I purchased a 2000.00 Universal and about 10 titles mostly SACD
SACD- Nice on surround, actual 5.1 disks, Stereo SACD well if you can get a Re-mastered CD or a Hybrid then its just as good on an awesome Redbook player as thru an SACD decoder... It is interesting.
DVD-A- Most of them ended up very UNDERWHELMING.... as stated earlier, and just a PAIN IN THE A$$...
Vinyl- I am only mentioning this as it seems viable for the discussion, as much garbage as it takes to turn on a DVD-A disc half the time I can put a LP on my VPI record cleaner, and Que it up just as well and it BLOWS away the DVD-A, and Most SACD's... I am not an Analog protector, as a matter of fact I bought My Analog RIG after ATTEMPTING SACD/DVD-A universal world.
CD- Bottom line Re-mastered Cd's and SACD Hybrids sound superior on a good old 16x BIT WADIA 4000.00 player than the SACD on the top of the line Marantz SACD player(this was borrowed)... This will catch much Heat I am sure, but drop the drama, invest Redbook, You can't buy anything on SACD or DVD-a in comparison to well recorded Redbook on a Very good redbook machine unless you are looking for the true benefit of surround SACD's. 2 channel I do not see the point.
Now let me back up, I am irritated only because, I am young, never had vinyl, and I started my High-end(audiophile) Life right in the Middle of SACD/DVD-A War about 2 years ago, so of course I had to have it... I will never go back to the headach of it now that someone was kind enough to show me the true sound of a Wadia player and a Vinyl rig in comparison to it.
I sold all Hi-Def Audio Software and Hardware and took all that money to the used market and Purchased the Wadia and Vinyl rig with YES an old fashoned Record cleaner to get the most out of it, and could not be Happier! Plus 90% of everything you could want is on Vinyl and CD, including New bands, many re-issues, etc...
Don't get me wrong, If you are into the titles that are in abundance on the SACD format GO FOR IT! It sounds VERY VERY good, but if you like maybe 10 CD's that exist on it, take the extra Money and purchase at least a Theta, Wadia, Maybe even Krell Machine(but I do not like the sound as much)... Okay don't take this as bashing, this is Truly my opinion on what I have heard and spent much time testing, And these were all done in home comparisons with Equal cost equipment for the most part for many months. And done in a very good room, good cables, speaker placement, power supply, and acoustic treated room that sounds excellent and does not lie....
I have nothing against the Hi-res music, hell I wanted it, I tried it as a newbee, and there is some definate impressive stuff, the MAIN thing I love about using Hi-res is When you can get your favorite guys in concert with DTS up on the HDTV in front of you, that so far is the only worthy format I have found worth the money and the cause, So I have a Seperate MOVIE / Slash / Concert DVD system that is a lot of fun and phoenominal results... But 2 Channel, get the best CD's or Hybrids, because the Hybrids do for some reason sound better than the originals probably due to they are Re-mastered very well, and a rewarding CD player will show this as much as the SACD counterpart if in a correctly setup system. And Vinyl, Ha well lets just say coming out of college recently my friends laugh until they here it cranked and can't believe it, especially if you have some good stuff to back it, but there is "DOG" recordings on ALL formats so don't think any sytem will Turn coal into a diamond in front of you.
But this all costs money No doubt, I only threw this little thread in here to maybe help some people save some cash... We can't have it all, but you can have it better if you know the direction to go in, I did not, but I found it, and it was full circle all the way back to the begining.. Don't let Hype rule your ears.
I have limited SACD and some hybrids (classical stuff). My own impression on a fair SACD universal player (Pioneer DV-47Ai) is that SACD is a bit better in my own system. People with a lot of money invested in their system rave about it so it must be good, no?
LP's are better mostly. No digital glare. My friend claims he cannot listen to digital more than 30 minutes without turning it down or off, but LP's for hrs. I think that' exaggeration, but I see his point.
My point has been that it takes a lot more money to get digital to sound good than analog, but LP's are limited by selection.
Ben, fighting my own corner passionately? Naaaah, too much work! Like you, I am far too relaxed for that. You looking for a rule book? Why. . . you lost your copy? Well. . . so did I! Matrix, seems to me the 'invert' switch on your Wadia is a phase inversion switch. Not a very new idea. My 1993-vintage EAD 7000 Mk.3 has it and it was not the first by a very long shot. Yet it's true. . . in some cases it does help.
Maybe I'm just being grumpy after 11.5 hours of work but I can't get through 1/3 of this thread because of the God awful spelling and punctuation (what's with all words in the middle of sentences with caps?). Try reviewing along with the spewing.
Tvad, I would agree about the debate, but words, such as hype and dead, hardly suggest it. That is the whole purpose of my initial post on this thread. I don't think the claims of sacd are hype, and I have yet to see evidence that it is dead.
I have never owned a dedicated sacd player. I don't think they exist. Every sacd player I have owned also plays cd and the newer universal players, such as the Denon2900, 3910, and 5910, play all format including HDCD. I will again soon have a redbook dac and will use my 3910 as a transport.
There is no question that there are inexpensive universal players, which while not rivaling cheap cd only players, nevertheless give you the ability to play all formats.
Check this out guys, I stole it from another forum, I completly agree Wadia for whatever reason has it right, What is funny is on my Unit it has "INVERT" which essentially plays the disc backwards I guess, not physically but the bits (zero's and One's) and it SOUNDS way better with the invert on many discs, its part of the wadia Digimaster system I believe, and This was the thing that really added the edge against SACD, it sounds so Holographic and like a 50ft high soundstage out of this player on standard redbook that I did not look back on SACD after hearing for sometime.. not to say this will be everyones experiance but is mine... This is the post that reminded me, wadia knew something and WHY have they not Embrassed SACD???
06-21-05: Lawdog_949 In my opinion, the single most important factor is probably making sure that the digital signal is "clocked" as close the the DAC as possible. Many later models of of high end manufacturers now recognize this, and some, like Wadia, recognized the problem years ago which is probably a major reason why their stuff sounds so much better. But most transport/dac combos out there clock the signal at the beginning which means all the jitter resulting from the reading process gets sent along with the signal and are not dealt with in the DAC process.
I have a DVD-A and SACD playback system so I used a Sony SACD player for SACD and a the transport of a Pioneer "elite" unit for the DVD-A coupled with a MSB "gold" dac. I had serious problems with the jitter with that combination so I bought a Monarchy "jitter box" which not only reclocks the digital signal before sending it to the DAC but also upsamples cds to 24/96 kz.
I found a used upper end Denon SACD machine that played back SACD so well that I couldn't tell the difference between the $2000 Sony and the much cheaper Denon. The Denon let me scrap the Pioneer transport so all the units can be plugged together. The Monarchy box which lists for $299 (although they are dumping the units for $199 right now on the Monarchy web site as they are about to release something new to replace it) does such a good job that my DVD-As and upsampled cds sound better through it and the MSB than those processed by the Denon (better bass dynamics and "slam". . In fact, the upsampled cds sound better through this configuration than the upsampled cds through the Sony unit (which won't process DVD-A, the bastards!).
Tvad 99% redbook on an SACD player, or do you have a dedicated seperate?? Just curious not to be argumentative, just would like to know, obviously we cant all get our hands or wallets on top SACD and be able to to have a super extensive collection. Hell I only own maybe 150 cds period!! I just found the route of an excellent Redbook used was the easiest and most effective, But sure I guess it could be possible an SCD-1 Sonys could be very sweet on both formats, but have not had that experiance I just toyed with the Kill 20 birds with one stone approch in Universals and that. But I'll hand onto the WADIA I have truly never heard Redbook better, and I did get to hear the SCD-1 in a store once, but without direct comparison obviously nobody could make claims one sounds more correct than the other..
Oh and, If you are looking to dive into SACD or DVD-A and there is a LARGE or even small scale percentage of discs, lets say at least 20-50 or even 500 titles that have strong interest to you GO FOR IT!! buy a Good universal and ROCK... Its great, but I have about 15-20 titles that would make sense for me, and actually was able to eliminat that need with Hybrids and Remasters that work 95% as well on a very good redbook player... so In my options, SACD is just really not in the cards anymore. Its that simple guys... but I do have to admit, I have not heard a UNIVERSAL player(we are not talking a Dedicated) SACD player that has sounded as good as straight and Strong redbook, but sounds decent on all 3 Redbook, SACD, DVD, whatever, MP3... if you want that go for it if you can build a resonable library out of it, but Ben_campbell maybe we do not have that capability, we are the minority in this case and 90% of the guys on this board go for mostly SACD titles and that is great that this occured for them.
Ben_campbell, You caught the Whole point of this forum... I did use some strong words in order to ENGAGE interest in the topic, it is not to say anything is wrong with supporting or denying a certain capability of a format, it was about the Bottom line... MONEY, LIVEING with your choices and Mainly directed to someone with Little experiance in Wanting to dive into the thousands that can be spent on SACD or even DVD-A and end up on a dead end road... Or a split road of is it important enough vs. very capable and nearly as good sounding equipment.... Sure if SACD can revive a 40 year old recording and make it Many times better than CD format could clean it up I BELIEVE IT... Beyond that it is all slight of hand in making huge improvements in the Digital quality medium. READ my EXPERIANCE on the first post, it was not negative at all, it was just a little informative as to the pitfalls and cost, thats it.
My guess is up to about the 1500.00 range SACD will get any player from redbook, you do have to advance quite a bit to grab the magic from a redbook Cd a little more.. So in the long run you could say Redbook actually cost more money to get right than SACD I can just about agree with that. A cheap CD player will not compete with SACD even in a Modest SACD player, so if you guys are basing on that then we are definatly comparing apples to oranges then.
and The fact is I was within SACD Small Scale, I would never tell anyone with a Collection of 500 titles to turn around and believe in Redbook and go backwards, this was a developed thread to show that Redbook is not an un-acceptable option in comparison done correctly,,, fista cuff to fista cuff, each will win their own battles, but I could never suggest anyone get into vinyl, although the advantages to some extent are big, its very hard to get good equipment, fairly expensive and takes some expansive knowlege to juice the best out of it, and you will pay near 25 dollars period for good and rare audiphile type vinyl copies, and time, convienence is out the window. But I had some funding to launch a pretty sweet setup, and its a new format to me never haveing vinyl before.
9 times out of 10 if shown the real advantages, I think the guy with 8 sacds will find that a used 2000.00 redbook player will benifit more greatly. but what do I know, I am not an engineer I just listen, also I always had to be on the cutting edge with Formats and Technology so logically I went straight for SACD lived with it for about a year, and got lucky to find the stronger options for myself, it was costly. Best advice I can give is Don't take anybodys word for anything, You have to experiance it first hand to learn and educate yourself on anything in the world, then you have the power to accept or reject and option.
by the way DVD and HD have been far succesfull for me being newer formats, SACD just can't pull enough to hold my attention
Matrix, in this post I entirely agree. It is just that I am not certain that sacd is dead nor that it was hype, such as you say in your initial post.
Redbook has advanced greatly in the last five years. How much further it could go, I certainly would not guess.
PCM was first and has been adopted by the computer industry. DSD had an uphill battle as a result, unfortunately. I suspect that the computer industry will abandon PCM at some point, perhaps at that point if dsd is still around it will revive, or perhaps MP3 and the loss of the public's hearing will kill everything including redbook.
My guess is up to about the 1500.00 range SACD will get any player from redbook, you do have to advance quite a bit to grab the magic from a redbook Cd a little more.. So in the long run you could say Redbook actually cost more money to get right than SACD I can just about agree with that. A cheap CD player will not compete with SACD even in a Modest SACD player, so if you guys are basing on that then we are definatly comparing apples to oranges then.
I have to interject.... SACD is better, fine but agains a 5000.00 Ultimate redbook player??? It may even better it still in certain aspects, but lets go back to the ORIGINAL premise of my thread, I said there are some distinct advantages of SACD, but just in my opinion not to the MUSICAL sense extreme... So Untill you can put a TRUELY excellent dedicated Redbook machine with Recent CD' Quality recordings or HYBRID SACD, Not something from 1988, and A-B directly to the Same system you would be very surprised at the redbook development and comparison in sound... Hey ,SACD could still edge it out, especially in certain Genre of music, but in General, I find the Redbook an excellent format, Cheaper and way, Way, Way, sorry, WAY more Material and in turn Capability in the long run... But that is not to say the investment for those special recordings on SA' are not worth it... And Again I Gave up on the SACD journey only after Truly Hearing the Advantage of VINYL as everyone agree's in the end.. Yes it is a little more finicky, and truthfully I do not get bothered buy this, I listen maybe to one side of vinyl just for Kicks and really bringing back that natural sound and then Simply move on to very good Redbook and maybe get bored again and throw another side of vinyl in the mix... Its all about habits and enjoyment in the end, not the Superiority technically of each format... YES DVD-A could be super good for conveinence as you could fit from what I hear 10 albums on one disc with Excellent sonic results, its nice, but I don't mind getting up every 45 mins to play with the equipment.
Guidocorona ever thought you could fight your corner passionately? I've been relaxed the whole time but obviously you know better. Send me a list of rules on how you think I should conduct myself MrKnowitall.
HAVE YOU GOT A WIRE LOOSE ?.....SACD and DVD-A cd's open up a whole new level of listening BUT ...if the rest of your equiptment isn't up to par...well then you are not going to hear a difference....I'll bet cassette tapes and cd's sound alike to you!....The Marantz dvd-9500 that you dumped on is one of the finest sounding players in the market and HIGHLY recommended by people that own them....NOT borrow them.....you probably didn't have it hooked up correctly.....Upgrade the rest of your system and you WILL hear what all the hype is about.
We as audiophiles tend to over-exaggerate our own interests' importance, i.e. sound quality, when they are far bigger concerns in the consumer elec durables market. I strongly beleive the whole SACD or DVD-A or even Blu Ray DVD etc as CD's heir apparent are misguided hope on our part. Most commentators, including those in the audiophile mags, completely misundertand the previous transition from LP to CD and thus make errors in judgement in discussing SACD or other hi rez formats. CD did NOT win the war because "perfect sound for ever" but it offered a new value added proposition: easy storage, easy use, flexibility (easy to stop, play, pause, access to tracks), and later on portabability among other things. The value proposition was one of convenience not sound quality per se and that regard it was revolutionary and epoch making.
However, SACD, DVD-A etc only offer an marginal value proposition: better sound quality which interests only a few, us. Yes most will be people ablew to tell the difference in well done demo of LP vs CD vs SACD or DVD-A, but they are not willing to endure the switching costs nor is that important to them...
As such, the more I think about it the more it is likely that the new digital formats will remain as a niche market, just like LPs. Not dead, but not thriving either.
The implication is that yes I still will continue along with SACD path, but my playback system cannot compromise on CD play quality in the process as a audiophile (who doesn't have LPs...and too late to start).
Hey TBG, I was intentionally mis-directing my post to you as a fellow traveller and a seeker of fun and humor. Ben, ever thought about relaxing? you should try it. . . it's rather contageous! Finally, I have justt come back from my buddy's place enjoying 5 hours of audio necrophilia, listening to both redbooks and SACD on a Teac X-01 with approx 100 hours of break-in on it. Awesome is the word. I will go back for more once the device is totally broken in.
Ben, if you look at my first two posts on this thread, they have nothing to do with what you said. The first is just my two bits, and the second is merely to wonder why anyone feels the need to post about this.
Tbg I think it's quite clear Matrix was engaging with fellow audio fans like everybody else who posts here,to suggest otherwise is plain silly.
Now for clarifiction for my stance on SACD.
I have never said SACD was dead and I have never implied it was either indeed I have ALWAYS said it would survive as an Audiophile format and I suspect it still will.
Since Lugs my music review site was designed to enhance Audiogon member's knowledge and focus on music I was delighted to have a SACD section because I realise many Audiogon members are keen on the format. In that if I may humbly say so I have balanced my opinions on my failure to embrace SACD without reservation by doing something positive for the community. It didn't come easy the time and effort to even get the thing off the ground
Why don't you pick on Matrix and the others? They have plenty to say about SACD and it's faults.
My four examples are to indicate the current state of SACD as perceived by some if you think everything is rosy in it's garden then fine.It's only about opinions and indeed perceptions.
What is bugging my ass greatly and apologies to yourself Tvad any anybody else who I'm upsetting is being misrepresented as King Anti-SACD.
It hasn't worked out for me at this juncture,I'm not alone in that but I could well pick it up again at a later date.
If you want to look back at the debate on Audiogon over the last few years I do think most of my points have stood up but that HASN'T stopped a single person getting their enjoyment out of SACD and I'm glad they have enjoyed it.
Please read those points,it's quite clear if you cancel out what you think I'm writing with what I'm actually writing.
It is true that SACD offers an improvement over CD, but the difference is only obvious on superior playback equipment. On the other hand, DVDA offers much more than high resolution, and therefore has a better chance of support from the mass market. Audiophiles, who may never access the video and other special features of DVDA, can go along for the ride.
I think the sensible answer is that when SACD's are good, they ARE better than most redbook CD's. The problem is that there are so many SACD's that either are poorly mastered, or will only sound their best when reproduced in a full surround system. The early Sony two channel SACD'd are mostly excellent, as are the Telarc re-issues of the 50Khz Soundstream masters, and the new RCA (BMG) "Living Stereo" SACD's and the Mercury "Living Presence" releases. Many of the others, like the Linn releases sound bloated and dull in two-channel, and are not worth the $20 bucks plus they get for them.
Hey TBG, does that mean that now not only we have to worry about old Audiophilia Nervosa, but we are in danger of developing Audio Necrophilia Nervosa as well? I feel so honored to be counted among the new audio necrophile breed! Was it perhaps a little wiff of decay that I smelled last time I sniffed the iridescing surface of an SACD platter? Oh well, I guess we will be discussing the impending doom of SACD for the next 20 years, and at that point we will call it NOS and spend hundreds of $$$$ per disk and feel so lucky for the privilege! This afternoon I am visiting with a friend to listen to his new X-01 SACD player. I'll remember to wear black and listen mournfully to the gorgeous sound coming from its system. And I will shed a wistful tear or two when he plays his favorite SACD cuts for me! So gorgeous and already an audio fossil?! Ah what cruel destiny! But. . . Audio Necrophilia Nervosa. . . here I come!
Ben, I must admit that I am at a loss in understanding your comments. How do you know if this thread was posted for audio fans for audio fans? And how is this relevant? Why would I know why you have a "dead format" section, and does this contradict your statement that you never said sacd was a dead format? Again why is this relevant?
I can think of multiple hypotheses as to why some don't hear benefits from sacd, and I doubt whether your four explain why sacds have not flourished.
Again your posting as well as those of others to the effect that sacd is dead, don't make it so. They may, however, discourage some from trying sacds out of concern that their investment might be lost. I probably should not be too concerned about this as many of your ilk said this about LPs, yet quality has willed out. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
Tbg you are a SACD fan and you see little to concern you.
Badly mastered SACD's?
Lack of availability of titles?
Major artists rejecting the format?
Audio fans who have concerns about the format?
I can freely accept you are enjoying the format but isn't it the case potentially it would flourish if these issues didn't exist? Isn't it the remit of forums for people to post their opinions? I mean if someone thinks their valuable money could have been better spent-isn't it fair to help others hear their opinion?
Please also explain why I have a seperate area on my reviews page for a dead format? And why if I had the cash why I would buy the Meitner equipment?
Ben, I certainly concede that you never said sacd was dead, but you did say, "The main point of many of these posts is that SACD is not a clear improvement for many. People who own SOTA equipment really required the levels below to support the format." This concedes the point in my opinion. But even if not the thrust of the thread is that sacd is dead.
Again my point is that I see little that concerns me yet, and I see no reason to post such claims.
Ben, I wish you are my neighbor, I will let you listen to my system, with SonyModwright9000es sacd player.This would wake you up,how good and superior is SACD compare to Redbook.Let me tell you I do appreciate your participation in this forum.Thanks
Jactoy nice editing I say Redbook is a superior format regards availabilty.............note I say technically SACD is SUPERIOR.
The full original reply.
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.
Tbg-sorry but PLEASE show me where I wrote SACD is dead?
I'm getting more than a little angry now-if you can't read what I've written and explained then please do not mention me by name nor attribute statements I have NEVER made.
Ben, I think there is a major difference between many being disappointed and, as you say, sacd being dead. Many, myself included, were greatly disappointed by redbook. This format has greatly improved in the last four years.
Audio-girl, I think what kills the vast majority of dvd-as is copy protection. I have two dvdas that I listen to. I have many with both dad and dvda encoding. I also have many Classic dads. These are better IMHO.
I entirely agree about vinyl being superior, but it is still a pain in the ass.
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.
