Nrchy: Though I applaud your response, there are some area's that need to be adressed.
1. Why non-English titles should be removed from the list.
I personally listen to music written in my native tongue(assuming were talking about music with VOCALS here)as most people do. Im sure there are sime bi lingual people, but this is a very small minority comparitively.
2. Alot of the SACD titles arent even popular music or top 40. Not all of us listen to 25 different variations of "Allegro" or even care to. Get the point?
3. 44.1 is/was/whatever known to be undersampled, but with some of the breakthru's of the edge of the art cd players, CD is proving that there is still life and has shown to have just as much musical information as some of the newer formats currently.
One such example I have used on occasion for people who want a demonstration is the DSOTM CD from Pink Floyd. Maybe with a basic cdp its only so-so compared to an SACD version. But with a few SERIOUS high end CDP's the SACD doesnt sound as great as once thought. Again this is just an example and nothing more. You would think SACD would be head and shoulders above ALL current cdp's, not just the ones you would pick up at circuit city.
4. SACD's SHOULD be compared to current cd's, as that is what they are supposed to replace and be 100% superior to isnt it? You want to compare em to cd's from 20 years ago?Might as well compare em with 20 year old cdp players too. If that is the case, they should be better. BUt I could go get an $60 cd player from circuit city that sounds better than some of the "reference" players from back then too.
5. CD's were jammed down people's throats? At the time I think that was a good thing. Never was a fan of cassette tapes, and LP's have alot more downside than people realize, especially 20 years ago.
6. As for the Beta comment, you must really be thick headed, it was used as a poor analogy and nothing more. Dont be a complete moron please.
7. As for supporting new mediums Im all for it. But that medium had better be a BIG STEP UP from CD. Not a marginal at best step up, and in the case of the current Edge-of-the-art CDP's SACD isnt a really a step up at all, and in fact in many cases(how well the cd has been recorded and mastered) is a step down CURRENTLY(which means down the road this may change). Thats the whole point. A point alot of people here are missing completely.
1) This is YOUR opinion, which matters to such an insignificant few, and is a poor argument. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else is wrong! Stating your personal preference as a universal maxim, however, is consistent with your foolish pride and arrogance oozing from your every post.
2) Poor argument! Most CD's aren'the top 40, if you want to use that logic! How about top 40 DVDA'a? Does one even exist?! Talk trash about SACD's when one can throw even more trash at DVDA? Yer not being careful enough, making rebuttals far too easy.
3) Many would argue that the info is NOT on the disc. Your upsampling, downsampling, interpolation, extrapolation, reincarnation or whatever you wish to do with the data is artificail filling in of all the blanks, it's not high fidelity in the truest sense.
4) You still haven't given us a list of your so-called SUPERIOR redbook CD's that clearly better a SACD. I'm sure we're all still waiting....
5) This makes no sense. You sure are opinionated, but saddly you can't see that your opinion carry with it no water for an intellectual argument.
6) This makes less sense, but the argumentation approach at least is consistent.
7) The only appears to be one person here "missing it completely...."
Little Milton: You are a serious retard arent you? SO when are you going to name off some of my lists from up earlier? Still cant find more than a couple dozen SACD players?
In rebuttal to your 7 useless points from not thoroughly reading my above earlier posts
1. My opinion holds alot more weight than your poor rebuttals that have yet to show any significant intelligence whatsoever.
2. Once again you take a "figurative statement"(do you even know what a figurative statement is?) and show the true size of your small brain.
3. And SACD is?? LOL!
4. Already named off quite a few up above, but once again you show the "horse blinds" that are stuck to your head. SInce I already know that you have never truely heard a top tier CDP, this argument with you is a moot point.
5. Intellect? And you have shown some with your child like remarks?
6. I wouldnt expect someone like you to understand a poor analogy, you have yet to show any ability to take one's words in proper context.
But to put all of this aside I would be willing to put up $10,000 of my money vs. a measly $100 of your money that you couldnt tell the difference between a SACD player or high end CDP. In fact I would be willing to extend that bet that you couldnt tell the difference between a DAT tape or a SACD player. I have a few DAT units too.....
SO you want to make a quick "easy" $10k? Im dead serious and invite you to my place to show me how good you think your ears(and wit) really are. Bring your SACD player and your favorite SACD's(which have a CD counterpart)and well see if you walk away $10k richer. Just let me know if you need me to call a local newspaper to see if they have a paper route in your area where you can make a few extra bucks to save up that $100 on your end..........
Little Milton: And to keep this thread rolling here is an exerpt from an article which is basically a CD vs. SACD vs DVDA article:
Introduction For a while I have been interested to find out how good the new high resolution formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio really are? I have visited some demonstrations, but not been impressed which may be due to other causes than the sound formats.
After reading many replies at different forums, it seemed like many audiophiles considered SACD to be better than DVD-Audio. I also thought so until recently read what Ing. Öhman wrote in the Swedish Audio Technical Society * journal
(*A non-profit organisation for sharing interest and knowledge in audio and sound reproduction) The following are quoted from what Ing. Öhman wrote in the journal:
"It is nothing less than a tragedy that Sony/Philips system SACD still is considered to be a real competitor to DVD-A, though it has lower real resolution than the CD-system in the highest octave.
DVD-A does absolutely offer a much higher dynamic range than CD, but it is very questionable if SACD does.
SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter.
On the contrary, DVD-A is in theory 250 times better than the CD-system at all frequencies!
In todays reality though, it is hard to achieve such hyper-resolution, but maybe in the future? If the potential exists, recording and playback technology can evolve. Today the DVD-A resolution is about 16 times better than the CD-system and the bandwidth extends up to 100 kHz to be compared with 22,050 Hz for CD."
Now I became curious! This is the opposite of what I thought. I asked Öhman for a follow up ...
You can get the full scoop here:http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
Though I dont expect you to fully read this article(let alone understand alot of the BIG LONG words), I will plug up a few more to keep in interesting. SACD has alot more limitations than most people realize, and its very sad and true that they are even considered by MANY to be inferior to CD's in a few important ways(noise, high frequency reproduction etc). Cant wait for another intelligent "rebuttal" from ya! You just email me when you have that hundred bucks saved up.......
From MUCH experience with good SACD's and good DVD-Audio discs played through many high-end systems, I have to say that I prefer DVD-Audio consistantly to SACD.Good SACD's sound wonderful, but they just don't impress me as much or move me as emotionally as a good DVD-Audio disc does! My friends agree with me also about this.I EXPECTED SACD to sound better than DVD-Audio considering all the Glowing reviews and hype from Sony,etc!But, the real proof is in the listening!The first time I listened to a few great SACD's I thought:"SACD sounds really good, better than most CD's".The first time I heard DVD-Audio, I thought WOW!I kept listening to the same disc and other DVD-Audio discs over and over!I personally think a top-notch Dvd-Audio disc played through a high-end system sounds better than a top 'red-book' CD, SACD, or Analog in any form!If I had my choice, I would go with DVD-Audio any day!!
With the possible exception of the TEAC D70 and P70 duo, I have had but one instance where cd is the better of sacd. Pink Floyd DSOTM. I have had some exception units, such as the Meitner DAC6, the Lindemann, and the Allen Wright Sony 9000 where the cd is much improved, but so was sacd.
I think the success of sacd indicates that all it criticism is off the mark. I know with my ears that sacd is substantially superior to cds.
On AA high res was split into dvd-a and sacd, because of the intensity of argument over which is superior. Out of curiosity when I got a Exemplar/Denon 2900 universal player I bought two dvd-a with music to my taste. I cannot stand them and will buy no more. I have been told that the older format, DAD, sounds superior to DVDA so I am going to try some of these Classic and AIX releases.
Being the owner of both a Sony SCD-1 SACD player and a Linn Sondek CD12 along with a Burmeister DAC I will have to give the nod to redbook cd's still. SACD has been a big dissapointment in my household, the few SACD discs I have picked up were no better than any of my current cd's in my collection in terms of overall sound quality and listening enjoyment, and quite a few of them I felt sounded poor in comparison to their inferior "redbook" counterparts. In fact 2 of the local hi-fi shops in the area have stopped carrying SACD players altogether due to poor sales and very mixed feelings on their true ability. Lp's and cd's are still the top 2 formats from my many hours of listening experience and will continue to be in the forseeable future. I have been intrigued by DVD-A audio and its potential but I have yet to see much interest to date. It would be nice to see this format take off.
I can see why some people might think that SACD is not a big enough improvement over Redbook CD to warrant changing formats. But having listened to both, I have a hard time understanding why people think that Redbook CDs are no improvement and that some Redbook CDs are actually better. To me SACDs generally sound significantly better, and I would be happy if they replace the now 20 years old Redbook standard.
Industry reports show strong sales of SACD players whith the European installed base having doubled from 1 million to 2 million in the last 8 months. There are now more than 65 SACD models from 28 manufactuers available. Several other manufactuers are introducing sacd models before the end of the year. Super Audio players have exceeded DVD-A by a 4 to 1 margin.
This info is available at www.superaudio-cd.com
If these are the European #'s were supposedly SACD is not popular [according to some in this thread] then just think what the U.S. #'s are.
If there is over 65 sacd models in Europe whith more on the way, then the U.S has at least that many models.
Durham, I think you need to try newer sacd players. I have had five sacd players since my SCD-1. Each was substantially better than the Sony. I know there are mods to the SCD-1 which can substantially improve it also. In my experience the DVD-A at best was a failed experiment, with the industry so undercutting it performance in their concern with copying as to make it unlistenable.
Wow, "Industry reports" from a "Sony webiste". Getting news from a Sony website is like reading the National Enquirer.
Sony has never grossly inflated numbers before right people?........... :yawn:
As for those Sales numbers again very misleading. The Sales numbers are purchase orders from dealerships for past and present orders(and knowing Sony, probably future orders that may or may not be filled), not the actual people who own a SACD player. I bet the number of actual people who own a SACD player numbers is in the 10's of thousands at best.
Want real info on how well SACD does? Check out the Wall Street Journal and other trade publishings. Your going to get a better picture of the real story.
People here should be rooting for DVD-A anyway. Its potential is so much greater vs. the crippled SACD format.
No... I would say that a lot of the dribble posted in this thread is more akin to National Enquier whith no basis in reality whatsoever.
Anyone who claims or thinks that DVD-A is even close in sales......is wrong by a long shot.
BTW..I find DVD-A to sound too sterile as compared to the natural sounding SACD format.
I would love to see some dvd-a #'s from anywhere that back up any claims made in this thread, and whith Warner selling its music division, who will be the major backer of DVD-A besides Merridian?
I believe DVD-A is all but done and the format is a major money loser and the Wall Street Journal is not required to know this...just common sense.
How many hi end dvd-a players are there exactly.....two as far as I know and that says a lot.
Jackcob I wonder if these arent't same people who cannot hear the difference between 'lamp cord' and hi-end speaker cable???
Ritteri it is obvious from your writing that you are not a very bright person. That may not be your fault. Perhaps you come from poor stock, or you attended the public school and never rose above the quality of your education, or maybe you just chose not to exercise the muscle between your ears. I have no way of knowing the real reason for this distinct lack of understanding, but it is evidenced in your posts. This is not intended as an insult, just a point of reference!
1) There are millions of people who buy music which includes lyrics that are not recording in their erste sprach, or original language! I personally own dozens of recordings in languages other than English (which actually was not my first language) including German, Spanish, French, Hebrew, and Japanese. Some of them I actually bought because of the alternate language! Am I a better person because I own these recordings? No, but... I would never discount the quality of a particular recording because of the language, regardless of whether I even speak that language!
2) If all you listen to is pop music, it's not even worth entering into a dialog with you! How pathetic is top 40 music!?! Did you get the latest Brittany Spears CD?
3) How can a 44.1 kHz recording contain as much information as a 96+ kHz? By definition there is less information on a lower sampled disc! What is the point of spending $5,000-12,000 on a "edge of the art" CDP to get less info from your disc? I have DSOTM and have listened to both formats, or should I say, all three formats since I have the LP also. The LP sounds better than both digital formats. Of the two digital, SACD is better. We could get into a big debate about the Nyquist Theorum, but I'm not sure anyone wants to sit through that!!! If you cannot hear the differnce, refer to my comment to Jackcob!
4) Though digital playback has been around for 20+ years SACD is still in it's infancy, and cannot be compared to a mature technology for the quality of tweaks and improvement. It has always been the companies like Sony who come up with the technology, but it's been the small high end companies who make them worth owning. When high-end companies begin making really good SACDPs then they can be compared to the best of the current CDPs.
5) It wasn't a good thing then, and it's still not now! If people were forced fed SACD like they were Redbook CD this would not be an issue, but I think the fact that people are given a choice by Sony/Philips shows that they beleive in the medium.
6) How can you take offense at someone questioning a terrible example on your part, and reduce yourself to Ad Hominom attacks. It only calls into question your own intelligence!
7) The problem isn't that people are missing your point about SACD not being as good as Redbook CD, this issue is that you are wrong! I realize (at least I think I do) that your scientific background is poor, and therefore you are not aware of the lack of substance in your generalizations, but news flash: believing something does not make it true!
I hope we can set aside this fruitless arguement now. Perhaps you can go and do some studying with your spare time, or maybe the solution is as simple as having your hearing checked. Doctors say that most people already experience serious hearing loss before they become aware of the problem. Give it a try!
Hey Ritteri what do they call a person who can speak two languages? A: Bi Lingual What do they call a person who can speak several languages? A: Multi Lingual What do they call a person who can speak one language? A: American!
Durham42, comparing a Sony with the Linn is not a fair test, the Linn is arguably the best one-box player out there, at least to my ears, and the Burmester is a top of the line DAC, while the stock Sony is comparable to a Wadia 830/850 level player at best. What was your impression when you listened to both redbook and SACD through the Sony's output stage? That's really the appropriate test.
This thread is too long for me to digest everything said, but I'll throw in my two cents on at least one aspect of the question. As I hinted above, one of the limiting factors in comparing SACD (or DVD-A, for that matter) to redbook CD has been that the best of the high end manufacturers, as well as the recording industry, have spent the last 20 years trying to make redbook CD sound the best it can, but SACD and DVD-A are still in their comparative infancy, and the best of the designers (save Meridian, Ed Meitner and dCS) have not really been willing to throw a lot of money into R&D for formats which might not make it in the marketplace. To some extent the hi-rez situation reminds me of the early days of CD, where there were a lot of modifiers out there who would take major manufacturers' cost-compromised offerings (principally Philips/Magnavox units then, as they were the easiest to work with) and come up with modded units that were far better than the originals but certainly no match for today's players. I see the same going on with hi-rez units (I've had a lot of the mods made to my Sony SACD player). The question is whether the formats will take hold enough for talented designers to devote the time and effort they did to CD; if they do, then you might see the promise both of these formats hold be realized.
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.
Tbg/Rcprince: You state that comparing a Sony SACD player is not a fair comparison with a machine such as the Linn Sondek CD12. Why wouldn't this be a fair comparison? The SACD format from reading all of the posts up above is supposed to be superior to redbook. So reagrdless of how good my cd player can play redbook cd's, shouldn't it still be a step down from even an average SACD player? This in itself I thought was the actual argument.
Through all the useless babble and arguing I feel Rittori did hit on quite a few good points. What is too bad is that there haven't been too many good rebuttals to these points that were made.
A few points I felt were valid on Ritteri's and others behalf include,
1. SACD's poor high frequency reproduction ability 2. Poor linear noise floor throughout the audible range and beyond 3. Future potential 4. Current lack of sound quality improvements over Redbook 5. Lack of good software
I added in #3 because personally 96khz is in reality not a very big jump up from standard 44.1khz. DVD-A intrigues me with its 192khz sampling rate which has alot more potential than SACD and its very low linear noise floor, there is alot more potential here, whether it ever takes off is anyone's guess.
As for my SACD player not being a current high end model, I don't doubt it. But the Accuphase DP-77 did nothing more to further my current findings, and this is considered to be a very high quality unit which I also had on loan for a few weeks last month.
If I had the choice over again, I would not have purchased the SACD unit. I would rather spend a few thousand more on an excellent redbook player which already has a huge software base with proven sound over a next generation SACD player with lots of question marks about its future and sound potential.
Ben, have you listened to an MF,Krell, Linn ect hi end sacd player?
You are not the only one in this thread using the worldwide approach to peddle your opinion. It just so happens that worldwide includes Europe and that is what the sales data article is about.
I am sure you are right about the total including el cheapo players but the total for dvd-a is made up of 99.8% el cheapo players and still SACD has outsold dvd-a players 4 to 1 in Europe. If I meant Ben only, I would single you out.
I do not expect SACD to be a dominant format whith so much free music available to those who just want music and quality be dammed.
I also think you Ben, should at least hear a few quality sacd players and discs before ever even giving an opinion on the format when comparing an el cheapo SACD player to a hi end redbook player.
Instead, your opinion reads that an el cheapo bottom of the line SACD player does not sound as good to your ears as a very hi end redbook player...therefore the technology is flawed.
Durham: On your first point, I would say that, perhaps unlike others, I don't consider the differences between CD and SACD (or 24/96 DADs I've heard) to be earthshaking or of a magnitude that would dwarf the use of a substantially better analog stage and power supplies, which the Linn and Burmester have in spades. They are more subtle in my view, but the end result is that I find the music more compelling and relaxing to listen to with both SACD and DADs than CD. Part of this may stem from my preference for analog and vinyl, which the high-rez formats seem to get closer to, and my preference for classical and acoustic music, which I think tend to show better the new formats' strengths. Were I to listen principally to electronic or rock music, I might prefer CD's comparatively "sharper", for lack of a better word, sound. So I would respectfully disagree with your point; I think a better comparison to hear the differences in the formats would be to use the same player for both SACD and CD playback (preferably something at the EMM Labs or dCS level of quality, given what you're used to in the redbook format), otherwise I think you're introducing too many variables.
On the numbered points you made:
1. Don't really hear it, but my hearing dies at about 12khz and I tend to think most recordings sound too bright anyway compared to live music, so I'm not bothered.
2. I use a Purcell upsampler for redbook, which adds a lot of noise to the signal but makes it sound better to me, so I'm not bothered by this concern either.
3. You make a good point. Most of the recording studios are geared to pcm, so they would not have to make the substantial investment in DSD recording equipment to be able to use the 24/96 medium. In that respect, it may be that pcm will ultimately win the day, although given the public's lack of a cry for anything better than MP3 and the continued lack of any really strong leadership to promote the high-rez pcm format, I doubt that either of the new formats will be more than a niche format unless something changes.
4. As I mentioned, I do hear the improvements, but acknowledge that they are more noticeable with better equipment (particularly power supplies and high quality analog stages) and are more of the subtle sorts of things that make listening worthwhile to me.
5. If you're a rock fan, I agree. There's a good deal of classical software being released from good labels with good musicians that more than satisfies me, though. Could always be more, but I've still got vinyl and CD versions to listen to in the meantime.
In the end, if the differences aren't enough to move you when you listen to music (and that's what this is all about), I think your last point probably makes good sense at this juncture, although if you already own a Sondek you're going to have trouble improving on it--why not spend the money on more music?
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.
Mejames, The Marantz SA-1, the Lindemann d680, the EMM DAC6, the Exemplar/Denon 2900, and the A. Wright Sony 9000.
Durham, I am sorry, I thought this was about what you heard, not what you read or think. I see none of your points as really relevant even were they true.
1. SACD's poor high frequency reproduction ability
I do not know whether this has some basis, but it certainly is not true relative to what I hear.
2. Poor linear noise floor throughout the audible range and beyond
Again, not to the hearing even if true.
3. Future potential
I do not know where you get the 96 kHz limit on sacds. There is no future beyond 4 or 5 years for any of the digital formats.
4. Current lack of sound quality improvements over Redbook
I thought you said no one had dealt with any of these?
5. Lack of good software
I hope the rate of releases slows up. Buying ten or twenty a month is expensive
Rcprince: Actually I didn't make any points, I just brought up good points that I feel have some merit to this enjoyable conversation we are all having and nothing more. As to people agreeing or disagreeing to them, the ball is in his or her court to decide that for themselves. But in the end, its all about the music. And yes my CD12 does a great job of letting me enjoy the music. Many times I feel as if I am truely listening to an LP. To me it's that good. I have been looking closely at another cd player too, hopefully I will be able to take a test drive of it before the big holiday arrives. This is all part of the fun in the hobby for me as I am sure it is for many.
Tbg:It is actually very much about the music. Read above.As for the rest of your comments, I am having a bit of difficulty following along except for the software comment. This could be taken as varied opinion no doubt. One person may think the software is lacking, while another party may find the opposite. I personally find it lacking presently. But one thing I will say is that I personally feel that the next generation digital format should be a large step above redbook in terms of sound quality where there isn't this whole "which is better" debate.Everyone should be "moved" by the music from the next format, especially considering how far our technological advancements have come. The fact that this debate exists on this board and many,many others I feel is an argument in itself about how SACD really isn't living up to the hype it had 4-5 years ago in many ways.
Durham: Having been through the LP revolution and the cd revolution, I expect that I never thought the hype for either DVD-A or SACD would hold true. My other comments merely center on my not thinking theoretical criticism of the format has anything to do with its sound. At one time there was an article saying sacd could not work?? I hear what I hear, that is all that matters to me.
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.
Ben, I apoligise as I had forgotten that eventually, you made it clear that your comparisons were done on the cheap Sony and not whith the Ayre. Others anti SACD posters claim that Sony and Phillips are using inferior Redbook on there SACD players to make the SACD version sound better, yet you say that the redbook version was equal to SACD on a cheap player. Well....you can't both be right imo.
As far as having to spend 4k or more for decent redbook on a Universal or multi player,I meant to be in the same quality range as your Ayre whith redbook and not an overall rule. Some are happy whith 2k or less multi player redbook sonics and some are not. There are cheaper players such as the Phillips 963sa whith full mods that are wonderful SACD and redbook players that compete whith or beat some hi end universal players or multi players for 11-1200.00 total investment for people not wanting to spend 4k or more.
I no that there are dozens of the modified Phillps 963sa's out ther but you never see one for sale. For those wanting quality SACD and redbook on the cheap. I highly reccomend it. For those that want great redbook and SACD whithout mods, your going to need to spend some bucks imo. Another option is a stock player that does SACD well along whith a dac for redbook.
All of the above is just IMHO as I am sure that others will disagree whith some or all of it.
Results from the Stereophool poll listed above.
Have you bought one or both of the high-rez audio formats?
I've got a universal player 15% I've got a DVD-A player 4% I've got a SACD player 32% Don't have either but will soon 12% Don't have either and don't care 34%
It is very interesting that 51% have some form of hi-rez in there systym. It is also very interesting that the SACD format has around an 8.5 to 1 advantage over DVD-A among audiophools in this poll.
Most audiophools do not buy cheap multi players but rather mid fi to hi end so the "Got SACD free whith my 200.00 dvd player" argument to boost the SACD sales #'s does not apply here.
I also believe that among the 34% that don't care are a lot of die hard vinyl fans that could care less about any digital format. This makes the #'s in the poll seem even more crystal clear that among audiophools, SACD has become the hi-rez format of choice.
The poll results closely match everything I have read on several forums since hi-rez arrived.
The latest issue of the Music Direct catalog has 15 pages (non-advertising) of SACDs and four pages of DVD-As. 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. Its 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? Im surprised hes not touting Krell, Theta, Ayre and electrostatic speakers, but Im 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.
Jadem6:I have worked for more than one retailer and Tweeter sure isnt my calling card as I have worked for a number of true high end audio dealers in the area(the only reason I may have brought up working for Tweeter in past threads is due to the official US release of SACD being intro'd at the Burlington Ma. Tweeter store, plus Adcom has always been a regular staple for Tweeter which I have alot of hands on knowledge). But this isnt what I make as my argument. But if you must know more about my background, I have gone to Boston University's School of Music for multiple courses in Music Theory along with courses from the UNH system. And it doesnt hurt to have played the Violin and Clarinet since I was a child either. Nor do the years working at The Boston String Co. as a Violin appraiser. But working for many of these audio stores give me an inside perspective on alot of components and allows me the ability to play with and use extensive amount of gear in my own personal time for enjoyment and evaluation.I can honestly claim to have had MILLIONS of dollars worth of great gear in and out of my home over the couse of the last few years. How many people can honestly claim that? Not too many. I sure can claim to have had alot more hands on experience that the average "Audiophile" with their copy of "Stereophile" or "Hifi Times" being the basis for their info.
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.
Jadem6: Also you own comparison of my personal system is pretty funny. Calling my system "harsh and edgy" without ever hearing is is a complete and total joke. I doubt you have ever even heard the combo. So how can you otherwise comment? More BS opinion.
So you have personally "heard" voodoo cables on an extensive basis?Did you know that my Voodoo cables are not the 100% silver cable that they advertise and sell? They are actually cryogenically treated Silver/copper hybrids of the Silver reference, very similiar in design to the Vahalla's and almost identical in presentation/voicing. You've had the chance to sit down with an 861se extensively too? How about the Palladiums? How about Palladiums with some specific modifications? My god! Your running a Class A SS Plinius amp and calling my Aragon's as "harsh and edgy" when you run an amp that has very similiar voicing!Plinius sounding like single ended tube amp? I want a smaple of what your smoking! LOL! Extensive listening again?How about the SCD-1, which Ive also owned in the past? If ever there was a player you can call a bit harsh and edgy its this player! Even with the audiocom superclock mod to help clean up the jitter problem. Harsh and edgy!? You got to be kidding me. So you must have heard all the components combined too right? Especially in a room thats been EQ'd correctly? This is what people need to read less of. Talk about "limited views", Id have to say that you may be the ultimate hypocrite for stating what you just did.
But how would you know my system is "harsh and edgy"? Sure isnt from experience.Sure wasnt from a trip to my house.Sure isnt what other members form Agon have stated from real experience listening to my system. Its too bad alot of opinions come from people like you with knowledge that doesnt extend past your keyboard.
And stating that the Adcom 750(or X2) preamp in bypass mode hardens the sound shows me that your mind tells you more than your ears actually do. Especially on the X2.
Just curious, why do you have $25,000 worth of cabling driving $5000 speakers which are above average at best? You make mention of all the "mods" done,some internal components are mentioned(like black gate caps etc)etc. but if you ever cracked open those SCIVA's you would find some really poor quality components populating the crossover boards. Upgrading those crossover components alone would equate to a bigger sound improvement than all the cables and component mods put together that you've already done. :rolls eyes:
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.
factual errors? Alot of people feel the same way I do. Its a perception and nothing more. Alot of real engineers feel the same way.Alot of sound critics also feel similiar. Translating what looks good on paper pressed into reality doesnt always garner the expected results. Im not alone here. And from the gathering on this thread, more people tend to agree with some of my opinions and facts(backed up with some excellent links) than people who dont.
Rsbeck: One thing you amongst other pro-SACD consumer folks have in common. You take an angle on a specific comment I made(and make it more than it is)and twist it. If you actually had alot of daily real world experience with alot of top gear you would probably feel different. But you dont. Most people base their experiences on magazine artlicles,hearsay and limited experience of what they may hear in a showroom(which is more than likely setup very poorly with equipment they dont even have). Very few people can claim that they have had dozens upon dozens of amplifiers,source units,speakers,cables etc in their own home in a well setup room for critical evaluation over the course of weeks and or months at a time. The ones that can normally are part of the industry directly and/or are very rich. How many people here can say they actually have the luxury of owning an RTA or other critical listening/setup tools to help EQ their room quickly an easily and to allow fair comparison when judging equipment? Little things like these tools help to gain real world experience. I still have my own personal opinion. I may even have some bias(who doesnt?)too, but at least I can honestly say "I see the big picture". Alot of you I dont think honestly can(at least you state that with some comments that on the surface seem just as ignorant as you may think my comments are), and prove that with moronic/childish rebuttals at best.
If this isnt the case and I am wrong, then my original comment on SACD having more future potential over redbook would have also been brought up. But alot of people seem to have let my original comments get lost with many hypocritical statements.
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.
Rsbeck: Once again you took a figurative statement I made about the "hall ambience" as me claiming fact which is the farthest thing from the truth of the matter. What you should have done is to focus on what was said on the posts before and after that figurative statement was made. Your own statements made in your last post should have already pointed you what I have said earlier. You do a good job of pointing out some of my own statements that is put in a figurative wording and of an opinion, but do an equally good job of avoiding points that show some downsides to the medium that is in question.
I cannot conceive of what benefit there is in this conversation. There is no technical discussion even were the posters informed that negates the clear superiority of sacd in most instances. The new XRCD24s are clearly competitive with sacd, however.
I think Ritteri's answers and experiences with equipment is very credible.I agree with all his comments on gear and SACD,DVD-Audio, and Redbook CD's.He has given me some great advice on gear,and I find he is 100% accurate in his descriptions of the sound.I have chosen some good gear based on his recommendations and my evaluations of the gear he recommends.Ritteri has ALWAYS steered me in the right direction.
Music Direct also sells the Adcom GFP-750 and everyone there highly recommends it.They told me it was the most accurate and transparent preamp under $2000.00.
Ben, here are two modders whithin shouting distance of you and they both mod the 963sa plus many other sacd players. www.audiocom-uk.com www.vacuumstate.com
It would help if someone on either side of this debate added some real scientific evidence rather than their own opinions! There are very few people posting on AudiogoN whose opinion I would accept apart from evidence, and none of those people are commenting on this thread.
I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes SACD. Show some evidence if the debate is going to continue. Ritteri, you claim to have made some factual statements. I have yet to see them. You have made bizarre generalizations and given poor examples, and then taken offense at those who questioned them. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS! How is anyone supposed to know what those words mean, if the meaning isn't clear in the words? What is any of this doing for the quality of our dialog?
I am not one of the 'measurements are everything' crowd, but neither am I willing to blindly accept the opinion of people I don't know.
Science indicates that 44.1 kHz is undersampled, 96 kHz is not. Which would be the better format? I am not asking who has the better transistors, capacitors, lenses, or op-amps inside their CDP or SACDP, I simple refer to the format.
Nrchy: Seriously, dont be an idiot. I posted a few links with much SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on some of the downfalls(pros and cons) of SACD. There is also much scientific evidence that will back up the fact that the 44.1khz isnt necessarily the limiting factor for sound quality but rather the actual recording process itself in the studios.A reason why alot of mfgs continue to make imrpovements on redbook players while forgoing SACD presently.
Take a cymbol crash. Its all midrange and high frequency range right? Wrong. A cymbol crash's frequency response actually starts right around 15-20hz all the way up into the subsonic stratosphere where our ears cant even hear em.Most studio's dont relay 15-20hz information onto a disc. Many of them take a stereo signal in the bass range and sum it into mono signal, not the best thing to do to help SQ potential. You want a real big improvement in sound quality? Talk to the folks with the budget for recording the disc to begin with. Dont put it all on a disc being undersampled. THats just alot of horse sh!t.
Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses.
I'm sure the reason for Mfgs staying with redbook CD rather than going to a new format has more to do with cost than an aversion to the new technology.
Your cymbal crash example goes along way to show the shortcomings of the 44.1 sampling rate, since not only does it begin in the bass registers, but it also exceeds audible listening levels. By removing the inaudible, audible ranges are effected. i.e. things you cannot hear affect things you can hear.
44.1 on an equal playing field will never be able to compete with 96 kHz. There is too much of the music missing! If you don't care about the quality of the music, continue to ridicule new formats thereby assuring that better formats will never become a reality. No one is forcing you to buy an SACD player, but don't use your junk science to talk others out of investing in a better future!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
