2. digital
  3. 1038601128

Want to get excited about SACD again??

First the good news:

The new Verve re-release of Diana Krall's "When I Look In Your Eyes" finally gives us a real shot of the "analog like" potential of SACD. You may want to pick this disk up if you have a SACD player.

Now the bad (potentially good) news:

One of the reasons this disk sounds very good..and the other Verve/Krall SACD release doesn't (and I'm not talking sujective music content) is that this is a SACD only release, ie: no redbook layer.

Think about it, this only makes sense. Go to the Audio Research site and read their logic about their new CD player the CD3. ie: just do one thing well. And Ayre, Classe and other high-end audio companies are bringing out CD only players and addressing the multi-format compromises/concerns.

With all of the jitter and bits/reading concerns that any digital machine can have, it just makes sense that if we had SACD only machines (this way they could have better audio stages...etc. instead of time/money being spent on covering all bases) and SACD only disks (no problem with lasers picking up bits from too many layers)

I know, I know that Sony, and others, feel that these multi format machines and multi layer disks are the safe way to market these things. Well they are shooting themselves in the foot...or maybe the head...because if they don't release the machines and software that will show off what this format can do..well it will die. Because the very people that have tried to support the format are being given hardware and software that is not showing off the formats best.

So, give me a SCD-1 without the CD hardware, and instead put in better caps, resistors and a discrete jfet audio stage running in class A. Then give me SACD uncompromised software to play on it....even just two channel...no multi-channel. If multi-channel was important to audio..this could have been done on redbook cds for some time. This multi-channel is just Sony's knee-jerk reaction to DVD-A...and they are just missing the piont that it is a MOVIE thing not a MUSIC thing.

Sorry to ramble...but I feel SACD will fail...and it's not because it isn't better...this SACD only Krall disk shows this....it's because of this multi-multi direction that is, likely, doomed.
whatjd
914nut
100 posts
 
It would be hard for me to get excited again, since I never got excited about SACD in the first place! There's certainly not enough software available, at least what appeals to me, to get too excited at this point.
whatjd OP
1,139 posts
 
Wait a min....anyone that's nuts about the 914 should be find SACD to be a natural fit!? Ever drive the 914-6?
914nut
100 posts
 
As a matter of fact, Whatjd, I have a '73 914 with a 911 3.0L engine (more than twice the HP of an original 914-6, better shift linkage), steel-flared fenders, Fuchs alloys, Brembo brakes, Konis, etc.

Still can't get excited about SACD, however. Maybe when more software is available? With prices for players dropping like flies, it won't hurt to wait.
madisonears
117 posts
 
I already am very excited about SACD, which becomes more economically viable and esthetically satisfying with every new release of software, in single, stereo hybrid, multi-channel single, whatever format, and every new piece of hardware, no matter how many different layers it plays. Your premise, that dedicated systems always sound better, is drawn from a single example and some very outdated thinking. Your points of reference are all cumbersome analog machines and electronics. We're not talking about gluing a 45 onto a 33-1/3 LP here. And a multi-format player has more in common with a computer than a turntable with a cassette player. Is your computer less functional because it contains a hard drive, a CD player, a CD burner, and a DVD drive? Digital decoding becomes more efficient as it becomes more compact, and stacking layers of information on top of one another, as well as the detection devices, just makes it more efficient for the manufacturer and the consumer. If they can cram 12 different players into one box, why not offer that to the consumer? If a disc can carry 17 different programs, why limit it to one? Your conclusions are poorly drawn from a flawed experiment, and you call it "common sense". I call it bias, based on a failure to understand a new system. There is no question that a manufacturer must cut corners to offer a player at lower price levels, but that's true of any audio equipment, or automobile. If you must drive a Porsche to the hardware store, okay. Don't criticize the sports sedan with fold-down back seats that the rest of us drive. My Passat is a much better car than anything I could afford before, and my combo SACD player kicks the butt of any other digital source I have ever heard.
whatjd OP
1,139 posts
 
Actually Madisonears, all of the above is based on sonic qualities and far from a failure to understand.

You need to read through your own bias. My thoughts above are in wanting SACD to succeed on all levels and feel this success is more likely with top flight machines that truly establish the format, without all the doubt that exists on this and other sites, and in the press. If this were done, it would likely help any price range SACD player to follow.

The computer ideas are of merit, since CDs, like the cassette before, started as computer software. Of the 3 computers I have, all have DVD/CD, Zip, burners..etc. and two have flat panel screens...and all three are poorer than my televisions, my actual DVD players,CD players..etc. They are good computers and do work my TV or Audio systems cannot...but they are not of sonic or video merit by comparison...they are computers.

Any idea what Bowl the Badgers will be in(this is if you are in Madison, Wi.)?
More to discover