SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel

Tbg/Rcprince: You state that comparing a Sony SACD player is not a fair comparison with a machine such as the Linn Sondek CD12. Why wouldn't this be a fair comparison? The SACD format from reading all of the posts up above is supposed to be superior to redbook. So reagrdless of how good my cd player can play redbook cd's, shouldn't it still be a step down from even an average SACD player? This in itself I thought was the actual argument.

Through all the useless babble and arguing I feel Rittori did hit on quite a few good points. What is too bad is that there haven't been too many good rebuttals to these points that were made.

A few points I felt were valid on Ritteri's and others behalf include,

1. SACD's poor high frequency reproduction ability
2. Poor linear noise floor throughout the audible range and beyond
3. Future potential
4. Current lack of sound quality improvements over Redbook
5. Lack of good software

I added in #3 because personally 96khz is in reality not a very big jump up from standard 44.1khz. DVD-A intrigues me with its 192khz sampling rate which has alot more potential than SACD and its very low linear noise floor, there is alot more potential here, whether it ever takes off is anyone's guess.

As for my SACD player not being a current high end model, I don't doubt it. But the Accuphase DP-77 did nothing more to further my current findings, and this is considered to be a very high quality unit which I also had on loan for a few weeks last month.

If I had the choice over again, I would not have purchased the SACD unit. I would rather spend a few thousand more on an excellent redbook player which already has a huge software base with proven sound over a next generation SACD player with lots of question marks about its future and sound potential.

Ben, have you listened to an MF,Krell, Linn ect hi end sacd player?

You are not the only one in this thread using the worldwide approach to peddle your opinion.
It just so happens that worldwide includes Europe and that is what the sales data article is about.

I am sure you are right about the total including el cheapo players but the total for dvd-a is made up of 99.8% el cheapo players and still SACD has outsold dvd-a players 4 to 1 in Europe.
If I meant Ben only, I would single you out.

I do not expect SACD to be a dominant format whith so much free music available to those who just want music and quality be dammed.

I also think you Ben, should at least hear a few quality sacd players and discs before ever even giving an opinion on the format when comparing an el cheapo SACD player to a hi end redbook player.

Instead, your opinion reads that an el cheapo bottom of the line SACD player does not sound as good to your ears as a very hi end redbook player...therefore the technology is flawed.

http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/showvote.cgi?333

http://dvdaudiodaily.com/cgi-bin/FrameIt.cgi?Url=http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0903/03.wea.shtml&ConfigFile=FrameIt.cfg

Good reading........

Durham: On your first point, I would say that, perhaps unlike others, I don't consider the differences between CD and SACD (or 24/96 DADs I've heard) to be earthshaking or of a magnitude that would dwarf the use of a substantially better analog stage and power supplies, which the Linn and Burmester have in spades. They are more subtle in my view, but the end result is that I find the music more compelling and relaxing to listen to with both SACD and DADs than CD. Part of this may stem from my preference for analog and vinyl, which the high-rez formats seem to get closer to, and my preference for classical and acoustic music, which I think tend to show better the new formats' strengths. Were I to listen principally to electronic or rock music, I might prefer CD's comparatively "sharper", for lack of a better word, sound. So I would respectfully disagree with your point; I think a better comparison to hear the differences in the formats would be to use the same player for both SACD and CD playback (preferably something at the EMM Labs or dCS level of quality, given what you're used to in the redbook format), otherwise I think you're introducing too many variables.

On the numbered points you made:

1. Don't really hear it, but my hearing dies at about 12khz and I tend to think most recordings sound too bright anyway compared to live music, so I'm not bothered.

2. I use a Purcell upsampler for redbook, which adds a lot of noise to the signal but makes it sound better to me, so I'm not bothered by this concern either.

3. You make a good point. Most of the recording studios are geared to pcm, so they would not have to make the substantial investment in DSD recording equipment to be able to use the 24/96 medium. In that respect, it may be that pcm will ultimately win the day, although given the public's lack of a cry for anything better than MP3 and the continued lack of any really strong leadership to promote the high-rez pcm format, I doubt that either of the new formats will be more than a niche format unless something changes.

4. As I mentioned, I do hear the improvements, but acknowledge that they are more noticeable with better equipment (particularly power supplies and high quality analog stages) and are more of the subtle sorts of things that make listening worthwhile to me.

5. If you're a rock fan, I agree. There's a good deal of classical software being released from good labels with good musicians that more than satisfies me, though. Could always be more, but I've still got vinyl and CD versions to listen to in the meantime.

In the end, if the differences aren't enough to move you when you listen to music (and that's what this is all about), I think your last point probably makes good sense at this juncture, although if you already own a Sondek you're going to have trouble improving on it--why not spend the money on more music?