2. digital
  3. 1068906354

SACD my thoughts at this time.....................

I have been on other threads accused of being consistantly negative on SACD as a format.
I'll put my full thoughts on the format here so those members with differing views can express their issues with my opinions.
Hopefully it can be archived and new posters can be directed to this thread.
I also don't claim to know all the answers so others can offer more information or contradictory evidence.

It's long been my contention SACD will probably survive as a niche Audiophille format.
I do not see it breaking into the mainstream nor do I see a time when the majority of releases make it onto SACD.
Of course I could be totally wrong and this is guesswork at this stage in the game.

Also as a music nut with an interest in audio replay I do not rule out further down the line owning a main replay machine that gives me SACD capability to go along with my higher end Redbook capability at this stage.

I'll break my points into main headings.

1.SOFTWARE QUALITY AND LACK OF NEW RELEASES/NEW MUSIC.
Clearly the number of SACD's available are increasing but is it enough?
Sales have risen also.
My opinion is that the large rise in sales is related directly to the large reissue sets of Dylan,The Stones,The Police and the mega-selling DSOTM by Pink Floyd.
These hybrid releases will tie in strongly with my argument on my second and sixth headings.
But the success of these releases lies in their ability to be played in most CD players.
Even pro-SACD members do seem at times to be worried by the quality of some SACD remasters or releases.
A major boo boo in trying to break the format.
Most importantly for me also is the close to complete lack of releases that are new and indeed non-Audiophile related.
Surely another boo boo.
The movement on software in general terms has been too slow.
Whilst no doubt some will cite CD quality and early problems however SACD does not offer the new intial convienance over vinyl CD did.

2.CHEAP MACHINE SYNDROME.
I bought my DVPSN900 on the reviews stating that it was a good audio machine as well which highlighted SACD superiority over Redbook.
It is but the difference between the Redbook and SACD replay is not noticeable to my ears nor others who have heard it.
Surely this is catastrophic for the format?
A dip in the water buying machines such as these will leave potential SACD progressive adopters unimpressed.
Sony has clearly introduced many cheaper SACD players over the last few years.

3.AVAILABILITY OF PLAYERS.
This one will sound daft to most Americans but when I was considering a higher end SACD machine to hear,there was nothing in my price range available in Glasgow,a major city in the UK and probably the biggest hi-fi city outside of London.
None of the big Audio stockists in the city have had much success in selling players.
I wouldn't doubt in a lot of European cities this is similar.
I've also not heard a single UK dealer rave about the format,maybe for the same reasons,my local dealer constantly turns down SCD-1's for trade in because he's had difficulty moving them.
American Audiophiles maybe don't realise that their market is a lot more vibrant despite the economic gloom.
Seems here in the UK after the intial burst of SACD there is a large gap in the availability market which hasn't been filled.

4.NEW PLAYERS
Outside the elite world of the likes of Emm Labs etc it seems the new players have been indifferent.
Doesn't the mediocre reviews/feedback of such big boys as Linn and Krell not bring another problem.
This month's Hi-fi+ reviews the new Classe Omega (£12K!)and describes it's Redbook playback as mediocre.
Shouldn't we by this stage seeing the technology drift down and be wowed by the new players?
Will the new Sony make a difference?
5.OTHER FORMATS
Clearly another big issue is the likes of DVDA.
With new generations adopting different types of software,is there any place for SACD?
Even the humble CD seems to have a reasonable future at this stage purely as the dominant format to buy new music on.
Of course it too is under threat but does anybody really think SACD will bypass CD?
6.HYBRID DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
Imagine you are reasonably interested in sonic reproduction but have a moderate to low-end system and you've just bought a newly remastered SACD hybrid of some classic.
If you notice a big jump in the CD quality will that intrigue you on SACD quality or will you think I'm not going to spend x$ on a new SACD player when I'm getting benefits where I am.
If you read a bit about it you might consider those who have heard the differences on older recordings to be very slight.
SACD worth the investment?

7.REDBOOK QUALITY ON SACD PLAYER.
Is this an issue?
I think this is key where Audiophiles are concerned.
Will a $3k SACD machine match a Redbook only player in Redbook replay.
It was this issue which ultimately led me away from trying to kill two birds with one stone.
A problem for me here in here the UK but what about in America where the overall selection is better?

8.COMBINATION EFFECT
It's my contention that SACD has too many different issues and unknowns at this stage to make anyone think that it's future is certain.
I'm sure I will hear a lot about Sony's investment and their copyright worries but will that matter if the format does not sell or grow sales?

Let's here your views-those who await further developments before investing in SACD,those who have early adopted and got out of the format and those who love it,embrace and believe it has a long future.
ben_campbell

Showing 5 responses by ears

ears
341 posts
 
I have been able to hear the sonic improvement of sacd over cd on 7 different players.
I have had in my system, a Sony 9000 stock and later whith Modwright signature mods.
A phillips 963sa stock and whith mods, A sony 777, Phillips sacd 1000 and Denon 5900.

The only two of these players to do justice to both sacd and redbook are the two modded players.
I do not get the connection on how poor redbook performance has anything to do whith sacd, as it is the designer of the player who is responsible for the redbook playback.

As far as some recordings not sounding as improved as some expect, again this is the fault of the recording and can be heard whith any format so again, where is the connection whith sacd.

It seems that some are nit picking to be making such comparisons that are not sacd specific, just trying to make up b.s. to justify there lack of appreciation for an obviously superior format.
Or maybe they feel left out because they can't audition a certain player or find much sacd software in there area.

If I am wrong, then lets hear about the different models you have had in your systym besides an el cheapo player.
Not players you heard elsewhere but rather have had in your system for at least two weeks or more.

As far as dvd-a, anyone who thinks this format is going anywhere had better think again.
Joe average doesan't even no that he may have dvd-a on his new dvd player and could care less about dvd-a, even if he did.
Audiophools by a large margin prefer sacd, and anyone who has been involved in hi rez from the beggining can't argue that fact.
If one has to go, it will be dvd-a, but I hope they both stick around as dvd-a is superior to redbook on most material but not all on both the 500.00 Denon 1600 and the 5900 that I have had in my systym.

Again I base my opinion on lots of experience whith several players and sacd and dvd-a releases from the 70's, 80's and current releases, not just sonically bad recordings from the 60's or old dead guys.

If you anti sacd or dvd-a format people are so happy whith your "Perfect sound Forever" format, then why don't you go enjoy it and leave the hi rez to those of us that can hear the difference and are more likely to support new formats and buy the music?

One last opinion...multi channel for the most part = gimmick in either hi rez format whith few exceptions.
ears
341 posts
 
If the quality and availability of SACD software is not the fault of the format and there manufactuers as Ears suggests, then I do not know where the fault lies.

Ben, I do not suggest that there is a fault whith SACD, and do not agree that the differences can't be heard on meager 500.00 players, as I clearly hear the benifits on all players even though none are the caliber of my other gear whith redbook and/or SACD except the modified players.

Quite frankly, you are the only poster that I have ever seen suggest that redbook on a cheaper player sounds better or equal to sacd.
When I say that the only players out of seven to do justice to both formats, I am talking about the redbook performance and not sacd.

All mentioned players clearly show SACD's superior sonics over redbook whithout question.

It is common knowledge that [most] universals or sacd/ cd players are not up to snuff on redbook until you get into the 4k and up range and/or have them modified.

If you take a turd of a recording, no format is going to make it sound great and I do not see why anyone would single out SACD for this, so please enlighten us Ben?

As far as the software, I live in a metro area of only a little more than 1 million people and can buy Sacd at no less than 10 stores that I know of and as much time as some of us spend online, why not buy sacd's off the net where they are plentiful from many sources.
To say theres not much available locally, is a cop out as not only can they be bought online, but you can hear others opinions of different recordings before purchasing.

Ben, do you think that the Stones remasters redbook layer sounds as good on your Ayre as more recent recordings?

If not, is this the fault of redbook or Ayre.... or is it because the original recording was a turd to begin whith and no player or format can make it sound near as good as a newer Recording?

Why can't I buy an Ayre locallly...is it bad marketing on Ayres behalf?
This is about how much sense your argument makes to me.

If I could buy the Ayre locally, you can bet that for everyone sold there would be at least 500 players sold whith sacd capability for every Ayre sold.
People seem to forget that hi end redbook only players make up a very small segment of the audiophool market and that more and more Audiophools are buying modified universals or higher end universals whith or whitout a dac for redbook.

Joe average is into free music and could care less about
any of this.

Ben, I am not picking on you, but rather trying to make sense of what seems to be a campaign against an obviously superior format.

Why not pick on dvd-a for having odd sized cases, no redbook layer and having to turn on my projector to set it up when using it?
Has anyone heard Neil Youngs Harvest on dvd-a....yikes it must be that dvd-a is not what it is cracked up to be...or is it the original recording thats at fault.
I blame the original turd of a recording and not the format.
Even though it has all these faults, I still support it and whith more and more music that is less than redbook quality[mp3 ect] audiophools should be supporting any format that offers superior sonics and not hold out for some future format, which may or may not even happen, and even if it does, old turd recordings are not likely to benifit any more than the two current hi rez formats can offer imo.
ears
341 posts
 
Lugnut, I have never heard a digital version of Harvest that I liked, the alblum itself is wonderful imo.

I read on AA that Neil wanted SACD for Harvest, but I am not sure it would have been sonically much better.

Ben, I guess you woud have to blame the record companys including Sony for trying to make turds into a diamond but I still don't see the connection whith [dsd] SACD.

To me, the technology and the record companys marketing are not one in the same.
Just listen to any well done re-issue or dsd based recording and compare to any redbook version....there is NO comparison.

So if you are questioning the quality of any release, then question the labels, not the technology imo.
ears
341 posts
 
Eldartford, all of my dvd-a's are in the larger case and the vast majority at the local stores are in the larger cases as well.

I am not knocking dvd-a, but rather using the format as an example for my point of view.

Both machines I have used, the 1600 and 5900 required video not necessarily to use dvd-a, but to adjust channel configurations ect.
I fully support dvd-a as well as sacd, its just so far, more releases that I am interested in have been on sacd and by the looks of things, more releases that I would purchase are about to come out on sacd.

There are some Warner releases such as Dire Straits that can't be relesed soon enough on dvd-a.
Much like sacd,I whish they would get moving on releases a little quicker and I believe it will benifit either format to step it up a notch.

I believe that both formats will be around for the next few years minimum and will continue to buy any worthy releases on both formats.
Even though I hear sacd as more natural sounding than dvd-a, does not make me anti dvd-a so please don't stick me in that catagory.

Not only car audio but Home theater could also benifit from either hi rez format imo.
I run into more and more people of all ages that prefer free sonically inferior to redbook music on cdr, so if anything does away whith either hi rez format, it will be the I want free music even if it sucks sonically attitude.

In other words if audiophools don't support hi rez and continue to nitpick, we may all have to eventually settle for something less than redbook
ears
341 posts
 
Eldartford, I would prefer the normal case for storage but will not let it deter me from buying them.

My biggest complaint is no redbook layer on the dvd-a format.

I have never had to use video for sacd set up, whether 2 channel or multi channel whith any player including universals but now I am nit picking.

My 4k c2 that is equal to the McCormack map-1 all analog multi channel preamp for non digitized multi channel as compared by Widescreen Review is now up for sale as I will not be supporting multi channel in either format.
I will support 2 channel hi rez only.
I spent a lot of money giving multi channel a fair shot whith audiophool speakers and cables all the way around, not to mention a new multi channel amp.

I spent well over 12k to add 3 channels and give multi channel hi rez a shot and urge others to try it whith a receiver or cheaper gear first before spending any large amount.
I highly doubt so called "Audiophile Labels" would make a big enough difference for multi channel hi rez software as far as multi channel goes.

Like I said, I will continue to buy both formats but only in two channel.
More to discover