SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel


Are they the same? Is one superior? Are they system dependent?
matchstikman
http://dvdaudiodaily.com/cgi-bin/FrameIt.cgi?Url=http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0903/03.wea.shtml&ConfigFile=FrameIt.cfg

Good reading........
Durham: On your first point, I would say that, perhaps unlike others, I don't consider the differences between CD and SACD (or 24/96 DADs I've heard) to be earthshaking or of a magnitude that would dwarf the use of a substantially better analog stage and power supplies, which the Linn and Burmester have in spades. They are more subtle in my view, but the end result is that I find the music more compelling and relaxing to listen to with both SACD and DADs than CD. Part of this may stem from my preference for analog and vinyl, which the high-rez formats seem to get closer to, and my preference for classical and acoustic music, which I think tend to show better the new formats' strengths. Were I to listen principally to electronic or rock music, I might prefer CD's comparatively "sharper", for lack of a better word, sound. So I would respectfully disagree with your point; I think a better comparison to hear the differences in the formats would be to use the same player for both SACD and CD playback (preferably something at the EMM Labs or dCS level of quality, given what you're used to in the redbook format), otherwise I think you're introducing too many variables.

On the numbered points you made:

1. Don't really hear it, but my hearing dies at about 12khz and I tend to think most recordings sound too bright anyway compared to live music, so I'm not bothered.

2. I use a Purcell upsampler for redbook, which adds a lot of noise to the signal but makes it sound better to me, so I'm not bothered by this concern either.

3. You make a good point. Most of the recording studios are geared to pcm, so they would not have to make the substantial investment in DSD recording equipment to be able to use the 24/96 medium. In that respect, it may be that pcm will ultimately win the day, although given the public's lack of a cry for anything better than MP3 and the continued lack of any really strong leadership to promote the high-rez pcm format, I doubt that either of the new formats will be more than a niche format unless something changes.

4. As I mentioned, I do hear the improvements, but acknowledge that they are more noticeable with better equipment (particularly power supplies and high quality analog stages) and are more of the subtle sorts of things that make listening worthwhile to me.

5. If you're a rock fan, I agree. There's a good deal of classical software being released from good labels with good musicians that more than satisfies me, though. Could always be more, but I've still got vinyl and CD versions to listen to in the meantime.

In the end, if the differences aren't enough to move you when you listen to music (and that's what this is all about), I think your last point probably makes good sense at this juncture, although if you already own a Sondek you're going to have trouble improving on it--why not spend the money on more music?
Ears-I apologise if I took your comments personally.
I think the points you make against me have been made many times by yourself and a few others and I think I've answered your particular comments in my thread SACD-my thoughts at this time-it's all there for those who are wish to read it and also my comments above.
It is simply not accurate what you say EARS and I have explained that many many times,I have NEVER made any comparison between my Ayre CX-7 and my Sony SACD player as I've stated before that wouldn't be fair.
I've been over that ad nauseam.
What I have enjoyed seeing is that those who put me forward as the only dissenter on SACD on Audiogon have found that it is simply not the case,there are varying degrees of opinion on the format.
Mejames, The Marantz SA-1, the Lindemann d680, the EMM DAC6, the Exemplar/Denon 2900, and the A. Wright Sony 9000.

Durham, I am sorry, I thought this was about what you heard, not what you read or think. I see none of your points as really relevant even were they true.

1. SACD's poor high frequency reproduction ability

I do not know whether this has some basis, but it certainly is not true relative to what I hear.

2. Poor linear noise floor throughout the audible range and beyond

Again, not to the hearing even if true.

3. Future potential

I do not know where you get the 96 kHz limit on sacds. There is no future beyond 4 or 5 years for any of the digital formats.

4. Current lack of sound quality improvements over Redbook

I thought you said no one had dealt with any of these?

5. Lack of good software

I hope the rate of releases slows up. Buying ten or twenty a month is expensive