SACD two channel is superior to redbook two channel.
You do not need multi-channel to enjoy SACD. I have had
multi-channel SACD players like the Sony SCD XA 777ES
and now I have the Emm Labs Dac6, but I listen to them in
two-channel and it sounds great. I'm not a fan of multi-channel
when I listen to music -- I use my 5.1 system for movies only.
The superiority of SACD comes through very clearly in two-channel.
|
Bottom line: If one wants to see what digital has to offer -- either
CD or SACD, one needs to be willing to spend some money on a
front end. If one wants to be in a win/win situation, one might want
to audition CD players with SACD capability. If one wants to have
all formats covered, I recommend getting a high end CD/SACD player and combining it with a DVD/DVD-A player. In two boxes,
you will have great music and DVD playback and all your formats covered. |
I have the Emm Labs Dac6, which is a top of the line redbook CD player -- best I've ever heard -- simply amazing -- yet -- its SACD play-back is still superior. SACD is a superior medium. Music sounds more natural -- you have to hear it to understand. |
Vinyl is great, but I gave it up and have not regretted it -- if I were
just getting into this -- at this stage in the development of digital -- I would not get into vinyl -- just my opinion. I also think this starts a
different thread -- the original poster only asked about the difference between CD and SACD. |
>>I'm only offering another set of experiences.<<
By your own admission, you have extensive experience only with a high end Ayre CD player and a low end SONY SACD player --and you prefer the CD play-back on the higher end CD player -- versus your lower end player -- which should come as a surprise to no one. You've admitted that you were not able to audition a high end SACD player at the time of your purchase because they were not available where you live. So, you opted to buy a high end player without SACD capability -- that was *your* decision --
without auditioning high end CD/SACD players. Other than that,
you are offering the experiences of others -- hearsay -- which seems to have the effect of validating your purchase of a high-end player without SACD capability. |
Sort of like saying with regard to Mexico, "I've only been to Tijuana, but I don't recommend going to Cancun." |
>>I have NEVER said at a certain price point or level that SACD isn't better.<<
Well, this was the subject of the thread. So, if you agree that -- at
a certain price point, SACD reveals its Superiority -- one can only wonder why you would jump into the thread to debate against those who are arguing that SACD is superior.
>>my fault for not buying a more expensive machine to show off the format to it's best<<
Your less expensive player obviously didn't show redbook CD to its best, either -- or else you would not have been compelled to buy a high end CD player. So, this simply adds weight to the argument that *any* format will reveal more of its strengths with a high end player than with a low end one. |
Ben --
I am not sore -- I just think your comments should be put in the
context of your experience. After purchasing a high end Ayre
CD-only player without auditioning any high end CD/SACD players first -- and then campaigning against SACD on this
board -- you finally got some experience with a high end Linn
Universal Player, and found it "didn't do a lot for you." But --
again -- this just seems like another attempt to justify your purchase of a high end player without SACD capability -- so,
I see a theme here.
The question that the original poster asks with regard to CD and SACD is, "are they the same? Is one Superior?" Someone claimed that a high end CD player would out-perform a high end
SACD player. Since I believe I own one of the top CD players
available in the Emm Labs Dac6 and since it also has SACD
capability, I think my experience in this regard is exactly on the point. The highest end CD player I have experienced -- The Emm Labs Dac6 -- is amazing, but still -- the SACD playback is superior.
With regard to the Stones hybrid, "Let it Bleed," I have said that
I prefer the *MIXES* on some of the CD tracks, but that the SACD tracks still show the superiority of the *MEDIUM.*
Since this thread is about the *MEDIUM* of SACD compared to
the *MEDIUM* of redbook CD, my comments about the Let it Bleed hybrid can only be used to support the argument that the MEDIUM
of SACD is superior.
Further, I have also owned the Sony SCD XA777ES, which I
purchased on Audiogon used for $1,600 and this player -- which
has excellent redbook CD playback -- also demonstrated clear
Superiority on SACD playback.
So, my answer to the original poster, based on my experience, is that CD and SACD are not the same, a high end CD player will not out-perform a high-end SACD player, and SACD *is* superior to
CD. |
To get good results from redbook CD takes a relatively expensive player. I was unhappy with redbood CD playback until I purchased the Sony SCD XA777ES used on Audiogon for $1,600. Coincidentally, that machine also had SACD capability, which sounded even better. But, if you *really* want to hear redbook CD at its best, you need to get the Emm Labs Dac6, which also has SACD capability. I would be miserable with the cheapest DVD-A player. It would be no consolation to me that its DVD-A playback might be better than its [low-end] CD playback. So, for me, this is irrelevant. I've been about the business of searching out and buying the best redbook CD players I can find -- because I have over 1,000 redbook CD's -- it just happens that these players also have SACD capabilities and the SACD playback is even better, which has prompted me to buy a number of SACD's and to look forward to new releases.
|
The fact remains that you were not happy with the redbook CD playback of your prior player -- so you moved up to a high end
redbook CD player -- but, you were *unable* to audition high end CD players with SACD capability because they were not available in your area -- so, for this and other reasons, the route you took enabled you to explore high end CD playback, but did not enable you to further explore SACD.
I have no problem with the route you took and the rationale behind it, but IMO, when you hi-jack SACD threads to make negative comments regarding SACD [and players you have not personally auditioned], your admitted lack of experience with SACD [in relation to your more extensive experience with redbook CD] calls your comments into question.
What you can tell us is that you enjoy high end redbook CD playback better than low-end CD playback.
Further, I do agree that having a high end CD player with SACD
capability puts me in a win/win situation. I also agree that there is debate with regard to the price point at which SACD's superiority
can be discerned, but -- without trying to be rude -- I think that debate should take place between posters who have had experience with these machines, rather than between posters who *have* had experience versus a poster who can only offer 2nd hand hearsay.
Finally, on that point, I have written that I could clearly hear the
superiority of SACD on a Sony SCD XA777ES which I bought
used on Audiogion for $1,600. This player had excellent CD
playback -- far superior to my previous player, which was a
Yamaha s2300 Universal Player, which I bought new for $1,000.
Still, the SACD playback of the XA777ES was superior to the CD
playback. That was my experience with a player I had in my system for a few months. |
You wrote....
"I wasn't compelled to buy a better Redbook player because my previous Redbook set up...beat the Sony."
Then, you wrote......
"I spent more cash because I love music and wanted to upgrade, wanted more out of my music."
Maybe you *are* making really powerful points that I am avoiding,
or maybe you don't communicate all that clearly. It seems to me that you first argue against my contention that you traded up to get more out of redbook CD -- which goes against logic -- and then you go on to confirm that this is exactly what you did.
I don't think rhetorical gambits like this need a response.
I cannot see where I have fouled you in any way. At least I stuck to the topic. Your final post contains nothing at all about audio. I call *that* a foul.
Happy listening.
|
Mr. Campbell --
Obviously, the whole topic of SACD is a complex one *FOR YOU.*
It is also apparent to me that, for you, this issue goes far beyond music. I guess I am supposed to go through your posts and figure out what I should answer and what I am supposed to ignore, which are your real points and which are just meant to act as filler between them, and then I am also supposed to validate the points you think you've made, ignore the points that contradict each other, ignore the holes in your experience, accept your 2nd hand hearsay -- even though I notice you misquote and misuse my statements in some of these rambles, etc. etc. etc.
For me, it is simple. From my first experiences with audio onward,
I have accepted that the equipment I use and the music I play on it
will be out of the mainstream, will cost more, will take some time and trouble to acquire and to "get right." But, it is worth it to get great music reproduction. So, frankly, I find all your "consumerist" complaints about SACD irrelevant -- ESPECIALLY on a board like this one. You know damn well there are web-sites that carry SACD, SACD's are NOT difficult for an audio enthusiast to find --they are difficult for a mainstream consumer to find. EVERYONE knows we are in the early phases and we are limited to the 1,500
or so SACD's available. Why should it matter to anyone who has the opportunity to explore SACD that your choices are limited by the shops in your town? I've never seen anyone else dog a piece of equipment because it isn't available at their neighborhood shop. Again -- this is STANDARD experience in this hobby. Frankly, it seems to me that you want others to validate your belief that because *you* have had a little bit of disappointment with your initial foray this must spell doom for the medium. But, I would wager that everyone on this forum has been disappointed by some highly rated piece of equipment and/or software on the road to audio nirvana. This is typical. So, I doubt you are going to get a lot of sympathy here. Your objections -- like your speculation that SACD will only live on as a toy for audiophiles -- would spell doom for everything we do on this forum. I find it objectionable that you have let your little disappointment -- whatever it was -- with one machine turn into this personal little crusade of yours -- especially when you pass on 2nd hand comments about equipment you've never heard. i consider that a foul. Then when you add the fact that you are sitting there with an esoteric piece of high end audiophile equipment listening to your redbook CD making these comments about SACD, I find your comments ironic to say the least.
Now, the original poster wanted to know about two channel SACD.
Pretty specific question. I would guess the poster wanted to know
if he/she needed a 5.1 system to enjoy SACD. My answer is, "no."
He/she also wanted to know if SACD is superior to CD. Who in the
world would think he/she was asking whether there was better
selection of SOFTWARE on SACD as opposed to CD? Short answer -- NOBODY. This is just common sense. I assume this
poster is interested in finding BETTER DIGITAL REPRODUCTION.
This road is going to lead to a consideration of SACD. My answer
is "yes, SACD sounds better." Finally, I didn't play guessing games
with the original poster's budget -- because I don't NEED to know
his/her budget. I assume the poster wants to hear the EXPERIENCE of other posters, so I shared with him/her the two
pieces of equipment -- at two different price points -- that I have personally had in my system and enjoyed. I also assume that this is probably one of the first questions on this poster's journey. When he/she wants to know about players in his price range, how much it costs to get great reproduction, where to find software, how much is available -- HE/SHE WILL ASK. If the pieces I mention are too expensive, I assume he/she will say so, I also assume others
will offer their EXPERIENCE at other price points -- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. IMO, what you have to offer is that you
had a machine in your system and you didn't hear enough of a difference -- and then you didn't audition any other players because they were *UNAVAILABLE* in your area -- and that will be weighed against others who've had the same piece of equipment and DID hear enough difference, people who've heard SACD players that were UNAVAILABLE to you and enjoyed them, etc, etc, etc, etc. Then, the original poster and anyone else with interest in this thread will sift and weigh all this information and will form impressions, follow up questions, etc, etc, etc, etc.
|
Ben --
If you ever come to the States, drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to have you over to spin some tunes.
Thanks for the discussion, |
Beta continued to be used by viedograhers, VHS was replaced by DVD. So, Betamax is a bad analogy. |
You know what market is exploding? MP3. Does this mean that
compressed music sounds better? No. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds has great food? No. So,
let's not get confused here. The POPULARITY of a format has
nothing to do with the QUALITY.
Second, after the invention of the automobile, it took decades for
the infrustratucre, gas stations and paved roads, to develop to
support it. Trying to make calculated guesses about the future of
any technology while you're in the early stages is impossible.
Third, VHS was replaced by DVD, which is higher resolution.
SACD and DVD-A are higher resolution than redbook CD. So,
if you take a longer time-frame, the Betamax analogy doesn't
work. In the long run, it was HIGHER RESOLUTION that won out.
Fourth, as Arroc has argued so well, the market is going towards
UNIVERSAL PLAYERS, which was impossible with Betamax and
VHS. Personally, I don't use a UNIVERSAL PLAYER. I own an
EMM LABS DAC6 and a Denon DVD/DVD-A 1200. So, this will
be just like usual, the mass market will use one player to play
digital and the Audiophile will separate his/her digital play-back into two or three boxes for better sound.
|
The idea that SACD is simply a gimmick like putting "concert hall echo" into the music is seriously wrong. SACD is higher RESOLUTION, it is like the difference between taking a picture with a one mega-pixel digital camera and taking one with a 5 megapixel digital camera. There is more INFORMATION on a SACD, the digital gaps inherent in redbook CD have been filled in with music and ambience due to an exponentially higher sample rate. Unless we are going to argue that we prefer a lower sample rate and less information, we must agree that SACD is a superior FORMAT. The wonder of life is that people have different preferences. Some people may even *prefer* the lower sample rate of redbook CD, but now we're talking about a consumer choice, we're not talking about the inherent quality of the medium.
SACD is a Superior medium because it is higher resolution and
has an exponentially higher sample rate than redbook CD. |
Here's another interesting irony: When *some* people listen to
an SACD player, they conclude there must be something wrong with its CD playback and this sends them scurrying for a better
CD player -- and -- somehow -- this is supposed to be a poor
reflection on.......you figure it out.....SACD. |
Personally, it doesn't surprise me that after hearing SACD, one would become dissatisfied with anything other than a high end
CD player for redbook playback. |
Ritteri -- you wrote;
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the different modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms."
Many of your claims -- like this one -- have proven erroneous.
You appear to have one left -- your claim that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. But, instead of conceding that you've been incorrect on many counts, it seems you have taken to insisting your only claim left standing was really your "important" one. Let's assume, for the moment, that it is your "important" point.
We will return to it in a moment.
You are also trying to rehabilitate one of your other points -- the one regarding the relative number of SACD's available. But, there's a problem; You claimed DVD-A has more potential than SACD. There are fewer DVD-A titles. It doesn't seem logical to claim that SACD has LESS potential based on the number of titles, then to go on and predict GREATER success for the format with FEWER titles. Wouldn't you agree? Then again, maybe this isn't one of your *important* points. [Sorry -- a little jest.]
I don't really see where you've made any credible points in the debate, EXCEPT your claim regarding the number of SACD players available. But, to those who are currently enjoying one of those SACD players and the titles available, your "important" point would seem to be moot.
Bottom line: *YOU* have made a choice to avoid SACD for whatever reasons. Maybe you have good reasons, but the explanation you've provided here is shot through with errors, shaky speculation and internal contradictions. You should get the facts so you can debate the topic with some credibility and should you choose to reject SACD, you can do so for the right reasons. |
High end CD players. If you're looking at the top CD players,
you're talking about the $20,000 Linn, the $40,000 Burmeister, etc.
The redbook playback on the Meitner Emm Labs Dac6 is competitive with those players and many people find the redbook
playback on the Emm Labs to be superior. Still, the SACD playback is even better than the CD playback. It is absolutely false
that high end CD players can beat SACD due to the maturity of
redbook technology or for any other reason. Further, why would a
high end CD player out-perform a low end SACD player? The answer is that, though SACD DOES sample at a rate exponentially
higher than CD, this isn't the ONLY issue with digital playback.
Other issues are; The quality of the transport, jitter, power supply,
quality of the DAC, etc. etc. etc. Anyone who bypasses SACD because a low end SACD player didn't illustrate the advantages of thne medium or because a low end SACD player didn't surpass the playback of a high end CD player with all the attendant advantages of a high end digital player -- is seriously misguided. You don;t want to go around saying that on an audio site -- you need to become informed. An analogy might be hooking up Wilson Watt Puppies to your Sears audio system and then complaining that you don't hear all the detail and air you were promised in the review. You've got to spend some money if you want to enjoy your Watt Puppies and you have to spend some money to hear the advantages of SACD, but if you are in search of
better sound, you aren't going to stick with that Sears audio system
and you aren't going to be happy with CD when you know higher resolution is out there waiting. It would be silly to upgrade your amps, speakers, interconnects, get dedicated circuits, power conditioning, and then say, "but, I am happy with the lower sample
rate and digital gaps of redbook CD, I don't want to spend another grand or two to get a better SACD player." It doesn't make sense. You're spending all that money to get HIGHER resolution. Finally -- again -- I don't know why anyone bothers to try to fortell the future of SACD -- you might as well go into business selling miracle disease cures over the internet -- you'll have a better chance of getting people to believe you have the power to cure Alopecia through a few visits to your web-site to put one's hand on the image of the magic monkey than you will of getting someone to believe you can fortell the future of a new technology. The only issues are -- is SACD superior to CD? Of course it is. Exponentially higher sample rates and more information on the software is better. Is there a SACD player in your price range that gives you the type of CD playback you also find satisfactory? If yes, then get it for the redbook playback and dabble in SACD. I bought the Meitner because it has the best CD playback, the SACD playback is just a great bonus. Are there enough SACD titles to interest you? If no, then avoid the medium until more software comes out, but don't bother preaching to those who are busy listening to some of the 1500+ titles available and enjoying their high end or modified SACD players -- you're wasting your breath. Saying, "I have decided to avoid SACD and that spells death for the medium" is not exactly persuasive. Other technologies have taken off without your help, it stands to reason, so can SACD.
|
As someone who once visited a Tweeter store, I can say that listing employoment there on one's resume' does not guarantee expertise in audio. |
Why is it that when someone is caught making factual errors on
the internet the next thing they will do is pull out all their credentials? You can have 18 PHd's and that won't change the fact that Ritteri claimed SACD was nothing more than the equivilent of putting music hall echo into the music mix. How in
the world can you work in several high end audio stores and still
believe something like that? I think we've all had a salesman
like this somewhere along the line. I had one like that in my lone
visit to a Tweeter. It is probably just an unfortunate coincidence. |
Credibility doesn't come from saying you have a lot of experience in audio or from claiming other people agree with you -- it comes
from the quality of your claims. When you claim that SACD is
the equivilent of adding music hall echo, you show a basic ignorance of the format about which you are attempting to debate.
If a high school drop-out tells me SACD means a higher sample
rate and more information on the disc, he/she, by nature, will have
more credibility. Further, on the internet, anyone can claim anything. I once debated a guy who claimed expertise in politics because he claimed he teaches history at his local University. Later, in the same debate, the guy claimed he understood science because he works in a government laboratory. Busy guy, huh? My experience is that people who make credible comments don't usually have to shore them up with these types of claims. So, I will say that I have no idea what is your experience and it doesn't really matter. The credibility of your comments has been undermined by these errors you've littered throughout this debate.
They were undermined further when you failed to acknowledge
these errors. What is needed now is not your credentials -- these
citations only beg the question -- how can someone work in high
end audio and have such erroneous information? The answer is --either you are fibbing about your audio experience -- highly possible since many people use the internet to try to carve out
alternate personalities -- or you were just another mis-informed
salesman. My experience is that I usually know a lot more about
any piece of gear I am auditioning than the salesman at the store,
no matter how high end, but especially at places like Tweeter.
These guys are usually better at sales than they are at audio --
talkers. So, these types of credentials wouldn't help you even if
you weren't making all these erroneous claims. Any way you look at it, you are better off getting better informed than you are trying
to rehabilitate yourself in this manner. That's just my opinion. |
Sacd is superior because the sample rate is higher, producing
more information over the entire spectrum. Ritteri claims he hasn't
heard the difference between SACD and CD even with trillions of
dollars worth of equipment, but we cannot get pas his unfortunate
claim that SACD is the equivilent of adding music hall echo. What
this tells me is that Ritteri *DID* hear the difference, but simply did
not understand what he was hearing. The ambient information to
which he refers was due to SACD's higher sample rate which allows the recording to pick up more ambient information -- this is
what gives SACD the ability to recreate more of the subleties of
the performance and gives you more of the feeling that the performance is happening in your listening room. If you think you're hearing "echo" that was put into the music by the engineer,
how could you appreciate this additional information? Perhaps
Ritteri doesn't appreciate that information, but when he alludes to
"music hall echo" is stands to reason that he indeed heard it. This is sort of similar to Steve Martin's character in The Jerk. Upon being served 1861 Lafite Rothschild, Martin spits it out and yells, "take this away and bring me something FRESHER!" Obviously, Martin's character TASTED everything that makes the vintage wine superior, he just didn't understand what he was drinking. On the other hand, it *is* possible that some people don't care for the secondary and tertiary flavors in vintage wine and some people might prefer a lower sample rate, lower resolution, and less ambient information. But, if Ritteri did actually work in audio sales, as he claims, we can only wonder how many others were exposed to this misinformation. How many others are out there thinking the ambient information was actually just music hall echo due to
Ritteri's misunderstanding? Taste is one thing, but ignorance is dangerous. |
Information? You want information?
Click here, go to this page and click on their list of links...
http://www.daisy-laser.com/tech3.htm |
Jade -- that was truly an inspiring story. Now, the big question --
does SACD feel to you like the equivilent of adding music hall
echo? |
It has to do with dynamic range -- CD is compressed compared to
SACD. It also has to do with the filtering used with CD playback
and digital gaps due to the lower sample rate. It has to do with the
significantly lower noise floor of SACD. Has to do with the digital glare of CD which is not audible on SACD. |
