2. digital
  3. 1037037271

SACD- my intial thoughts....

Having now given my Sony DVP 900 close to 350 hours break in I thought I would report back with my findings.
First off cleary this Sony machine is not at the top end of Sony SACD players but from what I can gather it's fair to consider it a mid-range player.
As an aside it's a great machine in terms of build,picture quality and seems to have a very good transport.
As a CD player it's decent.
From my limited listening experience on SACD I have came to the conclusion that it is a format that has potential but does not exhibit sonic differences that blow you away.
The presentation on SACD is smoother, less edgy but to my ears doesn't offer much more detail.
In some ways it is preferable to CD however I do find on some tracks CD sounds better wether that's because I'm used to CD sound or due to something else isn't clear to me.
The latest Stones CD/SACD hybrids show the effect up clearly,to my ears there really isn't much to choose between the layers in any sonic aspect.
The CD layer has a bit more spikiness or edge.
I have had two friends remark that the CD layer is actually slighty more suited to the Stones sound.
I concede perhaps the Stones aren't the best band to show off sound reproduction but there is the odd really well recorded track where SACD doesn't really come through superior on any aspect of it.
Whilst I have only heard about 25 different artist's on SACD and some dozen or so discs, to me the key to any new format is early on recognising this is clearly an improvement from what I've heard before.
Perhaps my expectations are too high but to me SACD has major problems in surviving and growing.......
ben_campbell

Showing 5 responses by ben_campbell

ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
Tstart makes a few key points which I ommited to be brief on my original posting.
The lack of new releases (by this I mean new albums just out) is awful I would have though by this stage it would at least a handful every month,no chance.
The Stones one hits the nail on the head,the new remastering is the BEST sound so far heard for the Stones on digital but the actual difference between SACD and CD layers is marginal-so what is to be gained by having an SACD player?
Czbbcl could you please clarify the pure DSD recordings by naming the titles?
I still think the format has potential but..........
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
I guess the point I was trying to make was this.
The reason DVD has been such a massive success was that everybody could see the improvement in picture quality and sound over video tape-word of mouth and actual experience has made this format massively successful.
Whilst it wouldn't be fair to expect that kind of difference on an audio format-I think it's crucial a new format exhibits reasonable advantages over what has went before.
The price of the player hasn't really got much to do with it if that player cannot exhibit a reasonable improvement on a hybrid disc.
Many audiophiles have given up on the format due to this,even at the top range and well the lack of software arguement has been made many many times.
Joe Public just isn't going to be impressed when he hears the SACD layer on the new Stones discs on that Sony DVD player he just bought because the CD layer sounds just as good.
Why is he going to support the format?
I don't think it should be underestimated how damaging this could be.
SACD as a format is just trickling through to the public,the longer the present problems continue the more likely it'll never get the word of mouth support any new format needs to break through.
I respect those who are enjoying the improvements that SACD brings them.
However I think there are just as many who hear only marginal improvements.
I want the format to succeed and I believe it has potential but I fail to be convinced that it will even though inevitably I will be supporting it.
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
Bluefin-it's interesting what your saying my friend was saying his biggest disappointmet with SACD was the LACK of dynamics.
As you explained he thought the potential was there for a big improvement over CD-he expected to be blown away.
He simply can't hear any improvement and he has a reasonably serious system.
All the theory in the world is great but if you can't hear it,you can't hear it.
The only difference we both can hear on SACD at this stage is a smoother sound which shouldn't be dismissed but dynamics,detail and even realism?
Not yet.
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
Tbg-I don't doubt you are right but consider you have now changed players three times(or audtioned) to get a difference of a large magnitude.
My point is that the lower end players do not show a marked difference on performance-to me this is key in breaking the format.
Of course it is very early days in the development of SACD but when I hear some people describe the difference on the SCD-1 as marginal I do worry.
The good news is SACD releases is picking up momentum and this will help.
ben_campbell OP
1,169 posts
 
Bluefin-I am not dismissing anybody's findings-I truly accept those who find SACD to be noticeably superior to CD.
They have no reason to say otherwise.
Clearly there are reasons why it should be better on a technical basis.
I can accept that my $750(list price) DVD/SACD player must be limited in comparison to other players,likewise my friends all-format Pioneer must too be limited,maybe why his comparisons with CD do not show the differences they should.
His sits in an approx $10K system and mine in a $6k system.
My point is merely this,in Audiogon terms our systems are pretty small fry but in the "real" world our systems are way above average-my fears lie with the lower and casual audio fan who imho has a likely chance of dismissing SACD as no better than CD.
Also I am struck by the amount of SACD players available on Audiogon and some learned 'goners who do not hear "big" differences between SACD/CD.
I am at the very early stages of assessing SACD and the format clearly is in it's infant stages hopefully over time the differences become clearer to me.
Having discussed this offline too I am told (rightly or wrongly) that the 900 is a moderate SACD machine,close to the Philips 1000 and a bit behind the 9000es.
More to discover