Needless to say Rsbeck as usual you avoid the specific points I made.
I think my last post and your reply speak for themselves. |
There's no wonder in it Rsbeck-I made the consideration that the original poster may not have more than $1500 to spend on a SACD player-if you read my original reply it should make sense.
Can you state that SACD is superior at that price limit?
We still don't know the original posters budget.
I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up (Audio Alchemy DDE3,DTI2,POWER STATION 2)beat the Sony.
The Sony is a good audio player for the money,it really is.
I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade,wanted more out of my music.
|
Perhaps it would have been prudent to ask Matchstikman his budget and his system.
There are others who think based on what they've heard on SACD that it DOESN'T make a very big difference on playback quality at all especially down at the entry level to moderate level of things.
There are some of us who have heard inferior SACD discs in comparison to their Redbook versions.
It is also rich imho to make such statements when some of the above have already admitted that on certain hybrids the Redbook layer is better.
It also depends how you determine "superior"-are we talking technically,sonically or as a format?
Redbook is still the superior format in my book since if I want to buy new music I can actually buy it and listen to it on Redbook.
There's no doubt technically SACD is superior,I also respect those who have heard the improvements SACD brings to them on their systems-again other haven't.
But it is a pretty complicated issue-I found SACD inferior as a format for several reasons and sold all my SACD discs but kept my hybrids for the Redbook layer. |
Socrates it is a nonsense to both say I am the only dissenting voice and that I am anti-SACD.
Try a search on the subject and see what it throws up.
Even better still try and work out the extensive amount of SACD players and software available 2nd hand.
I actively try to avoid the same old debate but apparently it is ok to make the same pro-SACD comments over and over again.
I drive to give a balanced viewpoint-I DO NOT say I am right-I explain what my experience is.
I ALWAYS state you should hear for yourself.
Say the original poster only has a limited amount of money to spend on a SACD machine?
Even those who are pro-SACD admit that at the lower end you will not hear a massive if any difference.
Is my experience not valid?
I actually saved a pro-SACD thread recently by making a post and getting the pro-SACD poster some answers.
For me it's about music and SACD limits very much my choices in listening to music.
I have to say I recently heard the Linn Unidisk playing SACD and I didn't hear anything to get excited about.
Disagree with me by all means but please do not misrepresent what I have said in the past. |
Matchstikman you really need to try and demo a SACD player in your own system.
As regards the software SACD has a large slant towards Jazz and Classical-there are a few new rock/pop/alternative releases but not many.
Of course there are quite a few rereleases-the most notiable being the Stones,Dylan and The Police.
The double edge sword with SACD hybrid releases is that the Redbook layer is remastered too,I have found at my level (check my system)the Redbook layer is enough for me because my more expensive CD player is my best playback machine and these discs sound (mostly)great but also on my SACD player(a mere $750 list in it's day) the difference between layers is not noticeable to any great extent.
It's long been my contention that SACD will survive probably only as an audiophille format and I think the releases so far pretty much reflect that.
Sales are up on SACD but I do think this is due to the big name hybrid releases such as Floyd,The Stones,Dylan and The Police-all of which sound great on Redbook and the vast majority were probably bought for this.
Try for yourself.
Oh and I won't bother trying to get some manners out of some people on these discussions,they seem incapable of it. |
Ears you will find one of the biggest SACD's supporters on these forums admit that some of The Stones discs sound better on the redbook layer of the SACD hybrids.
He has the state of the art SACD set up.
This of course doesn't disprove the overall theory, I admit that.
DSOTM imho doesn't show much difference between the layers.
I'm stepping out of this debate again but I want to make it clear I am a music enthuasiast-I do not recycle discs lighty and I do care about sonic reproduction.
I'm only offering another set of experiences.
To offer a true example here's a recent experience.
I recently sold an interconnect on Ebay to a guy who stayed locally-he was a vinyl guy but with a lower end system.
He liked the way my system sounded,he clearly knew his stuff and was impressed with the Ayre equipment which he'd never heard.
He spotted my Sony DVD/SACD player and
asked to hear some comparisons.
First up he noticed the big drop in sound quality from the Ayre.
But when he heard both Let It Bleed and DSOM on the Sony on different layers he found the performance between Redbook and SACD almost indentical.
He thought LIB sounded very slightly better on Redbook and DSOM very slightly better on SACD.
Maybe it's my system-but a friend who has a Levison 39s and the cheap Pioneer multi-format machine-feels exactly the same.
Let me finish by saying also I wish I could afford the like of Emm Labs equipment because I believe at that level you are very probably in a win win situation.
Last words. |
I guess your sore Rsbeck because you are the guy who has admitted some Redbook layers sounded better than SACD on the same disc.
You are pretty close on my experience but not exactly right.
I won't bore everybody with the details.
Part of your problem is that you see a $750/£500 machine as low end-I think Sony will have sold vast quantities of machines below the $1000 many more than those players above it.
The fact that a "lower" end machine doesn't highlight the differences doesn't matter to you because you are way at the other end of the scale,to me it is highly damaging to the format.
It's also relevant to the original poster whom will probably be considering a lower end machine.
Doesn't it matter that low end SACD machines don't show the format off?
These forums are about opinions and experiences.
You've stated that SACD is bettter than vinyl-some people don't agree.
Shouldn't you be allowed to state that?
My experience isn't as simplistic as you make out but if it saying that makes you happy then fine.
However isn't your experience also limited because how many people in all reality can afford the Emm Labs equipment?
I won't expect a reply to these points because you seldom actually reply to the facts.
The crux of my argument is what happens on my Sony SACD player and NOTHING to do with my Ayre playback.
It's that simple.
Oh and now WOW I have had a real high end experience with the Linn Unidisk and it didn't do a lot for me.
Keep smiling and try avoid getting this threads pulled by losing your temper.
|
Ears-just for the record the only comparison I do between Redbook and SACD is on the Sony.
Which I find surprising.
Comparisons with the Ayre would be largely pointless due to the obvious price difference. |
Rsbeck-really my final words this time.
If you see a theme fine,if I was sure I could have bought a SACD player that gave me the Redbook playback quality of the Ayre-I would have bought it and hopefully got the benefits of SACD a machine of that quality .
If I could afford an Emm Labs system I would have it and if eveything I hear about it is true then I would obviously reinvest in SACD software.
I think you fail to realise at your level you get a win,win situation below it there is much more debate.
I am not anti-SACD-it is a more complicated issue than just to come to the conclusion that it is a better or worse format-there are many different levels and issues within the argument.
As for the Stones SACD/Hybrids as far as I can hear and know the mixes on the SACD and Redbook layers are identical. |
Rsbeck really this is boring,I'm trying to get out of this debate but what you've written is not correct on a number of issues.
I only wanted Matchstikman to hear of other experiences,which at least two other members have agreed with in general terms on this thread.
Why don't you call them on that?
Others have also elsewhere.
Perhaps he could comment if my posts were worthwhile or not,he's probably quit the thread a while back.
My experience with SACD involves listening to a highly rated payer for over a year which I still own,which has been reviewed as clearly showing the differences between Redbook and SACD.
I current own about 20 SACD hybrids-I owned and heard about another 15 SACD discs.
Big deal, my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best-as for the hearsay comment well show me where I have made detailed analysis about anything I haven't heard.
You've done this on every thread,ignore the points you are called on (at least 4 or 5 above)and make the same point my experience isn't valid over and over again.
Anyone who wishes to enter into SACD deserves to hear at least an alternative viewpoint,made to consider some of the drawbacks with the format and be aware that they may not hear the differences they are expecting.
I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.
Martin Collims who is a well-respected journalist recently wrote in his Krell SACD review he had serious doubts and issues with the format.
I will post elsewhere more detailed thoughts on the format. |
Rsbeck I find it incredible you can read that post again pick out two parts that aren't questions and completely miss the first part of the post.
I'll try to be clear these were the questions you haven't answered.
Did we know the original posters budget was(?) and therefore wasn't my original post valid since it was very possible that the poster would have less than $1500 to spend?
Can you state that at this price limit SACD is indeed the superior format?
What you continually seem to miss is that I am only saying this is a more complex issue than is being stated.
Of course the original post was vague,no price limits,idea of how important other aspects were.
I can agree you replied in a broader sense of what the poster asked and that those points were VALID.
You never seem to think any of my points are vaild because you think I am writing from ignorance or limited experience.
It appears you will never get away from that regardless of how wide I broaden the argument.
It's pointless to keep this up.
Show me where I state to the original poster NOT to try SACD?
You clearly don't read a lot of what I write because it always take numerous attempts to get you to reply to the specific points,your last post is a totally classic example.
What is interesting Rsbeck is that through this and the other debate ongoing at the moment even the guy (Ears)who agrees with you most about my "hollow" stance have differing views about other aspects of SACD.
You think you can get quality Redbook replay from a SACD machine around $1600 (used),he thinks at least $4k.
By his measure I cannot afford Redbook replay of the standard I would like on a SACD machine.
Is he right and you wrong?
No both your viewpoints are valid from your respective perspectives and experience.
This is what I was aiming at with my original post,an opinion based on my experience with SACD,I only asked the poster to consider my points and find his own experience.
Please explain to me why this is not a valid reply to the question?
These forums are about debate it would appear you would just rather leave it at SACD is superior,all the time for everybody,end of story. |
Rsbeck any chance if I ever make it to the States getting invited up to your place to hear your rig?
I think enough has been written,the thread is here for Audiogoners to read and come to their own conclusions.
Happy listening! |
Little Milton I don't think yout inclusion of myself back into this argument is merited and it reads like a whole lot of quotes I never made. |
Little Milton that link is in very poor taste and will offend a lot of people.
I think you should apologise before you get slaughtered for an incorrect and tasteless so-called joke. |
Ears in this never ending debate I think it's been forgotten I wanted to try and enjoy SACD, not bury it,my player originally retailed for approx $750,£500 here in the UK.(I bought somewhere in the region of 40 SACD's).
Without repeating various points we simply don't have the choice here in the UK to pick up modded players etc.
I've never stated my experience is the definitive one,far from it but from a starting out point I think it's a valid experience my other points are represented elsewhere.
I think this debate is worthwhile and what is interesting to me is that I think Rsbeck probably made his best post on SACD yesterday,not that I agree at all with everything he wrote but I actually found that through his obvious frustation he found a better way to put things......
I would still love to be in both camps and as I've always said I may return to SACD at some stage. |
Ears I wonder how many of those European players are stand alone SACD/CD machines?
I would think the majority are low end Sony DVD players and indeed the entry level universal machines.
Sure this doesn't mean that the owners won't become SACD supporters but I wouldn't bet on it.
Similarly I would imagine a very large proportion of SACD disc sales this year will be down to the major hybrid releases.
The format clearly has potential to enter into the mainstream in terms of being the dominant format but I doubt that it will happen.
Can you name me one serious SACD machine released this year for a European audiophile to consider in the £2-£3.5k margin?
Believe me I know what is available in the UK better than some sales figures,there was next to nothing to consider to match the Ayre CX-7 I had heard.
There's a real gap in the market from the early high end Sony machines,the early Marantz and indeed the new high end players such as Linn and Krell which have just been released.
Even these real high end players are meeting with mediocre reviews but even avoiding that issue and their incredible price-it would appear from a strategic point of view SACD players are coming out(mainly)on two levels-low cost universal machines and real ultra-high end machines.
I'm answering this because your points are clearly aimed at this European Audiogoner.
I think Rcprince makes some good points above and indeed there is some worthwhile debate on both sides of the fence,if only people could leave out the need to insult each other out.
I'd also like to add despite my so-called anti-SACD tag I do not agree with everything negative written about the format. |
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. |
Ears I've had work done by Audiocom before a few years back however thanks for the link.
I am happy with my system at this stage. |
