high-end turntable and equivalently priced SACD shootout and the former wins hands down. Surprisingly the margin is not very wide but I must agree SACD format does warrant survival and it should thrive for being able to introduce an analogue sound from digital medium.

 

Back to the selection of amp for SACD sources, the spec 20-20K merely implies that the equipment is capable of covering the human's audio spectrum. Most (if not all) of us won't be able to hear the entire range and at the end, it's the quality of the sound one can physical hear which is paramount. This fact will help U to avoid the pitfalls of salemanship and misleading advertising on magazines.

[peekarwe 0]

Back to the selection of amp for SACD sources, the spec 20-20K merely implies that the equipment is capable of covering the human's audio spectrum. Most (if not all) of us won't be able to hear the entire range and at the end, it's the quality of the sound one can physical hear which is paramount. This fact will help U to avoid the pitfalls of salemanship and misleading advertising on magazines.

I haven't heard a better statement to persuade anyone from basing their purchase on the specs! I used to use an example of a telephone. Human voice range is in the low 2-3KHz. The phone is able to handle that, but why does your hifi sound better? Simply because of the fact that in that 2-3KHz, there is more quality in the hifi.

 

CDs today are rated from 20Hz to 20KHz anyway, higher specs equipment can't add details to whatever isn't already on the disc. If the high specs equipment sounds better, it's because it's good at handling the 20-20KHz range, not because it can handle the range outside. So, even a headphone amp (20-20KHz) will benefit a SACD player (5-100KHz), because it helps the range that matters.