|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
195.240.184.147
OT maybe but. Just bought a Philips combi CD/DVD/SACD stereo/multi channel receiver in a thrift store. I tried the internal amp, hooked it up in stereo to a pair of Mission hifi monitors. Awful sound, metallic highs whatever the setting. Most average consumers have traded their mostly decent consumer grade stereo rigs for this kind of crap. And remember i used decent monitors not the crappy plastic boxes that came with it.
Next test. Line out stereo to a huge vintage Denon stereo amp to the same Mission monitors. Much better. Not a bad CD player. But of course i bought i for the SACD capability. Haven't had any firsthand experience with SACD yet.
And i doubt if i will, SCAD's are scarce and expensive, phew. Mostly jazz albums like Brubeck/Time Out which i already have on vinyl. I may buy a few classical SACD's with composers and compositions which i don't have. You're much better off collecting records. To quote mastering engineer Doug Sax: it's pathetic but the vinyl record is anno 2012 the best physical sound medium. High resolution 24/96 digital downloads may be the future but where to find them?
Follow Ups:
Multi-channel can simulate the concert hall experience as stereo simply cannot . And I personally get that benefit from a quite modest system; see my configuration below.
The Sony player converts the SACD's DSD to PCM and sends those signals to my receiver where I can use its DSP capabilities, specifically Audyssey, to provide time delays and equaliztion. The results are great.
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
Agreed. RBCD can sound better than SACD on (rare) occasions. Where SACD always wins is MCH because in reality concert hall sound does come from all around. There are plenty of excellent examples of genuinely immersive sound on classical hi-rez discs.
Dave
the Computer Audiophile website:
Maybe it's just me but this SACD does not sound right
I found the Rebecca Pidgeon Retrospective SACD to sound strange in multi-channel mode.
Almost every other multi-channel SACD or DVD-A that I have played sounds superior in multi-channel mode to stereo mode. Not so with this Retrospective SACD.
In fact I may be inclined to say that I may prefer the stereo CD layer to the stereo SACD layer.
Does anyone know the how this SACD was recorded and mixed that may explain my initial comments?
Perhaps I need to go to bed and try again tomorrow.
Perhaps because much of it was recorded prior to consideration of commercial multichannel release and the conditions for creation of a mch release from the original masters is unclear. I tend to reserve criticism of mch recordings to those that were actually made as mch recordings and there are all too many poor ones among those.P.S.: I have not heard this particular recording.
P.P.S.: It would have been easier to find our what you were talking about if you included a link.
Edits: 03/03/12
That's why I was hoping that someone might have some knowledge on how this SACD was produced.
The posted user comments are all very positive. The Spanish Harlem track is also on the Chesky Records Ultimate Demonstration CD Disc and sounds great as it does on the CD layer of the SACD.
You will clearly hear greater detail when playing the SACD stereo tracks compared to the CD layer. However, the multi-channel SACD playback of this disc sounds strange to me which is contrary to just about every other multi-channel SACD that I own and have listened to.
If this SACD was typical of most other multi-channel SACDs I would not be pursuing multi-channel audio. Fortunately so far that has not been the case. I was just wondering if anyone else shared this same opinion.
But of course i bought i for the SACD capability. Haven't had any firsthand experience with SACD yet. Don't know whether this " Philips combi CD/DVD/SACD stereo/multi channel receiver " will give you a fair exposure to SACD.
Edits: 02/29/12
I have never heard vinyl, (with all of it's scraping, clicks & pops), ever get close to the quality of my APL SACD player. It just doesn't measure up.
IMO, it takes beyond SOTA in vinyl to equal "good" SACD.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
If all you got from vinyl was "with all of it's scraping, clicks & pops" then obviously you didn't know how to properly care for it and/or properly set-up a turntable and match it into your audio system.My disappointment with SACD actually was the reason for my even greater love of vinyl.
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
Edits: 02/29/12
.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
I hope your just being sarcastic, as there are many $25K plus turntables...Some examples:
http://www.bornrich.com/entry/top-10-most-expensive-turntables/
http://www.audiobeef.com/the-most-expensive-turntables-in-the-world/
There are many others...
Proper set-up/compatiblity is more important that "cost" of the turntable. A relatively "inexpensive" turntable can sound glorious.
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
Edits: 03/01/12 03/01/12 03/01/12 03/01/12
I wouldn't think many people are buying $25,000 turntables.
"I wouldn't think many people are buying $25,000 turntables."
or
$25,000 disc players,
but apparently enough people to keep dCS, Playback, Esoteric, EMM, etc. in business.
Those who buy very expensive turntables have more money than commonsense.
SACD players
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
Hard to know what he means as I didn't understand why he brought up $25K turntables to begin with...
I would say at least as many own 25K turntables as $25K SACD players.. especially when you figure in the cost of cartridge and phono pre-amp...
But, as I said, does'nt matter, as a much, much less expensive machine produces glorious sound.
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
Giving it some thought as to why I don't play records anymore, it comes down to it just not being worth the trouble. I have hundreds of my old Lps still in cases here, a one-time highly rated AR tt, a Technics, and a German Dual tt. Count 'em! Three turntables. I know the sound of Lps has an unbeatable analog smoothness to it, that digital doesn't often approach. But, maybe its like SACD to most people, the marginal superiority of its sonics isn't worth making the effort (and cost) to achieve.
I don't listen to vinyl only for "marginal superiorority" in sonics, I listen to vinyl also because of the choices... there is pretty much no choice when it comes to SACD now...only a few releases each year that both I don't have already on vinyl and/or the music interests me enough to spend the $$.
Yes, vinyl has it's share of albums not done the best, but at least it is there to listen to..I listen to music first, not formats. Only when purchasing and having a choice, of course I will choose which format of the music sounds better, which is different with each title.
I jumped into SACD big time and bought right and left for the first 4 years or so only to be disappointed in mastering, many obviously inferior to earlier vinyl issues or just poorly done and then the lack of titles being released.
Many, many others from this forum and other SACD adopters went back to vinyl being their main format or "new" main format because of these same reasons.If only the Music Companies had jumped on board and released their material on SACD like what is being enjoyed on vinyl now, SACD would have had at least the same, probably more popularity and volume.
I still enjoy playing SACDs, but I find the choices in vinyl much more apealing.
Yes, I play SACD/CD for convienence, but find I play vinyl 90% of the time.
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
Edits: 03/02/12 03/02/12
rich, you have 900 SACDs worth upwards of 27 thousand dollars and have not done the mods many here have repeatedly suggested? I honestly think that unless you do so you are totally wasting your money on software. I'll go out on the limb and state that CDs on the completed Allen Wright rig sound better than SACDs did on the stock machines. Seriously. Here's an example of how strongly I feel about the SACD / CD thing on my machine. I got my weekly mailer from Chad Kasem this morning. On it there are 3 new Ray Charles SACDs. The live one, specifically, got my attention. To listen to a few tunes and to see reviews of the CD version I clicked over to Amazon.com. The comments were as I would have suspected. Generally they liked it. Mostly 5 stars. There were twice as many tunes on the CD as the SACD that Acoustic Sounds is trying to lay on me. As CDs sound pretty darn good on my player now, if I do get this recording I'll go with the CD, of which may be the entire concert, and not feel short changed at all by the difference between the CD and SACD pressings. Plus I'll have 20 bucks to buy 3 more oldie albums to boot.
I do know how good SACD players can sound, that was not my point.
My disappointment with SACD was not with the sound, as it can sound as good as any other format with proper mastering, but with availability of the music I enjoy.
If I had the disposable income to get the upgrades, believe me, I would.
For what releases (almost always only re-issued music) are coming out, and what I have on vinyl already (I have a collection of over 25,000 Lps) there just aren't many SACDs that warrant the purchase.
I did buy the "Wish You Were Here" re-issue, and if more of the same comes out I will purchase them gladly!
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
Alright richie rich121, where do you live? BTW, how did the repair work out for you on your player?
Edits: 03/01/12
What on earth is the point of owning 25,000 LP's or cd/SACD's for that matter,you will never play all of them during your lifetime.
About 1% of my Lp collection are duplicates.Some hobbiests are also collectors, you may not find it agreable, nothing wrong with that, but there are others who do.
I have listened to all my 900+ SACDs and all my CDs long ago..I also have at some time in my life, listened to alot of my record collection.
Much of what I may want to listen to in the future is already in my collection.
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
Edits: 03/01/12 03/01/12
From your description (no model #) I understand this to be a "combi CD/DVD/SACD stereo/multi channel receiver"???
First, I would say such an animal probably was built with "quality" of sound not a priority.
SACD can sound almost as good as vinyl, and some better..depending on mastering.
You can get an excellent sounding SACD player New for $1500 or less.
MoFi and AP release SACDs regularly and there are many Classical releases from other companies that correspond in price with their Lp cousins...
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
they were the first logical digital format in my mind so i embraced it fairly early on. the discs were plentiful (relatively) and sold for about what a regular cd listed for and i felt that they were FINALLY worth that much (but not their own list price). i acquired a fair number of them to support the medium, unlike sony.
still SACDs are available at what about what i consider max for new vinyl ($30) and i buy now and again. because they possess most of that relaxed, satisfying character of vinyl playback, i still feel they are a worthwhile and buy-able entity.
be patient and buy wisely; you will likely come to the same conclusion. i still feel that LPs are the standard sound for me but sacd is close. my sacd player is a lowly sony ns500v that i paid $160 (delivered) for just as it was closing out; its a FINE sounding player that makes even RBCDs sound better than a regular player, another benefit of sacd playback capability.
its not to say that the unit you bought is going to measure up but there ARE some cheap SONYs available new that likely do. check costco and smas club for SONYs for about $160 to 190 that carry the sacd logo.
i am not fooling myself that it will get you AYRE level of quality but pretty good for cheap.
I have 50-60 SACDs. Most at least rival their vinyl counterparts and a few even match or exceed them. It's a shame CBS/Sony abandoned the format.
Sony hasn't completely abandoned the format, as without Sony, SACD's can't be produced...they just don't produce them themselves...
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
failed to support the format. it would have been fortuitous if sony had begun releasing all hybrids that would have had the retailers in a better position. they could have had a special section for SACDs and when the currently new music lost its new glisten, the inventory could have been absorbed in with all the other CDs and sold there.
instead, many people unknowingly bought SACDs and then could not play them at home and had to return them. the stores then had to take a loss.
had SACD been allowed to proliferate, more recording and mixing hardware capable of sacd could have been in more studios, hence more numbers of sacd produced.
like dolby S, too little, too late. dolby S cassette decks were usually high cost items and by the time affordable units came out, cassettes were on the way out. CD may have had a harder time competing had dolby S been properly marketed. perhaps the rbcd standard wouldnt have been the jumping off point and the needed further development of digital technology would have continued to a more logical point.
the lessons of quadraphonic werent fully learned.
...regards...tr
The "SACD Project" fellow-I forget his name-once told he was running around trying to convince the pro and recorded and etc divisions of Sony to support SACD. NO push from the corporate top; ZERO company-wide mandate to "must support" and really muscle the format out to the public.
Of course, that would have required a lot of investment and risk:
- Chiefly, make EVERY new Sony release SACD, which practically would have necessitated hybrid, which would have been racing the replication cost curve and quantity production bottleneck, necessitating more production factory investment.
- SACD car players, including digital out solutions (i.e. MOST bus for BMW/Benz/Audi)
- Every DVD model support SACD. If you really want to be ubiquitous, ya gotta really do it.
and on and on as I've posted elsewhere.
They might have gained the world. Or lost their shirts. We'll never know.
Personally, I don't care much any more. I love surround when it's done well but one of my conclusions from the DVDA/SACD debacle was that maybe there just isn't enough creativity out there for massive numbers of compelling surround releases. There were a few cool titles, and other stuff that was like "Yaaaaawn"
That said, let me reverse myself and say I still hope for music on Blu-ray.
Sony still supports SACD, as you posted, in their video players.
Also, why was it Sony's responsibility to decide whether a release was to be single layer/SACD only or hybrid? That was the choice of the record company putting out the SACD.
Many purist SACD fans prefer the single layer SACDs, so the hybrid arguement can go both ways
Sony was the facilitator and was there to get the ball rolling, the rest was up to the Record Companies to go with it. Sony is still involved in the release of every single SACD commercially sold.
Sony has made relatively inexpensive SACD players early on, many of which sold for much less than it cost Sony to make, such as the SCD-1 (bought mine in 2003, and have over 900 SACDs) and other early machines to help with the adoption of the format.
If the rest of the Record Companies would have jumped on board, then we might not be seeing the downward spiral of CD and of all the online downloads, as that was the true intention of SACD..copyright protection.
The cost of SACDs since inception were a problem with me. I notice you mention that you paid around the same price for SACD as CD..I never seen that at any outlet, including Best Buy...unless on sale or when they were clearing out the SACD section.
In every music store I shopped, SACD's always were in their own section, with the exception of a few Hybrids (Stones, Dylan) that didn't matter because they played on CD only players also.
I don't think multichannel has anything really to do with SACD not catching on, because there is also a stereo layer and the multichannel was more later.
Many purist SACD fans prefer the single layer SACDs, so the hybrid arguement can go both ways
It's all about the music!
Support Asylum Trader
"The cost of SACDs since inception were a problem with me. I notice you mention that you paid around the same price for SACD as CD..I never seen that at any outlet, including Best Buy...unless on sale or when they were clearing out the SACD section."
you must not have jumped in early. 14-16 bucks is what i paid for the bulk of my (about 100) SACDs. best buy, frys, and other stores had those prices.
still, sony's support was wimpy.
...regards...tr
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: