Is SACD really this lousy?

It's good to know that you know this for a fact, John.

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.

Albert,can you explain your remark"analog is what real music is,when heard live" Thanks,Dave

Albert means that music in real life hasn't been digitized. Look, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but only a handful of people seem to know that the SCD-1 has horrible op amps for its output stage! An op amp would destroy so much of the musicality and fidelity of the signal upstream from it, that there's no way the SCD-1 would allow you to hear what the SACD process really sounds like anyhow...It only allows you to experience the "sony sound", and that's not worth listening to except with a Walkman, IMO.