CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-Audio vs Vinyl vs...

ALBERT PORTER: I agree with you on most points. BUT... your feelings represent an EXTREME viewpoint, I believe. I love vinyl, but let's be honest with our ears here (mine are quite good). The fact is, the technology (even interconnect cabling, and 3 to 2 downmixing "consoles"--besides the cutting amps, and cutters, and vinyl formulations) used to produce the vinyl in the old days WAS ARCHAIC. I feel that only the recent pressings from RTI (Classic Record's reissues, Analogue Productions, etc.) ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE BEST that vinyl is capable of (esp. the 12 inch 45's). I HAVE BERNIE GRUNDMAN'S SIGNATURE IN THAT SHINY BLACK SURFACE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TIMES, SO I KNOW. I've compared them with mint originals, and there's no contest AT ALL, NOT EVEN CLOSE! Perhaps the largest "subgroup" of us audiophiles listen to BOTH CD, AND LP. Personally, as long as I don't listen to both in one night, I am comfortable with either. I don't quite have 2000 CD's, and what I do have I WON'T BE THROWING OUT...EITHER FOR VINYL, SACD, DVD-A, E-PROM CHIPS, or whatever actually does replace CD as the mainstream "hard copy" format. YOU JUST NEED TO TRY dCS upsampling. IT MAKES CD'S BETTER THAN SACD ANYWAY...it's so good I doubt even your pricey linestage could get the most out of it (much less the rest of your system). PERHAPS AN $80,000 LINESTAGE, and a 2 MILLION dollar amp/speaker combo COULD....

The subject was on the question of SACD and how it compared to older formats. It is important to consider that currently there are not enough software titles available for any serious music lover in SACD format. Even if there were 1000 titles, right now, how many would be the type of music that would suit you? Next, LP's as pressed today are extremely good, and yes, many even better than the original. But my point was, that there are thousands of master tapes that have NOT been properly cared for, and the album made when that tape was new, is the only remaining way to hear that music. I have thousands of albums, and I own many of the Mosiacs and most of Classic Records and Acoustics Sounds library, But, I guess it boils down to whether you want to have available the selection of any and all the music that existed in the last 30 to 50 years, or you wish to wait until enough of what remains in good condition on tape to be transferred to SACD. For me personally, I do not want to wait for that to happen, even if it worked out to be equal to LP. And, I do not believe it will be equal anytime in the near future. As far as the CD digital versus LP issue, you are entitled to your opinion, but among all the people in the audio business, it is pretty much common knowledge that the CD is not capable (not even possible) of making equal music to analog. Simply stated, the less quality you try to extract from a CD, generally the better off you are. There is a limit to what can be gotten from one, and once that threshold has been crossed, you hear a lot of stuff that is pretty nasty. Perhaps what all this comes to is that everyone posting here may well have equal hearing, and possibly even the discipline to test properly. However, if a system is pushed far enough, you get to the point where only LP will work. DCS upsampling, SACD and all the converters that I have tried do not equal LP. We can argue the point and there will be NO WINNER. I have my experience and you have your experience, and I doubt either one will change his mind. Next, we could argue about what is the best color, or tastiest food, or the prettiest girl. But unless you and I had the same experience on the subject, we would differ. You do not know my standard for listening, and I do not know yours. So be happy, and don't worry if I or anyone else does not agree about your choice in format. By the way, my extreme viewpoint comes from testing once or twice a week with a group of audiophiles. We have been meeting for 23 years. Before that, I was the factory rep. in 5 states for Infinity, Ampex, Yamaha, Sennheiser and M.B. (Germany). I was the technical rep. for JBL, and specified systems for recording studios and sound reinforcement. I also ran three high end audio stores, and previously or currently do advertising for 14 high end audio manufacturers. Many of which are hot topics on this web site. It is difficult, if not impossible, to not have an extreme viewpoint, it comes with the extreme exposure I have had with music. Last, you throw around figures about a 2 million dollar amp speaker combo, you seem to equate that money equals quality. While it is true that there is never "something for nothing," it is very easy to pay too much and not get what you paid for. There are things in my system that are $3.00 that won against things that cost $200.00 and there are things that cost $30,000.00, that I believe was the only choice. The price is not always the way to determine the end result. Its the music.

I never said price equated quality. I merely implied that it would take the very best equipment to get the most out of upsampling. My standards are no different than anybody's who enjoys quality audio. Listening with a group of people is hardly a controlled testing environment, since perceptions can be swayed by outside factors that have nothing at all to do with objective listening. And all sorts of false conclusions have been born out of double blind testing; it's a flawed way to make comparisons. THE HIGH END INDUSTRY EXPERTS ALL AGREE WITH THIS. I don't need a group of people controlling the way I conduct comparisons...If you like this type of thing, you are subscribing to the Consumer Reports "methodology".

And I said nothing about double blind testing. The reason for a group of people listening and testing together is so no one person controls the outcome of the test. The music is chosen based on what multiple people like, and subsequently this forces all of us to evaluate what the system can do in a variety of situations. Additionally, the equipment being tested is also available for use in the other members sound systems. The group owns (or owned) many types of equipment, from Atmasphere, Tube Research, Audio Research, B&W, McCormack, Soundlab, VIVA, Wolcott, Vandersteen, JM Labs, Aesthetix, Counterpoint, EASE Audio, Jadis, Basis, Graham, Versa Dynamics, Keuwetsu, Benz, Walker, and this is just a fraction. If you think that a single persons opinion is more value than a group of people, all testing together, then your logic is certainly different than ours. When a piece of equipment "works" on three, four or five systems, then that is a damn good sign that it is a winner. Or, if a piece of equipment fails on all the systems, it obviously has problems. Secondly, I disagree that I need the ultimate in equipment to get the most out of upsampling. The fact is that the CD format is limited in information (not to mention the brick wall filter, which causes phase problems) and you cannot get information (or restore phase) where it does not exist. The WHOLE reason for the SACD format was to rectify the problems with the old format, and give the industry a shot in the arm with new sales. CD format was established 20 years ago, and is ready for a face lift. How would you like to have a computer or any other digital based piece of equipment that is 20 years old, and try and make it the ultimate by plugging in a correcting device. Just as computers have upgraded each year (did I say YEAR?) The CD format has desperately needed upgrading for many years. The CD itself is the problem, not just the digital format. That is why I made the comment in the other posting about the master DAT tape sounding better. It is flawed, but not as flawed as the CD. Especially in the case I was describing, when it was a master and had not been resampled or downsampled from the original source. The CD cannot be corrected by any device, at least not corrected in the sense of making it into analog. The sampling rate is limited by the 20 year old format that now must be adhered to, to assure format compatibility. I would not disagree with you that upsampling is superior to not using it. BUT, it is still a poor contender for analog. The CD format was argued about, and like many things, pressed onto the public before it was perfected. However once the format was set, because it is digital, it cannot be changed, until a new format can be launched that is cross compatible. The LP was replaced for many reasons. First and foremost, it is more expensive to produce. The number is actually about 6 times. So, if you were Sony, Phillips, etc., and you also happened to own a lot of music (CBS) would you like to make a few hundred million dollars extra? And DONT THINK it is NOT about MONEY. The LP was a burden for the music industry because of all of the following reasons: More cost to make, heavier to ship, more likely to break in shipping, more returns due to "defects" (remember most people don't know how to set up a turntable, and therefore blame the LP), more space required to display, more storage area required for both the distributor and the re seller, inability to replace a defective (damaged) cover (all you need with CD is a new Jewel Box). And, the LP does not lend itself to be used as a portable source. All of these reasons contribute to the desire for the music people to push the CD. So, again, I state that CD is inferior in sound, not in popularity or profit margins. And, if you are getting better sound out of upsampling than you do from your LP, either your system is not pushed out to the limit, or your turntable needs upgrading. If you believe that your LP is better, and you simply like your CD player and the upsampling system you use, because you have a ton of music that is not on LP, and you want to listen to it, then I don't know what all this discussion has been about. Play it and enjoy it!

Everything you've said is common knowledge (we all know that the CD format was conceived of for higher profit margins--you're not blowing anybody's mind with that), and since you don't know what all the fuss is about, WHY IS IT THAT YOU TALK SO MUCH? I admit that one thing you can do better than me is type fast...So can anybody's secretary. Most audiophiles don't care if a component will work extremely well in more than one system context, THEY ONLY CARE IF IT CAN GET THE MOST PERFORMANCE OUT OF THEIR OWN UNIQUE SYSTEM CONTEXT. Perhaps if your group were doing market research for a manufacturer, THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. I don't object to doing what you do with the group. HOWEVER, IF YOU SPEND MORE TIME DOING THAT THAN LISTENING ON YOUR OWN, then you're more interested in the socializing, than in listening to music for the sake of doing it for your own pleasure. AND, DON'T PRESUME THAT RELINQUISHING CONTROL OF A TEST SITUATION INCREASES IT'S VALIDITY OR ACCURACY. The inevitable extra tension kills the accuracy, whether the votes are anonymous, or not. If you'll read my previous comments, you should get the impression that I still think LP's have a vastly superior POTENTIAL performance, BUT IT'S DAMNED SURE NOT ALWAYS REALIZED (maybe more than half the time, MAYBE NOT). Everybody knows that there are plenty of cases where the version of a recording on CD is either better than the typically average condition, vintage vinyl version on LP...Or else the vinyl pressing itself had flaws in the manufacturing process to begin with. YOUR ARGUMENT WAS TO CHUCK ALL CD's from your collection, because you "couldn't bear to hear CD". I SUBMIT THAT IT WAS YOUR DIGITAL GEAR THAT WASN'T UP TO SNUFF. And, you don't like brick wall filters? SO WHAT? Several manufacturers use slow roll off filters to good effect. Look into it. By throwing out all CD's, YOU'RE THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER, for Pete's sake!!! I never said the CD standard didn't need updating, but to not use CD at all is just plain silly and wrongminded. MICHAEL FREMER SPENDS PLENTY OF TIME LISTENING TO THAT ABHORENT CD MEDIUM, and not just out of need for his columns. I CONSIDER HIM TO HAVE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF VINYL THAN ANYONE (especially you), so stop your extremist rhetoric...IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU'RE CLOSED MINDED, AND CAN'T SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE. And I came in under 10,000 words...I guess my verbal skills have more of a "brick wall filter", and yours have more of an infinitely non-exitsent filter...heh heh heh.