Is SACD really this lousy?


Bought a Sony SCD 1 and this is boring me in my system. Have had it for 2 weeks and just cannot get interested. Previously I had a CAL CL2o and we were astounded by how the DVD DAD's sounded-fall into the soundstage, reach out and touch the performers. Also the dynamic range used every bit of the VTL's 275 watts into the Maggies. The 44/16 side of the CL20 was at best lukewarm. This after coming off a Meridian 508 20. Then I tried the Wadia 270/27ix. In my system, all the write ups were proven wrong. Then I went to the Linn Ikemi. It was great except I couldn't forget that sound of the DVD's with the CL20. Sooooo....off I went to get the Sony SCD 1. I don't have a dealer here but trusted it wouldn't dissappoint. WRONNNG! I called Steve Huntley at Great Northern Sound to see if he could do anything. He said it was a great player, it's just that Sony missed the boat when it came to the analog section. He is in fact drawing up a mod to deal with this very thing that he says will approach the Accuphase. That however will cost anywhere from $1500 roonies for the SACD side to $3500 for both. Anybody have any comment on this or am I the only one experiencing disappointment?
jmazur402f
Listen to your turntable, if you do not have one get one. Then sit back and watch all this super 24/96 super cd stuff get redesigned and modified,to sound like your turntable. .
So far I still prefer Wadia's digital interpretation over SACD. The highs are great on SACD but the lows are lacking true tonal definition and deliniation. Strings appear to be overly bright- this on all speakers. Midrange is great though. Overall compared to everone elses CD interpretation the SACD is superior to other CD players except the Wadia sytems.
I attended the Sony SCD 1 exhibit at the last High End 2000 trade fair in Frankfurt. I also attended the Audio Note exhibit where they auditioned a DAC 5 Signature with all-out tube output stages and no brick-wall digital filter. Even at 44.1/16bit I liked the Audio Note DAC 5 better than the SCD 1. It made me wonder what the SCD 1 would sound like if it had tubes in its analog output stage. Despite the low-pressure demonstration speech ("let your ears decide if the technology has succeeded") the marketing at the Sony exhibit was very systematic. They really want to sell this format to us (SONY was suffering some capital loss a year ago). I filled out a form to enter a contest to win a free SCD 1 player after the demo. A few weeks after the trade fair, I started receiving photocopies of reviews of their new low-cost SACD player (now available here in Europe, but not yet in the United States) with a cover letter that stated I should hear in a few weeks who actually won the SCD 1 giveaway. I am still waiting... Also, who can actually hear the ultra-high frequencies (100KHz) reproduced by the SACD format? And the Sony speakers look strangely like Thiels with only these extra-planetary-looking super-tweeters attached at the top. The audio magazines in Europe rated the new low-cost SACD player below many normal CD players that cost about twice as much. It made me think that if you have a 44.1/16bit set up (player and DAC) at anything more than $10,000, then you probably have a better sounding set up than the SCD 1. If you want more presence (something the SCD 1 excells at) get a good digital preamp (Z-Systems or T+A or Accuphase) and equalize the presence frequencies. It seemed to me at one point that the SCD 1 was producing a subtle re-equalization of recordings to enhance liveliness.
Slawney, who ever you are, your impressions of the SACD are nearly identical with my own. I did not hear it at the Frankfurt show, but did at CES in Vegas. I especially agree about the Sony people wanting to sell this to us, and the presence, or hyped top end frequencies tonal balance comments you made. The upper frequencies are so tilted up and the midrange is so void of any real "body" it is almost as if Sony is trying to convince us that their new digital format can do "ultra highs." Regardless of what this new format measures, it certainly falls short on musical presentation, and the ability to convince the listener that they are hearing analog. And, analog is what real music is, when heard live.