SACD 2 channel vs Redbook 2 Channel


Are they the same? Is one superior? Are they system dependent?
matchstikman

Showing 6 responses by jadem6

Socrates I admire your review of the improvements SACD offer and find them to be acurate. However, I wish your jab at Ben had been left out. I've found over the past five years Ben to be consistant in his taste and his opinions. I believe there is room for both of you to be right here, which I believe you both are. For the entry level SACD may not have enough upside. This opinion is formed from reading others comments with lower end systems. My experience is only with high end systems, and I fully agree with Socrates. For my taste SACD is a vast improvement, and very addictive. Just my opinion, and that is what this poster asked for.
Ritteri,
In the past, people at Audiogon who have argued their positions in the same way as you are here, have lost all credibility among the community. Your comments are very elementary in nature and for the most part hardly defendable. The simple statement about remastered redbook to redbook is evidence of your weak position here. Old recordings have been remastered for years. Not to SACD but to redbook for the simple reason of improving the master along with the technology. These remastered cd's have sold millions of copies to the masses, not just the audiophile. Please drop your position before you embarrass yourself any further and get tagged as a simple flamer.
Now for a comment on your system. You have an excellent cd player, not my personal taste, but a great player non-the-less. I would suggest finding a comparable SACD player for your comparisons. That may be very difficult to do in that your running your volume from your digital player and you would need a pre-amp to run SACD. Now you would be comparing apples and peas. Not even the same family! My guess is you have never made a direct comparison redbook to SACD on your system using all fruit.
I'm sure you'll have some comment to defend yourself, remember your reputation will stick for a long time.
The latest issue of the Music Direct catalog has 15 pages (non-advertising) of SACD’s and four pages of DVD-A’s. They have 14 pages of “redbook” and 18 pages of vinyl. Of course this is not a reflection of what is available in all formats, but it is a reflection of the marketing to the Audiophile. The point is the SACD catalog of music is growing very quickly and is being marketed to those who have interest in hi-resolution audio playback. As for hardware they have Philips, Music Hall, Berendsen, Marantz, McCormack, Esoteric and Shanling. This is one catalog from one music supplier to the Audiophile. Hardware is a secondary market to this company, yet the variety of players available shows me the market is growing, and more companies are devoting R&D budgets to SACD. If the next two years follow the curve of the past two we will find a whole lot to choose from!
As to the argument continuing on this thread, I feel some important issues have been left out. Ritteri has lead the anti-SACD argument. It’s time we look at who is making these comments. Clearly he has some experience in an audio store. Judging from the equipment he has talked about this is a mid/high end store, but clearly not the audiophile level. His comment “Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way.” Made on 11-21-03 clearly shows his inability to impartially state the facts. All pre-amps color the sound in some way. In the case of Adcom in bi-pass mode and Pass it hardens the sound in my opinion. Edgy and electronic, in comparison to natural and neutral. I continue my analysis of who Ritteri is with his system. Wadia CD player, Aragon amp and Voodoo cables. Can you say harsh and edgy? I’m surprised he’s not touting Krell, Theta, Ayre and electrostatic speakers, but I’m guessing his “store” is not of the ilk to attract these manufacturers. My point is this equipment is good equipment but clearly not neutral or natural in sound reproduction. My feeling is this is playing into his opinions on the SACD format and his comments on analog.
I ask Ritteri to back off his “I know because I work in an audio store” platform and realize his view is extremely limited and his taste hardly represenitive of an audiophile.
Ritteri,
I’m so embarrassed, I had no idea we were in the e-presence of such incredible greatness. Please except my ever so humble apology for my ignorance and obvious naivety regarding audio equipment and it’s proper use. Had I simply understood your extensive genius on all things audio I would have never dared to call you on your earlier comments. Believe me, I’m convinced. I’ve already arranged to sell my whole system and follow your obvious wisdom. I plan to purchase your exact system, and with any luck I can convince you to fly here and straighten out my other shortcomings. My room acoustic must be completely out of control in that my knowledge base is hardly as worldly as yours.
I bow trembling at you feet, hoping you can overlook my sad little life and lead me to enlightenment. I know of no person on this earth with more experience than you have amassed, you truly are the chosen one. I finally understand that my ears are not well trained and thus are not worthy of determining such weighty topics as to wether SACD sounds better or worse than “redbook”. Thanks to your greatness I now see I’ve gone astray. 44.1 is digital bliss. These new formats are no way better, so for anyone to make the foolish assumptions I made and believe what they hear is facing the same embarrassment I have had to endure. Lucky for me it’s not to late. I can change, I will go happily back to my old redbook cd’s. Maybe I’ll venture outside the box with an Adcom pre-amp if I want to hook up my tuner, but I promise I will stray no further without first consulting my new found guru.
I felt compelled to make one final entry into this thread. It’s time for me to come clean with my background in audio and how I came to be so knowledgeable about stereo systems.
It started in 1962, I was in second grade and learning to play the flute-a-phone. I spent two years practicing and learning this classic instrument when I was labeled a prodigy and sent off to Juilliard. After a year of study I was booked to perform Bach’s sonata for flute-a-phone in E minor at Carnegie Hall. It was a huge success and my career was off and running. I continued my studies back at Juliart for another year during which time I was pursued by more than 50 recording labels. I signed a three-record deal with Sony Music. This is probably where my obvious prejudice for SACD begins, but that has no relevance to this post. My first recording was Wagner’s concerto for flute-a-phone and piano. Leonard Bernstein played piano and I played flute-a-phone. It was an instant success and I was pursued by every major orchestra to perform with them. Tragedy struck that winter when I lost all four fingers on my right hand in a horrible ice-skating accident. I’m luck to be alive.
I was fortunate that it was my right hand in that I am left-handed. I began an art career in 1968 at the now mature age of twelve. Given my history with New York and Juilliard I was able to get sponsorship from the Carnegie Foundation to study the “old masters” in Paris. By the time I was seventeen I was considered one of the greatest living artist and received great benefits from all who hoped to touch me. I was fortunate to have full access to any musician I wanted to meet, and was given back stage passes to concerts for all the great bands. I met up with Pink Floyd in 1974 and was present at the tragic concert in Singapore. As many of you will remember, this was the concert where the entire right column of speakers (almost 80 sq. ft of area) blew up! Unfortunately I was seated just to the center of the column in the front row. There were about ten of us sitting in the exact wrong spot. We all lost full hearing in both ears. This of course was quite a blow to my love for music, worse yet fragments of speaker magnets hit my face, leaving me completely blind. I thought my life had ended. I could no longer pursue my artistic career, and without my hearing, my love for music seemed doomed. It was four years later that I was with a friend who was shopping for a new stereo when I discovered the miracle that brought me to Audiogon. Because of my loss of sight and hearing, my remaining three senses have been greatly enhanced. Of course taste and smell have little to do with audio systems unless a tube blows, but surprisingly feel has a lot to due with musical enjoyment. I discovered quite by accident that I had an unbelievable ability to determine the quality of audio equipment and its proper set-up all through my perception of sound waves. In my minds eye the vibrations from the speakers create an image of what is recorded. With a well-recorded piece, on excellent equipment and set-up properly, I can “see” a well defined three-dimensional image as real as life. With well-recorded material I am able to clearly identify what instrument is being played, and where it is positioned on the stage. I’ve discovered that cabling, footers and power supply all have great effects on a systems ability to properly reproduce the event. I even found that I can tell you if cable is laying on the floor, all through the image created in my mind’s eye. Of course a lot of the recordings made in the ‘70's and ‘80's are made using multi-track tape. This is like feeling knives hitting my skin. I am not able to interpret the information and it looks hazy and glaring to me. Sadly the format of 16/44.1 is similar to what is produced by multi-tracked tape. I am not able to spend any time in front of this noise, interestingly enough I understand hearing people have this same reaction!
So now to the point, SACD is closer to real when I’m feeling a recording. It’s subtle I suppose, maybe like seeing a concert in the fog, or not. Or listening to music with the white noise of a fan in the room or the quite of a well-isolated space. It is not as to whether the quality is subtle to me. It’s simply more enjoyable seeing music from SACD rather than from the digital blur of redbook cd. These of course are simply my opinions, but I feel my unique background makes me more qualified to make these judgements than any person who is simple listening to a system with their ears. That’s so yesterday! Unless any of you have had a similar background in audio as I have I do not believe you’re in a position to argue my conclusions. I am so happy to have the advantages of SACD in my system. The simple SACD format is so much easier to work with than my old LP collection. I always dreaded setting the needle on the vinyl. It’s hard to explain what image is created as that needle skips across the grooves. I must admit for the ultimate in realism vinyl is still king, even though a single pop or click can create a huge flash to my mind’s eye. With practice I found I was able to over look these shortcomings, much like my eventual acceptance of cd’s. Now however with SACD I feel I am losing nothing and gaining near perfection.
Yes Dave, you’re correct. The PBS segment was filmed while I was at M.I.T. being studied. Those were fascinating days, we discovered so much about our bodies during the three years I spent in Boston. The most amazing thing we discovered has hardly been written about. We learned that our bodies and consequently our minds could interpret sound waves well beyond 100,000kHz. I believe this may also play into my enjoyment of SACD. It simply appears to provide a more real and natural response in my mind.
Someday remind me to tell you about when I played pinball with Pete T. of the Who
J.D.