2. digital
  3. 1068906354

SACD my thoughts at this time.....................

I have been on other threads accused of being consistantly negative on SACD as a format.
I'll put my full thoughts on the format here so those members with differing views can express their issues with my opinions.
Hopefully it can be archived and new posters can be directed to this thread.
I also don't claim to know all the answers so others can offer more information or contradictory evidence.

It's long been my contention SACD will probably survive as a niche Audiophille format.
I do not see it breaking into the mainstream nor do I see a time when the majority of releases make it onto SACD.
Of course I could be totally wrong and this is guesswork at this stage in the game.

Also as a music nut with an interest in audio replay I do not rule out further down the line owning a main replay machine that gives me SACD capability to go along with my higher end Redbook capability at this stage.

I'll break my points into main headings.

1.SOFTWARE QUALITY AND LACK OF NEW RELEASES/NEW MUSIC.
Clearly the number of SACD's available are increasing but is it enough?
Sales have risen also.
My opinion is that the large rise in sales is related directly to the large reissue sets of Dylan,The Stones,The Police and the mega-selling DSOTM by Pink Floyd.
These hybrid releases will tie in strongly with my argument on my second and sixth headings.
But the success of these releases lies in their ability to be played in most CD players.
Even pro-SACD members do seem at times to be worried by the quality of some SACD remasters or releases.
A major boo boo in trying to break the format.
Most importantly for me also is the close to complete lack of releases that are new and indeed non-Audiophile related.
Surely another boo boo.
The movement on software in general terms has been too slow.
Whilst no doubt some will cite CD quality and early problems however SACD does not offer the new intial convienance over vinyl CD did.

2.CHEAP MACHINE SYNDROME.
I bought my DVPSN900 on the reviews stating that it was a good audio machine as well which highlighted SACD superiority over Redbook.
It is but the difference between the Redbook and SACD replay is not noticeable to my ears nor others who have heard it.
Surely this is catastrophic for the format?
A dip in the water buying machines such as these will leave potential SACD progressive adopters unimpressed.
Sony has clearly introduced many cheaper SACD players over the last few years.

3.AVAILABILITY OF PLAYERS.
This one will sound daft to most Americans but when I was considering a higher end SACD machine to hear,there was nothing in my price range available in Glasgow,a major city in the UK and probably the biggest hi-fi city outside of London.
None of the big Audio stockists in the city have had much success in selling players.
I wouldn't doubt in a lot of European cities this is similar.
I've also not heard a single UK dealer rave about the format,maybe for the same reasons,my local dealer constantly turns down SCD-1's for trade in because he's had difficulty moving them.
American Audiophiles maybe don't realise that their market is a lot more vibrant despite the economic gloom.
Seems here in the UK after the intial burst of SACD there is a large gap in the availability market which hasn't been filled.

4.NEW PLAYERS
Outside the elite world of the likes of Emm Labs etc it seems the new players have been indifferent.
Doesn't the mediocre reviews/feedback of such big boys as Linn and Krell not bring another problem.
This month's Hi-fi+ reviews the new Classe Omega (£12K!)and describes it's Redbook playback as mediocre.
Shouldn't we by this stage seeing the technology drift down and be wowed by the new players?
Will the new Sony make a difference?
5.OTHER FORMATS
Clearly another big issue is the likes of DVDA.
With new generations adopting different types of software,is there any place for SACD?
Even the humble CD seems to have a reasonable future at this stage purely as the dominant format to buy new music on.
Of course it too is under threat but does anybody really think SACD will bypass CD?
6.HYBRID DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
Imagine you are reasonably interested in sonic reproduction but have a moderate to low-end system and you've just bought a newly remastered SACD hybrid of some classic.
If you notice a big jump in the CD quality will that intrigue you on SACD quality or will you think I'm not going to spend x$ on a new SACD player when I'm getting benefits where I am.
If you read a bit about it you might consider those who have heard the differences on older recordings to be very slight.
SACD worth the investment?

7.REDBOOK QUALITY ON SACD PLAYER.
Is this an issue?
I think this is key where Audiophiles are concerned.
Will a $3k SACD machine match a Redbook only player in Redbook replay.
It was this issue which ultimately led me away from trying to kill two birds with one stone.
A problem for me here in here the UK but what about in America where the overall selection is better?

8.COMBINATION EFFECT
It's my contention that SACD has too many different issues and unknowns at this stage to make anyone think that it's future is certain.
I'm sure I will hear a lot about Sony's investment and their copyright worries but will that matter if the format does not sell or grow sales?

Let's here your views-those who await further developments before investing in SACD,those who have early adopted and got out of the format and those who love it,embrace and believe it has a long future.
ben_campbell
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
I've enjoyed the comments so far,thanks.
I particularly enjoyed Nrchy's comments because he clearly disagrees with much of what I had to say but has stuck to the broader issues and done it in an adult,respectful manner.
This is what debate should be about.
Others have chosen to personalise much of what they've written around myself my personal experience(or lack of) with SACD players.
Of course I voiced these wider issues to help get away from that aspect because it wasn't the only issue I had with SACD.
I wish to state this for the record a final time,I have in every thread surrounding SACD ENCOURAGED the poster to go listen for themselves to whatever SACD player they are considering.
I am probably unique,but most of us are pretty unique people and Rsbeck is right to point out what we do is a marginal hobby.
However I do not stay in a backwater,I had one of Europe's top Audio dealers on my doorstep and a handful of other good to decent dealers close by.
The fact that there was close to no (The MF Nu-vista was available but out of my price range)SACD players available to demo-may well indeed be my loss but it is the reality of my situation-hardly great work on behalf of Sony and their related manufacturers.
My best friend in Audiophile terms also invested heavily in a Levinson 390s this year despite having tried SACD-again some will turn their noses up at this because he never heard SACD at a higher level-the fact remains some of us are investing our money outside of SACD because of many the issues listed above but also the damaging first impressions entry level machines have done.

If the quality and availability of SACD software is not the fault of the format and their manufacturers as Ears suggests then I do not know where the fault lies.

Let me finally say as a guy who has bought somewhere in the region of 120-140 CD's this year-do you not think if the vast majority of this software was available on SACD (rather than the 21 hybrids I've bought) I wouldn't be even more interested in hearing what the format could do?
Even amongst those 21 discs there is some debate amongst pro-SACD members as to the quality difference.

I've read enough on Audiogon to convince me,as I have believed for some time that at a price point SACD probably does outperform CD.
I also imagine somewhere up that ladder I will get Redbook performance to match my Ayre CX-7.
However I do not have a firm idea what player would do this nor do I have the motivation with all the other issues surrounding SACD at this time to pursue it any further.
A lottery win could change that though and hopefully Rsbeck could offer advice with the Emm labs equipment I would consider buying.
However in the meantime I'm too busy buying and exploring music.

ears
341 posts
 
If the quality and availability of SACD software is not the fault of the format and there manufactuers as Ears suggests, then I do not know where the fault lies.

Ben, I do not suggest that there is a fault whith SACD, and do not agree that the differences can't be heard on meager 500.00 players, as I clearly hear the benifits on all players even though none are the caliber of my other gear whith redbook and/or SACD except the modified players.

Quite frankly, you are the only poster that I have ever seen suggest that redbook on a cheaper player sounds better or equal to sacd.
When I say that the only players out of seven to do justice to both formats, I am talking about the redbook performance and not sacd.

All mentioned players clearly show SACD's superior sonics over redbook whithout question.

It is common knowledge that [most] universals or sacd/ cd players are not up to snuff on redbook until you get into the 4k and up range and/or have them modified.

If you take a turd of a recording, no format is going to make it sound great and I do not see why anyone would single out SACD for this, so please enlighten us Ben?

As far as the software, I live in a metro area of only a little more than 1 million people and can buy Sacd at no less than 10 stores that I know of and as much time as some of us spend online, why not buy sacd's off the net where they are plentiful from many sources.
To say theres not much available locally, is a cop out as not only can they be bought online, but you can hear others opinions of different recordings before purchasing.

Ben, do you think that the Stones remasters redbook layer sounds as good on your Ayre as more recent recordings?

If not, is this the fault of redbook or Ayre.... or is it because the original recording was a turd to begin whith and no player or format can make it sound near as good as a newer Recording?

Why can't I buy an Ayre locallly...is it bad marketing on Ayres behalf?
This is about how much sense your argument makes to me.

If I could buy the Ayre locally, you can bet that for everyone sold there would be at least 500 players sold whith sacd capability for every Ayre sold.
People seem to forget that hi end redbook only players make up a very small segment of the audiophool market and that more and more Audiophools are buying modified universals or higher end universals whith or whitout a dac for redbook.

Joe average is into free music and could care less about
any of this.

Ben, I am not picking on you, but rather trying to make sense of what seems to be a campaign against an obviously superior format.

Why not pick on dvd-a for having odd sized cases, no redbook layer and having to turn on my projector to set it up when using it?
Has anyone heard Neil Youngs Harvest on dvd-a....yikes it must be that dvd-a is not what it is cracked up to be...or is it the original recording thats at fault.
I blame the original turd of a recording and not the format.
Even though it has all these faults, I still support it and whith more and more music that is less than redbook quality[mp3 ect] audiophools should be supporting any format that offers superior sonics and not hold out for some future format, which may or may not even happen, and even if it does, old turd recordings are not likely to benifit any more than the two current hi rez formats can offer imo.
mejames
986 posts
 
Ears has an excellent point as he says "turd" original recordings have no business ever being released in any high resolution format[SACD,DVD-A].I can't understand why these are being released but they are on a regular basis. Heard many red book disks beat the SACD of the same title on my previously owned modified Sony SCD-1.
lugnut
1,190 posts
 
Ears,

Harvest is not a turd recording. Ever hear the Nautilus vinyl?? If it comes across as such on DVD-A then it's either the format, an engineering mistake or a copy of the original recording several generations removed. It took quite a while for mastering techniques for CD's to become good. The same is probably true for SACD and DVD-A. There is definitely a learning curve for all involved in the process. I do agree though that you can't make a poor recording sound good. It's just that I take issue with the one you picked on.
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
Ears-I think you misunderstood my point on SACD software availability in terms of being able to buy it-this was not an issue at all-I bought somewhere in the region of a dozen SACD only discs.

Ok let me put it another way shouldn't Sony or whoever made sure that badly mastered or bad recordings didn't hit the market?
Again even pro-SACD Audiogoners have complained about the quality of some SACD discs.

Whilst The Stones don't do Audiophile production,I actually like the ramshackle production of Let It Bleed and it sure as hell benefits from the new remastering.
Sure maybe new recordings do sound better maybe if there was much more available on SACD it would promote the format further.
It really just proves my point if the choice of titles has been wrong.
Watch the end of year polls in the serious music magazines and see how many of them were released on SACD.
If a turd is a turd as you put it then I can't help that-you also said you don't listen to dead guys either which rules out a helluva lot of good music.
:-)

Also whilst you claim not to be picking on me,didn't Tvad in the other thread relate very similar experiences whilst comparing SACD vs Redbook as me?-noticeably on both a modded machine and the Shanling SACD player.
I have also see varying reports from pro-SACD members on the difference,it's a complicated argument involving lots of different parameters.

On the broader issues many Audiogon members relate, partialy relate and indeed have even have offered some concerns of their own on the format.

I think some of the subtlities of my argument are not getting through-I am NOT campaigning against SACD.

As for the availabilty of players,well when I have the choice of all kinds of esoteric CD replay machines and a dedicated Sony centre then I think there is a problem that I can't dem anything except 1 quality SACD machine which I can't afford-in the following 10 months I now have the extra choice of 1 Shanling player-wow.
If you don't think being able to dem a quality SACD machine in one of Europes main hi-fi cities then fine.
There is not a single high end dealer interested in the format in my city-tells it's own story.

If indeed SACD is not for the average Joe then there's two problems.
Sony have concentrated recently on the average Joe end of things in terms of new players.
More crucially for the reasons stated above-they have largely ignored the Audiophile market by not getting the software right and by not following the intial hype surrounding SACD by a second wave or third wave of quality players.

As for other formats,I'm talking about my experience,I didn't try DVDA because from what I could figure at that time SACD was the better format.
If it makes you feel better DVDA has been probably handled worse but as I state I haven't experienced that.

This post was raised by me to allow debate around SACD to be expanded out into wider issues not just to focus on one aspect of my problem with the format which seems to be growing into an absession with some people.

I'm not sure if I am an Audiophile or not,but I do know I wanted to embrace SACD and I do know that it was the weight of issues against it that made me not pursue it any further.
More to discover