SACD finally taking-off? non-classical listeners


It looks like SACD might finally lift-off this fall with the Rolling Stones releases. The engineer claims the SACD revisions sound 40% better than the standard on these hybrids.(Ice Magazine)
Meanwhile, there are some interesting releases on DVD-A that are too interesting to forego; Fleetwood Mac "Rumours", and "Crowded House". Both redbook versions of these discs are non-listenable with good equipment.
What is the answer for a "2-Channel Person" who wants great sound without the "snap, crackle, and pop" of the LP?
Is there confidence that both of these formats will exist in two years?
Is the purchase of a dual SACD/DVD-A player foolish, or the only answer?

Please advise,
CB
cbucki

Showing 4 responses by twl

I have to agree with Albertporter. In a correct anolog system, even less-than-pristine albums will play quietly. Proper tracking and a quality, well designed phono stage will remove nearly all of the "snap, crackle, and pop" that was not removed by proper record cleaning. Any remaining scratches and such will be rendered to the smallest type of "click" that is easy to disregard. Most scratches are not nearly as bad as they sound. They just overload the hell out of a mid fi phono stage which then blasts the hash out through your speakers. I can assure you that Albert's Aesthetix IO phono stage will not engage in any of that nasty type of activity. Nor does my MFA tube phono stage. Nor will a Naim phono stage. I prefer the tubes, but for a SS phono stage, the Naim is nearly overload proof. I played thousands of used records that didn't look too good through my Naim preamp years ago, and the clicks and pops were negligable. A quality front end AND phono stage are a requirement for enjoyable analog listening. DO NOT skimp on your phono stage.
About the SACD, I use SACD and I hope it is taking off. I look forward to many new releases, but am not too wild about the Rolling Stones. I would definitely go for a Supertramp "Crime of the Century" however. Or a Mercury Living Presence "Khachaturian Violin Concerto". Or David Bowie "Alladin Sane". Or Joni Mitchell "Miles of Aisles".
The real answer is as Albert and I both do. We both have the Sony DVP-S9000ES CD/SACD/DVD player and an analog system. We play what we can on the turntable, and what is available only on CD or SACD, we play on the Sony. That way you get the best sound you can from whatever format the music is available on. By the way, I just bought over 100 near mint records from a used record store for $1 each. Eat your heart out.
Excellent, Unsound. I'd like to add a point here. As I can see it from my point-of-view, The main sticking points are backward compatibility, and needing to purchase a new player. First, there is backward compatibilty with all the CDs that we have. Naturally, if you want to play any of the old stuff on SACD format, you have to buy a new disc. But if no SACD were available, you'd be playing the old disc with no option to upgrade. So, you can play your old one or upgrade at your option. Number 2, buying a new player. With the rate of equipment replacement that is already going on, I can hardly believe that this is a problem. I see people changing their CD players, sometimes 3 times a year. And spending multi- thousands of dollars to do it. So I think that this is not a real issue, but a "log rolling" activity in resistance to the new format for whatever reason. I think some of this resistance is related to the "consumer brand" names of the players, like Sony, Philips, and Marantz. There is no "boutique" gear out there with the exception of Accuphase. This leads audiophiles to think they are getting stuck with "mid-fi" products. I have not found this with my Sony. It is a good product and there are already "boutique" modification houses that do tweaks to it. I would have thought that the audiophile market would embrace a new format that offers a sonic improvement over the existing CD while retaining the convenience and quiet background and backward compatibility. I guess I thought wrong.
Just now, it occurs to me that it may be the same crowd who is always finding some reason to dislike vinyl, claiming that CD is better. You know, surface noise and all. Now they don't want SACD either. Maybe it is not us vinyl-philes that are the flat-earthers.
For the record, I now have analog, CD, SACD, and DVD in my system. I use all of them to varying levels of enjoyment. I have no desire to have my comments interfere in any way with anyone else's enjoyment of their system. I have my preference as I have stated in the analog section of this forum. And I believe that I have stated the technical facts in a cogent and mathematically supported way. If anyone disagrees with my position, and prefers CD or something else, that is his/her right and privilege to so do, and I would not try to interject my preference over theirs. I may engage in friendly, lively discussion of the matter, though.
Marakanetz, the recording companies record to digital "multitrack" in order to do their editing. While the sound quality may not be up to analog, the editing capability of digital is much more versatile. This gives cleaner edits and other manipulations of the recording. Also, time coding of each track can be more precise when locking up the tracks. Other advantages as well.