SACD vs. Vinyl

Although I am amazed at how good vinyl can sound for so little money ..... I got back into it with a used Thorens td166mkII. a musical fidelity v-lps and a denon dl103r cartridge along with a spin clean and assorted brushes all for about six hundred bucks and it sounds amazing ....

I have an original release of Sting (Dream of Blue Turtles) and it is extremely clean and dynamic sounding. Same with my Pink FLoyd pressings of The Wall and DSOTM and a couple of Led Zeppelin discs.... Great Stuff indeed ....

Mikelavigne - SACD looks pretty much like output of sigma delta converter before filtering (1-bit). SACD is equivalent to about 20/96 and it supposed to sound better than redbook layer. Problem is that many people dislike sound of any form or PWM (Sigma-Delta converters, class D amplifiers) - they might not like SACD as well.

I've never considered SACD since it was initially too expensive with very few titles and no option to make backup-copy (of very dense disk) not to mention that my music resides on Hard Drive (server).

New standards should be promoted. It should be advertised. SACD should be, initially at least, cheaper than CD - since it doesn't cost more to print and being impossible to copy, prevents piracy that cost industry a fortune. Unfortunately greed took over and they started selling SACDs over $30 a piece killing pretty much any interest (including mine). I remember seeing similar failures with Sony Beta, Iomega Zip drive, Sony Mini-Disc, HDCD, DVD-Audio and few others.

Assuming that you are interested in RBCD, you will get more by retiring the Sony for a RBCD player capable of giving the Marantz/Benz(and whatever phono stage) serious competition.

Kijanki,

what might change your mind about DSD-SACD-2X DSD would be a visit to a mastering studio where an analog source can be switched quickly to any digital format, including hirez PCM up to 352khz/32 bit. there is a mastering studio near where i live which happens to do the majority of HD transfers in North America for many different lables. he can take a source and run it thru any level of digital processing you might choose, and can switch seamlessly between them. he has many different DAC's and processors as you might imagine. in that 'no boloney' environment DSD smokes any PCM.

which is not to say that everyone subjectively likes anything and that everyone's been exposed to SACD done right.

i own 1000+ SACD's, 4000 CD's and have maybe 2500 hirez (88/24 or higher) PCM files on my music server. i own three tt's and three RTR decks. what i hear in that studio is what i hear in my system too.

you might convince yourself that SACD is flawed in theory, but so is any digital. DSD is harder to process than PCM and it's not music server friendly yet because of it's copy protection. but compare a recording mastered in DSD with one mastered in PCM; no contest. and 2XDSD rivals vinyl in fidelity, whereas any PCM is a mere shadow of analog. OTOH a 2XDSD file is huge, so it's not yet a consumer format.

Mikelavigne - I did not say that SACD is flawed. I think that it is vastly superior to redbook (as Beta was to VHS). In addition to better quality (20/96) DSD used in SACD is created without antialias filters that screw-up transient response in traditional A/D conversion. Transients are used by brain for spatial localization.

You mentioned easy format switching but it was from analog to digital and not digital to digital?

SACD is not good candidate for the server not only because of copy protection but because of its scheme (PWM).

As it is right now - SACD selection is very limited, I cannot use it on the server, cannot make backup, is still too expensive and format might become obsolete.

Stereophile mentioned that format might be dead since many Blu-Ray don't even have SACD decoder.
I know that you can still buy SACDs but the same is true for DVD-audio. Would you buy DVD-Audio now?