You may want to also look at the new Ayre player in that price range. Good choices abound. |
For redbook's I had an Anthem CD-1 (as transport) feeding the Perpetual Technologies combination. However, I no longer have that set, and am in the process of considering/auditioning new/used single box players in the 3K range. I am seriously considering the Cary 306/200, and a few other players in that range. I do not have access to the GamuT but am looking into it a bit. Maybe you could email me more about the GamuT (off the thread). Thanks, |
Pardales, what CD player or combo do you or did you have before?
I've listened to Gamut CD1 with red-book CDs and I've never heard anything sound even close for the price range offered. |
I bought my first SACD player (Sony 333) recently and have acquired about 10 SACD's. I have about 500 redbook CD's. The SACD's sound great...imho...about %40 better than redbook. So, I will enjoy what I can get out of SACD, and keep upgrading my CD player to get the most out of my rebooks. If SACD eventually goes belly up.....I don't much care........It will not change the fact that the SACD's I own sound really good and I should be able to enjoy them even if the format dies.
I do think that the current battle over formats sucks, since there are obvioulsy improvements to be made to the CD.....but my inexpensive investment in a SACD player has been worth it, even if in the end I end up with only 20-30 outstanding sounding new pieces of music. I agree with those whose say, in the end, it is all about enjoying the music. |
Onhwy61, it is refreshing to read a post that is factual and informative. I am good friends with Russ Burger of RBDG. He is frequently featured in Spin magazine and is responsible for the design of several fine recording studios.
Our conversations have covered much of what you have posted, in addition I've sat in with him during recording sessions in his own place.
A valuable insight to the workings of producing the end product we wind up with. |
Marakanetz, big name pop/rock acts with corresponding big recording budgets and recording in a world class studio(s) will typically track using 2" 24 track analog tape (two machines can be synced if more tracks are required). It will then be ported over to a digital format for manipulation and mixing. Effects and processors used can either be analog or digital. The final mix is via analog large format console mixer to 1/2" analog tape. The mastering studio will provide the finishing touches, nearly always analog processors, and then transfer the music into a computer running software to compile it as a redbook CD.
The reason for such a convoluted recording process is a combination of sound quality, comfort level and convenience. For the tracking sessions most people think 2" analog tape sounds better than any other format. It is also a world wide accepted standard that engineers are comfortable handling. Digital mixing affords far greater flexibility than possible with a purely analog signal path. It also avoids the generational losses associated with analog tape based mixing. (Even if you stayed analog, you would never mix with the original recordings, you would use dubs.) Typical manipulation at this stage might be producing a single composite vocal track from a dozen individual tracks. Or maybe replacing the kick drum sound with a pre-recorded kick drum sample. The vocal comp can be done, if somewhat messily, on analog tape with a razor and tape. The kick drum replacement can only be accomplished in the digital domain. The final two channel mix is done to analog tape because it sounds better than way. The mastering stage continues the analog sound processes because of its sonic superiority. The most common mastering processes are volume changes, EQ and compression. While there are perfectly good digital devices that accomplish these processes, the general consensus is that the best sounding outboard devices are all analog based.
Modern pop/rock recording is conceptually similar to making a commericial Hollywood movie. No director is making a faithful reproduction of real events, the documentary approach, but instead everything is fake and any level of artifice is employed to make it "better than real". |
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. |
Onhwy61, There is a logical conclusion that you cannot get away from analogue unless you're mastering directly to the neccessary format wheather it's CD or SACD with bit-to-bit sample-to-sample correspondence.
Why would we realy need to record digitally on the first place if we still have to mix it into the analogue in the most cases? Isn't it more expences and time involved there? |
Just as an aside, it's a common practice in the pop/rock production world to mix digitally (ProTools), but to then generate a final 2 channel mix on analog tape (1/2 inch). This is then delivered to the mastering studio where it is converted back to a digital format. People comment that the analog tape gives the music a greater cohesiveness than if left in the original digital format.
Also, it's not uncommon that once a master "tape" has left the mastering studio that the sound is degraded in the duplication factories.
Getting high quality sound mass produced is not a trivial task. |
Great for us to evolve into a discussion of ECM and thinking about the music again. I have about 70 Watt and ECM records, and maybe only 15 CD's of same. |
Albert, I agree with you on digital vinyls. I personally possess 80% of ECM (vinyl)catalogue along with WATT. I luve these masterings and so CDs aren't bad as well. |
Marakanetz, your description is most likely what I heard when comparing the master digital tape against the (lower bit) Compact Disc.
By the way, the tape was only a Sony DAT plugged into the master board so Andrew would have a personal copy. I imagine the "true" mater tape from the big mastering deck was better quality still.
Obviously I agree with you that a master digital to LP is superior than converting to lower bit to accommodate CD format.
I have a good many examples of digital masters as a source in my ECM Jazz collection. Comparison between the CD and LP of the same performance prove the LP superior in every case. |
A mastering Question:
How is it managed to transfer larger number of digital samples to the smaller number of digital samples to meet red-book CD standard?
Let's have the case that we have two recorded samples together that need to be one sample on the CD with one amplitude that has a value of 2 bits and another amplitude has a value of 20 bits?
There are only three answers:
1. Have one sample with 2 bits amplitude
2. Have one sample with 20 bits amplitude
3. Have one sample with 11 bits amplitude(average)
In all three cases we implement a huge error transfering these samples by either loosing too much information or adding distortions and colourations.
Wouldn't that be easier to transfer it to analogue prior to mastering? |
Lngbruno: XRCD is not a "format," it's just a marketing term for a very good mastering process involving a little bit of technology and a lot of care. Given that there are few audiophiles out there, it would never pay the majors to spend the extra time/money to do better mastering. So you'll just have to enjoy XRCDs when you can find them.
As for your other concern, even if a label has gone under, somebody owns that music. Rest assured, if they decide there's a market for it on a new format, they'll bring it out. (But don't expect SACD or DVD-A to solve the mastering problem.) |
Albert,
I agree with you on the mastering issue. I have some JVC "xrcd" 20 bit K2 cds that sound great. Why can't this software format be the standard for the mastering engineers to follow and make us 2-channel lovers happy?
My cd collection is about 2,500 and there are many cds that were on labels that are no longer in business. The possibilty of those Artist cds coming out from another label in the DVD-A or SACD format is nil.
What were they thinking??
|
Albert,
I agree with you on the mastering issue. I have some JVC "xrcd" 20 bit K2 cds that sound great. Why can't this software format be the standard for the mastering engineers to follow and make us 2-channel lovers happy?
My cd collection is about 2,500 and there are many cds that were on labels that are no longer in business. The possibilty of those Artist cds coming out from another label in the DVD-A or SACD format is nil.
What were they thinking??
|
Albert: A very revealing anecdote about the Walton tape. Many audiophiles want to blame the technology for the quality of the software we can buy. But too often it's the mastering work that gets in the way. I'd bet the human element would have done just as much damage in the analogue age, however. |
Albertporter, I don't know whether I'm delighted or dismayed. I value your judgement, as I appreciate your commitment. Your experience with quality digital reads as being more satisfying than I have experienced. But, the fact that it can't seem to work it's way into our lives is utterly frustrating. That you, having made serious comparisons heard and recognized that quailty digital can and does exist (despite it's dearth) is at the very least promising. Thank you for sharing and good listening. |
Unsound. I hope you are right. How nice it would be to sit with a remote control and choose the song you want, enjoying the same quality of sound provided by state of the art analog.
I suspect it is possible. I have had the pleasure of listening to master digital tape at the home of Andrew Litton. He is a member of my music listening group, and won a music Grammy for his work. He is truly a creative genius.
( Walton: Belshazzar's Feast / Andrew Litton, conductor; Neville Creed, David Hill, chorus masters ).
  Â
The master takes from the live performances of the Dallas symphony is the only digital source I have heard that is equal to analog. Perhaps it's because it's a first generation tape, not mixed or re sampled, and because it is yet untouched by the record producers.
When the finished product is finally released, (compact disc) and played side by side with that master, it is an absolute joke. Truly a point of frustration for Andrew as well as myself.
http://www.dallassymphony.com/index.php
If the companies that produce and release the software shared Andrews passion, perhaps we could overcome these obstacles. I doubt that the cost (relative to all the expenses involved) would amount to a miniscule of the budget.
I think you would be stunned by the results of playing near perfect software in our present music systems. Bigger than many tweaks costing thousands of dollars. I feel cheated every time I think about it. |
Albert your comments are correct and well stated. Of course anyone who has an extensive library in one format will continue to invest in hearing it at it's best. You have also built extensive cd and SACD libraries if I'm not mistaken, meaning that you have opened your thinking to all formats. This is good, it's those who simply discount SACD as the latest "beta" or "marketing" scam that I get tired of. If I had a library of 6000+ albums I too would be heavily invested in vinyl playback, but I'm not going to go out and buy every $1.00 album just so IO have such a collection.
I hope we can see all formats are viable, and that it's reasons other than price and availability of software that we chose our format. Sound quality is one, but at the levels we are speaking of the quality is there in all three, cd, vinyl and SACD. |
I don't think anybody really expects one to replace their entire library with the latest "Johnny come lately". Old titles are rereleased so that new comers can enjoy them on "their" systems and to expand the use of recordings so that they may be used in cars or where ever (as well as adding to corporate profits). While I don't expect it anytime soon, maybe one day these new formats will be competitive with the sound (the very reason it exists) of analog. |
I agree with Albert. Those of us who have extensive experience with high quality equipment in both formats are probably better prepared to speak to their relative merits. But see again my remarks about why people who have heavily invested in one format are unlikely to have much good to say about the other.
Just for the record, I haven't heard anyone say that "it should not matter to anyone." I have, rather, heard quite a few calls for tolerance interspersed with dogmatic pronouncements that one or the other format is superior.
will |
Since my name has been mentioned, here are a few issues that seem to have been overlooked.
Ultimately, this is about music, and with over 6,500 LP's in my personal library the cost to replace with SACD (even at $9.95) would exceed $70,000.00. This would be a larger investment than my analog playback system, and leaves no budget for upgrade of the digital hardware.
Lets assume I was willing to change formats, spend the money time and effort, the quality of reproduction would be less than I began with. LP is superior with the hardware currently available, and would require the release of a few hundred thousand SACD's in order for me to access the "culled" 6500 piece library. After more than 20 years, many of my LP titles are still unavailable on compact disc. I doubt any of these will ever be released on SACD.
For the record, I own a Sony 9000 ES SACD player and consider it a true bargain. It does a good job on redbook and much better on SACD. I enjoy its rugged construction, good looks and non fussy personality, not to mention the convenience of remote control. I buy CD of artists that do not release on LP and buy SACD's when possible, due to it's superior sound.
My Sony, even after adding Purist Dominus interconnect and power cable, Symposium Roller blocks, and isolation shelves still cost less than my analog or any previous high end digital systems.
That being said, there is a great deal of difference between acceptable, good, great, excellent, and unbelievable or unforgettable.
I realize it must be difficult for those who have not heard analog at it's ultimate to understand where our passion comes from. All of these discussions about quality are relative. Relative to the listener, the situation and the actual experience of the audiophile.
Limited experience combined with an unwavering defense of a one sided opinion is what angers me. Happily that there are only a couple of these posters that come to mind at Audiogon forums.
Unfortunately there is no way for a person who owns both formats and has tested at every price level to convince those who have not. I don't mind having a person tell me it does not matter to them. What disturbs me is the person who has not experienced both sides telling everyone that it should not matter to anyone. |
Again, Jadem, well said! And Bomarc demonstrates the enlightened attitude that we all might well adopt: Listen to what you will, believe what you will, eschew dogmatic pronouncements about the superiority of one medium over another, have fun.
will |
I was thinking during dinner tonight (something I try to avoid at all cost) and it occurred to me that one of the great banters of the "down with SACD" group is that there is no software and it costs too much. If this is being stated by a pro digital person than they are missing the boat on getting great playback from there existing library through a SACD player. If the comment is coming from the pro vinyl than I find myself a bit confused. I was paging through a couple of catalogs, Music Direct and Acoustic Sound and found that the new vinyl re-mastered is approx.. $30-45. The new re-mastered cd is about $15.00 and the SACD is $17-25. So the argument must not be price in that vinyl is more and SACD is only 15-50% more. It comes down to available titles right? Well it seems as though a lot of the new released "re-mastered" older jazz is coming out in both SACD and vinyl so that must not be the issue. Of course there are titles coming out in SACD that have not yet made it to vinyl and as there are the other way. So as far as I can see it's just plain stubbornness and as Bishopwill states a blind love for one or the other. Do you think in 5 years the price of SACD or the price of vinyl will drop? Let's see, .01% of the population for vinyl and a potential 50% for SACD, hard to say where the new releases might come out. Oh and in response to all of you who pride yourself on finding the $1.00 album from 1972, I'm thrilled for you, I'll stick with the re-mastered version even if it is in digital.
I think we could all agree that some will insist on vinyl until the day they die, no matter how much new material becomes available. I believe some will stay with there 300b SET tube amps even when the NOS becomes $1000 per tube. That's what the Audiophile industry relies on, our stubbornness and willingness to buy the obscure. |
It occured to me that if some of the arguments used against SACD were used years ago, we would only have one band on our radio dial, AM. |
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. |
With all due respect to those who see this as a modern-day version of the Hatfields and the McCoys, some of us do rest in the middle. I happen to like the sound of vinyl, and listen to plenty of it. But I don't need to make myself feel good by spouting a lot of bogus technical reasons why vinyl is superior to CD. I'm quite aware of all the real reasons why CDs are more accurate than vinyl can ever hope to be. But I still like to listen to vinyl. |
Jadem, your thinking is right on target. One may be dismayed at the instant hackle-raising that occurs whenever there is an analog-digital comparison, but it isn't really hard to understand.
Obviously, someone who has invested tens of thousands of dollars in analog hardware (not to mention vinylware) is going to hold forth stoutly on the superiority of analog. This will be true if the individual is genuinely convinced that s/he hears differences in the media of sufficient magnitude to warrant the expenditure of such sums. It will be true if the individual has found and fallen in love with an intriguing hobby (which I used to liken in my own case to building ships in very expensive bottles). It will be true even if the individual has no motive other than conspicuous consumption.
Contrariwise, some persons who long for analog systems but are unable to purchase them may find the vinyl grapes most puckeringly sour. The pH of those grapes is likely to be low whether the individual sincerely believes that s/he is missing the chance for nirvanic audio through entrapment in the digital domain or merely feels chagrin at his/her inability to acquire the latest and greatest mechanical impedimenta and thereby join the analog literati.
Persons on the analog side of the debate are likely to be the more volatile of the two, at least in my experience, on account of the really staggering amounts of time and money some of them spend. They become, in Eric Hoffer's brilliant construction, True Believers. One does not tweak their noses with impunity.
Members of the digitali, feeling the inferiority of having spent a mere $2000 on a CD player rather than a princely $20,000 on a turntable, tend to retreat into querulous objectivism, thereby treading on one of the most sacred totems of the high end, namely that What One Says One Hears Must Not Be Discounted.
One must not be surprised, then, that the bringing together of these divided camps is often accompanied by donner und blitzen. Indeed, so hair-trigger are some of the tempers and so vituperative some of the personalities that one comes clearly to understand that for them audiophilia is not wholly about the enjoyment of sound, their varied remonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding.
In the end, one must choose a camp and live with one's tentmates as best one may. A healthy self image helps, as does some knowledge of human nature and a puckish sense of humor. But beware: the little girl who dared to observe that her emperor rode abroad unclothed gained neither the love of her king nor the admiration of her fellows. And it wouldn't have made the slightest difference if the potentate had claimed to be attired in sensuous black or in shimmery silver.
will |
Twl you make some excellent points as do most who have written here.
I have no complaints for those who enjoy vinyl as I too believe with a great set-up the sound is the best available. I do have a problem with people who out-right disregard a new technology with little to no experience with it. To compare SACD to Beta and laser disk is silly, to say because Sony developed it that it must be dismissed without testing is close minded, and to not see the benefit available to us by advancing the audio industry is sad. Most SACD players will perform better than a similarly priced cd player on your existing library. Isn't that what we are all looking for, better sound?
Now for my system I would need to begin approaching Albert's vinyl playback equipment ($70,000) in order to justify what I'm hearing and not hear the flaws inherent in vinyl playback. (I've had $15,000 worth of front end in my system and felt I was listening to the flaws more than the music)Even with $1 software, I'm not interested in spending in excess of $50,000 to get the benefits of vinyl when for $5000 I have 95% of the enjoyment with my modified SCD-1. My library has grown for future advancements in the technology and I've been able to upgrade the playback of my existing cd library by almost 100%. Now can someone please explain what is wrong with my thinking? Vinyl's great, but not for everyone and not everyone enjoys the time it takes to keep the playback at 100%. CD is flawed but not all that bad on red-book cd through my modified SCD-1. The new technology introduced in the digital filters is as good as I've heard for cd playback, and SACD is as close to a top notch vinyl set-up at 1/10th the cost. I'm extremely happy and hope more people open there eyes to what's available.
One last thought, I hear people talk about SACD and the players available. I hear comparisons of $300-$1000 players to there existing players and there vinyl set-up. If your using a $300-$1000 cd player or a $300-$1000 vinyl set-up please don't expect too much from any format, your simply missing the point. If you fit this category, your system will not display too much of the advantages of SACD or vinyl. |
I don't see the downside to SACD that alot of you fear. If Sony releases all selections on hybrid disks, they will have to lower the price to compete. There are already alot of SACD's available for $17 online. If you don't care about better sound, you can just play the hybrid disks on your CD player. I use a Sony 9000es. It is a much better cd player than a Rotel 971 or Rega planet. I Owned both those players and did direct comparison with the rotel . It was not even a close contest. SACD will not make your CD collection obsolete. Ohlala, what sub $1000 cd player sounds better than a 9000es? |
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. |
We have all heard for years and years that the problem with CD is that it was limited to begin with. Now with not one but two options (probably the biggest problem) and people are complaing that they don't want an expanded format because it's too complicated (please!), it will require dual layers to be backwards compatible and yet don't want to have to replace their existing library (doesn't the first part negate the second part?)and because auditions of first generation players can't compete with much more expensive and sometimes more labor intensive gear that has had up to 50 years of maturity behind it. Some of which isn't portable, more than a little delicate has issues of software availability if not obsolence and not a great deal of hope for any dramatic improvement in the for seeable future. I'm unhappy because the prices are too high, the selection is too limited, the new formats are rarely compatible (I know of only 2 players, both Pioneers that are not exactly high end) and worst of all not future compatible. No digital out stifles independant artists and small firms, means no upgrade path, doesn't allow for recording (customizing various tracks for your car or what ever) and the one that really gets my goat, forcing one to go from native digital to analog back to digital (what a cluster#&*!) to perform what may become IMHO the greatest boon to audiophiles, room correction. |
Happily, both SACD's and DVD-A's are in the process of price reductions that make them comparable to cd's. This should help both formats.
What is sad to see is so much mis/disinformation about the formats themselves. Imin2u, DVD-A and SACD *both* use LOSSLESS compression, which means that the values of bits are regenerated exactly as they were originally recorded. There is nothing wrong with, and everything right with, lossless compression. If you are reacting to the advertising by DTS that they produce 'DVDA' discs, you are right about that one. DTS is a compressed DVD-Video format, whether used for music or not, and their advertising is baloney. |
Would be nice to see a list of SACDs that you folks think
sound as good or better than their LP or CD counterparts.
Having tried both SACD & DVD-A, I can say the best recording
in both formats sound very good, but a good turntable set up
still has more musical information.
A lot of the remakes, like the DVD-A version of Rumors
aren't worth the price of admission, and who wants to listen to audiophile recording of no name groups recorded in some old church by wantabe engineers like JA.
It's obvious Sony is trying to save SACD with the release
of many low priced players, but they also have to lower the price of the software and increase the catalog. |
|
I make my comparisons ala VHS vs Laserdisc. There are many parallels. Laserdisc was SO FAR above VHS tape from the day I saw a Pioneer demo in the mid 80's, and it never took off in the mainstream. I believe Pioneer absolutely dropped the ball by not marketing the software more aggressively!
SACD (2 channel) sounds great in my system. I bought my Sony player used (mint!) for less than half of the original price. The frosting on the cake is that unlike LD & VHS my Sony SACD plays all my red book cds & sounds very good with them too. So far, Sony is doing a dismal job of bringing software to the market...
Nevertheless, does anyone on this site really think the big manufacturers are going to rush to market with anything (especially 2 channel!) close to or better than SACD anytime soon, to please our small segment of the market?
I bet my investment in my SACD player & the discs I've purchased so far that digital will languish for some time right where it is now.
I've heard multi channel SACD. I'm convinced the reviewers who praise it now are the same shills who would have also praised early digital...
Long Live 2 channel SACD! Until I hear something better, this is my format of choice. |
This whole thread is kind of funny! I'm old enough now that I have a vast CD collection that has taken me 18 years to accumulate (got my first CD player in '84) and I don't have any intention of re-purchasing all of the same titles again!!! In addition, there isn't any new music worth a damn to even care about whatever scheme the record companies are going to push next! Watermarking sound degredations, discs causing hard-drives to crash, etc. - it makes me thank my lucky stars that I'm not "into" any music that's currently subject to this crap! Maybe I'm getting too old and cranky but as far as I'm concerned a good transport/DAC combo or one-box CD player is they way to go IF you already own your favorite music on CD. Same thing applies to you analog guys. If you own several hundred or more LP's you can snicker, along with me, about the new formats. I feel sorry for the young 'ens who are just now trying to figure out what road to go down (analog, CD, hi-rez, multi-channel, etc.) If you find yourself waiting impatiently for the next Britney or N'Sync release, go with the cheapest combo player you can find. That way, when you get older, you won't feel so bad that you blew so much dough on a player that became a footnote in the digital playback evolution - right beneath the footnote about the DIVX DVD format! Enjoy the music you have NOW - the stuff you have enjoyed for years - because by the time they do issue it on the next digital format you'll be too old and your hearing too bad to care! As for the Stones, I'll bet they release it in chronological order. That way you can hear "December's Children" in glorious hi-rez mono - over your multi-channel player of course! |
I dont trust any "Hybrid" format,because Frankstein Monster and Werewolf are hybrids formats too.These guys make anything to save money!!Give me a brake!! |
I agree with Maraka, all i want to do is upgrade my cd player, but not SACD and have to buy a new classical collection. I agree with Sean don't temp me with the new toy for the worlds wealthy, bring cd prices to around $10, ($5 is too low), AND more importantly re-release some great classical recordings. For some very strange unknown reason Sony will not release Bruno Walter , Columbia S.O. recordings of Mozart's last 6 symphonies???? That's weird! There are a few more great recordings i'm waiting years to see avaliable. SACD...it's all about the money. |
I think it's very unlikely that the record companies will be able to use hybrid SACDs to raise prices on people buying just for the CD. I presume they're charging as much as they can get for those CDs now. If people were willing to pay more, they'd already be paying more.
I also agree with Sean Taylor: What makes a big difference is recording and mastering. (In fact, I suspect they account for many of the reported differences between CD and SACD.) If you really want to improve what you hear, patronize the companies that do good recording and mastering. And expect to pay for quality. |
"Is the purchase of a dual SACD/DVD-A player foolish, or the only answer?"
I don't think so. Someday the SACD catalog may be large enough to invest in an SACD player, but even with the Stones it is too puny for me. The current SACD players are not as good as some of the CD players at the same price, and with such a limited number of (uninteresting) releases SACD is not worth the compromise. That's just me, though. I'm going to wait, and listen to my Stones on London/Decca. |
Jadem .. perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think that we want to hold on to the past, so much as we're suspicious of the future. In my previous post I explained that 99% of the population will not have a resolving stereo system to hear the details between red book and SACD. Then someone else made the very good point that this might all be about record companies trying to make more money.
But one thing is for sure (IMHO) ... once the marketing execs get hold of SACD then it will no longer be about better audio quality ... it will be about hype and profit.
Better audio quality has its foundations in the recording studio from the mike to the mixing and finally the mastering. We don't need SACD to know how badly this is done for the majority of popular music albums ... redbook already demonstrates it clearly enough.
Finally I think if the record companies use SACD as an excuse to double the price of CDs then that will be the final nail in the coffin of the music industry. What we need now is $5 CDs, not $20 SACDs. |
Welcome to the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY web page. Please come in and believe the state of audio has reached it's peak!
SACD is the first advancement in digitial in 20 years, why do so many want to hold on to the past? |
I've noticed much more advertising for SACD players and almost none for DVD-A players. I hope this is because SACD IS taking off and will beat DVD-A. I do not like the fact that DVD-A uses a data compression technique. Happily, SACD does not.
When it comes to FM's "Rumours", I must say, my standard copy purchased around 1990 in the USA (disc pressed in Germany) still sounds excellent although I can tell there's room for improvement. |
I think people are missing an important point here which will make record companies mucho bucks......they are going to force consumers to buy the SACD/CD hybrid discs at a premium price over regular CDs, person who just wants CD has no choice.... no wonder record companies love this!
If price for hybrids were close to same as CD no complaints,
but I have a feeling that there will be several dollars premium for SACD/CD discs. I think I read somewhere that Sony was considering making all new releases hybrids.
Obviously stores don't want to stock both formats, and will
also like hybrid disc concept. |
I wasn't ever impressed on SACD compare to the regular red-book CDs or HDCDs. Why jump over there if we still can't read enough from the red-book CD? SACD automatically implies on the more complicated equipment that maybe have a future but for now it simply sucks.
Face the fact: from my simple listening test between two sources a good CD player(Gamut CD1) still outperforms a good SACD player(SONY SCD1) in both playbacks especially on red-book. |
Was it a LOUD concert, Captain? Don't have your hearing back yet, eh? |
VINYL IS FINAL. WHO CARES ABOUT THE DIGITAL WARS AND THE FORMAT OF THE MONTH.THE ONLY REASON DIGITAL TOOK OFF IS BECAUSE OF MARKETING,MALPRACTICE AND MENOPAUSE.YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN,AND LAZINESS TOO.IT STILL BRINGS TEARS TO MY EYEYS THAT THEY FOOLED SO MANY PEOPLE,THE SAME ONES WHO STILL THINK BOSE ARE THE BEST SPEAKERS.OH BY THE WAY, I SAW BAD COMPANY IN CONCERT MONDAY NIGHT IN THE BEACON THEATRE, N.Y.C. THET WERE FANTASTIC AND PAUL RODGERS IS THE MAN. |
I have some early CD's issued in 1983, and they still look and play fine (though they don't sound particularly good in retrospect!). |
