SACD : why ?

Hi Badwisdom -- unusual experience you had there! I assume you used wide-band amplification & matching speakers during the test (to get well beyond the 20kHz "audible" spectrum)?

Of the few SACD titles available, it seems that many are remastered from pcm, i.e., not dsd conversions from the original analogue master. If you used one of these titles, the redbook version (with normal band electronics & tweeters) could give the impression of being "crisper" and therefore, preferable. It probably sounded harsher than sacd -- but the audience would not have had the time tire out during a test audition...

To my ears, SACD sounds superior in orchestral music, especially when voices enter the scene.

As to the format "war" of attrition or survival, as it were, the marketplace definitely seems to be shifting in DVD's favour: video content rules!

But your standard DVD player will play audio too... not so, the other way round, with the sacd player. Unless the deal with Universal/Vivendi supporting sacd makes the grade, I wonder how Sony expects the sacd to conquer the mass-market and become the standard?

If this discussion were about the differences between two CD players, we'd all join our preferred camps and cheer for the unit we thought sounded best. While the SACD format can theoretically provide for a higher resolution output, we are still talking about the differences between two pieces of digital audio equipment. I've had the same experience as Badwisdom the few times I've auditioned SACD players. Both times they were Sony players and both times I preferred the sound of the CD, not because of resolution but simply because of the sound (the CD players happened to be ones I liked quite a bit). I'd have to believe when other manufacturers produce SACD units, they’ll apply their own audio signatures to the sound and the comparisons will be somewhat more balanced.

SACD and Redbook are just formats and can theoretically produce comparable results. In practice, SACD should have a significant advantage, but in the end its up to the manufacturer to take advantage of this and produce a better sounding unit. I’m sure that Sony does with their audio line, but for many folks theirs is simply not the preferred sound. The enjoyment that many people get from their SACD players needs to be put into this context, and not attributed to the format alone.

Cheers,
Ken

badwisdom: a couple of thoughts after reading your later posts. (1) the decision as to whether sacd "makes it" is largely political, dictated by those who control software production; fact is, more software companies are jumping aboard the sacd bandwagon everyday, tho that moving platform is also a moving target in light of all the multi-channel alternatives available. (2) i've listened extensively to the accuphase 100/101 combo, too. it's such a good redbook player that i have a hard time perceiving the superiority of sacd as well, except on titles mastered to sacd (i.e., NOT reissued discs). -kelly

I agree with the others that said the survival of SACD will come down to the availability of music. As it stands now SACD seems to be a purely "audiophile" format. And, as much as I hope it will survive, there has got to be a reason that we haven't seen SACDs of the reference standard recordings of all musical genres. Was there too little of an improvement in sound? None at all?

If either of the two new formats has any hope of becoming the standard it is DVD-A, yet I do not believe it will. I think there is room for CD, SACD, and DVD-A. Hopefully, the next video DVD player I buy will play audio DVDs as well. If not, I'm fine with my SCD-1 for both cds and sacds, but that is because I like 2-channel music.

Someone in a previous post put it nicely. The differance between SACD and CD is "subtle yet profound". I think Badwisdom should give it another listen. As mentioned, SACD players need alot of break-in. I swear my 9000es improved up until around a thousand hours.