Why is Sony Digital sound more like vinyl?

Agree totally about detail and neutrality, but going from long listening periods of SACD surround and two-channel, to redbook was just *too* disappointing. It's *so* over for me and redbook; that's the point I was making. If you all out there don't want your boat rocked, *don't* listen to SACD! (And no, i'm not buying a $8K+ redbook CD player. ; )

Interesting Jdaniel, I have not been that disappointed with redbook considering most SACD's available incur PCM decimation during production and redbook recordings have improved markedly...I have some early 60's redbooks that are amazing. Some recording engineers know what makes for a good recording and others haven't a clue...that goes for CD or SACD! What does your system consist of??

Vandersteen 3A sigs, Vandy center and surrounds, Cardas Neutral reference inteconnects and bi-wires, Musical Fidelity A308 Integrated and a Harmon Pardon amp for center and rears. If a good recording means imaging, bloom, large soundstage, etc; then I have heard some great redbook CDs as well. SACD just offers something more. I listen to Classical and it just seems to flatten during tutti sections with most redbooks. Exceptions include some Reference Recordings, and some Collins Classics. (Find Vaughan Williams "Job" on Collins if you can.) Next year I'm going to pick up another Marantz, perhaps the SA11 S1 that's coming out IF it's as good as the SA 14 v2 on redbook. Looks like it's just going to be messy for awhile.

Hammy started me thinking about inflections/voice tones etc. that we cannot convey here in space.It would be interesting, if along with passwords,we each could post MRI pictures of our heads,so our peers would have a better idea of how we hear sounds.Im thinking our ear canals must vary wildly,great post Dave....Bob

Usblues,

A great observation that is too often understated in these posts and reviews in general. I have known many audiophiles in my life and none of them has the same composition of gear in their rigs. They may have owned the same gear at some point or dragged their gear over to a friend's house, etc. etc. but "settled" (if we ever do:-) on different gear to comprise their systems. I think this speaks volumes as to how we hear and specifically, what we find "real". Some people are taller than others and the "sweet spot" listening area we have for ourselves may not be the same for someone 5" shorter. I had an audiophile friend who had large ears that stuck out somewhat (think Alfred E. Newman - almost)who I always disagreed with over what sounded best. The point is, if it mimics what you percieve to be real and you are happy with it - cool!

I have owned a lot of digital front-end gear and currently have the Sony 999es residing in that spot. Some who know me thought it was a trade "down" but I got sick of having 3 racks dedicated to transport/DAC/upsampler not to mention cables, etc. You can see my review of the Sony in other threads. Is it "the best" I have heard (or owned) - no. Is it a sound I can live with - yes. At the end of the day, it does more things right than wrong. To the original point though, it would be interesting to see a study done on ear structure (and shape) with relation to hearing perception. I think it is a much more complicated (and subjective) human sense that doesn't get its due consideration when the "war of words" starts over audio gear - IMO. - Tony