SACD vs ANALOG

Edle,
Why SACD when we have LP? I have more LPs and CDs, and only about 12 SACDs (and 4 on order). I probably will die with my LPs, but CDs and SACDs have many advantages over LPs.
1. Longer playing time.
2. Don't have to flip them at the half way point.
3. Can skip forward/backward with a remote.
4. CDs are more durable.
5. Prices are typically cheaper.
6. Can play them in your car, boombox, or walkman.
7. Less sensitive to vibrations.
8. Equipment is cheaper.

SACD is improving CD's biggest shortcoming--the quality of the sound. It also has multichannel and video options. After almost 20 years, it's time to move away from digital's first generation--the CD.

Oh, above I meant to say, "I have more LPs than CDs."
-
Let me repeat, it's time to move away from the 20 year old first generation--CDs. I do not understand those who support, "CD sound forever!"

Not all changes need to be radical. Sometimes the changes are smaller, like the move from 78's to 33's. Or in HT, the move from Dolby Prologic to Dolby Digital to DTS.

Right now, the only radical change I think possible would be a change to a format like MP3 or Windows Media. I do not believe MP3 has reached CD quality, but the next generation might. I see that the newer players have options to decrease compression. There is value to having players with no moving parts. Digital files also are easy to duplicate so the record companies will continue their legal battles. I do not foresee a high-end version of MP3 this decade, but MP3 could negatively impact CD sales.

It's true that extended frequency response is a (the?) main attribute of SACD. However, even playing SACD from my 9000ES into my Rotel 985 pre/pro (which immediately converts the analog signal to a 48K/24bit digital signal, processes it, and then reconverts it to analog) which probably doesn't have frequency response beyond 22K, I experience greater definition and smoother transits with SACD recordings than with CD.
-
IMHO, it's better to sample music 2.8 million times/second than 44K or 96K times per second--even when the signal is converted to 48K sampling. The CD was developed about the same year as the original IBM PC. I think it's time for a change.

P.S. I'm studying options to keep the SACD signal analog on my system.

My TT (Rega) cost a little less than my S9000ES, but my S9000ES delivers more dynamic and accurate sound than my TT with CDs or SACDs. It has also improved the audio on my DVDs. I have a HT system. I love my S9000ES and SACD.

There are so many formats right now: LP33, LP45, CD, HDCD, XRCD, DVD-V, DVD-Audio, 96/24 DADs, MP3, Windows Media, and SACD to name the most common. I do not think that any one will completely dominate. I do believe that there's obviously an interest to move away from CD (first generation). That's why we have so many formats. It's approaching 20 years old.

SACD has the highest quality and many recording studios are buying DSD/SACD equipment to replace 96/24 and analog equipment. It will be with us for some time.

As for the next great format, there are four contenders.

1. DVD-Video. With DVD's you get audio, multichannel options, video, and many hours of playback per disc. Shortcoming is that the audio is similar to CD quality and can't play in a CD player.

2. Next generation MP3 (MP4?) or Windows Media. MP3 does not have enough quality, but the next generation might. With the internet speeding up and memory becoming cheaper, the next generation could be it. Still, it probably will be near CD quality.

3. DVD-Audio. Great sound, but requires a DVD player. Can't play on normal CD equipment (e.g. in your car). Software not yet available.

4. SACD. Best sound. Most analog like sound. But some record companies are not supporting right now. Can be played in CD players. Sony has announced a $400 player this summer and that it will be on all their DVD players in the future. Also have promised to reduce software prices. Sony knows they need to do this if they want to increase volume. Sony is a high volume manufacturer--not low volume high-end.

Bottomline: I do not believe anyone knows what the next great will be, but you will receive opinions.

I remember when CD's came out. The cheapest players were $1500 and there was little software. I bought 2 CDs a year before I bought my first CD player. It was almost 3 years until you could buy CDs in normal record stores, and then it was a small section in the back corner.

The same was true with DVD. I bought my first DVD player in early 1999. No stores in the Wash. DC area sold or rented DVDs. Even now the selection of DVDs in many rental stores is too small. Just two months ago, my neighbor told me that DVD won't make it. The equipment and software is too expensive and its not recordable. I'm sure if I asked, he would have also told me that CDs and VHS would remain top sellers into the next century.

I'll never get rid of my records. There's too many good memories even with the clicks, pops, surface noise, limited play, and flipping that occrus too often. I have about 500.
But I'll never buy another.
-
I'll never get rid of my CDs. I'm still a BMG member and will buy certain CDs. Probably have 200-300.
-
Over the past year, I have bought about 20 concert DVDs, and I'll continue buying them. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a lot of high quality concert DVDs to date.
-
I own one DVD-Audio--Aaron Nevelle's Devotion.
-
I really want to buy SACDs. I have about 12 with 4 on order. I have a list of about 25 more I plan to buy. I'll probably average buying 4-6 a month for the forseeable future. That's a lot for me, but I love my SACD.