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
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.)?
socrates
247 posts
 
Just heard SACD for the first time through a $1,000 player on a nice ~$8K system similar to my own, some really good recordings from Telarc and Sony. I was not impressed. I can't see how this will ever go over with the average consumer with probably under $1000 in their entire system, if even half that much for the Circuit City/Best Buy crowd, in which the very small differences will likely never be realized. So, $1K for a player or buy 100 CDs....that's a very easy choice for me now. XRCD anyone?
pardales
652 posts
 
The more I listen to my own system, with different SACD players, and the systems of friends, I am beginning to realize that one has to have a system of a certain quality to reap the rewards of SACD. Like Socrates said, a 1k system with a $300 SACD player isn't going to do it.....On a high quality system the benefits are there (I have heard them), but we're talking $$$ that most people don't devote exclusively to hi-fi.
phasecorrect's avatar
phasecorrect
2,013 posts
 
The irony of all of this is that the best digital audio is found in dvd players...combo players "hi-enders" seem to discredit...and the majority of individuals who purchase hi-rez players rarely have a system good enough to take full advantage of the sonic capabilities...they are more concerned with the video bells and whistles of the player...which is find by me...if SACD or DVD-A remained a high end format...I wouldnt be able to afford it anyways...but in order for one to take off...it must be done in the "midfi" trenches...the least exspensive componet in my system is an entry level Sony SACD/DVD player...it cost half of my original Sony CD unit that lasted 10yrs...and not surprisingly...pulls the pants down on it and many other pricier,esoteric brands... and I would have to disagree with some posters here...even in my modest $1500 2-channel set-up...the smooth,rounded,"tube like" quality of SACD is very apparent...anybody with $5-600 reference quality monitors can tell the difference...and this is where it gets interesting...if you didnt jump on the few hi-buck first generation SACD only units that Sony offered...chances are you missed your boat...as universal DVD units...such as the Philips 963sa...with feature both SACD and DVD-A...for a mere $400...in less than 2yrs...a decent universal player will be under $200...one that will compete very favorably with even the best DACs/transports and dedicated players....God I love this country!
cdc
1,862 posts
 
I'm excited about direct-broadcast music. Comparing a burned CD from the radio to the bought CD, direct broadcast had the immediacy and lots of detail but done in a natural way.
More to discover