SACD Players

Doug, I know what you read. Multi-channel SACD is said by "experts" in Stereophile (in the issue where Scull reviewed Technics A10 DVD-A Player) can be done only by using PCM process, if it is so in Sony/Phillips units or not we, really, don't know. But its entirely different from Myles statement that on 2-channel SACD part of 9000ES Sony Player SACD signals are converted into PCM format. If he is corrrect and I wish him to respond VERY MUCH then sound quality is compromized, indeed. It is very serious matter for me, I own 9000ES and send it to modify analog stage, however, if digital part is "dirty" it will not help much and it is huge waste (emotional at least).

Simon, I know what you mean!! This is part of the reason that I have not jumped into the High Rez Digital arena. Although I do not have a deep underatanding of PCM and digital I understand enough (probably enough to be dangerous)to know that there are some issues that are being discussed that put a dark cloud over the whole discussion on the two formats. I listened to SACD at the Chicago Hi-Fi Show two years ago and was impressed enough to be ready to spend th cash then. Now I am waiting. It appears to me as though SACD has the lead. There are more music titles and players on the market, I continue to see more Audiogon members raving over SACD and most of the Audio reviewers now list a SACD player as a part of their "reference system". I truly hope someone can shed some light on the more technical aspects of the SACD format. I started the thread in hopes of getting two things: (1.) Actual side-by-side comparisons of different players by people that have bought and (2.) Some detailed discussions on the technical aspects as well as mods. As I said in a previous post maybe, hopefully Myles as well as others will continue to post Thanks Gang, Doug

What the hell does it matter? SACD players sound so much better even paying redbook cds. I just do not understand the argument at all. A $2000 player sounds better playing my existing cds than the $10,000 unit it replaced. Is it that you are so into the engineering and mathamatics of it all that you really don't care what it sounds like? LIKE I ASKED BEFORE, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER?

JADE:Its matter if you want to continue and build upon available. In such as case, current sound is less important then expected in future. it much better to start with good engineering rather then bad. If you are only interested in stock, you are 100% correct - Simon

Doug: Haven't heard the Accuphase. I'm sure it's impressive, although take a look at the thread SACD Demo, from last November, where several posters heard an unbroken-in sample of the combo and gave it mixed reviews. Also, Stereophile reviews it this month, for what it's worth, and Scull does draw some comparisons with the Sony and Marantz units he reviewed earlier. I didn't want to spend a lot on a new medium which might not make it, so I waited until the price on the Sony SCD777 ES came down to $1600, then had Jerry Ozment of Audio Logic bypass the analog stage and attach the tubed analog stage from his 2400 DAC, with separate power supply, to the Sony. I think the resulting unit sounds very close to my Forsell/Audio Logic 2400 digital rig, I didn't have to spend anywhere near the $24,000 for the Accuphase, and I got to feel like I'd put my money where my mouth was to give what I perceived as an improvement over the CD medium a chance to succeed. Your earlier question about other high end manufacturers making these machines probably is rooted in the fact that it's an expensive risk for them, many of whom don't have the capital to put into the R&D necessary for a medium that might not be a commercial success. Sony, Philips and Accuphase do have that kind of capital. Hopefully, with the added feature of 6-channel sound, they can make the format succeed.