The latest issue of the Music Direct catalog has 15 pages (non-advertising) of SACDs and four pages of DVD-As. They have 14 pages of redbook and 18 pages of vinyl. Of course this is not a reflection of what is available in all formats, but it is a reflection of the marketing to the Audiophile. The point is the SACD catalog of music is growing very quickly and is being marketed to those who have interest in hi-resolution audio playback. As for hardware they have Philips, Music Hall, Berendsen, Marantz, McCormack, Esoteric and Shanling. This is one catalog from one music supplier to the Audiophile. Hardware is a secondary market to this company, yet the variety of players available shows me the market is growing, and more companies are devoting R&D budgets to SACD. If the next two years follow the curve of the past two we will find a whole lot to choose from!
As to the argument continuing on this thread, I feel some important issues have been left out. Ritteri has lead the anti-SACD argument. Its time we look at who is making these comments. Clearly he has some experience in an audio store. Judging from the equipment he has talked about this is a mid/high end store, but clearly not the audiophile level. His comment Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way. Made on 11-21-03 clearly shows his inability to impartially state the facts. All pre-amps color the sound in some way. In the case of Adcom in bi-pass mode and Pass it hardens the sound in my opinion. Edgy and electronic, in comparison to natural and neutral. I continue my analysis of who Ritteri is with his system. Wadia CD player, Aragon amp and Voodoo cables. Can you say harsh and edgy? Im surprised hes not touting Krell, Theta, Ayre and electrostatic speakers, but Im guessing his store is not of the ilk to attract these manufacturers. My point is this equipment is good equipment but clearly not neutral or natural in sound reproduction. My feeling is this is playing into his opinions on the SACD format and his comments on analog.
I ask Ritteri to back off his I know because I work in an audio store platform and realize his view is extremely limited and his taste hardly represenitive of an audiophile. |
Ben, I apoligise as I had forgotten that eventually, you made it clear that your comparisons were done on the cheap Sony and not whith the Ayre.
Others anti SACD posters claim that Sony and Phillips are using inferior Redbook on there SACD players to make the SACD version sound better, yet you say that the redbook version was equal to SACD on a cheap player.
Well....you can't both be right imo.
As far as having to spend 4k or more for decent redbook on a Universal or multi player,I meant to be in the same quality range as your Ayre whith redbook and not an overall rule.
Some are happy whith 2k or less multi player redbook sonics and some are not.
There are cheaper players such as the Phillips 963sa whith full mods that are wonderful SACD and redbook players that compete whith or beat some hi end universal players or multi players for 11-1200.00 total investment for people not wanting to spend 4k or more.
I no that there are dozens of the modified Phillps 963sa's out ther but you never see one for sale.
For those wanting quality SACD and redbook on the cheap. I highly reccomend it.
For those that want great redbook and SACD whithout mods, your going to need to spend some bucks imo.
Another option is a stock player that does SACD well along whith a dac for redbook.
All of the above is just IMHO as I am sure that others will disagree whith some or all of it.
Results from the Stereophool poll listed above.
Have you bought one or both of the high-rez audio formats?
I've got a universal player 15%
I've got a DVD-A player 4%
I've got a SACD player 32%
Don't have either but will soon 12%
Don't have either and don't care 34%
It is very interesting that 51% have some form of hi-rez in there systym.
It is also very interesting that the SACD format has around an 8.5 to 1 advantage over DVD-A among audiophools in this poll.
Most audiophools do not buy cheap multi players but rather mid fi to hi end so the "Got SACD free whith my 200.00 dvd player" argument to boost the SACD sales #'s does not apply here.
I also believe that among the 34% that don't care are a lot of die hard vinyl fans that could care less about any digital format.
This makes the #'s in the poll seem even more crystal clear that among audiophools, SACD has become the hi-rez format of choice.
The poll results closely match everything I have read on several forums since hi-rez arrived.
FYI...I did not vote in the poll. |
High end CD players. If you're looking at the top CD players,
you're talking about the $20,000 Linn, the $40,000 Burmeister, etc.
The redbook playback on the Meitner Emm Labs Dac6 is competitive with those players and many people find the redbook
playback on the Emm Labs to be superior. Still, the SACD playback is even better than the CD playback. It is absolutely false
that high end CD players can beat SACD due to the maturity of
redbook technology or for any other reason. Further, why would a
high end CD player out-perform a low end SACD player? The answer is that, though SACD DOES sample at a rate exponentially
higher than CD, this isn't the ONLY issue with digital playback.
Other issues are; The quality of the transport, jitter, power supply,
quality of the DAC, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who bypasses SACD because a low end SACD player didn't illustrate the advantages of thne medium or because a low end SACD player didn't surpass the playback of a high end CD player with all the attendant advantages of a high end digital player -- is seriously misguided. You don;t want to go around saying that on an audio site -- you need to become informed. An analogy might be hooking up Wilson Watt Puppies to your Sears audio system and then complaining that you don't hear all the detail and air you were promised in the review. You've got to spend some money if you want to enjoy your Watt Puppies and you have to spend some money to hear the advantages of SACD, but if you are in search of
better sound, you aren't going to stick with that Sears audio system
and you aren't going to be happy with CD when you know higher resolution is out there waiting. It would be silly to upgrade your amps, speakers, interconnects, get dedicated circuits, power conditioning, and then say, "but, I am happy with the lower sample
rate and digital gaps of redbook CD, I don't want to spend another grand or two to get a better SACD player." It doesn't make sense. You're spending all that money to get HIGHER resolution. Finally -- again -- I don't know why anyone bothers to try to fortell the future of SACD -- you might as well go into business selling miracle disease cures over the internet -- you'll have a better chance of getting people to believe you have the power to cure Alopecia through a few visits to your web-site to put one's hand on the image of the magic monkey than you will of getting someone to believe you can fortell the future of a new technology. The only issues are -- is SACD superior to CD? Of course it is. Exponentially higher sample rates and more information on the software is better. Is there a SACD player in your price range that gives you the type of CD playback you also find satisfactory? If yes, then get it for the redbook playback and dabble in SACD. I bought the Meitner because it has the best CD playback, the SACD playback is just a great bonus. Are there enough SACD titles to interest you? If no, then avoid the medium until more software comes out, but don't bother preaching to those who are busy listening to some of the 1500+ titles available and enjoying their high end or modified SACD players -- you're wasting your breath. Saying, "I have decided to avoid SACD and that spells death for the medium" is not exactly persuasive. Other technologies have taken off without your help, it stands to reason, so can SACD.
|
Durham: Having been through the LP revolution and the cd revolution, I expect that I never thought the hype for either DVD-A or SACD would hold true. My other comments merely center on my not thinking theoretical criticism of the format has anything to do with its sound. At one time there was an article saying sacd could not work?? I hear what I hear, that is all that matters to me. |
Rcprince: Actually I didn't make any points, I just brought up good points that I feel have some merit to this enjoyable conversation we are all having and nothing more. As to people agreeing or disagreeing to them, the ball is in his or her court to decide that for themselves. But in the end, its all about the music. And yes my CD12 does a great job of letting me enjoy the music. Many times I feel as if I am truely listening to an LP. To me it's that good. I have been looking closely at another cd player too, hopefully I will be able to take a test drive of it before the big holiday arrives. This is all part of the fun in the hobby for me as I am sure it is for many.
Tbg:It is actually very much about the music. Read above.As for the rest of your comments, I am having a bit of difficulty following along except for the software comment. This could be taken as varied opinion no doubt. One person may think the software is lacking, while another party may find the opposite. I personally find it lacking presently. But one thing I will say is that I personally feel that the next generation digital format should be a large step above redbook in terms of sound quality where there isn't this whole "which is better" debate.Everyone should be "moved" by the music from the next format, especially considering how far our technological advancements have come. The fact that this debate exists on this board and many,many others I feel is an argument in itself about how SACD really isn't living up to the hype it had 4-5 years ago in many ways. |
Mejames, The Marantz SA-1, the Lindemann d680, the EMM DAC6, the Exemplar/Denon 2900, and the A. Wright Sony 9000.
Durham, I am sorry, I thought this was about what you heard, not what you read or think. I see none of your points as really relevant even were they true.
1. SACD's poor high frequency reproduction ability
I do not know whether this has some basis, but it certainly is not true relative to what I hear.
2. Poor linear noise floor throughout the audible range and beyond
Again, not to the hearing even if true.
3. Future potential
I do not know where you get the 96 kHz limit on sacds. There is no future beyond 4 or 5 years for any of the digital formats.
4. Current lack of sound quality improvements over Redbook
I thought you said no one had dealt with any of these?
5. Lack of good software
I hope the rate of releases slows up. Buying ten or twenty a month is expensive |
Ears-I apologise if I took your comments personally.
I think the points you make against me have been made many times by yourself and a few others and I think I've answered your particular comments in my thread SACD-my thoughts at this time-it's all there for those who are wish to read it and also my comments above.
It is simply not accurate what you say EARS and I have explained that many many times,I have NEVER made any comparison between my Ayre CX-7 and my Sony SACD player as I've stated before that wouldn't be fair.
I've been over that ad nauseam.
What I have enjoyed seeing is that those who put me forward as the only dissenter on SACD on Audiogon have found that it is simply not the case,there are varying degrees of opinion on the format. |
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? |
http://dvdaudiodaily.com/cgi-bin/FrameIt.cgi?Url=http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0903/03.wea.shtml&ConfigFile=FrameIt.cfg
Good reading........ |
http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/showvote.cgi?333 |
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. |
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. |
Tbg name the 5 players you say best the Sony SCD-1 please? |
Ears I wonder how many of those European players are stand alone SACD/CD machines?
I would think the majority are low end Sony DVD players and indeed the entry level universal machines.
Sure this doesn't mean that the owners won't become SACD supporters but I wouldn't bet on it.
Similarly I would imagine a very large proportion of SACD disc sales this year will be down to the major hybrid releases.
The format clearly has potential to enter into the mainstream in terms of being the dominant format but I doubt that it will happen.
Can you name me one serious SACD machine released this year for a European audiophile to consider in the £2-£3.5k margin?
Believe me I know what is available in the UK better than some sales figures,there was next to nothing to consider to match the Ayre CX-7 I had heard.
There's a real gap in the market from the early high end Sony machines,the early Marantz and indeed the new high end players such as Linn and Krell which have just been released.
Even these real high end players are meeting with mediocre reviews but even avoiding that issue and their incredible price-it would appear from a strategic point of view SACD players are coming out(mainly)on two levels-low cost universal machines and real ultra-high end machines.
I'm answering this because your points are clearly aimed at this European Audiogoner.
I think Rcprince makes some good points above and indeed there is some worthwhile debate on both sides of the fence,if only people could leave out the need to insult each other out.
I'd also like to add despite my so-called anti-SACD tag I do not agree with everything negative written about the format. |
Durham42, comparing a Sony with the Linn is not a fair test, the Linn is arguably the best one-box player out there, at least to my ears, and the Burmester is a top of the line DAC, while the stock Sony is comparable to a Wadia 830/850 level player at best. What was your impression when you listened to both redbook and SACD through the Sony's output stage? That's really the appropriate test.
This thread is too long for me to digest everything said, but I'll throw in my two cents on at least one aspect of the question. As I hinted above, one of the limiting factors in comparing SACD (or DVD-A, for that matter) to redbook CD has been that the best of the high end manufacturers, as well as the recording industry, have spent the last 20 years trying to make redbook CD sound the best it can, but SACD and DVD-A are still in their comparative infancy, and the best of the designers (save Meridian, Ed Meitner and dCS) have not really been willing to throw a lot of money into R&D for formats which might not make it in the marketplace. To some extent the hi-rez situation reminds me of the early days of CD, where there were a lot of modifiers out there who would take major manufacturers' cost-compromised offerings (principally Philips/Magnavox units then, as they were the easiest to work with) and come up with modded units that were far better than the originals but certainly no match for today's players. I see the same going on with hi-rez units (I've had a lot of the mods made to my Sony SACD player). The question is whether the formats will take hold enough for talented designers to devote the time and effort they did to CD; if they do, then you might see the promise both of these formats hold be realized. |
Jackcob I wonder if these arent't same people who cannot hear the difference between 'lamp cord' and hi-end speaker cable???
Ritteri it is obvious from your writing that you are not a very bright person. That may not be your fault. Perhaps you come from poor stock, or you attended the public school and never rose above the quality of your education, or maybe you just chose not to exercise the muscle between your ears. I have no way of knowing the real reason for this distinct lack of understanding, but it is evidenced in your posts. This is not intended as an insult, just a point of reference!
1) There are millions of people who buy music which includes lyrics that are not recording in their erste sprach, or original language! I personally own dozens of recordings in languages other than English (which actually was not my first language) including German, Spanish, French, Hebrew, and Japanese. Some of them I actually bought because of the alternate language! Am I a better person because I own these recordings? No, but... I would never discount the quality of a particular recording because of the language, regardless of whether I even speak that language!
2) If all you listen to is pop music, it's not even worth entering into a dialog with you! How pathetic is top 40 music!?! Did you get the latest Brittany Spears CD?
3) How can a 44.1 kHz recording contain as much information as a 96+ kHz? By definition there is less information on a lower sampled disc! What is the point of spending $5,000-12,000 on a "edge of the art" CDP to get less info from your disc? I have DSOTM and have listened to both formats, or should I say, all three formats since I have the LP also. The LP sounds better than both digital formats. Of the two digital, SACD is better. We could get into a big debate about the Nyquist Theorum, but I'm not sure anyone wants to sit through that!!! If you cannot hear the differnce, refer to my comment to Jackcob!
4) Though digital playback has been around for 20+ years SACD is still in it's infancy, and cannot be compared to a mature technology for the quality of tweaks and improvement. It has always been the companies like Sony who come up with the technology, but it's been the small high end companies who make them worth owning. When high-end companies begin making really good SACDPs then they can be compared to the best of the current CDPs.
5) It wasn't a good thing then, and it's still not now!
If people were forced fed SACD like they were Redbook CD this would not be an issue, but I think the fact that people are given a choice by Sony/Philips shows that they beleive in the medium.
6) How can you take offense at someone questioning a terrible example on your part, and reduce yourself to Ad Hominom attacks. It only calls into question your own intelligence!
7) The problem isn't that people are missing your point about SACD not being as good as Redbook CD, this issue is that you are wrong! I realize (at least I think I do) that your scientific background is poor, and therefore you are not aware of the lack of substance in your generalizations, but news flash: believing something does not make it true!
I hope we can set aside this fruitless arguement now. Perhaps you can go and do some studying with your spare time, or maybe the solution is as simple as having your hearing checked. Doctors say that most people already experience serious hearing loss before they become aware of the problem. Give it a try!
Hey Ritteri what do they call a person who can speak two languages? A: Bi Lingual
What do they call a person who can speak several languages? A: Multi Lingual
What do they call a person who can speak one language? A: American! |
No... I would say that a lot of the dribble posted in this thread is more akin to National Enquier whith no basis in reality whatsoever.
Anyone who claims or thinks that DVD-A is even close in sales......is wrong by a long shot.
BTW..I find DVD-A to sound too sterile as compared to the natural sounding SACD format.
I would love to see some dvd-a #'s from anywhere that back up any claims made in this thread, and whith Warner selling its music division, who will be the major backer of DVD-A besides Merridian?
I believe DVD-A is all but done and the format is a major money loser and the Wall Street Journal is not required to know this...just common sense.
How many hi end dvd-a players are there exactly.....two as far as I know and that says a lot. |
Wow, "Industry reports" from a "Sony webiste". Getting news from a Sony website is like reading the National Enquirer.
Sony has never grossly inflated numbers before right people?........... :yawn:
As for those Sales numbers again very misleading. The Sales numbers are purchase orders from dealerships for past and present orders(and knowing Sony, probably future orders that may or may not be filled), not the actual people who own a SACD player. I bet the number of actual people who own a SACD player numbers is in the 10's of thousands at best.
Want real info on how well SACD does? Check out the Wall Street Journal and other trade publishings. Your going to get a better picture of the real story.
People here should be rooting for DVD-A anyway. Its potential is so much greater vs. the crippled SACD format. |
Durham, I think you need to try newer sacd players. I have had five sacd players since my SCD-1. Each was substantially better than the Sony. I know there are mods to the SCD-1 which can substantially improve it also.
In my experience the DVD-A at best was a failed experiment, with the industry so undercutting it performance in their concern with copying as to make it unlistenable. |
Industry reports show strong sales of SACD players whith the European installed base having doubled from 1 million to 2 million in the last 8 months.
There are now more than 65 SACD models from 28 manufactuers available.
Several other manufactuers are introducing sacd models before the end of the year.
Super Audio players have exceeded DVD-A by a 4 to 1 margin.
This info is available at www.superaudio-cd.com
If these are the European #'s were supposedly SACD is not popular [according to some in this thread] then just think what the U.S. #'s are.
If there is over 65 sacd models in Europe whith more on the way, then the U.S has at least that many models. |
I can see why some people might think that SACD is not a big enough improvement over Redbook CD to warrant changing formats. But having listened to both, I have a hard time understanding why people think that Redbook CDs are no improvement and that some Redbook CDs are actually better. To me SACDs generally sound significantly better, and I would be happy if they replace the now 20 years old Redbook standard. |
|
Being the owner of both a Sony SCD-1 SACD player and a Linn Sondek CD12 along with a Burmeister DAC I will have to give the nod to redbook cd's still. SACD has been a big dissapointment in my household, the few SACD discs I have picked up were no better than any of my current cd's in my collection in terms of overall sound quality and listening enjoyment, and quite a few of them I felt sounded poor in comparison to their inferior "redbook" counterparts. In fact 2 of the local hi-fi shops in the area have stopped carrying SACD players altogether due to poor sales and very mixed feelings on their true ability. Lp's and cd's are still the top 2 formats from my many hours of listening experience and will continue to be in the forseeable future. I have been intrigued by DVD-A audio and its potential but I have yet to see much interest to date. It would be nice to see this format take off. |
With the possible exception of the TEAC D70 and P70 duo, I have had but one instance where cd is the better of sacd. Pink Floyd DSOTM. I have had some exception units, such as the Meitner DAC6, the Lindemann, and the Allen Wright Sony 9000 where the cd is much improved, but so was sacd.
I think the success of sacd indicates that all it criticism is off the mark. I know with my ears that sacd is substantially superior to cds.
On AA high res was split into dvd-a and sacd, because of the intensity of argument over which is superior. Out of curiosity when I got a Exemplar/Denon 2900 universal player I bought two dvd-a with music to my taste. I cannot stand them and will buy no more. I have been told that the older format, DAD, sounds superior to DVDA so I am going to try some of these Classic and AIX releases. |
From MUCH experience with good SACD's and good DVD-Audio discs played through many high-end systems, I have to say that I prefer DVD-Audio consistantly to SACD.Good SACD's sound wonderful, but they just don't impress me as much or move me as emotionally as a good DVD-Audio disc does!
My friends agree with me also about this.I EXPECTED SACD to sound better than DVD-Audio considering all the Glowing reviews and hype from Sony,etc!But, the real proof is in the listening!The first time I listened to a few great SACD's I thought:"SACD sounds really good, better than most CD's".The first time I heard DVD-Audio, I thought WOW!I kept listening to the same disc and other DVD-Audio discs over and over!I personally think a top-notch Dvd-Audio disc played through a high-end system sounds better than a top 'red-book' CD, SACD, or Analog in any form!If I had my choice, I would go with DVD-Audio any day!! |
Little Milton: And to keep this thread rolling here is an exerpt from an article which is basically a CD vs. SACD vs DVDA article:
Introduction
For a while I have been interested to find out how good the new high resolution formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio really are? I have visited some demonstrations, but not been impressed which may be due to other causes than the sound formats.
After reading many replies at different forums, it seemed like many audiophiles considered SACD to be better than DVD-Audio. I also thought so until recently read what Ing. Öhman wrote in the Swedish Audio Technical Society * journal
(*A non-profit organisation for sharing interest and knowledge in audio and sound reproduction)
The following are quoted from what Ing. Öhman wrote in the journal:
"It is nothing less than a tragedy that Sony/Philips system SACD still is considered to be a real competitor to DVD-A, though it has lower real resolution than the CD-system in the highest octave.
DVD-A does absolutely offer a much higher dynamic range than CD, but it is very questionable if SACD does.
SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter.
On the contrary, DVD-A is in theory 250 times better than the CD-system at all frequencies!
In todays reality though, it is hard to achieve such hyper-resolution, but maybe in the future? If the potential exists, recording and playback technology can evolve. Today the DVD-A resolution is about 16 times better than the CD-system and the bandwidth extends up to 100 kHz to be compared with 22,050 Hz for CD."
Now I became curious! This is the opposite of what I thought. I asked Öhman for a follow up ...
You can get the full scoop here:http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
Though I dont expect you to fully read this article(let alone understand alot of the BIG LONG words), I will plug up a few more to keep in interesting. SACD has alot more limitations than most people realize, and its very sad and true that they are even considered by MANY to be inferior to CD's in a few important ways(noise, high frequency reproduction etc). Cant wait for another intelligent "rebuttal" from ya! You just email me when you have that hundred bucks saved up.......
|
Little Milton: You are a serious retard arent you? SO when are you going to name off some of my lists from up earlier? Still cant find more than a couple dozen SACD players?
In rebuttal to your 7 useless points from not thoroughly reading my above earlier posts
1. My opinion holds alot more weight than your poor rebuttals that have yet to show any significant intelligence whatsoever.
2. Once again you take a "figurative statement"(do you even know what a figurative statement is?) and show the true size of your small brain.
3. And SACD is?? LOL!
4. Already named off quite a few up above, but once again you show the "horse blinds" that are stuck to your head. SInce I already know that you have never truely heard a top tier CDP, this argument with you is a moot point.
5. Intellect? And you have shown some with your child like remarks?
6. I wouldnt expect someone like you to understand a poor analogy, you have yet to show any ability to take one's words in proper context.
But to put all of this aside I would be willing to put up $10,000 of my money vs. a measly $100 of your money that you couldnt tell the difference between a SACD player or high end CDP. In fact I would be willing to extend that bet that you couldnt tell the difference between a DAT tape or a SACD player. I have a few DAT units too.....
SO you want to make a quick "easy" $10k? Im dead serious and invite you to my place to show me how good you think your ears(and wit) really are. Bring your SACD player and your favorite SACD's(which have a CD counterpart)and well see if you walk away $10k richer. Just let me know if you need me to call a local newspaper to see if they have a paper route in your area where you can make a few extra bucks to save up that $100 on your end.......... |
I like Little Milton! Well, at least so far. But in these parts, you're only as good as your last post.
-IMO |
1) This is YOUR opinion, which matters to such an insignificant few, and is a poor argument. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else is wrong! Stating your personal preference as a universal maxim, however, is consistent with your foolish pride and arrogance oozing from your every post.
2) Poor argument! Most CD's aren'the top 40, if you want to use that logic! How about top 40 DVDA'a? Does one even exist?! Talk trash about SACD's when one can throw even more trash at DVDA? Yer not being careful enough, making rebuttals far too easy.
3) Many would argue that the info is NOT on the disc. Your upsampling, downsampling, interpolation, extrapolation, reincarnation or whatever you wish to do with the data is artificail filling in of all the blanks, it's not high fidelity in the truest sense.
4) You still haven't given us a list of your so-called SUPERIOR redbook CD's that clearly better a SACD. I'm sure we're all still waiting....
5) This makes no sense. You sure are opinionated, but saddly you can't see that your opinion carry with it no water for an intellectual argument.
6) This makes less sense, but the argumentation approach at least is consistent.
7) The only appears to be one person here "missing it completely...." |
Nrchy: Though I applaud your response, there are some area's that need to be adressed.
1. Why non-English titles should be removed from the list.
I personally listen to music written in my native tongue(assuming were talking about music with VOCALS here)as most people do. Im sure there are sime bi lingual people, but this is a very small minority comparitively.
2. Alot of the SACD titles arent even popular music or top 40. Not all of us listen to 25 different variations of "Allegro" or even care to. Get the point?
3. 44.1 is/was/whatever known to be undersampled, but with some of the breakthru's of the edge of the art cd players, CD is proving that there is still life and has shown to have just as much musical information as some of the newer formats currently.
One such example I have used on occasion for people who want a demonstration is the DSOTM CD from Pink Floyd. Maybe with a basic cdp its only so-so compared to an SACD version. But with a few SERIOUS high end CDP's the SACD doesnt sound as great as once thought. Again this is just an example and nothing more. You would think SACD would be head and shoulders above ALL current cdp's, not just the ones you would pick up at circuit city.
4. SACD's SHOULD be compared to current cd's, as that is what they are supposed to replace and be 100% superior to isnt it? You want to compare em to cd's from 20 years ago?Might as well compare em with 20 year old cdp players too. If that is the case, they should be better. BUt I could go get an $60 cd player from circuit city that sounds better than some of the "reference" players from back then too.
5. CD's were jammed down people's throats? At the time I think that was a good thing. Never was a fan of cassette tapes, and LP's have alot more downside than people realize, especially 20 years ago.
6. As for the Beta comment, you must really be thick headed, it was used as a poor analogy and nothing more. Dont be a complete moron please.
7. As for supporting new mediums Im all for it. But that medium had better be a BIG STEP UP from CD. Not a marginal at best step up, and in the case of the current Edge-of-the-art CDP's SACD isnt a really a step up at all, and in fact in many cases(how well the cd has been recorded and mastered) is a step down CURRENTLY(which means down the road this may change). Thats the whole point. A point alot of people here are missing completely. |
Will a universal sacd player do redbooks better than a redbook player? Anyone know? |
Right on Nrchy! I will choose Freewill...and SACD:-) |
Why is music that is not titled in English removed from the list??? The vast majority of all music ever played was not written in English! Does that mean it is not good enough to play?
Ritteri, how many hours a day do you listen that 500 SACDs would not be enough? Probably 2% of my music is on SACD, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the format.
Many of the arguments against SACD are simply sophmoric and not worthy of rebuttal.
One thing that is worthy of attention is that 44.1 has been known to be undersampled for nearly twenty years now. CDPs have been tweeked and twisted all this time so that now some of them are actually capable of reasonable sound quality. The obvious immediate benefit of SACD is that the sampling rate is up near where it should have been twenty years ago.
If SACD made no other improvement over redbook CD this would be enough to justify it's existance. What will SACD sound like twenty years from now with dozens of good companies trying to improve the quality of them???
SACD should not be compared to current CDPs, it should be compared to the first CDPs.
If music companies had not forced consumers to buy CDs they never would have lasted this long! Now people are not having SACD jammed down their throats. People who have it, bought it because they wanted to buy it!
...and Beta??? Are you kidding, Beta was far and away the better format. Twenty years later VHS still sucks! Beta died due to bad marketing, not poor quality!
If people are content with the poor quality of redbook CD as their musical medium of choice, stand aside and let SACD die, if people want something better than that they need to support new mediums. If people choose not to decide they still have made a choice! |
Yes that is correct, but more and more DVD players are coming standard with the ability to play DVD-A audio. Something they all should be doing already, but obviously dont which is too bad. Give it a few more years.........I dont think we will see a true format change though until around 2010 at the pace were on......... |
Dvd players don't play Dvd-audio unless they are also a Dvd-audio player. They will play compressed DD if thats what you mean.
Dave |
Little_Milton has already proven that his is nothing more than a child, I dont even bother copying his links...........
Rsbeck: I am actually well aware that there are probably even fewer DVD-A audio titles, but how many people own a DVD player today?I actaully dont know anyone who doesnt have at least one. DVD-A makes alot more sense and already technically has better public backing due to this fact. If anything has the ptoential to quickly replace the cd format its DVD-A. |
Little Milton that link is in very poor taste and will offend a lot of people.
I think you should apologise before you get slaughtered for an incorrect and tasteless so-called joke. |
Arguing on the internet....:
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922 |
Ritteri -- you wrote;
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the different modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms."
Many of your claims -- like this one -- have proven erroneous.
You appear to have one left -- your claim that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. But, instead of conceding that you've been incorrect on many counts, it seems you have taken to insisting your only claim left standing was really your "important" one. Let's assume, for the moment, that it is your "important" point.
We will return to it in a moment.
You are also trying to rehabilitate one of your other points -- the one regarding the relative number of SACD's available. But, there's a problem; You claimed DVD-A has more potential than SACD. There are fewer DVD-A titles. It doesn't seem logical to claim that SACD has LESS potential based on the number of titles, then to go on and predict GREATER success for the format with FEWER titles. Wouldn't you agree? Then again, maybe this isn't one of your *important* points. [Sorry -- a little jest.]
I don't really see where you've made any credible points in the debate, EXCEPT your claim regarding the number of SACD players available. But, to those who are currently enjoying one of those SACD players and the titles available, your "important" point would seem to be moot.
Bottom line: *YOU* have made a choice to avoid SACD for whatever reasons. Maybe you have good reasons, but the explanation you've provided here is shot through with errors, shaky speculation and internal contradictions. You should get the facts so you can debate the topic with some credibility and should you choose to reject SACD, you can do so for the right reasons. |
Ritteri writes: Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling. Many SACDs are not native to the United States of America, although that's hardly surprising given that when SACDs were first released only three plants existed - one in Japan, one in the USA, and one in Europe. Sonopress in Germany was the first plant to produce hybrids, so many SACDs came from there. That matters not one iota. It's a global village. By "true SACD" I'm guessing you are referring to recordings that were made with DSD right through the chain. There have been some, but it is only in recent times that expanded mixers that operate in DSD have become available. We are sure to see many more completely DSD SACDs in the future. I personally don't think this matters much. I have excellent sounding SACDs made from analogue recordings and various resolution PCM recordings. Regards, |
LittleMilton: Expected response from you. Other than the really weak argument for the Pro SACD people about there being more LIGITIMATE SACD's than a few hundred(which NONE of those lists show), noone has even tried to argue the other improtant facts like the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market still and that alot of the true high end mfgs of high end audio wont even touch SACD with a 10 foot pole. And with many good reasons.
Little Milton: you may have a very few limited backers on this particular thread, but the real fact is that its widely known that SACD isnt what its supposed to be currently.From the actual recording, to the actual players, to the very limited software available(and this can be subcategorized down to specific types of music available), and even from the support of mfgs. Being a previous owner of an SACD player, its still not a worthwhile investment on a format that has still yet to prove itself. |
Guys, let's just leave poor Ritteri alone....There's nothing we can do to help this one. |
Again, look at all those titles. Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling. And were still not even at 1000. I claimed "hundreds" of true released SACD's. That claim still holds folks.
If anyone has more than 100 or even 1000 SACD's I feel sorry that they wasted all that money because most of them havent even been "remastered" to 96khz and are no better(and from alot of articles actually WORSE)than redbook cd's.
Plus I noticed that noone will even challenge the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. I made alot of points, you folks are only trying to zero in on one small point.
And lets be real, looking at that "wonderful" list of SACD's isnt getting my juices pumping very much to go run out and buy another SACD player.......
Someone should read Onhwy61's comment up above too. It adds alot of weight to my arguments. |
Ritteri- Again your making assumpthions that you don't have all of the fact's I know people in the USA who have over 1000 SACD's personally- so again you are WRONG just deal with it and move on! Here is just one store and they have currently 959 available SACD titles http://www.amusicdirect.com/products/swsearch.asp?dmSearchBy=category&srch=30. My size 13 Prada's will remain on the floor and not going any where near my mouth- why don't you try and gather facts before pontificating nonsense to us all. |
Ritteri....Check out www.apa.org/pubinfo/anger.html |
Ritteri writes: I dont think there are even close to 500 out. I have 600 SACDs. If I was more of a classical music buff I'd probably have a lot more. Regards, |
Tireguy: OK lets take that list of SACD's and filter out the ones NOT in English. OK, this knocks off quite a few hundred right off the bat.
Then lets filter out the "SACD's" that you cant even buy! Alot of these titles have yet to be released even! And in many cases will never be released.
That brings us down to about how many? 4-500 as I stated?
Sony stated over 2500 titles would be out 3 years ago?
Quote from Tireguy: "Ok now take everything I typed out of context and tell me that I am wrong, that would really be beneficial to everyone here"
Yep, you are wrong.
Hows that free "sampler" disc treating you? Guess how many of those will never see a SACD player? Probably your copy and a few other people here on Agon. I bet thats not too far off from the truth either.
How does your size 12 taste Tireguy? =)
|
Ritteri- Check out http://www.sacdinfo.com there are well over 1500 SACD's available at this time and that's just what is in the database, Stephen(the founder of SACDinfo) is always behind and can't keep up with all of the SACD's coming out. You really should stop making assumptions that you know everything audio because in addition to this thread there is at least one more that you are way off base on- i.e. engaging in arguements you clearly do not have all of the facts. As a side note- seeing as SACD isn't taking off I felt I should share that I got a free SACD sampler disc in with my Rolling Stone magazine this month! So it simply must not be catching on since they've had full page ads for at least 6 months and now a free sampler disc ¤eyeroll¤ oh yea it doesn't sound any better either. Ok now take everything I typed out of context and tell me that I am wrong, that would really be beneficial to everyone here- or at least you could take your foot out of YOUR mouth! |
Little_milton: Thats a pretty obvious copout for an answer.
So you want proof? Here are the majority of SACD players available: http://www.avguide.com/players_recorders/sacd_players.jsp
Why dont you try and list 2-3 dozen more SACD players for us?How about just 1 more dozen? It shouldnt be hard to name off 12 more SACD players the way your talking so go right ahead. That would basically be half of my claim of only 3-4 dozen SACD players in existance or under current production. Its not gonna happen, youll probably put up another " i dont have to prove anything" post.Thats normally what people do when they dont have anything intelligent to post.Your user name fits you to date. I bet your foot tastes good though.
Oh thats right, lets go on the list of available SACD's, I claimed how many? 3-400 maybe?? OK here some more links:http://www.buy.com/retail/music/searchresults.asp?search_store=6&querytype=music&qu=sacd&loc=109&dclksa=1
Here is another:http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/buyer/outpdir.jsp?OVRAW=sacd%20&OVKEY=sacd&OVMTC=standard&doSearch=y&search=sacd
The above links are the 2 places that have the most titles.
Sony stated they would have over 2000 titles in 2001. Were almost in 2004. I dont think there are even close to 500 out. And alot of those 500 arent even worth purchasing.
So I need to face what? I got no what?Proof? :eyes rolling: "THe burden of proof lies in the believer" Ill have to remember that line. I bet you use that one alot when you have that size 12 stuck between your gums.
"thanks for playing"............. |
Properly implemented Redbook 2 Channel I more musical and more interesting then SACD 2 Channel. It is not the fundamental advantage but the implemental. The properly done 16-bit is fairly rare (most of the people in here never heard it and never will) but it exists. The properly done SACD is not available yet and I do not know if it ever will be.
Rgs,
Romy the Cat |
