I have not heard SACD in my own system, and if it is really vastly superior to regular CD, that would be WONDERFUL! The remaining problem is for those of us that are over 20 years old. The library of CD music has taken over 25 years to be the wonderful selection that it is today. Even if SACD is twice as popular (and I doubt the general public, non audiophiles care) it could be 10 or 15 more years to get a great selection of software to feed your system. The point here is that we need music to listen to right now! Life is short, and I for one do not want to wait forever for a miracle that is always just beyond reach. If I were a digital guy, I would get my CD's where they sounded the best I could get, and listen to the vast library that is available in that format. And, as I HAVE done, avail myself of some of the millions of LP's that are available in the traditional analog format in a sound that is simply amazing, provided you are willing to invest the time and money to get it right. |
I am sorry for Rfeneol@notes if he thinks surface noise is a problem for those of us that listen to vinyl. He must have experience with a low to mid fi quality source to make that comment. My Walker and IO combination is as quiet as my Sony 7700 and the players before it. |
I posted earlier on 7-05, that I hoped SACD would be wonderful, and I really meant it. I did not post comments revealing that I have in fact heard the format, although not in my own system. The CES in Vegas had at least two rooms with SACD, because I listened in both. One room was hosted by invitation with a joint venture between Phillips and Sony. They had, in addition to SACD, some master digital tapes in 2" format, and a lot of pro gear. I was not impressed, and neither was the reviewer from Absolute Sound that was listening room to room with me. This does not solve the question if SACD is good or not. I will not say that such a test is absolutely valid, as CES show conditions are poor. I will say that the set up Sony did is probably every bit as good as many high end audio dealers provide for their customers. From that standpoint, it is not off to a great start. I personally wish it would beat vinyl and that there were already a hundred thousand titles in print. However wishing and reality are two different things. The earlier posting about Betamax is scary, as that was a absolutely superior format to VHS, and Sony was the company behind Betamax too. If Sony does not resolve the issues of availability and cost of SACD software, this will wind up an expensive failure. The last project between Phillips and Sony, you may not remember. It was the DAC no, not digital audio converter, but digital audio cassette. It came to CES with a big bang, promised a library larger than CD and standard cassette, and everyone was pumped about it. They managed to sell a few, then it just went away. I was neither for or against it's success, I simply waited to see what was going to happen before I invested in it. I think SACD has a much better chance, as the format has much more appeal than digital cassette. Unfortunately, only time will tell. |
In response to Rfenol@notes.teradyne.com, there is nothing wrong with your analog. The set up you have is nearly what I had one year ago. At that time I had a Basis Mk5 and Graham with Ruby 2. If you are not satisfied with that set up because of noise, then you need someone else to adjust it for you. As far as suggesting what will give you 100% satisfaction, no person can possibly guarantee that. I will say that if you dislike the analog system you currently have, upgrading will not change your mind. Yes, there is much better analog systems, but as you say, it will never be the Boston Symphony. Neither will SACD, again the topic of this discussion, which concerned an Audiogon poster's dissatisfaction with a new format. And to Goose 89, you are correct, the point should be about enjoying music. In fact I had a topic that was about favorite music. The topic here is the ugly topic of trying to come to grips with the formats that are provided to us audiophiles, regardless of what we want. I am speaking from experience regarding all the formats being discussed here. The problem with all of us music junkies is we are all hoping to get closer to live music. The whole purpose of recorded music is to allow us to listen to people who are not available to perform for us, some of which are already deceased! The argument over format is a natural one, as we spend more money on the software than the hardware (in the long run) and really, it makes about as much difference as any of the pieces of hardware. |
In response to Jmazur@home.com, I don't think Carl was assassinating your character (if that is what you meant). It looked like an attempt to guide you in a different direction. You opened this post with what looked like a legitimate complaint, and most of the comments are either trying to figure out why you are disappointed, or suggesting other options. You stumbled onto a hot subject, because all of us are looking for better, and SACD would be heaven sent if it worked. You, at this point seem to think it does not. I cannot say I disagree, but I have not had the experience with it you have. I guess only time will tell. I wish you and everyone at Audiogon, only the best in your pursuit of getting your music the best it can be. |
David99, I like you, and your enthusiasm for the format that I enjoy the most. However, Jmazur@home.com, is looking for new technology and is hoping that his disappointment can be solved with a suggestion. Who can blame him for wanting the sound of LP with the convenience of a CD? Personally, I would KILL for such a format. There are plenty of people who feel like me, but they have not given up on the possibility of a new technology resolving this issue. In truth, a company as large as Sony has that ability. If only their heart was as big as their pocketbook, we would have the success story that we all (at this site) dream of. |
I personally try to not be hostile about LP. I think the main aggravation for me is the fact that primarily, it is all but dead. The main music companies have all but quit producing vinyl (Yes, the new Neil Young is great and Santana's album too) but, for the most part, we've been robbed. The reason for anger? How about you work and work and get the sound so perfect, that you can listen to anything you own in your library. I mean from LP's that are forty years old, to Jimi Hendrix, to the Cranberries, and Daniel Lanois. I am referring to sound so good, that visitors cannot speak for fear of interrupting the music. Then, you get ask for new music by KD Lang, or Matchbox 20, or someone else who is a group of the 90's. You cannot play it, because it does not exist on LP. You can play the CD, it is OK in your car, but on a ultra high end system that you have extracted all the performance out of for LP, it bites to play CD. I think the description of us (me) is closer to frustration, aggravation, disappointment, and confusion. Why don't the music companies produce both formats and let us choose? The answer is because music is now MANUFACTURED, not CREATED. Digital allows extreme manipulation of the signal, you can repair tone in a flat singers voice, you can fake anything the label wants, you can overdub as many times as necessary to make something out of nothing. The hard work and production perfection by the artist and producers to craft something real has been replaced by quick and convenient techniques that are extremely cost efficient. It should not come as a surprise in an our era, as everything has come to this. I guess the problem is that some of us would still like to hold on to something that is perfect. That is a lot of what a hobby is. A labor of love. It is a shame that we don't get more choices, and that the quality is determined by bottom line. For those of you that have not experienced having a system built on a format that has reached perfection, but no longer is viable for new music, be happy that what you have satisfies you. |
You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but I will accept the facts at an established music site over a person who is amused by silly comparisons. My effort was sincere, it appears you are following another agenda. |
David. Thanks to you from both myself, and my son. We listen together fairly often. He is only 14 years of age, so I often have trouble finding the music of his generation. I will look for Pink Floyd, I have only one copy of "The Wall," but I think I will be able to locate another. Hard to find LP's..... I would love to find "Mirrorball" by Sarah McLachlan; 10,000 Maniacs, "Our Time In Eden"; Loreena McKennitt "Book of Secrets"; KD Lang "Ingenue." I am also looking for two or three super clean copies of Nirvana's albums. "Nevermind", "In Utero" and "Unplugged". All of the copies posted on EBAY go completely crazy, and end up selling for what looks like the national debt. I will write you through Audiogon, you are of course welcome to my e-mail address. |
To 3141510, I'm not sure I understand what your posting means. I will try to address your comments, and apologize if I am wrong. Some rare LP titles that are important to me cost over $150.00. There are many others that were less than $10.00. Last week I purchased "Louis Armstrong Plays King Oliver," This is a new reissue from Classic Records. The price was only $20.00, and the sound is astounding! The reason I mention this specific LP, is the fact that it was recorded basically using only two Telefunken microphones in front of the performers in a "X" pattern. There are no overdubs, and the mixing is extremely minimal. This is an extreme example of what I meant when I described "created" music as opposed to "manufactured" music. Louis Armstrong had so much talent, and was so spontaneous, he could perform for a recording, or in front of a live audience and always made a amazing show of his ability. By contrast, some of today's artists rely so heavily on special techniques that they have difficulty in concert, even when equipped with an entire stage of assistants and electronics. On the subject of my being part of the "system," Although my music is primarily LP's, probably near 6,000 titles. I have also purchased over 2000 new CD's. I have never recorded music to tape to avoid paying for an artists work, nor ever taken songs from the radio, or MP3 files. The conditions that exist in the music industry are not due to a lack of support by me. If I cared more about music than I do now, I would have problems feeding myself and my family. |
In response to the posting from 3141510, Now I am really confused. I try to address your issues, and you make no sense at all. As far as Miles Davis, not only do I admire him, I purchased (probably) every recording he ever made. However, concerning your comments about Louis Armstrong, you state (I quote) "He is not even a musician, let alone artist." Since this differs so much from my belief, I visited AMG, and here is what is stated in the musical and historical facts in the relationships concerning Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong: I quote exactly: "Miles Davis had quite a career, one with so many innovations that his name is one of the few that can be spoken in the same sentence with Duke Ellington. ROOTS AND INFLUENCES: Dizzy Gillespie Roy Eldridge Bobby Hackett Harry James Freddy Webster Louis Armstrong Bix Beiderbecke Charlie Parker Clark Terry." Please note that Louis Armstrong is listed as an influential contributor to the music of Miles Davis. This certainly points to the fact that Louie Armstrong was indeed a great musician, and where he may be in a "generation gap" where you are concerned, he is indeed an important contributor. Louis and Miles are both a vital part of the history of Jazz, and that is not in any way just my opinion. |
