Eno, example of our great diversity; I cringe at the thought of having to use vinyl again. I owned a SACD player for a short time and admit that I never gave SACD a great trial, but I am quite pleased with the CD player I own. |
In 1981,at the introduction of the CD format I was,initially, quite relieved to be escape the inherent problems with vinyl ... most notably hiss, pop and high-maintainence. I was not alone in this regard, I can assure you.
Now, twenty-two years later I find myself returning to vinyl relieved to escape the aggression, harshness and general lack of naturalness of the CD format. It is not that I have not heard impressive sounding CDs .... it's just that such discs are so extremely few and far between. Perhaps the best CD that I have ever heard has been 'For the Duke'. A gold CD on the M&K ' Real Time' label. A truly fantastic listening experience.
We know that it is possible to achieve great results with the CD format. It is just that it is so rarely done.
We have wrestled with this format for years now, seeking mythical and magical tweaks which would make it all come together. I am sorry to say that it all been in vain and as many others have mentioned, it is simply time to face the facts ... CD audio has been a complete shell game regardless of it's powerful selling points...convienence and relative indestructability. We, sincerely, wanted to believe. It was a musical 'Emperor's New Clothes', if you will. Let's eat our humble pie and accept the fact that if one truly loves listening to music, one simply has to embrace or re-embrace analogue (vinyl) in spite of it's obvious shortcomings (maintainence). We want to hear the full breadth and depth of every note .... of every word. We want to connect with something resembling a real human being on the other end. It is why we bother to listen at all.
Now, having sung the praises of vinyl I would like to point out that I have a SACD player as well. This format is also vastly superior to CD. It offers the convienence of CD and some of the better qualities of vinyl (smoother and more human). I truly hope that it survives as a format for it is a very reasonable compromise between CD and vinyl. Actually, some SACDs sound quite fantastic. Verdi's 'Requiem' on Sony comes immediately to mind.
I have, gladly, accepted SACD for general listening. However, for those special listening moments late in the evening when all is quiet and the power supply most stable I prefer vinyl. Long live the music. |
T.Martin says (young people are not interested in vinyl
I just came home from Amoeba records,and the vinyl section
was so packed with young people i could hardly look around
I asked the clerk where the sacd were located,he replied
"whats that"
. |
Completely IMO, the most insightful points in this thread are:
SACD is not about sound quality with regards to it's ultimate purpose and/or acceptance. It's about corporate profits, consumer cost and convenience.
There are many many more people today with SACD capability in their home than there were a year ago, due to exactly the phenomena Treyhoss describes - "I need a new DVD player, the Sony's have a killer picture and, whoa, it looks like I got SACD capability to boot!". Only many people probably have absolutely no idea or interest in what SACD is or does, or whether it's a better quality sound or whatever.
I read Michael Fremer's proud statements of all the TT's sold in Europe last year (while admitting most of them are the $199 models, clearly bought by people who have an old collection and a broken TT), as he promotes the notion (that is quite possibly true, today) that "vinyl is enjoying a resurgence". How many people bought a Sony DVD player last year that was SACD capable? Given that all but their cheapest models are, I'm guessing the number dwarfs the number of TTs sold. Only difference is that no SACD-zealot is holding up these numbers saying "SACD is steamrolling!"
It is absolutely true that the public is not clamoring for, nor particularly wants, SACD. It's also true that SACD doesn't represent the same clear consumer benefit that CDs had (again, for Joe Public, not for high-end consumers). But I don't think Sony is surprised by this, or intended that to be the catch. What Sony wants is for everybody to seamlessly go from buying CDs to SACDs.
Sony has released dozens of models of devices that are SACD capable that are in the process of replacing incompatible units in consumers' hands that break down over time. SACD is not going to sell at $19.95 a disc, but all Sony has to do is to sell the SACD dual-layer (ie, backward compatible) version of the latest Eminem release for cheaper than the CD version, and they'll get people's attention. Yes, they'd lose money, but gigantic corporations do it all the time to gain market share, and have the pockets to see it through. How much did you pay for your copy of Internet Explorer?
Finally, Treyhoss' point that the future format is quite likely higher-resolution than anything we have today, and more accessible to boot (due to cheaper storage and bandwidth) is undeniable true, in my opinion. Everybody chastises MP3 for it's "low bandwidth and crappy sound" but that's just today's usage of it, due to how people can interact with it. There's nothing about MP3 itself, or a backward compatible MP4 of the future, that keeps it from supporting a higher-resolution format than SACD in the future.
I think the whole focus on formats is something that only a group like this thinks about. Most of the public doesn't care at all (unless it doesn't work). Cheap, convenient, and what I want quickly is all that matters. |
tmartinjr@cox.net, Circut city.com sells lp's ! No hard numbers but it looks to me like there have been more lp's released last year than SACD's |
I don't care what the public buys. Hey, most buy $199 stereo systems, or MP3 compatiable computers. With this equipment, I would buy CSs as well.
There's now over 800 SACDs, not 200. www.aMusicDirect.com currently lists 594 SACDs for sale at their site alone. There's more SACDs than I'm willing to buy.
I now own 100 SACDs. I have a couple that sound similar to the CD version, but I've never found a poor sounding SACD. I find poorly recorded CDs and DVD-Vs often. Buying a SACD is insurance that the recording is well engineered.
By the way, the same can't be said for DVD-A. Many DVD-As do not equal the CD counterpart. I bought two DVD-A players, but returned them both.
Now you may not like certain type of music that is recorded on SACD (e.g. Jazz, classical, etc.), but that's not a reason to pu-pu SACD. I don't like Rap. That does not make CD technology inferior because most Rap is on CDs.
If one needs to worry about a dying format, they should worry about vinyl. I can find SACDs at Circuit City and Best Buy. Can't find any vinyl. The public doesn't seem to care about buying vinyl--especially the younger generation. |
I have no idea if sacd will live or die a slow death.
Most people dont even know what sacd is,at least the people I know.
Who in their right mind would buy a player when there are only 200 or so sacds to buy? Plus in my opinion 75% or more of these suck!!
I guess Im not one in "their right mind" as I just bought a sacd player and I own 2 sacds and 1 sucks! |
I feel the average consumer is happy with redbook cd,and they could care less about SACD! |
Neither is replacing hi-end 2k analog rigs...but only a few are at that level anyways...the solution will be a universal player...we will have to see if there is enough software to make it stick...however...with new "blue" laser technology just around the corner...and who knows what else...afterall...what ever hits the "consumer" level is probably 5yrs. behind the times anyways...and like Cd...there is plenty of room for new hi-rez, vinyl, and whatever else.... |
Well said Brucegel. If your cd or sacd's sound better than your analog you've got a problem in that end. It does unfortunately cost a lot to get it right. I am making the reference from listening to the Audiomeca Mephisto cd player against the Nottingham Hyperspace with Anna arm and Benz ruby 2. The digital has come along way though and I listen to more cd's because of new music releases only |
It's not that we don't want a new format, it's the fact that once again we are faced with two different solutions that are not compatible with each other. The failure of both formats so far is the fault of the industry, not the public. Neither side wants to commit fully because they know either one is a gamble at this point. There is not room for sacd, dvda and vinyl, and neither is replacing vinyl anytime soon from reading these posts. So we wind up with new multi players that don't play cd well and a scarcity of source material. Maybe the public is wisely waiting it out this time. |
It appears the public doesnt want a new format...and the digital hi-end doesnt either...they would rather stick with their esoteric DACs and transports...they would rather see SACD or DVD-A fail...if low and behold...they would have to settle for a universal player...this type of elitist attitude will never improve digital...as far as im concerned...they can have it...Im going vinyl... |
Thanks again Twl for speaking the truth.I once not long ago sat in a stereo shop listening to all the top line naim audio equipment and an OREGON ALBUM "ANOTHER PRESENT ERA" ON CD.I then opened a never opened copy on vinyl and put it on their linn sondek arro armed helikon table and promptly wept at the difference.I purchased a capitole cd player to try and close the gap but its still oceanic.That little bone in our ear that twiddles and tweaks at air borne vibrations will always have a love affair with needles and vinyl.If someday our species no longer hears in a analogous way (my word)then maybe a digital implant will supplant this most beautiful way we experience aural ecstasy.Cheers to a great thread. |
I can't help but believe that DVD-A and SACD are a digital "stopgag" for the next truly revolutionary product. To make an analogy, I bought my very first laserdisc player in 1989 and I remember having to go to high-end audio stores to buy laserdisc movies in the "early years". There was no question that the picture and sound were better AND the LD players played CD's - it seemed like a no-brainer that it would catch on. It took a looong time but finally the software became more readily available and a few local Blockbusters had a limited selection to rent - and the next thing you know about .75% of the households in America had one!. The fact that they were expensive, large (the size of an LP) and scarce always kept LD a niche market. When DVD came along it killed LD practically overnight! The fact remained that LD was the BEST format you could enjoy a movie on for about 10 years - or settle for VHS! I believe DVD-A and SACD will serve the same niche market unless they increase the number of titles, make them readilly available and affordable and release titles from popular bands! I find it crazy that out of 580 SACD titles I only want to own 7 or 8 and out of the approx 350 DVD- titles, I only want to own 12-15 (a better % anyway). If the studios looked over their best selling artists of the last 40 years, I bet they only have (maybe) one title that they have put out on SACD or DVD-A so far. My guess is they will piddle out about 5 titles a year worth owning - in either format. And while I am "thinking" about the future, don't be suprised if in 5 years we have a digital scheme that is small as an MP3 and has even better resolution than DVD-A OR SACD, utilizing better compression techniques and blue laser technology. Perhaps the next thing that will really catch on with consumers will be a DVD player that plays High Definition DVD AND the "next great" digital audio format. We shall see... In the meantime you can grow old wishing and waiting for it or take a chance and pick up the technolgy as I did - by having it "thrown in for free" on your next purchase of a high quality DVD video player. At least that's the way I am rationalizing it :-) - Tony |
At the risk of being redundant my personal biggest gripe is the lack of a digital output. Not for recording purposes. It denies the opportunity for uncompromised digital room correction. I think this is the area that may be the biggest boon to audiophiles. |
If anything...the public has already made their choice...and with success of the ultra-compressed MP3 format,A/V receivers, and CD burners...the quality of sound has taken a back seat...convenience,portability,compatability,and cost are the driving factors...this is both an exciting and frustrating time for 2-channel audiophiles with digital front ends... |
Socrates, I too have no interest in multi-channel music, but it's way too early to assume that dvd-a will not have 2 channel capability. The whole "next digital" medium thing is still in an evolutionary phase and I doubt we'll see the final version for quite some time. In any event, the point is that audiophiles will not decide what the next medium will be. We'll have to live with whatever the majority decides and make the best of our options... just like what happened with cd over the last 20 years. |
Video drives the audio/video market today, who knows about tomorrow; people could turn and be more excited about music in the future. |
Tony brings up a good point...the real mass market future in digital audio is...for better or worse... the video
componet and multi-sound...that is what will "drive" the consumer's decision to leave redbook behind...again ...the irony being the latest digital audio advancement will be awarded to a large % of the public that really could care less...DVD-a/DVDs would appear to have the edge in this department...audiophiles are at times too "insular" in their thinking...myself included....anybody know...does SACD have the capabilities to reproduce digital images? |
Why would an audiophile not want DVDA? Personally, I would have to more then double the cost of an already very expensive, to me, 2ch setup, which is the best I can afford in stereo mode. Had I spread that thinly out over 5 channels, the sound would be very poor in comparison. I don't watch television, watch maybe a DVD a month and have no interest in HT surround, as many folks here also feel. Anyways, in 2ch I have better "surrounding" sound with movies then many consumer grade surround setups I've heard, good 2ch reporduction does that. In short, I really do not want to lay out the green for the extra channels, however regarding a superior 2ch meduim, now there's something I would invest in, should the medium become heavily supported and be portable.... |
Leaving vinyl out of it for the moment, I have had SACD and CD players, and felt that SACD was significantly better(comparing equally priced components). If I was just starting out, and assembling a collection of digital software, I'd rather use SACD, if I could get the titles I wanted, which wasn't the case. I think that the low selection of titles is hurting SACD more than anything else. The sonic improvements are there, even if some consider it small. And I agree with Phasecorrect, that the majority of opposition to hi-rez formats is coming from the CD contingent, for whatever reason. I really did not expect that. I expected the CD folks to jump in with both feet. I mean there is no obsolescence, you can still play the CDs on those machines. The smaller makers will not get into it, if they see all the digital folks "digging their heels in" in opposition to them. |
Trey, thanks for the follow up. |
Does anyone doubt that the masses will prefer to listen to their favorite music while watching video of the band performing at the same time? This is why dvd-a will prevail in the long run. Audiophiles never have and never will drive the market. SACD just doesn't offer the quantum leap that cd offered over vinyl to be successful in the marketplace. I remember when cd was introduced, the average person experienced a huge jump in sound quality and convenience from the integrated tt, radio, cassette players that accounted for 95% of the equipment in use. As far as sacd finding a niche market, why would even an audiophile forgo the video option dvd-a offers if the sound of the two mediums is essentially equal? The future is about integration of home theater, audio and computers/internet access. SACD doesn't have a place in that vision. |
To be perfectly honest...I have never been thrilled about analog or current redbood playback ...they both have drawbacks...not surprisingly...the majority of the analog community has dismissed SACD as another "smoke and mirrors" digital marketing campaign...and surprisingly....resistance to SACD has come from the elite digital hi-end that has invested a tidy sum in DACs,transports,and software...and scorns any kind of universal hi-rez machine...they have called SACD a "marginal" improvement at best...but aren't all upgrades,to a cetain extent, marginal? an improvement is an improvement in my book...the difference between a $500 intergrated vs. a $1500 unit is marginal...audible but marginal...the difference between a $500 Cd player and a $1500 rig is marginal...again...audible...but marginal...
the law of diminishing returns is very prevelent in audio gear...regardless of the format outcome...I will add a decent TT to my system...and hopefully...an expanded SACD collection... |
Jade6- I'm looking at HP's New Super CD List on page 117 of issue 138(139 hasn't reached HI, if 139 says otherwise, I stand corrected) and there's no SACDs.
Four DADs are are listed under "Special Merit."
There's a difference between TAS & HP's recommendations.
I'm not crying "the sky is falling." I pointed out the Chesky sale, because you can buy a number of their titles in all three formats and compare.
I own equipment and music in all formats. I listen with an open mind, not my wallet.
SACD is different not better. The market place will determine if it's progress.
You've got a great system, suggest you try a DVD-A player/DAC of equal value/quality to your Sony and let us know how they compare.
Aloha. |
I'm sorry Kana, but I must correct you. TAS has recommended nine SACD's to date. I think you saw the DVD-A listing under a DVD-A ad or something. As far as Chesky lowering the prices, isn't that what we have asked for? Lower prices and larger selection? Now that it's happening you cry the sky is falling.
I had a another thought that a few very old ‘philes may shed some light on. When 33 1/3 rpm came along to replace the 78 rpm was there a call for the heads of the then four or five labels? If we all sat with our heads in the sand I think we would still have shellac and a needle on a horn. PLEASE! Progress will happen. Vinyl is great for the 0.001% who choose to fight that battle. The rest will have to stick with the "drawbacks" of digital, thankfully it's better than it was, and this next generation holds promise. |
Brian, The comparison I did was between the SACD played on the new Sony vs. the CD played on my existing digital front end (w/ the AA and the DAC). The CD played on the Sony was nowhere near the quality of my other digital components. That said, I am keeping an open mind until I get about 400 hours, on the CD side, played on the Sony. That will be a more fair comparison. I'm not expecting the moon here and really got the Sony for it's picture quality, which is EXCELLENT! In some ways it is satisfying to see how well my existing digital technology, which is about 6-7 years old, holds up against the new unit. The DAC for CD in the Sony is 96/192kHz too! Time will tell... |
Treyhoss, your findings may be accurate or you may be just finding out that your player plays SACD's better than CD's. |
Phasecorrect- I read the iar article, yes it's long winded,
but it says the same thing as I posted above: DVD-A sounds better the SACD. And as I posted above, I agree with you that HT will decide the outcome of this format war.
If you read TAS you'll see that HP has four DVD-As on this super disc list and no SACDs, and he's had plenty of exposure to both formats on the best systems.
For those who are interested, Chesky has all their SACDs on sale. |
Digital supporters...please read the following post...
www.iar-80.com/page38.html
this was way too long winded and technical for me..is this guy on crack or what?
|
The irony is...the new hi-rez formats...or for that matter...any new digital format...is going to be decided by HT...where testing for 3-d imaging is done with Free Willy 2...instead of 2 issues...multi has 5 or 6...doesnt look promising folks.... |
This past weekend I broke down and purchased a new DVD player to replace my ageing Pioneer DVD/LD player, with a 9 bit video processor, which also served as my transport into an Audio Alchemy DTI-PRO32 and then to a Parasound DAC1000 20 bit DAC. I have always loved the sound this equipment produced but have been intrigued by SACD since I heard it 2 years ago at a local high-end shop on a Sony SCD-777es. I went ahead and bought the Sony DVP-NS999es DVD/SACD player which is replacing the DVP-S9000es in the Sony line. I got it more for the DVD performance with a 14 bit/108 mhz video DAC but figured the SACD was "gravy". I have had it playing CD's and SACD (on repeat) all weekend and have accumulated about 30 hours on each signal path (redbook and SACD). While it is still too early to tell how it will finally sound after a full run-in, I have been formulating some early opinions. First, the SACD sound is much more fluid that standard CD's - more texture and air. It is also more "laid-back" than standard CD (this may be due to the high output level from the AA equipment however). It is NOT a wholesale improvement over what I currently have but is an improvement none the less - and hopefully will improve more when fully "broken-in". BTW - I was not too impressed with the multi-channel SACD (a "gimmicky" sound)and found I preferred stereo - at least with the Alice in Chains greatest hits SACD. I have purchased about 4 SACD's and find them all to be very well done. At this point I think of this as akin to buying Mobile Fidelity CD's back in the mid-90's. BTW: Look how much some of those Mo-Fi's are selling for today! - Tony |
Hey guys,
Instead of barking at each other about the benefits of our preferred software, we should be speaking with one voice promoting better recording, better engineering and having it in two channels. I've said this so many times in these forums I'm even getting tired of reading it, but the truth is, great recordings are equal to spending thousands in equipment upgrades. If manufacturers of digital software used all the available space on a DVD disc for nothing other than audio the result would end this endless debate. Heavens, we aren't enemies, are we? Currently, in the software wars our only enemy is home theatre. Peace to all. |
Sorry to rant, but are we're now arguing about the less then 1% of individuals in a group that maybe makes up 1% of all people to begin with (if that) as being the only ones in the right, ie vinyl? This all sounds very elitist and ego driven. This looks like another expose showing why our hobby is so small to begin with. We complain about costs, insane markups and poor price-to-performance ratios, but when truly good components do come out that are affordable, and especially if they are affordable but are not fitting the audio snob dogma (strictly jazz music, played on vinyl, through all tube equiptment, coming out of planar or horn speakers, all connected by wires costing more then many peoples cars is the only right way) it is shunned automatically, or categorized and brushed off based on stereotypes, bashed with hearsay based on what one has "heard" about such components in general are sounding like. Funny thing, high end audio is. Very self defeating. Lots of high flown mannerisms, chest pounding and cute, obscure language useages, not so much concern about the music though, sometimes it seems.
I'm excited and hopeful for an improved 2ch medium for the masses (all jazz and classical titles are not for the masses), and if there where more the only maybe 5 SACD's I would be willing to buy at the current time to justify the $1000SACD player, I would be on the bandwagon.... |
Okay Joe, point taken. Fair is fair. But you missed my point. I am not trying to be the "Saviour". It doesn't matter to me if people stay with digital, because most will. I can use what I want, and am not directly affected by these digital format wars. I am making a point that other people don't have to be subjected to this format war nonsense, if they don't want to be.
This copy protection thing is going to happen. The music industry is determined to make it happen. They have publicly stated that they will make it happen. They have petitioned the government to make it happen. They also are the same people(Sony/Philips) that own most of the major music producing companies, and own the patents on the CD and SACD digital formats. They will make what is going to be sold in the stores, either directly or by licence agreement with other manufacturers. It will be copy protected.
Now some people would rather not go along with this, and they are not necessarily backward thinkers. Maybe they can avoid this whole obsolescence thing by using something that is already considered "obsolete" by everyone except the highest of the high end audiophiles. Whether you agree, or like it, or not, the top of the high-end is dominated by turntable systems. This is not because these people want to "revel in anachronism". It is because these people have realized that the technological progress has not led to sonic progress over previously available media. It is not my doing. But I certainly see it. And hear it. So I simply point out that a person could avoid all this format war stuff, and get better sound at the same time, by going analog.
Now you may not feel that analog is better sounding than digital, but I assure you that the top end of the audiophile segment does not agree with you on that point. The top layer is analog, and has always been analog. Unless digital advances further than it has, the top layer will remain analog. I remind you of the constantly recurring posts on this forum that refer to "how can I make my digital system sound more like analog?", or "what is the most analog sounding digital player?",or "can adding a tube dac smooth out my digital source?" or references like,"this mod made my CD player sound almost like analog",etc, etc. When was the last time you read a post asking "how can I make my turntable sound more digital?". Please.
I am not making this up. It is real. I can't help it that some people do not want to accept this. That is out of my hands. I am simply stating that there is another way that some may find more acceptable, for several reasons, now that this format thing is happening. For those that want to stay with the digital thing, fine. Nothing is stopping you. But it seems that there is a very touchy point that causes outcry, when people are urged to try a different route than the ones the majority are traveling. Perhaps it makes the majority nervous, that some may not think like them.
The fact is that analog exists, and it is a viable format for listening to music. I am regularly reminded of what a no-no it is to recommend something out of the mainstream. But the very best of anything is never found in the mainstream. If you want the best, you have to look outside the mainstream. This format war has presented an opportunity for people to look at other options for advancing the quality of their audio systems. I suggest analog. Is this a violation of the "digital law" and now I have the "digital police" after me?
Every time I have mentioned that digital cannot compete sonically with analog, I have had somebody try to shut me up. Well, it ain't gonna happen. I am as entitled to my opinion as any of the rest of you. And I can promote my ideas here and elsewhere anytime I want.
Did I try to make a big deal about it when some of those above, like Tweekerman, said they like CD over analog? No. Do I make a point of trying to minimize people who think digital is better. No. I have to deal with that every day on this forum. It is the mainstream thinking. But I do state what I consider to be a fact, that on an ultimate scale, analog is better sounding than digital. Any available form of digital. I don't require that anyone agree with me. But it seems that some digital people want to require that I agree with them.
Look, I can sum it up this way. Digital is a sampled representation of what? Analog. It is generally conceded that higher sampling rates will better simulate what? Analog. The perfect digital representation would be what? Analog. If we could have the perfect digital format, IT WOULD BE ANALOG. What more do I need to say? I've wasted too much time on this already. |
Jadem6 ... I hope you're right, but the biggest difference between SACD and redbook CD is that the consumer DOES NOT WANT SACD. It has no benefits and several drawbacks. For the average consumer rebook CD was a giant step forward compared to LPs.
It is for this reason that I am skeptical of the success of SACD. Your argument against DVD-a is very interesting, though, and I think you're right on that one.
The copy-protection issue is interesting as I, for one, don't care if the source is copy protected, so long as it doesn't affect the sound quality. If I make a copy for the care I don't care if the copy has to go to the analogue domain and back to the digital domain with inherent losses, since a car is not an audiophile environment. Neither is the CD walkman. I'm a bit at a loss why so many of us jump up and down at copy protection, when to me it seems to be a bit of a non-issue. |
Jadem6- You're correct in stating that Sony & Philips are in this for the money and copyright protection.
Unfortunately, they're not in it to give us better sound.
The SACD vs. DVD-A fight will not be decided by audiophile
demand for a better format. The driving force is HT. |
You guys are too funny. You all sit hear arguing about a sixty year old technology like it's the latest coming and ignore the obvious regarding digital. Digital has come a long way and SACD will bring it even further, but that is not the issue at all.
Sony/Phillips receives a royalty for every cd made. This has accounted for some good profit for Sony and Phillips, but now at the end of twenty years the royalty is ending. SACD achieves two things that have nothing to do with mass market tastes or hi-res listening. First it copyrights the material so that it can not be pirated to mp3 or other copy systems. Secondly it allows them to sell the technology to other companies so they can receive a new flood of royalties for the next twenty years. This is mighty simple stuff guys, so for all your trashing of Sony for there stupidity of bringing out a new format, it's Sony who reads this stuff and laughs at your ignorance. It's the money! Sony/ Phillips gets some, the record labels get the bulk. DVD-A does not work to protect the information, SACD does. Great wonder every major label is now looking hard at SACD.
Lucky for all of us the new digital format sounds better than the old one. It seams that every day a new label jumps in with a promise to support SACD. Universal with it's 100-200 releases this year is a very good indicator of where SACD is heading. As far as price, the newest singly layer SACD only disks are $14.95 at Music Direct. Last time I checked that was $1.00 over the regular priced "redbook" at Best Buy. Now you can certainly continue to buy your used Iron Butterfly vinyl for $2.00 (which is more than it's worth) and believe you discovered the true meaning of audio, but remember, most of us have been there and done that, twice. Digital will remain the answer for most, just because we don't respond to every post hear doesn't mean we are not here, laughing at your pursuit for perfect sound. If you happen to be buying newly re-mastered 180 gram pressing at $30.00 - 45.00 a piece your selection is more limited than mine and mine is growing, your is...... a fad.
As for feeling sorry for me "the early bird" well don't. I've had three plus years of enjoyment listening to the best sound my system has ever produced. My prediction, five years from now you will not be able to buy a 16 bit cd, a "redbook" only cd player. It will be universal machines with all new material released in SACD only format. |
Hi Troglodyt let's analize your post...
Have fun with 16/44.1.(let's start my rant with some sarcasm)
"You already got the best you're gonna get. The joke was played 22 years ago. Alot fell for it, and some didn't. I didn't think the joke was funny in 1981, and I don't think it's funny now."(Preaching to the ignorant masses)
"The fact is, you wanted your "Perfect sound forever", and you got it(?). You scorned the vinyl world, and embraced the digital devil. Now you have to live with it."
YOU know the future and have a disdain for people who embrace technological change)
"Just how many times oversampling will it take to convince you that it just isn't going to happen? Oversampling, upsampling, downsampling, interpolation, no upsampling, jitter reducers, digital lenses, 1-bit, 20 bit, 24 bit, DSD, tube dacs, green pens, Buddhist chants. It just is not going to happen, folks. Time to wake up from the bad dream."
(Our Saviour Twl)
"I know this is hard medicine, but what do you think us vinyl guys have been having to swallow for over 20 years? We've watched all the music dry up, and go to digital formats. We've seen cost increases and less selection of our analog gear. We've borne the brunt of scorn from our fellow audiophiles. It hasn't been easy for us, but we've kept the vinyl flame alive for all of you, so that when this point came, there would be somewhere to go. If we hadn't done that, there would be no analog refuge from this digital crap-storm."
(Oh poor me ,I can claim poverty and intellectual superiority all at the same time )
IF YOU PROVOKE EXPECT A MIRRORED RESPONSE.
|
I've tried both SACD and DVD-A player/systems.
I feel DVD-A is closer to analog with a great sense of dynamic range.
I haven't tried or am I interested in the multichannel ability of either format.
My local Borders doesn't stock a sinle disk in either format. Unless there a major increase in available,both formats will fade into the sunset like surround sound SQ and CD4.
|
Hey Twl,
I'm a CD guy and I applaud your post and commend you on the eloquence with which you have handle this attack. I am not a big analog fan but, then again, the last time I listened to vinyl was on my Techniques TT through a Nikko receiver, circa 1981. I would love to experience a good analog rig and I may put one together in the future. For now, alas, I am too lazy and content with the sound and convenience of CDs. Now, that said, I would never throw stones at you for your choice........John |
On the "us" vs "them" issue, there are very few SACD owners in the world. Heck people are using there cd burners to get more music in their collection. They ain't interested in "super-duper" recorded cd's. Now as far as the vinyl vs cd issue, i hear very little difference in 2 comparision auditions. Yea, yea, "what TT did you hear", the difference was very very minimial in the 2. I prefered the cd sound. Now its true certain digital players tend to breakdown. Vinyl players need new needles. Trade off. SACD is a rich folk's new toy. |
A friend has a Pioneer Elite universal DVD/SACD/DVDA/CD player. He took a look inside and saw "Sony" labels on many parts. Leave SACD to Sony, indeed...! |
Boy, when I clicked on my favorites this morning I thought I had clicked on the audio asylum site. Debate is good. |
Hi everyone,
I've stayed out of this foray because it inevitably ends up a "us" versus "them" thread. I have a slightly different take on all of this because I have lived through the emergence of all these different formats. When digital first made the scene I was very threatened by the prospect of my software not being supported with replacement hardware. You know, all the bits and pieces needed to keep my analog engine running. I then was threatened by record outlets not carrying my type of software. That certainly came true. As stated earlier, digital made my ears bleed also. The entire decade of the 80's CD releases can be written off as unlistenable. The whole time I'm struggling to overcome the lack of new vinyl software and suffering the slings and arrows the proponents of the digital domain tossed at me. Comments like, "come out of the cave", "you're missing the dynamic range", "vinyl is dead, give it up", "the black background", on and on. I didn't sell my analog gear and library. Not because I had a chrystal ball or because I was smarter than the CD crowd, but because I was stubborn and didn't want to part with, perhaps, 2000 albums. When CD's became listenable I bought a player but whenever the music I desired was available on vinyl, that is what I bought because I am hooked on several aspects of vinyl. I usually prefer the sound of analog. I like a sizeable object to hold and find reading the liner notes to be a joy rather than the challenge of what one pulls out of a jewel case. I enjoy placing my new LP's in a plastic jacket cover, cleaning the vinyl and replacing the paper sleeves with rice paper sleeves. So what? I like hand waxing my car too. I think everyone here is missing some key points that need to be talked about. The big issue is COPYRIGHT PROTECTION. Have I got your attention? Vinyl will continue to be a niche market because there is no protection with that format. The spinning silver disc's will disappear because hackers will always be able to defeat the code. Only when manufacturers combine a cheap, licensed piece of material that is encoded with the data and impossible to duplicate will the dust ever settle in these wars. READ: A MUSIC CHIP. Unfortunatly, I believe that quality will be a side issue for a long time. We all struggle to make the most of what we have and I'm confident that incremental steps will be made to achieve satisfaction with most types of software. When the chip comes, the Redbook crowd will be suffering the same slings and arrows we vinyl guys endured and I promise you that you will cling to your source the same way we have. Just keep in mind that all of us combined are a niche market |
Joe, you gave me a good belly-laugh! As if I had never heard a "state of the Digital art" system!
I agree with some posts above that some music is simply not available on analog, and that is a good reason for having a CD player. I tried to use them quite a few times, in fact. Always hopeful that it would sound better. Finally, I decided that it was good for the car, so I kept some of my CDs for that purpose. For the home, I felt it was a waste of my valuable tube life, to play something that could not make good use of my high resolution audio system.
I assure you that ignorance of audio products is not the cause of my love affair with vinyl. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I am well aware of what digital can do, and that is why I am sticking with vinyl.
I do notice, however, what is constantly brought up in these anti-vinyl arguments. It is having to clean the records, having to get up off the chair to change the record, having to take care of your adjustments and your equipment, and potential clicks and pops. I find this very interesting. It is also frequently sprinkled with phrases like "get into reality" or "living in the past", like Joe, here, has so aptly demonstrated. I don't ever hear things about CD is more musical than vinyl, or sounds better. Only stuff about black background and convenience. This is very telling abuot the mindset of many of today's audiophiles. Sound is secondary, convenience is paramount. I can easily get a black background by shutting off my system, but that doesn't provide me with any musical content, does it? Now, where is the line drawn, where it is ok to start reducing musical capability to retain black background? There's your dilemma. What you all are telling me is that you are willing to accept a lesser audio quality, in order to get noise-free convenience with remote control. That may be fine for you, but it is not fine for me. This is where we seem to differ. I will accept less convenience, and more possibility of some noises, to get more musical content out of my system. Getting the most out of an audio system used to be what defined an audiophile, from a mass market person. Apparently that is not the case today. Today, it is the best reasonable sound without too much difficulty. Oh, I know that you will say that you are getting the maximum sound quality possible. I say, Not True. I say that you are getting the maximum sound quality that you will accept, given the convenience levels offered. I know that this is not a popular point of view. It forces many to look at their choices as not audiophile. It is not pleasant, but it is a fact. Now, I don't claim that there is anything wrong with making a choice like that, because convenience and black background are very nice. But, I do claim that there is something wrong with defending that choice, by saying that it is the sonic equal of something that it clearly is not the equal to. Just own up to what you are really choosing, which is convenience at the expense of some sound quality. I own up to the fact that I am choosing highest sound quality at the expense of some inconvenience and some record noises. Attempting to demean me with derogatory statements does not advance the argument. The black-and-white truth is plain. I accept less convenience, and some noise, and you accept less sound quality. If you want to change this, the avenue is plainly available to both of us.
So, by all means enjoy the digital scene, and have a good time with your music. I will be back in my Troglodyte cave, with my vinyl and my tubes, and my single driver speakers.
And, if it needs to be stated, this is all my humble opinion, and is not intended to offend or rebuke any of my fellow audiophiles. I profusely apologize for any offense that may be taken. Everyone is entitled to their own choices for their own reasons. And I have not called anyone any derogatory names, or implied they didn't know anything, as has just been done to me. It's okay to do it to a vinyl head, but not okay the other way, right? Don't worry, I've been called names by CD people for 20 years now, and it is still happening right up to this very moment. I'm used to it. Seems the CD people are pretty thin-skinned about any criticism though.
I am simply calling it as I see it. |
Hi-end Sony are very capable products...if you dont think SOny has the resources to produce the best digital gear...you are kidding yourself...dont confuse their hi-end line with the junk at Audio Supermarkets... |
"Leave SACD sound to Sony", yikes. Should we of left CD sound to Sony, they invented it? |
"If they can't get digital to sound better than vinyl after 22 years, and they can't get a higher resolution format to do it either, then they ain't gonna do "
Obviously you've been spending too much time scrubbing all the dirt off your 12'' party platters to take the time to keep up with the state of Digitial.I'm not just talking Sacd /DVD-A but Redbook is now truly a musicial medium.And for the same high price you paid for your High End Turntable", cartridge,tonearms,cleaners,special album sleeves,and the myriad other products you need to keep your platters sounding click and pop free, you could have achieved a satisfying ,musicial sound on digitial.
"You scorned the digitial world, and embraced the analog devil. Now you have to live with it."
That's right stay in the past,they may be making more TT's and still produce LP's but your market demographic is in reality so small that it hardly registers on the map.Vinyl is just dying a slower death that anticipated.
"Perfect SoundF orever" get over it ...it was a marketing statement that implied that you didn't need to worry about the skips,ticks,pops,warps that was part and parcel of the ancient medium of vinyl.
So keep vinyl alive by spending your $ on the vinylsaur!
Time to wake up and enter reality.
Sorry but I too get worked up over the mantra of "analog is better"Al Queda is the devil not digitial... |
My 2 cents:
1) CDs sound fine if done right, that means a player in the 2k+ range.
2) Vinyl sounds better only when the pops, clicks and scratches are absent, which is about 50% of the time, and you can't play them in your car!
3) Corporate greed will kill sacd. Why would the public invest in sacd when the industry gives conflicting information and choices (dvd-a). Except for a few well heeled risk takers, the gp won't gamble their money on another format war... If sacd and dvd-a are equal, why not wait it out to see which one prevails? |
