 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
These format wars are tough on the hobby, any ideas on the best strategy?
Thanks
Follow Ups:
This is what I did and I have no regrets.
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
These folks are not discounting the SACD players for CD playback. Not easy to beat the 9000ES, SCD 777ES, and XA777ES in the same price ranges!!
...to a used Rotel RCD-971 for the time being. I am giving SACD, and my finances, another year or two. HDCD is not heavily promoted; a lot of HDCD discs do not have huge HDCD labels all over them. I did not realize I had so many HDCD's until I got a HDCD player that indicates HDCD decoding is in use.My point being, I want to wait and see how widely SACD is accepted, and how heavily it gets promoted. If it remains low-key and considered "audiophile-only" territory, disc prices will probably stay well over the $20 mark. If you are on a limited budget, I would get a good redbook cdp for the time being.
Most of the Sony's (SACD) I've heard are quite a bit better than the Rotel 971 that I heard on CD.
They are interested in, I put most SACD players up against many dedicated CD players in the same price range for CD playback!
I have tried some dedicated CDPs against the Sony9000ES in the $1000 range. I gave up and and pursued a dedicated CDP in a higher price range. Now when you couple the fact that something like the Arcam FMJ CD23 may best the 9000ES, it costs more money and doesn't have SACD playback capability. I did not buy the Arcam. I went with the XA777ES for just a bit more cash outlay and which gets SACD stereo and MC playback basically for free.I sure do believe I'm reading that some folks aren't completed satisfied with redbook playback on their SACD players. But I don't believe they are buying a dedicated CDP in the same price range to best it!
In the same price category!
Buy what will improve your exisiting music collection HERE and NOW.
Rodney Gold
nt
If you think the Rebook/CD is as good as you'll ever want, then it is easy. If you would like better... a higher rez version of digital, then it is not so easy. If everyone concluded that its best to wait until there is more software, as so many people are ready to advise, then SACD and DVD-A will die. And there will not be an hi-rez replacements anytime soon. If you think that anyone will put up the capital necessary after these fail to make another attempt at hi-rez, better quality sound, you're living in Never-Never Land. What we'll be left with is degraded/watermarked CD's or various versions of lossy systems like MP3. So as Art Dudley has suggested, you are voting with your dollars. If hi-rez matters to you, if quality of sound matters then you vote with your dollars. If you're content to live with CD or less for the rest of your life, then ignore hi-rez systems.
And by the way, CD does sound better than anything else I have heard in the price range on my XA777ES, so I am not giving up anything in going in that direction.
"And by the way, CD does sound better than anything else I have heard in the price range on my XA777ES, so I am not giving up anything in going in that direction".SACD for MC and Stereo playback is free. It sure seems this is not getting through to some people for a player in that same price range. BTW, what have you put the XA777ES up against? Out of the box, it was a bit difficult to do a fair test and I still bought the XA777ES over the Arcam FMJ CD23 (which was burned in) when I did an a/b between the two players!
In my case the comparisons were sequential - ie. I liked this better than that, I like that better than this. So, I liked the AR complete better than various Linn's, at a lower cost, the SCD777Es better than the AR, the SCD777ES better than the highly touted Audio Note 1.1 DAC that some were suggesting to be almost as good as analogue (I could understand why many liked the Audio Note, but while engaging, I found it a bit crude sounding). Had heard the predecessor to the Arcam FMJ, the Alpha 9 and found it easy on the ears but not engaging. I have heard the Linn Ikemi and while I liked it, I didn't find it compelling enough to pursue. A couple of months ago I heard the the 28K Accuphase SACD 2box machine, and while excellent...well, I am still quite satisfied with my XA. If I had enough money for the Accuphase, I'd spend it elsewhere.
> > > SACD for MC and Stereo playback is free. < < <
Dont you have that backwards? Most people are interested in stereo. I don't even *WANT* MC. I'ld rather have a player that concentrates on stereo, and doesn't waste resources on MC
Jack
The XA777ES player is being compared to dedicated CDPs in the same price range and people are going for the XA777ES. With the $2K, you get SACD stereo and SACD MC for free over and above a dedicated CD player. The stereo playback for Redbook CD is outstanding and it is being compared to the SCD777Es and SCD-1 SACD players for Stereo CD playback. Those players are no slouchs compared to lots of dedicated CDPs in their respective price ranges! Are you saying the player should not include MC playback and be priced cheaper, say $1.5K? If that were the case, I'm not sure anyone should buy any dedicated CDPs other than the XA777ES for that price!! But then again, I'm not sure anyone should buy a dedicated CDP for $2K versus the XA777ES when Stereo SACD and MC SACD are free at that price either!
> > > Are you saying the player should not include MC playback and be priced cheaper, say $1.5K? < < <
No, I'm saying think how much better the SACD player would sound if it didn't waste money on parts for MC.
News flash! MC is mostly for mid fi, and those folks aren't buying SACD players.
Jack
I agree with you in that I have no use for MC, but the XA777 makes use of all 6 DACS when you use the Stereo mode. So there are triple DACS for each channel, lowering the noise floor. So they do make use of all of the extra DACS in an elegant way. They probably could have saved some by eliminating the extra RCA's and crap that goes with MC, but it still sounds great as a stereo only machine.
...if you are satisfied with 16/44 stay with it. But it'll never get better. OTOH if you think there is better digital music to be had listen to the best that both formats have to offer hardware wise preferably on something simultaneously recorded in both formats.And...
1) If you like dvda better, buy into it. Lots of hardware to choose from. You will deserve the sound you get.
2) If you like sacd better, buy into it. You may just enjoy music much better than you ever have (the digital type that is).
> > > ) If you like sacd better, buy into it. You may just enjoy music much better than you ever have (the digital type that is).
< < <But what if there are VERY few titles on SACD that you really want?
You gewt to enjoy the same musc over and over and over...
Jack
.
People are upgrading/replacing thier SACD players for redbook play. Thats what concerns me.
Jack
What dedicated CDPs they have had to go to better the CD quality on players like the Sony SACD players like the 9000ES, XA777ES, SCD 777ES, and SCD-1. These players are no slouchs in the same price ranges as a dedicated CDPs they are trying. While not world beaters and they can be bettered, at what price is another whole ball game!!!
...the Wadia's up to $8-9K. Some have said (admittedly a minority) that the SCD1 sounds @ parity with the Linn CD12. At any rate you get a stellar cd performer and 'a stellar cd format beater' at any price with an SCD1.If you can find a better deal buy it.
> > Some have said (admittedly a minority) that the SCD1 sounds @ parity with the Linn CD12 < <this crap is so obviously just hyperbole, far from the truth & DEAD WRONG that i question why you would even mention it, unless you truly believe it is possible - which would only prove how sadly uninformed and gulable some folks are!!!
very sad indeed!!!
TBone
The Linn CD12 would stomp all over the SCD-1, chew up the pieces and spit them out before stomping on the remains.OK, you`re happy with your SACD players with CD but the evalgelising is akin to Don King saying Peewee Herman could whup Lennox Lewis`s butt in a fair fight.
REALITY CHECK:
The guy who carried out the mods to his SCD-1 says he preferred it to his own Wadia - mods which cost probably in the order of the $3,000 quoted in an earlier post, can`t quite remember, but the fact is that thousands have to be spent on the stock SCD-1 before it is even @ parity with the Wadia, never mind the more expensive CD12.
By all means argue that the price of a stock SCD-1 + the price of mods is still cheaper than the Wadia, but consider that the modifier wasn`t exactly independent as he wants to modify the SACD players of others.To get better performance with CD than the SCD-1 simply get a similar priced CD player - I`d even back a sub $1000 Heart CD6000 (tube output) against the SCD-1 in a blind listening test with an independent panel, and certainly an Audio Note DAC3.1x and any
model above with even a modest transport would wipe the floor with an SCD-1 or Marantz SA-1 in CD playback, and anything above DAC4.1 would provide an alternative to both in SACD mode.Of course, the beauty of this hobby is that we`re all passionate with differing ideas about what sounds better than what, but I had to jump in with my own opinions before you gathered momentum and claimed the SCD-1 sounded better than the actual live performance :0)
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.BTW. Before you ask, yes I have heard every player I`ve just mentioned apart from the modded SCD-1.
The 9000ES player is not a world beater but it has 3 in 1 jack of all trade capability of which the Heart only has CD playback. I have heard good things about the Heart but for the buck, people swear by the 9000ES and I believe it is the biggest steal in audio/video electronics. I would not trade my 9000ES for the Heart, no way!!!!
The criteria we were judging the SCD-1 with was purely CD playback, and I certainly would put the Heart up against the stock SCD-1 in this respect; as ever though, it`s down to taste and I don`t doubt some would prefer the SCD-1.The Sony DVP-S9000ES is a different kettle of fish entirely and I`m considering this player myself for it`s DVD-V ability primarily but also with an eye on the SACD playback, because there aren`t enough titles for me to but just a dedicated SACD player. The DVD-V ability also gives me access to the many DAD`s which are available with no audible watermarking, so I`ll agree that the Sony seems like a bargain if the various reviews and recommendations are accurate.
The only thing stopping me from auditioning this player is the mention in this month`s `What Video & TV` of an upcoming Philips SACD1000 which appears to have the same specs as the Sony, with the same price exactly; I`ve always prefered the Philips CD players to the Sony and believe Philips are simply a better company all round, so I`ll be hanging on to see what they come up with.
Have you any idea if this player has been released anywhere else in the world, or do you have any info in general on the Philips player?
I`ll probably post an enquiry on `High-Rez` to see if I can find out more although the Sony 9000ES does receive a `Best Buy` in `What Video & TV` - but this hasn`t put me off at all :0)Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
...who sold Wadias and Sonys tell me that the stock SCD1 was as good as $8-9K Wadias. As far as the modded units go...I don't know but from all accounts I hear (on AA) that they are very very good. I'm not raining on your decision nor your piece and I realize there is varying opinion on this but IMO the SCD1 is a 'can't go wrong path'. AFAIC about the CD12 comparison...again not my words. I believe I have read those opinions right here on AA. So I can counter your opinions with these.
Hey - if we all agreed this forum (and Hi-Rez) would be as dull as dishwater!Just let me know who said the comments about the CD12 though if you do remember who they are - I think you`ll find they work(ed) for Enron :0)
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
,
XA777ES in that price range versus dedicated CD players which don't have SACD stereo or SACD MC to boot!!
.
It's free when compared to dedicated CDPs in that price range. Even if one does not utilize it, it's there with the capability. One would be hard pressed to find a dedicated $2K CD player to match CD playback on the XA777ES. Don't you like FREE stuff????? I only have two MC SACDs so far but I ordered some more this past weekend. I can also listen to those in stereo SACD if a wanted to. Dedicated CDPs don't have that option either!
> > > It's free < < <
And worth every penny. Think how much better stereo would have sounded, if they used those resources to make the stereo playback even better, and didn't split it with MC. Its an extra comprimise. Just like seperates are usually better than recievers.> > > . Don't you like FREE stuff????? < < <
Not if I don't want it to start with.
If someone offered you a free enima, I guess you would take that too?
You are an advertising agency's dream.
enjoy your multichannel.
Jack
your reply is truly excellent - and very accurate!!!Could'nt have said it better myself!!!
Nothings FREE!!!
TBone
Well, the only way we'll ever get more titles if people buy them. It would be kind of silly for record companies to overinvest in thousands of titles at this time, espec. given the moribund state of the industry. slow makes sense. I'm patient and will continue to buy both SACD's and CD's, and, oh by the way, fill out my vinyl catalogue with used LP''s. Having fun all the way.
So, I get to hear all kinds of music... great sound on LP and SACD, good sound on CD.
Agreed, I bought a Chord DAC64 last summer. I enjoy this machine very much, and I have no stress finding my fav music unlike the begging I witness for releases on other formats.Paul
When the allure of ear candy wears off (for some it never does in which case the following might not apply)... it's all about (for me) music. And exposing myself to as much of it - in my case primarily classical, then jazz - as I can.I had to be the last person on this planet to finally get around to CD's from vinyl, primarily because the available catalogue took time. Without a doubt, not only is there no contest in the availability of redbook s/w to the other hirez offerings, BUT the quality has risen dramatically from the early days of cd - as a result of better sound engineering and mastering (poor engineering and mastering will plague hirez just as much as redbook).
Life is short - and there is so much music to discover and hear. Depending on the breadth of your musical fervour, redbook and enjoying it to the max may be the logical choice. (I'm building an AudioNote DAC1.2 to further my enjoyment of my growing collection).
S
I aint jumping on any new format bandwagon for a long time. Too many
good redbook cds out there, and more appearing all the time.Mike
.
.
...for that next beautiful woman to come walking bye. It may never happen mate. The new woman (blue ray) may have worse performance, quirkier reliability ....You never know.Choose the best in the here & now and enjoy your music.
I wanted to enjoy my CD collection. I had a mid-fi SACD player, the SCD-C333ES, which sounded very good with SACDs and not bad with CDs. I got tired of buying titles only because they were SACD format and rotating the same 15-20 discs.I sold the 333 and got a Cary 303/100. I listen to a lot more music now and experience a much higher degree of satisfaction from my music overall. SACD sounds great and some people have large collections of SACDs vs CDs. But for me it didn't work out. I would like to see the format become established and get back into it at some point. Right now I'm happier with a better dedicated CDP.
-Neil
I totally agree with you... I'm very sorry now that I invested in a Sony SACD player, and about 15 SACD disks... I haven't been able to buy a new SACD disk in more than two months. My CE 775 also is a horrible 16-bit CD player and I still have to use my Cambridge Audio CDP.I wish I had spent my money on a higher end conventional CDP. I agree with everything you said.
NT
NT
Sony SCD-C333ES $750.00
Cary 303/100 $1500.00.-Neil
The Cary CDPs are quite good for the money from what I understand. SACD does not work out for everyone, especially at this juncture of the game. I only own 20 SACD recordings after 1 year. There are many redbook CDs to listen to and I should be quite happy since I upgraded to a higher end SACD/CD player also.
And have no SACD playback capability.
I did double the price because I stepped up to a better dedicated CDP. I enjoy my CD collection very much now. I could have bought a higher-priced SACD player and hope the Redbook playback would be as good, but it's a moot point because the relative paucity of SACD titles doesn't make it a worthwhile investment. There is no question for me that SACD is a superior format but I would rather cater to music than to a format. I found myself doing more legwork to obtain SACD titles and didn't care for a lot of them.-Neil
Ron
In the last few years I went through a Naim CD3, and Meridian 508.24, and now I have a sony SA-777ES sacd player. No doubt, the sacd vs. cd through the sony, sacd wins. Recently I purchased a used Meridian 518 and a Wavelength Cosine tube dac (upsamples to 24/96). The 518 reclocks the digital signal to the dac, eliminating jitter. With a good recorded cd, I feel it's better than sacd, partly b/c of the tube output stage. SACD really breathes the music in the room, but the tube helps take that digital glare out that's still present in sacd. My amps are OTL's and are very revealing. Hope this helps.
SACD. Listening to the 20 SACDs I have is "infinitely" more enjoyable vs. listening the 300+ CDs I have. Everytime I've compared, the same conclusion: SACD=music; CD=sound.
Stick to one name or risk having your posts deleted.Thanks.
....and this is why so many SACD-player owners buy external DAC's to make their CD's sound tolerable when played thru their SACD machines. And others like me just own a high-quality CD player to play the hundreds of CD titles we already own with thousands more to choose from.It seems to me that the SACD hardware maker has no vested interest in making that SACD box play CD's to sound anywhere near their full potential. How would the consumer feel if his old CD's sounded as good as (or so very close to) the sound of his SACD's? He would feel like his investment in SACD was a waste. So IMHO, the SACD box maker will invest most of his attention in making SACD's sound their best while making CD's merely "compatible" and playable thru the SACD machine. So, this is why I have a dedicated high-end redbook only CD player. The focus is in making CD's sound their best.
So in my view, let the format wars never end! It doesn't affect me. I'll continue to enjoy my CD's for years to come and continue to buy them with a huge selection to choose from.
I doubt many people chose SACD by simply comparing the CD/SACD layers on an SACD machine. As you suggested, such a comparison would be immediately suspect.No. I compared SACD with the best players up to USD8,000. I personally owned a Meridian 508.24 and an Electrocompaniet EMC-1 before migrating to SACD. The EMC-1 was considered one of the better upsampling player at the time I was shopping for a new player one year ago. However, I listen to lots of classical and jazz. I could not accept how even a player like the EMC-1 presented various instruments in the orchestra/jazz ensemble with a common sonic glare, so all instruments sounded alike.
Trumpets would sound like violins and clarinets like flutes as they all were encased in that digital edge. I also found CD performance to strangle expressiveness and freeze fluidity.
I had a budget of USD8,000 at the time, and started shopping for a new CD player that would solve this problem. I heard the Bow ZZ8, the Linn Ikemi, the Sim Eclipse and the Muse Signature (DVD 24/96). They all sounded charming in their own way, and showed how much could be extracted from CD. But none significantly improved on the EMC-1 or Meridian 508.24. As nice as they were, they were still curbed by that ubiquitous PCM glare and hardness.
Then I heard SACD on the Sony SCD-1 and Marantz SA-1. NO, EVEN VERY GOOD CD players DO NOT SOUND CLOSE TO SACD, given similarly priced machines. Of course, I had not heard the Linn CD-12, but I have heard the Elgar DAC with upsampling for CD.
Of course, I am speaking from the perspective of daily exposure to live music, as I regularly conduct and compose for orchestras, chamber ensembles and choirs, and also engineer pop and rock music in studios. With the reference of live music always in my mind, CD just would not do.
However, I can understand how some may be able to tune out that steady-state glare and constriction, and enjoy the music that lies underneath.
About having only 20 SACDs to listen to, that must be a new adopter. I have over 250 SACDs in my collection, which I have carefully selected. I have a wide choice, as I listen primarily to Classical and Jazz, and rock/pop. But pop sounds OK on CD.
So I suppose if someone still enjoys CDs and can't find much sonic improvement or software selection in SACD, then there is no point for that person to move to SACD.
But then we can't assume everyone is like that.
For me, I sold ALL my CDs two years ago before their retail prices dropped, and listen solely to SACD. This has significantly improved my musical life, and I am finding unimaginable enjoyment in experiencing virtually LIVE music in my listening room. SACD realism still surprises me each time I listen to a good title.
mastering quality!!!My main musical rig for fidelity is my analog rig ... which sounds wonderful - but with crappy software it can sound compressed and dreadfull too the point that cd is better. And remember - i prefer analog to sacd ... given that software is not the determining factor.
Therefore - one of the biggest advantages i see in the new hi-rez formats is renewed attention to mastering quality. The mastering quality of new sacd releases would be an improvement on most regular cd's.
BUT ... take a properly mastered 16/44 disk (huge numbers exist), play it on a very capable system & cdp - and you get NO PCM glare & hardness. (funny - i consider the sony's to have considerably to much glare & hardness - i consider them 'screamers' not 'singers')
I still consider sacd a worthwhile improvement(although i don't buy into the most recent 'concept' of MC) - to be sure - but if all my CD's were re-mastered in proper fashion - the gap would not be as big as you have proposed - and glare & hardness are not 'showstoppers' anymore!!!
Come to think of it - many cd's are being remasted as we speak - and they will come cheap - and with NO GLARE.
TBone
I suppose perception of glare is subjective, and dependant on the music.With tonally simpler music, glare is not that perceptible, as there are not that many different types of sounds and textures involved to be differentiated.
The problem is when you have a wide range of orchestral instruments, and some of them bright and piercing like brass. Glare becomes a problem then because it makes everything sound alike. There's more that needs to be differentiated, and glare is preventing it.
I still enjoy CDs of pop music, because I believe that CD glare is FACTORED INTO the engineering and production of a good pop CD, so its part and parcel of the music. Its classical music that CD can't convey, or large jazz ensembles. That's when comparison to the actual reality makes CDs sound glary and undifferentiated.
Also, its good to be impervious to CD glare, then you don't have to upgrade to SACD.
> > BUT ... take a properly mastered 16/44 disk (huge numbers exist), play it on a very capable system & cdp - and you get NO PCM glare & hardness. < <Absolutely. And that's the reason why I'm still using my 10-year old stock JVC XL-Z1010 with
C-J amplification. Not only with Dorian, Harmonia Mundi, Nimbus, Gimell, Chesky, etc., but also with a *lot* of EMI, Philips and Columbia transfers of old recordings it still manages to nail me to the listening chair.> (funny - i consider the sony's to have considerably to much glare & > hardness - i consider them 'screamers' not 'singers') < <
Yes. It's inevitable when you have hyper-detail. Always that kind of mild pin-prick feeling -- of icy diamond-like sparkle, of excess tension. Some people actually like that, though.
mal
HowdyI agree with DkB. (And once again he is much more articulate than I.)
As I've mentioned before I've had the pleasure to listen to the Linn CD12 and the Marantz SA-1 in mikel's system. I won't repeat myself here, but the SACD on the SA-1 clearly is better sounding than the Linn CD12. (On the other hand vinyl is better than SACD :)
-Ted
in your recent post in high-rez (link below) ... you said...> > I expected that the high end CD players that people were raving about were euphonic, in the bad sense, i.e. that they modified the sound to make it more pleasant. Well the CD, SACD and TT in mikel's system all had the same character, the difference was simply that the SACD had more body than the CD and vinyl had more body still. < <
Exactly ... 'more body' ... not glare & hardness!!!!
MikeL has a unique and great (the true meaning of the word) system ... but the differences that you heard between mediums would be the same in any well balanced high quality system. They all have THE SAME CHARACTER ... but detail is enhanced with medium & software.
This has NOTHING to do with PCM GLARE & HARDNESS ... that Dkb was referring too.
What i hear in many a friends excellent systems & in my system, with my cdp is music ... and trust me ... i have had many a component that makes me think of doing something else but listening to music - including cdp, sacd players, and many a vinyl component.
> > From years past I remember vinyl's clicks and pops and how it intruded on listening. < <
On ANY good vinyl system - clicks & pops are never an issue!!!
TBone
HowdyAs usual I'm not great at making myself clear :)
I was actually responding/reacting to Abe's sentences: "How would the consumer feel if his old CD's sounded as good as (or so very close to) the sound of his SACD's? He would feel like his investment in SACD was a waste."
I don't believe that this is the case and was citing my reasons.
Let me also say that I disagree with his implication that the SACD players are a compromise for CD. However I really didn't want to gather/quote facts and figures to support my opinion on this issue so I let it pass.
Heck while I'm at it: When I first got my SACD player I realized that all of my CD's did have a lot of glare and harshness. This caused my to upgrade essentially all of my equipment in a quest for the better sound that SACD showed me was possible. To my surprise I now find my CDs to be much more pleasant to listen to, no matter whether I use my SACD player or my Jukeboxes and P-3A. I however still find my SACD's less fatiguing as well as the differences you quoted above.
Perhaps this clarifies my opinion/position/feelings :)
-Ted
your experience with mikel system proves a valuable point ... that cd can sound musical when done correctly.> > When I first got my SACD player I realized that all of my CD's did have a lot of glare and harshness < <
well again ... this proves that Abe's contention may have merit!!!
TBone
HowdyI didn't say that the SACD player was the cause of CD's glare. I said that until I heard SACD I didn't realize how much glare I was putting up with.
As I said, SACD cajoled me into upgrading my whole system and as a side effect I find much less glare on with my CD's (when played by any of many devices in my system, be they SACD players or not.)
This is all still at variance with Abe's view.
-Ted
> > I didn't say that the SACD player was the cause of CD's glare. I said that until I heard SACD I didn't realize how much glare I was putting up with. < <if you were using the cd section of the same sacd player that's sacd section made you realize how much glare you were putting up with (in the cd section of your sacd player) ... then you have just justified Abe's arguement.
please correct me if i got the facts wrong!!!
TBone
HowdyLet me rephrase again, when I listened to DSD on a SACD player I realized that redbook on any of my devices sucked! In fact it sucked less on the SACD player than on any other device in my system.
My SACD induced upgrade spiral:
I then bought an outboard DAC for my jukeboxes, that wasn't good enough; I got the DAC modified, it was better and I could enjoy many of my CD's from my jukebox as well as from the SACD player.
At this point I was on a quest for better sound overall, DSD had hinted at the potential. I upgraded my speakers and my cables. Nice, but some things still had a harshness around the med to hi-freqs. I upgraded my integrated amp. Cool now almost everything sounded good most of the time. I got my SACD player(s) modified. I worked on the power and digital cables. Now everything sounded good all of the time. I could now hear more detail in the cracks of the music, so I upgraded my interconnects. Now everything sounds pretty darned good all of the time.
Low and behold my CD's don't suck anymore. I was suprised. But after hearing Black Mamba's I'm going to upgrade my power cords again :)
It's still my experience that my Abe's view of SACD is wrong. SACD has payed off for me in that redbook sounds much better. But its still the case that SACD is more enjoyable than I ever knew recorded music could be.
-Ted
that upgrade bug has hit you hard!!!Your points have merit ... but i also agree with Abe.
in the long run ... we tend to all be arguing the same arguement.
take care,
TBone
My logic, as twisted as it might seem to others is this. 1)Spend big bucks on a SACD player to get fine sounding music from a limited selection of SACD titles and hope the format takes off and at the same time, get so so sound from my regular CD's since the SACD player is CD "compatible" --OR-- 2)Spend big bucks on a high-end redbook only player and get fine sounding music from my entire CD collection with thousands more to choose from. I chose the second option as I know of no SACD machine that will play regular CD's with same level of refinement as the best redbook only players. This is quite evident from the large number of high-end SACD player owners who require outboard DAC's or extra cost "mods" for improved redbook playback.On a related note, I visited the Denver Virgin Records store and after roaming around for a while, I finally asked the clerk where they kept the SACD discs. She said, "oh, is that like DVD music because we carry those". So while the format wars continue to unfold, my choice was to invest in a format that I can enjoy today and for years to come.
Most of my 800 classical CDs are crap. I'd be very suspicious of *any* machine that gave me "fine sounding music" from all of them.
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
...and sorry that your 800 classical CDs are crap.
But for me, classical music on CD just won't do anymore. You just don't have the necessary refinement, textural colour, subtle gradations of colour etc.
nt
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
Not that it makes him a finer connoisseur of music, but if I listened to pop and rock largely, I would not find much impetus to adopt SACD. The fact that he finds the SACD catalogue largely undesireable suggests he might not be a major classical/jazz fan as yet.Please correct me if I'm making an incorrect assumption, Abe.
....from the format war is over, we`ll all be relaxing with a glass of wine listening to the tens of thousands of new CD`s which had been released during the last year or two.Cheers!
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
"[...]get so so sound from my regular CD's [...]Spend big bucks on a high-end redbook only player and get fine sounding music from my entire CD collection with thousands more to choose from. I chose the second option as I know of no SACD machine that will play regular CD's with same level of refinement as the best redbook only players."It's hard to know of products when you don't look for them.
Did you actually listen to any of the high-end players or is this just a prejudiced belief of yours? Everyone knows Sony and Marantz couldn't possibly make good-sounding equipment, right? [sarscasm> ]
"This is quite evident from the large number of high-end SACD player owners who require outboard DAC's or extra cost "mods" for improved redbook playback."
So you let others do your listening for you?
All that's actually evident is some of these people will tweak anything; and a lot of regular CD players are tweaked too. Have you actually paid attention to how my SCD-1s are modified versus not, or is this just more of yourinaccurate assumptions?
> > Have you actually paid attention to how my SCD-1s are modified versus not, < <Why would anyone care about YOUR moded SCD-1, besides you???
> > or is this just more of yourinaccurate assumptions? < <
The only inaccurate assuption is that you think - WE CARE!!!
Go back to high-rez were your stupid reactionary postings are tolorated!!!
TBone
To answer your question, I listened to an unmodified SCD-777ES and wasn't impressed. Which brings me right back to my original point about these things needing outboard DACs and/or costly mods to bring out the best in redbook playback. So for me, it just made more sense to buy a good out-of-the-box turn-key redbook only player... no mods, no DAC's, no fuss. Just sweet music.
.
you don't have to sell the concept to me ... i fully understand how 'twisted' you(we) are!!!;^)
Take Care,
Tbone
> > > Listening to the 20 SACDs I have < < <
That's the problem.
There is very little software. Unless, all you wish to listen a VERY limited selection, one is stuck. I was going to get a SACD player, but
I won't buy into it untill software prices drop, and selection grows.
Enjoy your 20 SCDs.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Jack
We're at 573 worldwide and Best Buy sells the Sony STEREO discs for $15.99-$16.99.
Thanks, Chris
When I can get most of what I want on SACD, and they are the same price as CDs, I'll jump in.
573?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Jack
same price: $16.95 retail. I just recieved Lloyd's Cello Concerto from Tower.com for $12.95 on sale! Their policy is to release only the CD/SACD Hybrid (no CD version) and sell for the same price as their regular CDs, thus selling to CD and SACD buyers, cool huh? Other labels will follow, the revolution has begun.
good news, Teresa! Thanks for the info.
but just in case you didn't know, you can play cee-dees on an SACD player. It's not either or.Chris
I'm not going to debate the virtues of SACDs, after all the world needs yet another version of Kind of Blue and Tapestry. The problem is software. The last time I looked, there was only a small handfull of SACDs that I would buy, most of which would be duplicates. As for redbook discs, which SACD player is going to sound better with them than my Levinson CDP?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but people are getting outboard DACs for their SACD players to play redbook. People are geting disapointed with the rate of software releases. Some are even selling thier players in favor of hi-end CDPs.
If it isn't going to improve *everything* I will wait untill the software comes.
Jack
Just that after listening to SACD I realized there is fundmental difference between sound and music.
> > > Just that after listening to SACD I realized there is fundmental difference between sound and music < < <
Good for you.
Buy some vinyl. Then you can listen to ALOT of *music*
Jack
> > SACD=music; CD=sound < <Hence - why many people purchase dedicated and very good cdp's instead of sacd players for cd playback.
If your sacd player is only producing > > cd=sound < <, then it's just not that good a cdp!!!
TBone
because I just heard a $500 SACD player destroyed a $10,000 player. Then I heard a $1000 record player that did the same thing. I won't waste a nickel.
> > I just heard a $500 SACD player destroyed a $10,000 player < <ya - ok ... and im supposed to believe you???
TBone
till I heard it. Actually the mega buck CD player sounded pretty good. But compare to the SACD player and record player, it just didn't sound like music.
you tell us what specific SACD player you listened to and then indulge us with the name of the CDP?Thanks, Chris
the digital DAC/Processor/player was Mark Levinson "stack" and Oracle CD player. I don't recall the model of the Sony SACD player (ES555 or 333 !?) except it was not too expensive relatively speaking of course. The Marantz was a SA-14.I didn't even try to remember the Mark Levinson model numbers.
no cheaper sony SACD (playing sacd's) player i have heard has the extension, refinement, and proper upper harmonics of ANY well placed ML cdp system ...The marantz sa14 and the upper bracket sony's (in sacd mode) are excellent ... and have the potential that you are speaking of ... but the cheaper sony's have way to many sonic issues (past sacd) to be considered 'giant killers'!!!
TBone
and I trust his ears! He has refused to release his recordings in ANY CD format, period, because CD has NO SOUL! Vinyl does, SACD does, even 24/96 DVD does, but CD does not, PERIOD!
> > does, but CD does not, PERIOD! < <WOW - Proof by assertion ...
the only thing your post proves - is your lack of debating skills!!!
TBone
You should try listening to Patricia Barber, Holly Cole, Diana Krall and all of the Reference Recordings on CD before you make that ridiculous statement. The CD's on a great player and the ones mentioned above all have soul. Maybe it the solid state equipment you listen too that doesnt get your soul alive.
Hi Frank,
Just to reinforce what you say, Mark Levinson is possibly benefitting from Sony`s subsidising of his studio for SACD releases, and it seems curious he should in effect be dismissing the CD combo from his old company in particular (why not at least compare the Sony with another manufacturer`s CD player?).Maybe he has an alterior motive and there`s some bad blood there - did he sell his share because he was wanted to leave or was he being shoved?
Seems a bit fishy to me.Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
My LPs have soul, my SACDs have soul. I don't know what else I can say, CDs in the 20 years of their existence just don't do it for me.
How would you know if your lp's have soul since according to your profile you dont own a turntable. I suggest yoou listen to well recorded cd' such as the jazz I mentioned and to the Chesky Cd's and also most of the Blue Note and Verve titles to see how good cd can sound when done right.
the first 24/96 DAD DVDs, I knew the future was here. I have heard and even own some of the CDs you suggest, CD has no soul. To hear music you need LP, pre-recorded Reel-to-Reel, 24/96 DAD or SACD. Sorry CD is not an option!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
something special ... selling all those 'prized' LP's for a format that has no such inventory - & maybe no intention of replacing them.A true believer, a profit maybe - or - maybe your just full of it!!!
TBone
Over 550 SACDs available now and many,many more coming! Sorry you do not wish to join us! Some of the greatest recordings of all time are allready on SACD, and all the Audiophile labels except Reference and Mapleshade. And Reference is coming on board later this year! So why are you shunning the greatest musical advance in history?
> > So why are you shunning the greatest musical advance in history? < <PLEASE ... sacd is an excellent medium, but the above RHETORIC & HYPERBOLE is exactly what is WRONG with discussing 'hi-rez' with you overly biased 'hi-rez' fanatics!!!
GET A GRIP!!!
TBone
I have waited 25 years for music to actually sound like music with NO DOWNSIDE. LPs have surface noise and develop scratches, need to be cleaned, Reel to Reels need to threaded and the reels warp. Here is a medium that actually sounds like music without the problems and you shun it! WHY, I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND?
in history!!!Your hilarious, very funny stuff, stop - your killing me!!!
hmmmm .... you were joking - right???
TBone
only cheating yourself and I feel sorry for you.LPs have excellent sound quality when played with a High Quality Moving Coil cartridge and the VTA was set correctly, but the physical act of playing back an LP sucks big time.
Pre-recorded Reel to Reel at 7 1/2 ips or 15 ips has excellent sound quality but who wants to thread tape and listen as reels warp?
Pre-recorded Audiophile Real-Time duplicated analog cassettes especially on Chrome or Metal tape have very good sound quality, but they still have compression on climaxes.
And CD is a TOTAL JOKE, as a format it just doesn't work, it is too compromised to ever sound like music.
So there you have it - the FIRST MUSIC FORMAT without compromise and without headaches is SACD!
If you reject it you reject MUSIC PERIOD!
> > I feel sorry for you < <Thats very sweet - it's nice to know you care!
> > but the physical act of playing back an LP sucks big time. < <
Hmmm ... how physical are you getting with your LP to make it suck???
> > And CD is a TOTAL JOKE < <
Maybe with your equipment.
> > FIRST MUSIC FORMAT without compromise < <
MC & a very limited, expensive software are huge compromizes ... and since fidelity is still not as good as analog, your case for SACD having no compromize has MAJOR flaws.
TBone
I only want EVERYONE to feel the EXTREME MUSICAL pleasure to be derived from playong correctly recorded "audiophile" SACDs.It's the care and feeding of LPs that "suck, big time" ie: readjustment of VTL with differnt thickness of Vinyl. The Cleaning of the LP on a Vacuum Cleaning machine then using an anti-static brush to clean off what the machine missed. The cleaning and treating of the stylus before each side. Etc, etc.
SACD was my salvation from this as all other formats were too sonically compromised when compared to LP, including Megabuck CD seperates, LP still ruled in sonics until SACD came along.
If you stay with the better high-end SACD players (ie: Sony ES and other high end models) and the better "Audiophile" software yes SACD is sonically superior to Vinyl.
What hurts SACD the most is the SACD software from Columbia/Sony, my advise buy from the other 40 labels and leave this one alone, unless it's something you really want. But Sony SACDs are not ones to judge the format's capabilities, the audiophile labels make SACD sound REAL.
> > Audio salvation is here < <i am happy for ya ... really
;^)> > you turn your back < <
i don't like preachers and door-to-door sales-woman.
TBone
:-)
> > i give up < <awe - and we were having so much fun!!!
;^)TBone
Nobody in his right mind who loves vinyl would get rid of their analogue equipment on the strength of a new iffy technology which-- even if victorious in the format war -- would not be supported by software offering ALL of one's precious LP titles. Did you sell those too? And why not do the same with your CDs and CDP?
So I am not in my right mind because I wanted something better, and yes I sold all but 9 of my CDs as well. I heard something that actually was A DREAM COME TRUE. I went for it big time, I own 21 24/96 DAD DVDs and 200 SACDs, I have plenty of Fantastic Recordings. And I have allready replace many of my favorite recordings:1) Thompson: The River (Vanguard SACD) My favorite recording of all time since I fell in love with the Barclay-Crocker Reel-to-Reel version in 1978.
2) Gould: Latin American Symphonette (Vanguard SACD)
3) Raval's Complete Orchestra Works (Classic 24/96 DAD)
4) Gershwin: Complete works for Orchestra and Piano and Orchestra (Classic 24/96 DAD)
And tons and tons more from Telarc, AudioQuest, FIM, Opus 3, etc.
Momo you are absoulutly correct. Tereasa wont listen she is one minded. I now own 22 SACD and believe me this format is very far from becoming succesful. I have heard classical,jazz,pop,rock and its all in the hands of the engineers. Some disc sound good. But there are also very good sounding CD's and vinyl still rules. You have a person who has a mid-fi system that has bought in on the SACD format. The DAD she mentions have done so well that there seems to be no more manufacturing of them and Music dIRECT IS reviving MO FI with vinyl with both Stan Ricker and Tim DePavinci on board. Dan Wight who owns MODWRIGHT and mods the SACD players has publicly stated that Vinyl still sounds better and is still the superior format. While SACD does have potential it probably isnt the future and what Teresa opinion while it is hers is not in the majority. She might try reading the hi-end magazines and listen to what the experts in the field state. Both Charlie Hansen and Lew Johnson have both stated they believe it will fail. I also am the opinion that this format will fail.
it could be that these SACD players are not as perfect as the Mark Levinson digital stack. But to my ears, the SACD sounded like music; the CD sounded like "perfectly" good sound.Same analogy goes for record players. The difference is immediate and obvious. While record players have many distortions, it sounds like music.
If I wanted my system to reproduce perfect sound, a CD player would more than suffice. The only problem is that while some CD players or DACs sound better than others, no CD player or DAC..etc. ever really sounded like music to my ears.
> > While record players have many distortions, it sounds like music. < <The worst turntables sound like $&it IMO - and intermediate turntables can sound good but analytical in nature - while the best sound like they have LITTLE distortion and are totally musical.
To generalize and say that record players have many distortions but are musical - is as incorrect and mis-leading as saying that quality 16/44 can never be musical and that $500 sacd players are!
I assume that your description of 'musical' is very different from mine!!!
TBone
on a test bench, my $300 CD player is more perfect than a Rega - probably more perfect than any record player. Just that when I compare, the results are embarrassing.Yes I do make the general statement, PCM digital (or 16/44.1 !) is capable of perfectly good sound. But it is incapable of music. And the problem is not the hardware.
It does not have to sound perfect to sound like music. Conversely, just because it sounds perfect it does not mean it will sound like music.
> > But it is incapable of music. < <You are assuming to much, and expecting to much from your $300 cdp!!!
TBone
to sound like music. If there is a CD player (or whatever) that can accomplished this, I welcome it.So far, Wadia, Mark L, Theta, CDX....etc. only impressed me with very good sound. When I listened to a SACD player, I heard music. Was the sound of the SACD player more perfect than the CD player ? I could not care less.
your definition of 'music' is certainly not mine!!!TBone
....how many times can you listen to the same 20 or so SACD discs? Most of the titles available don't interest me so it doesn't matter if SACD sounds so much better... which is still debatable.
"debatable" I was very satisfied with the way CD sounded on my system and in general. But after directly comparing some CDs and SACDs I wanted to feed all my CDs into the garbage disposal !In fact now I cannot stand to listening to CDs so much, I'm thinking of purchasing a record player to supplement my SACD player.
Yes the Mark Levinson CD player sounded very good. Then I listened to the SACD on a $500 SACD player and it sounded like music. The difference was immediately noticible.
nt
nt
.
Seriously, if you like classical and jazz, the problem isn't unmanageable...if you're a metalhead, best wait a while longer!
It`s not just the available titles on SACD which put me off, but the rate of release and lack of smaller/non audiophile labels which could afford the technology.My most played disc at the moment is by a little known guy called Bebo Norman which is excellent sound quality - even has HDCD - but I doubt we`ll ever see it on hi-rez.
Also just released for the first time in it`s entirety is Stevie Ray Vaughan`s 1982 international debut at Montreaux on double CD for just £10.99 - these are the obscure recordings I treasure because on a high-end CD player the sound is extremely involving even if the actual recordings aren`t of audiophile quality.I`m frequently jotting down names of artists after hearing them on the radio - Bob Harris is a goldmine - I`m frequently searching ebay.com and Amazon.com for such artists or song titles, and have discovered some real gems - best case scenario with SACD and it`ll still be many years before I`d be happy replacing my Transport and DAC with an SACD player, and I simply can`t afford to buy one (at least not a high-end SACD player, ie Marantz SA-1) without selling the other.
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
I had a similar dilemma some time ago. Being on the budget, I decided to get a decent CD player with HDCD (Arcam FMJ CD23T) and wait untill the format war is over. For me the number of SACDs available is not worth the investment. While my CD collection was asking for a better treatment than my good old PD-65.
you should stick to one moniker!!!!
For better or worse, we're all into audio at some level.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
