2. digital
  3. 999389338

SACD : why ?

I have a local dealer here in Paris, France who has become a very good friend. SACD technology is just starting to hit our shores, and after hearing several CDPlayers, inc. the Accuphase 100 transport, we just didn't get it. The differences are just so tiny and are entirely software dependend (a bad SACD sounds worse that a great mastered CD) that we can't see it becoming a new standard. Nor spending thousands of dollars for so little.

We did a blind test for 15 of his customers. We told them we would play them a normal CD version first, and then the same music but with the SACD version. 15 out of 15 said they thought the second sounded much better and that SACD was an amazing technology. They were surprised, shocked and embarrassed when they found out we had switched the order of play and they actually preferred the 'standard' CD.

Here is my prediction : SACD is dead, long live DVD-A. Not because DVD-A is better, it *technologically* speaking isnt, but it makes much more market sense.
badwisdom
fineberg
151 posts
 
I always think of Betamax vs. VHS when I hear a discussion about formats. The FACT is that Betamax was better in nearly everyway, yet due to marketing, software availability and other factors we all bought VHS machines (or else lived to regret it). Formats succeed or fail for very complex reasons and relative merit is only one of them. I personally am skeptical of SACD for the many good reasons stated above; however there is a formidable pressure on the record companies to find a new format because sales of new material are not enough for the current size of the record industry. They have counted on people rebuying records as they wore out and then buying the same recordings on CD. Especially classical recordings are suffering (how many complete Beethoven Symphony cycles can one man buy - even if every conductor who has ever lived wants to put one out). The growing used CD market makes things even worse for them since a far higher portion of CDs are well preserved than was true for LPs. Its impossible to know what will happen, but I guaranty that the sound quality of SACDs and Player will not decide the issue alone. And I have not even mentioned downloads..
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I have been saying for quite a while that if any new format survives it will probably be DVD-A. First because is is just the natural progression of 16/44 redbook to 24/192. Secondly: Joe and Jane consumer are buying DVD players which will also play their CDs. Someday soon, an extry level DVD player will have 24/192 technology as the price of chips comes down, just like all similar technology.
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Badwisdom, in my opinion the "test" arrangement you mentioned, proves - as you rightly point out - nothing but the gullibilty of those unfortunate participants, but it is useless as a tool to differentiate between the two formats in question. As for the arrangement being fair or not, it would have been perfectly allright, if the test was arranged in order to collect data about the question of autosuggestion amongst audiophiles, but according to test construction standards, it would be considered unethical as well as unprofessional to lead subjects astray by misinformation in the way that was done in Paris.
As an aside: I wonder, how many of his panel the dealer is going to lose as customers. I would contend, losing face like that is not a particular pleasant experience.
Regards, Detlof
roachone
20 posts
 
Well I just purchased a Sony SACD. Now I must confess, I'm not an audiophile like most of you, but I indeed hear a difference! I have also had several of my in-laws to listen and they agree also.I hear things in the recordings I have never heard before. SOOO, I would recommend a good ear wax remover for the 15 people who said the regular cd was better.
abecollins
219 posts
 
Roachone, are you playing SACD discs in your SACD player to support your comments about SACD sounding better? Have you tried regular CD's in your SACD player and how do they sound?
More to discover