SACD vs. Redbook with NOS DAC

I doubt old CD technology is BETTER than new CD technology. That doesn't make an ounce of sense.

I read the post wrong...NOS, DAH?...I was thinking NOS...as in tubes.

CD's are old technology...does that make better sense? How about that even older technology, vinyl?...does that make an ounce of sense?

Dave

Well, Pawlowski6132, there are a lot of folks that disagree with you.

If you're taking a "technology" view of audio you should be very happy with an iPod.

Paulfolbrecht, I'm not talking about an evolution in technology paradigms i.e., CD player to MP3, I'm talking about improving a CDP. Do you guys expect me to believe that all these engineers spend gobs of hours and money re-designing, listening, R&D, new software algorithms, more listening comparing only to release products that are WORSE???? Don't you think they'd be able to tell that??

I'm missing something. Maybe you can enlighten me. That's what these forums are all about right?

Well, I don't know. You could argue that NOS done right IS new technology. I mean, nobody was building DACs like this 15 years ago! Just because upsampling came later than the original (default) NOS route doesn't mean it's superior.

Have you heard one of these newer-breed NOS/filterless DACs? I'm telling you, it sounds like analog. I sounds like vinyl. I am not kidding. No, not just as good as the best vinyl, of course, but really good, and analog in a very similar way to good SACD!

I too find it ironic that the path to "vinyl goodness" can be had both by tons of information (DSD) and good 'ole 16bit/44Khz with a really simple DAC.