My wife doesn't know squat about audio and doesn't want to but even she thinks SACD sounds better than redbook! |
Ritteri, I'll do no such things that you ask. There is a popular saying that aetheists like to throw around in the heat of a philosophical battle, namely that "the burden of proof lies in the believer." Same applies here, it's actually a well established logical principle found in any introductory textbook. I don't have to disprove what you can't prove in the first place! Face it, you have no evidence to back up your posts. Anyways, thank you for playing, and have a nice day.... |
For the near term most SACD releases will not have been recorded in the DSD format, but will instead have been converted from analog or PCM sources. Very, very few recording studios have DSD recorders and even fewer (possibly less than 10 in the U.S.) have DSD processors (EQ, compressors, etc.) or editors. It is this lack of DSD processors that makes pure DSD recorders impractical for standard pop/rock recordings.
Most studios have only recently, if at all, upgraded to 88/96kHz PCM and they see little to no demand for DSD capabilites. With mastering studios the situation is different. DSD has firmly established itself with the top echelon of mastering houses. Artists typically send analog or PCM final mixes to be mastered and it's during this stage that the final consumer available format is determined.
Multi-format playback machines will make someones preference for PCM or SACD fairly irrelevant. I suspect that the situation will evovle in a way that mirrors the current movie distribution model. Larger budget films are distributed to theaters in multiple SDDS, dts and DD formats. |
Of course SACD and DVD-A only offer subtle improvements. What piece of gear have any one of us upgraded to that had more than a subtle improvement? Sure, it may seem dramatic to us, but that is because we are all geeks. 99% of the people in the world wouldnt be able to distinguish a 20k system from a 100k system. What is nice about SACD is it gives a significant improvement (to my ears) for virtually no extra cost. The only commercially available format that betters SACD is vinyl, and you have to spend much more on a quality turntable than on an SACD player to get a marked improvement.
The DSOTM the moon SACD is worth it for mutlichannel alone, and the SACD sounds decidedly better than the redbook version.
A good example of remastering versus format is the recently released MoFi version of Los Lobos Good Morning Aztlan. I popped this in and was very pleased with the newer remaster, and glad I had spent the money on it. After listening to around 7 songs, I wanted to see how the redbook remaster compared to the SACD remaster. It was then I realized that I had been litening to the redbook layer. The SACD version was another order of magnitude better than the redbook remaster. This is one example that shows that the format does have something to do with the quality of sound. Of course the mastering plays a huge part, but here is an example of a remaster by MoFi on redbook and SACD of the same piece, and the SACD sounds better. |
Little Milton: Your telling me that there wasnt a few hundred CD players out for sale in the mid 80's?There was no format war worth speaking of back then to slooooow progress down compared to today. Oh please prove me wrong here.Show me where Im putting up BS. Please be aware that I sold audio/video for many years.
And please update me on how many SACD models are currently available. You say its BS about only a few dozen players available?, well prove me wrong here. You wont be able to.
And telling me that its BS that SACD isnt going anywhere is also a bit premature. Have you checked to see how poor sales are on SACD's??? If it dont sell it wont stay afloat. Just remember there is a wider audience than just the USA. Globally the other format is doing better. And Global sales normally is a good indication of what becomes mainstream.
As for DVD-A, I personally could care less about DVD-A or SACD currently. Please start reading my threads a bit more carefully. As I will state again, the potential is there, but its going to be a few years before anything groundbreaking comes out from any of the next generation formats. But if I had to choose, Ill take DVD-A as my future choice based on real world potential.
If you want to pull out the BS card on me, thats fine, but put up some links or something to back it up. You cant do that on any of my comments. |
Aroc and the rest reading this thread: I appreciate the fact that someone understands my point of view.
And just to set the record straight, remember people, I also stated and fully acknowledged that SACD has more future potential than redbook. Its just that the potential isnt there...............yet.
Just like when CD came onto the market 20 years ago. It was great for what it was. But take a high end CD player from today, and pit it against a reference cd player from 20 years ago. There is going to be a big difference.
Right now, between todays high end CD players and SACD players that "big difference" doesnt yet exist, its sublt at best, and only on a few scattered discs. Im sure this will(if the format survives, but I would bet on DVD-A being the real future)change eventually, but that day is not here yet. |
little milton...FWIW, there is considerable audiophile interest in DVD-A if you look outside the USA. The DVD-A protocol permits great flexibility in how the data space on the disc is allocated. So, for example, we have the MMG label using what they call a 2+2+2 multichannel speaker configuration instead of 5.1. If super stereo is your objective you can have 192 KHz sampling instead of 96 KHz. There is much more oportunity to tweek DVD-A than SACD, and tweeking is an audiophile thing to do.
IMHO...Disc mastering and playback equipment is by far the most important factor for all formats,DVD-A, SACD, and CD. Some DVD-A and some SACD are worse than the best CDs. However, the best DVD-A and the best SACD can't be matched by a CD. As to SACD vs DVD-A...it's too close to call. And who cares? Enjoy both. |
Personally, it doesn't surprise me that after hearing SACD, one would become dissatisfied with anything other than a high end
CD player for redbook playback. |
Here's another interesting irony: When *some* people listen to
an SACD player, they conclude there must be something wrong with its CD playback and this sends them scurrying for a better
CD player -- and -- somehow -- this is supposed to be a poor
reflection on.......you figure it out.....SACD. |
The idea that SACD is simply a gimmick like putting "concert hall echo" into the music is seriously wrong. SACD is higher RESOLUTION, it is like the difference between taking a picture with a one mega-pixel digital camera and taking one with a 5 megapixel digital camera. There is more INFORMATION on a SACD, the digital gaps inherent in redbook CD have been filled in with music and ambience due to an exponentially higher sample rate. Unless we are going to argue that we prefer a lower sample rate and less information, we must agree that SACD is a superior FORMAT. The wonder of life is that people have different preferences. Some people may even *prefer* the lower sample rate of redbook CD, but now we're talking about a consumer choice, we're not talking about the inherent quality of the medium.
SACD is a Superior medium because it is higher resolution and
has an exponentially higher sample rate than redbook CD. |
You know what market is exploding? MP3. Does this mean that
compressed music sounds better? No. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds has great food? No. So,
let's not get confused here. The POPULARITY of a format has
nothing to do with the QUALITY.
Second, after the invention of the automobile, it took decades for
the infrustratucre, gas stations and paved roads, to develop to
support it. Trying to make calculated guesses about the future of
any technology while you're in the early stages is impossible.
Third, VHS was replaced by DVD, which is higher resolution.
SACD and DVD-A are higher resolution than redbook CD. So,
if you take a longer time-frame, the Betamax analogy doesn't
work. In the long run, it was HIGHER RESOLUTION that won out.
Fourth, as Arroc has argued so well, the market is going towards
UNIVERSAL PLAYERS, which was impossible with Betamax and
VHS. Personally, I don't use a UNIVERSAL PLAYER. I own an
EMM LABS DAC6 and a Denon DVD/DVD-A 1200. So, this will
be just like usual, the mass market will use one player to play
digital and the Audiophile will separate his/her digital play-back into two or three boxes for better sound.
|
Ritteri, before I start, know that I'm not disrespecting you, the person outside of this discussion at all, it's just your highly flawed and what could be seen as deliberately misleading "arguments" that I'm having problems with in your posts, nothing more. I'm just letting you know how your comments appear to the half-way intelligent reader:
"As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign....Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS."
That's complete B.S.. Nice story, however. Seriously, what are you talking about here? Please feel free to back this one up. If you're going to BS people at least don't make it so easy for people to call you in yet another untruth....
"Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere (BS). If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements (more BS). As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released (BS really flowing now). After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred (completely uninformed BS here).WHo released most of em? Sony. (yet again, way off base)."
I see what's going on here, finnally! Don't know how I missed it originally, it was evident from the get go. You're a DVD-A fanatic with sour grapes! You see near 2,000 SACD titles full of excellent musical material and have ~600 piss poor DVDA titles to choose from, to play on only a handful of audiphile caliper machines and get defensive. You see the horrendous upcoming release list for DVD-A next to the exciting list of promised and current SACDs, the lack of backwards compatibility, the need for a tv monitor in your system, the nonexistent audiophile or customer enthusiasm and get even more defensive when folks bring these fact to light or even mention that "other" format.
That a given format is not prospering is no reason to take the event as a blow to the ego, it's not personal, just business, as the saying goes. To make up complete BS stories like those above to deliberately delude people into following in your cause and presumabley bolster the ego isn't a pretty thing, not good for ones self or others. Seen this story before, too many times, actually. It's all about music, regardless of the gear or software, let's not forget that. Where all in this for the music, hopefully, and not for back-pats or otherwise complete circle-jerks of like-minded folks with the gear/format/software that we found to have more MUSIC to our liking....
I'm done, there's nothing worth arguing over here. I'm sorry to have been involved, as I'm sure most everyone else saw this coming and I was too nieve to see it....this time, at least. |
Points taken Ritteri. But I still feel SACD is a nice niche format, even if it isn't going anywhere. Maybe I'll have to try a high end redbook player some time. Even still I think my low end SACd player does enough stuff correctly to warrant keeping it and building a library. I will likely get a better SACD player at another date. Thank you for responding. |
Well Little_milton, we as audiophiles should not underestimate the effect masting engineer (is that right word?) has on the final product. Most (I inclided) would argue his impact is more profound than the end media technology (in this case SACD vs. redbook).
My $0.02 |
Jade: Let my comments stick. Let the record show that I have also had quite a few different high end CDP's and DAC/Transports to do direct comarison with SACD players.
Doing comparisons with SACD players were done through 2 preamps I owned at the time last summer including the Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way. And if your stating that a good quality preamp can change the test results for the SACD players I had vs. a few cd players(some used digital volume control, some actually went through the same Preamp), then you are simply driving my point home further.
SACD has yet to really seperate itself as being "better sounding" than redbook. And this is the whole point. THen you add to the fact how lethargic the format is evolving, add the very limited library available and you have a doomed format. As for universal players some people speak about. I would be open to one, but I have yet to find many(maybe one or 2)that perform excellent on all formats. |
First off, I have had TOO MUCH experience with SACD players. I sold them for 3 years since they were formally intruduced to the USA at MY STORE back in 99'/00'
I have also owned about a half dozen players including the SCD-1 by Sony. They have all long since been sold off over the last year.
As for listening to improperly setup equipment, I always take note of a product if it is setup improperly.
As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign.WHy dont you do your homework first? Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS. Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere. If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements.
As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released. After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred.WHo released most of em? Sony. Thats not going to get me hopping up and down, and alot of them dont garner better sound. For every company you can name that has made one, I can name another 10 companies that wont be making a SACD player. But this isnt really my argument here.
What disc's you say sound better on redbook? Here is a small starter list:
Dark side of the Moon: Pink Floyd(would you care to hear Roger Waters take on SACD?)
Ambassador Satch: Louis Armstrong( if you think SACD sounds better, time to upgrade your speakers and CDP)
Jazz at the Plaza: Miles Davis (imaging and seperation are far superior on Redbook)SACD sounds really compressed.
Couldnt Stand the weather: Stevie Ray Vaughn
Reflections: BB King
These are just a few.But my point is, there shouldnt be ANY that sound better. If SACD was truely at this point in time a step better than regular ol cd's there wouldnt be ANY ARGUMENT from anyone, but there is because presently SACD hasnt shown what is supposedly capable of. There are a few SACD's that did sound better, but like I stated, alot of that is the recording process. |
Ritteri,
In the past, people at Audiogon who have argued their positions in the same way as you are here, have lost all credibility among the community. Your comments are very elementary in nature and for the most part hardly defendable. The simple statement about remastered redbook to redbook is evidence of your weak position here. Old recordings have been remastered for years. Not to SACD but to redbook for the simple reason of improving the master along with the technology. These remastered cd's have sold millions of copies to the masses, not just the audiophile. Please drop your position before you embarrass yourself any further and get tagged as a simple flamer.
Now for a comment on your system. You have an excellent cd player, not my personal taste, but a great player non-the-less. I would suggest finding a comparable SACD player for your comparisons. That may be very difficult to do in that your running your volume from your digital player and you would need a pre-amp to run SACD. Now you would be comparing apples and peas. Not even the same family! My guess is you have never made a direct comparison redbook to SACD on your system using all fruit.
I'm sure you'll have some comment to defend yourself, remember your reputation will stick for a long time. |
Little Milton I don't think yout inclusion of myself back into this argument is merited and it reads like a whole lot of quotes I never made. |
"Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player"
So, you just admitted that you have VERY little experience to SACD. It's common for the unlearned to proclaim absolute knowledge based on limited actual experience. Absolutes only come from the unlearned in this hobby, or the arrogant and self-loving, neither of which types are a useful source of information in my experience.
"thank the sound engineer who recorded the disc, not the disc itself"
Does this make any sense to anyone? It doesn't to me. Poor argument, I won't even bother with it unless it can be expanded upon greatly. Though it's nowhere as inane as this comment:
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the differnt modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms"
What a load! You've clearly not had adequate exposure to the format, as anyone with a halfway decent SACD player can easily see from your writing, despite what you'll no doubt claim shortly. I suppose all remastered redbook albums are pure as the new fallen snow, however, right?
"So why dont redbook cd's get remastered?"
Uh, they do. Do your homework, most CD layers of the hybrid SACD get the exact same DSD mastering technology used on them, the DSD is down-converted to PCM, yet oddly enough 99.9% of listeners will prefer the SACD layer of their hybrids. Go figure.
"How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed?"
How about tens of thousands, of people, millions of coppies sold overall. Again, do your homework, look at the sales stats for those "obscure" and "dated" recordings, don't just spew negativity about.
"If SACD was such a grand stepping stone...and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players."
Uh, they are! Again, you've not done your homework or you would notice a trend of aftermarket players taking over for mass market players in the industry. Sony and Philips have backed off and the likes of Bel Canto, Linn, McCormack, Esoteric, EMM Labs, dCS and a dozen other companies have taken over the reigns on the hardware side, with more players coming.
Again, do your homework, don't be so blindly pessimistic and negative all the time, you might learn something.
"One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path."
You base this on what exactly? Pretty weak or I'm pretty dumb. Given the second as true, please explain this one to me as well.
"And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd."
Please, by all means, give me a list of CD's you have that sound better then their SACD counterpart. I'm sure EVERYONE here would like to know about them.
Ritteri, from what you've written, just like Ben, it's clear that you heard a single, low-fi or unproperly setup SACD player, playing some of the worst offerings software wise on said machine next to a stupidly expensive Redbook setup, then decided to start a crusade to call ALL SACD players and software inferior redbook, point blank. Surely, if a $10K redbook player sounds better then your $500 SACD player unproperly setup and playing junk titles then it is very logical to conclude that ALL CD players sound better then SACD players, same with the titels of course....I hope that I'm not the only one that can read between the lines here.... |
No, Ritteri it is not close enough. the VHS/Betamax analog doesn't work for the most part since with video cassette player/recorders you were limited to physically supporting one format or the other. I am unaware of universal cassette players. Though admittedly I am pretty young and that type of player may have existed at one time. But still I am unware of such a beast.
But I do have one simple angument. With more and more universal players coming to market, how can there be a format war? I believe I first hear this argument from Ric Shultz. The day will come when you will walk into your electronics store and and clerk will show you several digital players. He will show you several that can play all of the digital formats except one (doesn't matter what it is, dvd-a, sacd, svcd, etc) and several that can play ALL of the formats. Both are the same price or close. Even if you are the basic unwashed audiophile consumer, which player are you going to pick? The one that plays everything!
In the scenario is wouldn't matter what disc you buy whether it be SACD, DVD-A, DVD-A, VCD, mp3s, redbook CDs, any 5 inch polycarbonate disc is going to play in that player. Except for portable or car audio players you would be covered. This could not happen in the VHS/Betamax world. the formats were physically incompatible as far as I understood it. And for a most part, I feel this largely invalidates the Betamax argument as far as SACD and DVD-A in concerned.
Or are you arguing that like betamax, DVD-A and SACD are going to be relagated to niche markets (like betamax was and still is)? This is true. But then again so is vinyl. And so is the hobby of high-end audio. So what? You said "one word: Betamax". OK. Please elaborate. |
Yes, it probably was a bad analogy but I think it was close enough to get the point through =) |
Beta continued to be used by viedograhers, VHS was replaced by DVD. So, Betamax is a bad analogy. |
Any Wadia player,Linn,Burmeister,ML,CLasse,BAT,a few select Adcom units, a few select CAL units, among many others.
As for DSD recordings, how many discs are released? Read the Betamax comment.
Im going to be more in line that DVD-A will be the next mainstream upgrade over the CD, but who knows whats going to happen in the next few years........ |
Ritteri writes: Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound". What about brand new DSD recordings such as Telarc have produced. These are not remastered. Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player. What players have you heard? Regards, |
Tireguy: Too bad alot of people dont believe your words(and alot of these people are in the industry), and this is from hands on experience. SACD does not garentee better sound. And as stated, if the recording sounds better, most likely its due to the remastering process. So why dont redbook cd's get remastered? How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed? Demand. If there isnt demand for it, who is going to waste money to re record tracks for such negligible performance increases? If SACD was such a grand stepping stone(which it isnt)and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players. WHich brings me to the next sentence............
One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path.
And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd. |
Ritteri- Look into Emm labs(aka Meitner) it offers exactly what you claimed doesn't exist. And yes SACD's(for the most part) sound MUCH better then any redbook cd I have ever heard from any high end cd player. Compare Sonny Rollins- Saxaphone Colossus or Way out West on any redbook version(including XRCD2) vs. analogue productions SACD- the sacd offers more detail, its no single bell or whistle but the whole piece sounds closer to that "you are there" sound. Another example Offenbach: Gaite Parisienne, Fiedler/boston pops- the SACD version is almost surreal! And the original in living stereo version was good, the XRCD took it to yet another level and the SACD elevates the listening experience even further. Don't get me started on Peter Gabriel, Beck, The Police, Allison Krauss, Roxy Music, anything from Mobile Fidelity. I could go on and on with specific examples if you would like but suffice to say I would not have invested in SACD had I not heard the difference. Its more then merely new mastering, if that were the case new remasters of redbook discs would impress me the way SACD's do- but they don't.
I had full intentions of staying out of this thread, but the misinformation and ASSUMPTION from a lot of people finally got to me. |
Its impossible to do a direct comparison with redbood cd's for one simple reason. The recording mastering process is different. Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound". This could all change down the road Im sure, but at this time the future doesnt look anything better than cloudy.
Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the differnt modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms. |
I've been very impressed with SACD on my Denon 5900, and it's certainly been better than redbook in direct comparisons, however, with my Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista DAC arriving on Friday, that may just even the playing field, or push redbook ahead. I actually hope SACD still sounds better, but something tells me I may be in for redbook re-awakening :) |
Ritteri...The dreaded science card!
You may be right about SACD resolution not being all it's cracked up to be. I read an analysis on another site that claimed that above 8000 Hz, SACD is inferior, and any improved sonics must be the result of the most important musical content being below 8000 Hz. (I didn't completely follow the argument...does anyone else have thoughts about this?)
Resolution of a CD or SACD or DVD-A depends on how much dynamic range you want to have. If you compress the loud peaks, the LSB can have better resolution, for any kind of disc. A 16-bit CD could be better than a 24-bit DVD-A, but it would trade off dynamic range. For rock music that is loud all the time this is a reasonable thing to do.
One thing is certain: the 44.1 Hz sample rate of CD's is very marginal. The Nyquist criteria of communication theory says that to capture an analog signal without loss of information, the digital sampling rate must be twice the highest frequency of interest. Thus many people think that 44.1KHz is OK for audio. However, the Nyquist criteria applies to sine waves. Music is not sine waves. The increase of sampling rate to 96KHz (or 192KHz for stereo DVD-A) and (if you believe Sony) similar improvement for SACD, is technically appropriate, although not everyone's ears can appreciate the sonic benefits. I prefer to call CD's "low resolution" and SACD and DVD-A "OK resolution". |
Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player.
All this talk of extra "ambiance" or depth of soundstage or whatever you want to call it is all a joke CURRENTLY. If the disc sounds better, you can thank the sound engineer who recorded the disc, not the disc itself. This is what I disagree with at an "extreme level". Even marketing executives at Sony stated a while back that some SACD's are getting better performance through recording process only just to help sell the format(and this has been back up by MANY magazines and publishings). They even have gone on to say that its done to help push the new format to the general public but due to current technology other than future potential its really no better sounding than current high quality recorded CD's.
As for differences in cable subtlty, the jury is still out in many regards as to what they actually do sonically other than noise rejection. But differences in cable sound can be due in part to noise rejection potential and attenuated frequencies(Like MIT and Transparant designs).Other than that though is something for another argument.
When an SACD(or whatever format)player comes out that truely is a step up from redbook, Ill be there in line to pick one up. Until then, its all marketing gimmicks.
Little Milton: I bet you were one of those tin ear'd snobs back in Dec.99' at the unveiling of the SACD right? ;)
You should have helped us convince the Sony reps to let us demo that SACD setup against our "basic" Adcom components for all the people who were invited to the unveiling. They didnt like the idea when we brought it up to them, wonder why? ;)
|
Oh no, someone pulled the "science" card! Science would also be quick to tell us that we can't hear the difference between cables, would it not? It would tell us that all amps that measure the same sound the same, and all amps that measure poorly sound as such, which anyone with ears to hear will tell you isn't so! That one should use pure science as the tool to measure quality/aesthetics/art (music, for those at home) boggles the mind of anyone who understands the concepts involved here, it's completely ridiculous, really.
Further, as a scientist myself I find the arrogance of the audiophiles' confidence in what is known about the electrical, acoustic and even psycho-acoustic properties of music as being complete and fully understood a sad joke on those of us forced to constantly hear their words thrown around as if a gospel of spoken (but unheard) Truth. Those who have ears to listen should hear. Why folks have come to put so much faith in science completely boggles my mind (though not at the level of absurdity of the faith most hold in medical science, but that's another rant :)
Sorry to be so argumentive, but I completely dissagree with everything written in the above post at an extreme level. |
SACD on paper is superior to redbook in that it has more future "potential", but presently the best "Redbook" cd players sound just as good or better than SACD players. In all reality its a proven fact that redbook cd's have still yet to come to their sonic limitations. And there is becoming more and more concensus among scientists that our ears would not be able to tell the difference between a redbook cd and an SACD or other format under identical conditions.
WHen people claim to "hear" differences in SACD or redbook cd's what they are hearing is actual differences in the actual studio recording process, not the quality or upsampling of the cd itself. But if the sound engineer puts as much time and effort in making a good recording on a CD as he would for an SACD, noone would be able to tell the difference. People with SACD players want to believe they have a superior product, but thats nowhere near the case at all. I worked for the Tweeter store that had the official unveiling of Sony's SACD player in Burlington Ma. back in 1999/2000. Sony's original statement SACD player on hand setup in our "high end" room with a pair of speakers with those "super tweeter's" on top, a pair of monoblocks and some straightwire IC's and cabling in which people were raving about the retail cost of the whole setup(around $90,000 is what they stated), but after listening to that setup for a few hours before the guests were to arrive, I can say how big a dissapointment it was. It was unanimous that everyone in the store liked the basic Adcom GFA5802/GFP750/GCD750 with the pair of Amati Homages so much better. It just goes to show that the source isnt necessarily an improvement, and in many cases since that day, I can say its not even as good. At this point I think that its a 100% complete waste of money, andits going to be quite a few more years before I probably end up changing my mind. |
In a way DVD being the closest cousin.
Yes,but execution of recording is still the lead link.
In music plybk it's system,electricity,the room,the floor.
So I keep buying used cd's(beginning to see used DVD-audio
and sacd also)
But....vinyl does mighty well,wonderfully collectible and
is very interesting with huge library.
Redbook is seeing a golden age"IMHO"better mastering.CDP
are cheaper and better.
Used CD's,I focus my energy into finding all my music used
and lately the bargains abound.I am gambling that CD due to its huge success will always be able to be played back and
there have been marked improvements in CD playback in its
entire history.With the best progress in the final act if
that is what is happening.
I will wait till it is to my benefit,cheaper,better and all the machines have full flow at the digital outputs.
CD and Vinyl are still 2 fistfulls of great fun. |
Ben --
If you ever come to the States, drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to have you over to spin some tunes.
Thanks for the discussion, |
Rsbeck any chance if I ever make it to the States getting invited up to your place to hear your rig?
I think enough has been written,the thread is here for Audiogoners to read and come to their own conclusions.
Happy listening! |
Mr. Campbell --
Obviously, the whole topic of SACD is a complex one *FOR YOU.*
It is also apparent to me that, for you, this issue goes far beyond music. I guess I am supposed to go through your posts and figure out what I should answer and what I am supposed to ignore, which are your real points and which are just meant to act as filler between them, and then I am also supposed to validate the points you think you've made, ignore the points that contradict each other, ignore the holes in your experience, accept your 2nd hand hearsay -- even though I notice you misquote and misuse my statements in some of these rambles, etc. etc. etc.
For me, it is simple. From my first experiences with audio onward,
I have accepted that the equipment I use and the music I play on it
will be out of the mainstream, will cost more, will take some time and trouble to acquire and to "get right." But, it is worth it to get great music reproduction. So, frankly, I find all your "consumerist" complaints about SACD irrelevant -- ESPECIALLY on a board like this one. You know damn well there are web-sites that carry SACD, SACD's are NOT difficult for an audio enthusiast to find --they are difficult for a mainstream consumer to find. EVERYONE knows we are in the early phases and we are limited to the 1,500
or so SACD's available. Why should it matter to anyone who has the opportunity to explore SACD that your choices are limited by the shops in your town? I've never seen anyone else dog a piece of equipment because it isn't available at their neighborhood shop. Again -- this is STANDARD experience in this hobby. Frankly, it seems to me that you want others to validate your belief that because *you* have had a little bit of disappointment with your initial foray this must spell doom for the medium. But, I would wager that everyone on this forum has been disappointed by some highly rated piece of equipment and/or software on the road to audio nirvana. This is typical. So, I doubt you are going to get a lot of sympathy here. Your objections -- like your speculation that SACD will only live on as a toy for audiophiles -- would spell doom for everything we do on this forum. I find it objectionable that you have let your little disappointment -- whatever it was -- with one machine turn into this personal little crusade of yours -- especially when you pass on 2nd hand comments about equipment you've never heard. i consider that a foul. Then when you add the fact that you are sitting there with an esoteric piece of high end audiophile equipment listening to your redbook CD making these comments about SACD, I find your comments ironic to say the least.
Now, the original poster wanted to know about two channel SACD.
Pretty specific question. I would guess the poster wanted to know
if he/she needed a 5.1 system to enjoy SACD. My answer is, "no."
He/she also wanted to know if SACD is superior to CD. Who in the
world would think he/she was asking whether there was better
selection of SOFTWARE on SACD as opposed to CD? Short answer -- NOBODY. This is just common sense. I assume this
poster is interested in finding BETTER DIGITAL REPRODUCTION.
This road is going to lead to a consideration of SACD. My answer
is "yes, SACD sounds better." Finally, I didn't play guessing games
with the original poster's budget -- because I don't NEED to know
his/her budget. I assume the poster wants to hear the EXPERIENCE of other posters, so I shared with him/her the two
pieces of equipment -- at two different price points -- that I have personally had in my system and enjoyed. I also assume that this is probably one of the first questions on this poster's journey. When he/she wants to know about players in his price range, how much it costs to get great reproduction, where to find software, how much is available -- HE/SHE WILL ASK. If the pieces I mention are too expensive, I assume he/she will say so, I also assume others
will offer their EXPERIENCE at other price points -- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. IMO, what you have to offer is that you
had a machine in your system and you didn't hear enough of a difference -- and then you didn't audition any other players because they were *UNAVAILABLE* in your area -- and that will be weighed against others who've had the same piece of equipment and DID hear enough difference, people who've heard SACD players that were UNAVAILABLE to you and enjoyed them, etc, etc, etc, etc. Then, the original poster and anyone else with interest in this thread will sift and weigh all this information and will form impressions, follow up questions, etc, etc, etc, etc.
|
I was unimpressed with SACD when I had only heard it on the Sonys. (I own an entry level 775, and auditioned a 999ES.) When I switched to the Denon 5900 universal player, I changed my mind. I feed the Denon into a Bel Canto DAC2 for Redbook. I love that combination, but as good as it is, it isn't as good to my ears as the SACD. I only own a few SACD disks, all hybrid, and I prefer the SACD layer. With some the difference is dramatic, with others it's more subtle. (BTW, the 5900 is not a bad Redbook player on its own, but I wouldn't be satisfied with it.) |
Rsbeck I find it incredible you can read that post again pick out two parts that aren't questions and completely miss the first part of the post.
I'll try to be clear these were the questions you haven't answered.
Did we know the original posters budget was(?) and therefore wasn't my original post valid since it was very possible that the poster would have less than $1500 to spend?
Can you state that at this price limit SACD is indeed the superior format?
What you continually seem to miss is that I am only saying this is a more complex issue than is being stated.
Of course the original post was vague,no price limits,idea of how important other aspects were.
I can agree you replied in a broader sense of what the poster asked and that those points were VALID.
You never seem to think any of my points are vaild because you think I am writing from ignorance or limited experience.
It appears you will never get away from that regardless of how wide I broaden the argument.
It's pointless to keep this up.
Show me where I state to the original poster NOT to try SACD?
You clearly don't read a lot of what I write because it always take numerous attempts to get you to reply to the specific points,your last post is a totally classic example.
What is interesting Rsbeck is that through this and the other debate ongoing at the moment even the guy (Ears)who agrees with you most about my "hollow" stance have differing views about other aspects of SACD.
You think you can get quality Redbook replay from a SACD machine around $1600 (used),he thinks at least $4k.
By his measure I cannot afford Redbook replay of the standard I would like on a SACD machine.
Is he right and you wrong?
No both your viewpoints are valid from your respective perspectives and experience.
This is what I was aiming at with my original post,an opinion based on my experience with SACD,I only asked the poster to consider my points and find his own experience.
Please explain to me why this is not a valid reply to the question?
These forums are about debate it would appear you would just rather leave it at SACD is superior,all the time for everybody,end of story. |
You wrote....
"I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up...beat the Sony."
Then, you wrote......
"I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade, wanted more out of my music."
Maybe you *are* making really powerful points that I am avoiding,
or maybe you don't communicate all that clearly. It seems to me that you first argue against my contention that you traded up to get more out of redbook CD -- which goes against logic -- and then you go on to confirm that this is exactly what you did.
I don't think rhetorical gambits like this need a response.
I cannot see where I have fouled you in any way. At least I stuck to the topic. Your final post contains nothing at all about audio. I call *that* a foul.
Happy listening.
|
Needless to say Rsbeck as usual you avoid the specific points I made.
I think my last post and your reply speak for themselves. |
Bottom line: If one wants to see what digital has to offer -- either
CD or SACD, one needs to be willing to spend some money on a
front end. If one wants to be in a win/win situation, one might want
to audition CD players with SACD capability. If one wants to have
all formats covered, I recommend getting a high end CD/SACD player and combining it with a DVD/DVD-A player. In two boxes,
you will have great music and DVD playback and all your formats covered. |
There's no wonder in it Rsbeck-I made the consideration that the original poster may not have more than $1500 to spend on a SACD player-if you read my original reply it should make sense.
Can you state that SACD is superior at that price limit?
We still don't know the original posters budget.
I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up (Audio Alchemy DDE3,DTI2,POWER STATION 2)beat the Sony.
The Sony is a good audio player for the money,it really is.
I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade,wanted more out of my music.
|
>>I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.<<
Well, this was the subject of the thread. So, if you agree that -- at
a certain price point, SACD reveals its Superiority -- one can only wonder why you would jump into the thread to debate against those who are arguing that SACD is superior.
>>my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best<<
Your less expensive player obviously didn't show redbook CD to its best, either -- or else you would not have been compelled to buy a high end CD player. So, this simply adds weight to the argument that *any* format will reveal more of its strengths with a high end player than with a low end one. |
Rsbeck really this is boring,I'm trying to get out of this debate but what you've written is not correct on a number of issues.
I only wanted Matchstikman to hear of other experiences,which at least two other members have agreed with in general terms on this thread.
Why don't you call them on that?
Others have also elsewhere.
Perhaps he could comment if my posts were worthwhile or not,he's probably quit the thread a while back.
My experience with SACD involves listening to a highly rated payer for over a year which I still own,which has been reviewed as clearly showing the differences between Redbook and SACD.
I current own about 20 SACD hybrids-I owned and heard about another 15 SACD discs.
Big deal, my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best-as for the hearsay comment well show me where I have made detailed analysis about anything I haven't heard.
You've done this on every thread,ignore the points you are called on (at least 4 or 5 above)and make the same point my experience isn't valid over and over again.
Anyone who wishes to enter into SACD deserves to hear at least an alternative viewpoint,made to consider some of the drawbacks with the format and be aware that they may not hear the differences they are expecting.
I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.
Martin Collims who is a well-respected journalist recently wrote in his Krell SACD review he had serious doubts and issues with the format.
I will post elsewhere more detailed thoughts on the format. |
The fact remains that you were not happy with the redbook CD playback of your prior player -- so you moved up to a high end
redbook CD player -- but, you were *unable* to audition high end CD players with SACD capability because they were not available in your area -- so, for this and other reasons, the route you took enabled you to explore high end CD playback, but did not enable you to further explore SACD.
I have no problem with the route you took and the rationale behind it, but IMO, when you hi-jack SACD threads to make negative comments regarding SACD [and players you have not personally auditioned], your admitted lack of experience with SACD [in relation to your more extensive experience with redbook CD] calls your comments into question.
What you can tell us is that you enjoy high end redbook CD playback better than low-end CD playback.
Further, I do agree that having a high end CD player with SACD
capability puts me in a win/win situation. I also agree that there is debate with regard to the price point at which SACD's superiority
can be discerned, but -- without trying to be rude -- I think that debate should take place between posters who have had experience with these machines, rather than between posters who *have* had experience versus a poster who can only offer 2nd hand hearsay.
Finally, on that point, I have written that I could clearly hear the
superiority of SACD on a Sony SCD XA777ES which I bought
used on Audiogion for $1,600. This player had excellent CD
playback -- far superior to my previous player, which was a
Yamaha s2300 Universal Player, which I bought new for $1,000.
Still, the SACD playback of the XA777ES was superior to the CD
playback. That was my experience with a player I had in my system for a few months. |
Rsbeck-really my final words this time.
If you see a theme fine,if I was sure I could have bought a SACD player that gave me the Redbook playback quality of the Ayre-I would have bought it and hopefully got the benefits of SACD a machine of that quality .
If I could afford an Emm Labs system I would have it and if eveything I hear about it is true then I would obviously reinvest in SACD software.
I think you fail to realise at your level you get a win,win situation below it there is much more debate.
I am not anti-SACD-it is a more complicated issue than just to come to the conclusion that it is a better or worse format-there are many different levels and issues within the argument.
As for the Stones SACD/Hybrids as far as I can hear and know the mixes on the SACD and Redbook layers are identical. |
Ears-just for the record the only comparison I do between Redbook and SACD is on the Sony.
Which I find surprising.
Comparisons with the Ayre would be largely pointless due to the obvious price difference. |
To get good results from redbook CD takes a relatively expensive player. I was unhappy with redbood CD playback until I purchased the Sony SCD XA777ES used on Audiogon for $1,600. Coincidentally, that machine also had SACD capability, which sounded even better. But, if you *really* want to hear redbook CD at its best, you need to get the Emm Labs Dac6, which also has SACD capability. I would be miserable with the cheapest DVD-A player. It would be no consolation to me that its DVD-A playback might be better than its [low-end] CD playback. So, for me, this is irrelevant. I've been about the business of searching out and buying the best redbook CD players I can find -- because I have over 1,000 redbook CD's -- it just happens that these players also have SACD capabilities and the SACD playback is even better, which has prompted me to buy a number of SACD's and to look forward to new releases.
|
My experience, and from what I read from others, is that even the cheapest DVD-A player sounds a lot better than CD, but to get good results from SACD requires a relatively expensive player. So the answer is: yes...SACD is superior to CD but only if you can afford an expensive player (which probably makes the CDs sound better also). So I don't give a lot of credit to the media. (Sorry Sony). |
Ben --
I am not sore -- I just think your comments should be put in the
context of your experience. After purchasing a high end Ayre
CD-only player without auditioning any high end CD/SACD players first -- and then campaigning against SACD on this
board -- you finally got some experience with a high end Linn
Universal Player, and found it "didn't do a lot for you." But --
again -- this just seems like another attempt to justify your purchase of a high end player without SACD capability -- so,
I see a theme here.
The question that the original poster asks with regard to CD and SACD is, "are they the same? Is one Superior?" Someone claimed that a high end CD player would out-perform a high end
SACD player. Since I believe I own one of the top CD players
available in the Emm Labs Dac6 and since it also has SACD
capability, I think my experience in this regard is exactly on the point. The highest end CD player I have experienced -- The Emm Labs Dac6 -- is amazing, but still -- the SACD playback is superior.
With regard to the Stones hybrid, "Let it Bleed," I have said that
I prefer the *MIXES* on some of the CD tracks, but that the SACD tracks still show the superiority of the *MEDIUM.*
Since this thread is about the *MEDIUM* of SACD compared to
the *MEDIUM* of redbook CD, my comments about the Let it Bleed hybrid can only be used to support the argument that the MEDIUM
of SACD is superior.
Further, I have also owned the Sony SCD XA777ES, which I
purchased on Audiogon used for $1,600 and this player -- which
has excellent redbook CD playback -- also demonstrated clear
Superiority on SACD playback.
So, my answer to the original poster, based on my experience, is that CD and SACD are not the same, a high end CD player will not out-perform a high-end SACD player, and SACD *is* superior to
CD. |
