First, the need to compensate for poor digital sources may be coming to an end. With reliable source material, many of us may really just now hearing our equipment clearly. I know that I am revisiting tweaks and room treatments as a result.

I have spoken with a number of manufacturers who talked openly about introducing euphonic colorations to try to compensate for digital limitations. We certainly can hear a huge variety of this in sampling just a few DAC's and CDP's.

Perhaps the most controversial is the idea that realizing DSD's true potential will call for wide bandwidth, high power/efficiency, FULL RANGE systems. Not to say it can't be enjoyed with less, but along with the lack of typical digital artifacts comes with some very interesting things happening at the frequency extremes.

Additionally, the ability to reproduce accurate volume levels, without typical digitial fatique suggests. I am constantly amazed at being able to approach realistic volumes without the shriek and buzzsaw effects of RB cd's.

It would be interesting for residents to talk about their experiences with what SACD is doing in their systems relative to basic re-examinations.

Just some thoughts on a foggy November morning . . .

Rick Gardner

 Re: Re-thinking the system - libor 23:21:48 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Ricketts 14:31:57 11/27/00 (1)
 Yes! I'm in your camp Jim! (nt) - Mike Bates 14:21:33 11/28/00 (0)

...

Show full thread outline!

 Re: Re-thinking the system - libor 23:21:48 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Ricketts 14:31:57 11/27/00 (1)
 Yes! I'm in your camp Jim! (nt) - Mike Bates 14:21:33 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 14:27:29 11/27/00 (30)
 Stomping . . .. - DkB 09:26:27 11/28/00 (2)
 Re: Stomping . . .. - Mike Bates 11:13:58 11/28/00 (1)
 Agreed - DkB 20:58:06 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - HiFi Guy 08:11:31 11/28/00 (14)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 11:21:18 11/28/00 (9)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - HIfi GUY 11:43:42 11/28/00 (8)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 12:45:26 11/28/00 (7)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - HiFi Guy 13:21:39 11/28/00 (6)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 13:30:15 11/28/00 (5)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - HiFi Guy 13:39:30 11/28/00 (4)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 13:51:27 11/28/00 (3)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - HiFi Guy 13:56:50 11/28/00 (2)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 14:03:51 11/28/00 (1)
 Gentleman... - TBone 14:57:33 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - liborek 09:49:17 11/28/00 (3)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - HiFi Guy 12:37:46 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 11:26:20 11/28/00 (1)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - libor 20:20:54 11/28/00 (0)
 Completely with you, Mike (NT) - Romy 05:59:33 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - TBone 15:21:30 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Rick Gardner 14:51:17 11/27/00 (9)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 15:15:20 11/27/00 (4)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Rick Gardner 15:18:25 11/27/00 (3)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 15:30:23 11/27/00 (2)
 Food for thought - Rick Gardner 15:41:43 11/27/00 (1)
 Re: Food for thought - Mike Bates 15:48:09 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 15:01:10 11/27/00 (3)
 Horns and ambivalence - Rick Gardner 15:21:36 11/27/00 (2)
 Re: Horns and ambivalence - Mike Bates 15:33:49 11/27/00 (1)
 The problem with this damned hobby, even when you are a reviewer . . . - Rick Gardner 15:44:14 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - DK 13:05:55 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Treanor 11:54:25 11/27/00 (43)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - tbetley 16:42:08 11/27/00 (1)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Treanor 06:39:45 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 14:40:54 11/27/00 (35)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - TBone 15:05:52 11/27/00 (24)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Boris 15:55:18 11/27/00 (1)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - TBone 16:09:27 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jazz Inmate 15:23:18 11/27/00 (21)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Treanor 16:25:52 11/27/00 (5)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jazz Inmate 17:01:47 11/27/00 (3)
 great thread......some thoughts - mikel 19:48:27 11/27/00 (2)
 Hmm... - Jim Treanor 07:54:50 11/28/00 (1)
 tentative - Rick Gardner 11:47:24 11/28/00 (0)
 "non-brickwall characteristic of _SACD_..." (nt) - Jim Treanor 16:29:05 11/27/00 (0)
 Please explain those other factors. <nt> - Mike Bates 15:36:35 11/27/00 (14)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Jazz Inmate 15:48:45 11/27/00 (13)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Mike Bates 16:03:25 11/27/00 (11)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Jim Treanor 06:44:51 11/28/00 (9)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Mike Bates 08:08:31 11/28/00 (8)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - HiFi Guy 08:44:47 11/28/00 (1)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Mike Bates 09:07:03 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Jim Treanor 08:38:09 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - TBone 08:16:43 11/28/00 (4)
 cracking ice - Rick Gardner 11:51:24 11/28/00 (3)
 Re: cracking ice - Bob Olhsson 23:38:18 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: cracking ice - TBone 12:20:41 11/28/00 (1)
 Bottom line - Rick Gardner 13:49:18 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - Jazz Inmate 16:43:58 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Please explain those other factors. - TBone 15:51:47 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Treanor 14:52:29 11/27/00 (9)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 15:03:44 11/27/00 (8)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - TBone 15:11:12 11/27/00 (7)
 Common Practices - Rick Gardner 15:24:59 11/27/00 (5)
 Re: Common Practices - TBone 15:47:04 11/27/00 (4)
 Re: Common Practices - Rick Gardner 07:06:31 11/28/00 (3)
 What... - TBone 07:58:45 11/28/00 (2)
 Re: What... - Blackpixel 19:54:50 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: What... - Rick Gardner 11:55:28 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Mike Bates 15:22:28 11/27/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Rick Gardner 12:14:02 11/27/00 (4)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Cate 20:25:52 12/09/00 (0)
 Re: Agree with Rick Gardner - Jeromelang 06:16:57 11/28/00 (1)
 Thanks for the kind words (nt) - Rick Gardner 07:08:01 11/28/00 (0)
 Re: Re-thinking the system - Jim Treanor 13:40:20 11/27/00 (0)

Re the revisiting of room tweaks: I've removed my DIY room lenses after 600 hours of SACD-section burn-in on my 777. I no longer hear discernible differences with or without them when I play SACD's. Neither can my wife.

Re volume: I now listen at louder ("more realistic?") levels with SACD (my listening fare is classical and jazz). I'm enjoying it a lot more. And, like you, I hear no "shriek" or "buzzsaw," just greater timbral and dynamic accuracy.

It's the fun I got into audio for in the first place.

--Jim

My experience with the volume issue is somewhat cautionary. Freed from the pain factor, I find myself looking over at my pre and being shocked at the output level. Seems like there might be some ear and equipment safety issues here, if we aren't careful.

Rick

I strongly concur with the above statement. Many of today's top DACs and CDPs (why name names, it just pisses people off) are colored and smoothed over. Many listeners associate this type of coloration as "better" and "more analog-like"; a misnomer if there ever was one. This was my impression of "upsampling", such as it is, as well--overly smooth, but fake. But for people with problems elsewhere in their system, or with poor quality digital source material, such smoothness is interpreted as better, when in fact it's not. Spreading honey and mustard sauce on a Chicken McNugget makes it go down better, but it's still a piece of pre-processed chicken entrails. Or something like that :-)

The standard we ought to hold digital to, is to demand BOTH resolution AND a liquid, musical presentation. Unfortunately, most DACs and CDPs out there excel in one area or the other, but not both. That it is the promise of DSD--to finally meld the two honestly, w/o making compromises or introducing fake colorations or processing the data to playback something other than what's actually on the disk (i.e., upsamplers).

Your comment on ear safety is well taken...though I'm not masochistic enough to push the volume to anything approaching what I can discern as the threshold of pain...certainly nothing louder than what I perceive that I hear in the concert hall...and that's acoustic music with very few exceptions. But your implicit point that the absence of typical Red Book nasties could "deafen" us to potential ear damage certainly bears repeating.

Ditto your cautionary note regarding downstream equipment, especially, I suspect, when running in Custom mode. In my situation, I've yet to detect any audible sign of hardware distress (e.g, clipping, voice-coil rubbing, etc.) though I'm running typically at higher volume levels in SACD. (Of course, I appreciate now that I had substantial power supply mods done to my line stage and amp just this year.) Time will tell, of course. So stay tuned.

--Jim

Sure the SACD player is quiet and has better bass dynamics. It sure doesn't beat an LP for timbre, soundstaging, immediecy and musicality. My system was SACD ready to begin with. Try horns and SETs if you really want to enjoy the music. High end DR speakers and complicated negative feedback amps don't have natural timbre and dynamics and compress the heart and soul out of the music.

Mike

I agree that DSD can allow one to upgrade their system since the source is so much more neutral AND dynamic. I find speakers that excel in dynamics (i.e. horns) can really showcase the incredible attributes of DSD.

Also, with greater neutrality from the source, silver cables can add another level of realism.

And finally, there are SET amps that can capture the increased purity in those new pits and when mated with horns, can deliver the "rockinist" sounds you would ever want!

What a problem to have, eh? :-)

How can this be? if this were really true it wouldn't have made a difference to begin with! An SACD player isnot going to change the acoustics of your room. Maybe you've been crankin in up so much you've lost your hearing? : ^ (

Mike

It's interesting that, based on a very small N, the feedback I get from people with horns is that they have been less impressed with SACD. Not sure what it means, just a data point.

Jim

The people with horns were already getting the (close to) dynamics?

I'm impressed Rick. I'll take super audio any day over cedees's. The new Chesky's are sweet sounding. Now I can only hope Joe Blow recording engineer can figure out how to get it right.. like they did 30-40 years ago with LP's.

I better go talk to my SACD player, maybe it will change my rooms acoustics! LOL.

Mike Bates

Mike, you keep forgeting one thing, to many inmates the 777 is magic!

Im with you!
TBone

I have heard that in the future - car sacd players will actually add 30 to 50 more horsepower to your engine performance.

Of course this increase is only realized after a billion gillion hours worth of break-in.

Kiddin,
TBone

Mike

I think your assumption might be in error. The Positive Feedback herd which has been unanimous in their praise for SACD tend to be historically pretty hard core vinyl/tube freaks, most with some pretty good TT kit (David uses Linn, I myself use Wilson Benesch).

I think we are in such a new time, that bold assertions that X tromps Y and the like really don't serve the purpose of open engagement.

Rick Gardner

I agree, but IMO SACD is in it's early years - when matured and produced by companies who have spent years developing digital to much higher levels then originaly anticipated, then finally we may all lay our tonearms down to rest!

TBone

I will continue to try to hear as many of them as I can.

Rick

It must be magic!

Mike Bates

One Love, One Heart
Let's get together and feel all right
Hear the children crying (One Love)
Hear the children crying (One Heart)
Sayin' give thanks and praise to the Lord and I will feel all right
Sayin' let's get together and feel all right...........

I just read Jim's post and it specifically says that the room treatments that helped with CD did not make a difference with SACD. This is ENORMOUSLY different than saying sacd changed the acoustics of his room and can be explained by factors other than magic.

Rick Gardner

Mike

Mike

I think it is very interesting to explore how a new medium is being experienced through different systems, and from differing points of orientation.

As I said, I have picked up a very thin thread (admittedly) about horns and sacd. It will be interesting to hear from additional users as the installed base/experience with SACD grows.

My only concern is that it is very early for blanket pronoucements. I would preferable to avoid the whole warring camps thing that too often characterizes audiophila.

Rick

Rick

I use them to control room resonances - NOT the tonal errors of my source components.

If his room was coloured prior to SACD, then it remains coloured. If his original source component was terribly bright or bass heavy then room damping was not the proper fix in the first place!

>>but interesting to see how the discussion turns to agendas.<<

What agenda are you refering to???

TBone

Not really, digital home playback is 25 years old! We are talking about current digital versus LP's right? What we have is what we have.

"I would preferable to avoid the whole warring camps thing that too often characterizes audiophila"

Forget it Rick, that will never happen. It's because we are all humans (I think) and we like what we like, and as in the past, we will argue endlessly till death.

Mike

given the nature of your posts on this thread and the fact that you're interested in bashing and baiting, i'll let you believe what you want.

He asked a question that has merit. You were the one that claimed to have the answer - please enlighted us.

TBone

He proclaimed:

"I've removed my DIY room lenses after 600 hours of SACD-section burn-in on my 777. I no longer hear discernible differences with or without them when I play SACD's. Neither can my wife."

The room lense WILL PERFORM THE SAME WETHER THE SACD PLAYER IS IN THE SYSTEM OR NOT. The 600 hours DOESN"T CHANGE THE ROOM ACOUSTICS! He claims that when he REMOVES the room lens NOW he can't hear a difference. This tells me THE ROOM LENS doesn't work, or he has had a change in his hearing sensitivity towards the worse.

Mike

We are discussing how this so-called "great player" changes the dynamics of room acoustics.

Boris do you have something MORE to add because - inquiring minds want to know!

TBone

You read my comments right. Here's what came to my mind--and since
I'm neither a recording engineer nor an acoustician, it's FWIW
speculation:

The lenses in my setup primarily affected image specificity,
palpability, and location. I suspect that conventional CD brick-wall
filtering and associated glare and grunge affect not only the quality
of what we hear, but also the (virtual) physical portrayal we
perceive. Substitute the essentially non-brickwalled bandwidth
characteristic of CD, and you allow instruments and voices to
"break out" of the Red Book cocoon...and in doing so, put them in
proper spatial and three-dimensional as well as tonal perspective.

Whatever the explanation, imaging, etc., snapped into focus in SACD.

--Jim

does sacd cause you to want to change system setup?

i think; yes and no are correct.

if your system is not properly setup; it won't be right for either cd or sacd. if it is dialed in for cd; it will also be good for sacd.

but......

if your listening habits change with sacd some minor re-tweaking may optimise performance and this is my expierience. with cds i was very concerned about reflections. i used tube traps in certain places to control these reflections and as a result the imageing improved; more depth, more body and presence. also, these tube traps reduced the digital harshness sometimes present on cd. my system was tuned to optimise cds as that was 75% of my listening. i didn't need the level of control for my analogue; but it still sounded good.

now, i am listening to 25% sacd and 25% analogue. so i have made some adjustments. i do listen to both sacd and analogue at somewhat higher volumne. so bass control is slightly higher priority. imageing for sacd and analogue is naturally much better and the reflection control is not as neccesary to attain excellent performance. also these formats benefit from a slightly more lively room as the nasties of cd playback are not in evidence. so i have moved my tube traps to maximize bass control and increase room energy.

a previous thread talked about how your ears adjust to sacd and you learn to listen differently. i have had that expierience. i think that when many of us talk about how long it takes our sacd players to break in that is partially because after the machine is done breaking in we are still breaking in.

in my new setup cds still sound pretty good. i don't know if i am different but for whatever reason it seems fine. i do generally listen at lower levels with cds.

i am no expert at acoustics but this is my expierience. over my 6 years as an audiophile i have constantly evolved as i have listened and learned. i made no major changes with sacd; but i did change the balance slightly.

happy listening!

mikel

Libor

The output level on my pre-amp is higher than before, now minus that digital glare. It is so easy to keep pushing it up, but we all got to watch it if we are to have prolong listening pleasures.

You are right to say that a number of manufacturers intentionally introduced euphonic colorations to try to compensate for digital limitations. How else can we can hear such a huge variety of sound characteristics in DACs, CDPs, amplifiers and speakers?

I suspect that a lot of us have been guilty of over-tweaking or accoustic treatment one way or another in trying to tame typical digital harshness and to get the glare down. That explains why since the dawn of RB CDs, the world have seen a renaissance in the popularity of tube-amplifiers. Certainly, the reasons often cited for using a tube-amp is always that it sounds more "musical", "more sweet and warm" but never more accurate or precise. Don't you think people should listen to music "Just the way it is"? The best tube-amp should sound like the best transistor-amp. Anything else is additional stuff that's not meant to be there in the first place.

Sadly, even with the advent of Hi-Rez audio formats like SACD and DVD-Audio, the urge to tweak and re-tune to compensate for perceived "unmusicality" will not come to an end just yet. I wonder how may of us here are really hearing the true potential of these 2 new digital formats to comment on them impartially. Even now, we hear debates going on on which are the more "musical" SACD players.

Your postings are a breath of fresh air, worth pondering about and I take your recommendations for quality SACDs confidently.

I was lucky to get a copy of Spitball through a friend of mine, I thought it sounds terrific too. I will get the Jennifer Lopez and Joe Satrianni soon. Dave Brubeck's Time Out is out of stock within a week of its arrival this month.

Thank you

--Jim

--Jim

<Generally, most people achieve some mix of dealing with actual acoustic issues in the room, and "tuning" the balance of their system, in my experience.

<Mine is actually a mix of colors . . . is this a problem? ;-)

<< If his original source component was terribly bright or bass heavy then room damping was not the proper fix in the first place!"

I agree, to some degree. I think we are dealing with more subtle effects here, than simply overt inbalance. Let me put it this way. I am more comfortable in "opening" my room (removing damping) with SACD than with either analogue or CD. My subjective experience is there is simply a much higher level of focus with SACD, which especially keeps high frequency sounds more closely aligned with their apparent source, avoiding that disconnected "hash" we all object to.

Actually, we would all probably do a lot less tuning and tweaking if we had usable tone controls.

>>but interesting to see how the discussion turns to agendas.<<

What agenda are you refering to???

I was referring to a phenomena where, whatever the content of the original post, some respondents manage to twist it around to continue to assert positions clearly articulated by them elsewhere (e.g. the whole, 777 sucks as a CD player {my hyperbolic illustration}).

Rick Gardner

And, Rick, if you're reading this, what you posed to start this off is certainly beginning to look (sound?) like one of those "there's more to this than meets the--uh--ear."

--Jim

Pardon Me ... why did you proceed in mis-quoting me. You link your statements as my own - then you answer yourself!!!

My only TRUE quote was:
>>If his original source component was terribly bright or bass heavy then room damping was not the proper fix in the first place!"<<

Your reply:
>>Actually, we would all probably do a lot less tuning and tweaking if we had usable tone controls.<<

Tone controls do only one thing, they amplify or attenuate frequency sections - they DO NOT damp or control room resonances.

Room acoustics should have nothing to do with your equipments inherited problems. In other words - if a Concert Hall has bad acoustics do you tell the Band to lighten the bass or lower the guitar volume in order to achieve the correct tonal balance OR with do you fix the Hall for proper acoustic portrayal.

Certainly - I would prefer to fix the Hall(Room) - instead of playing with tone controls or changing source equipment to suit my rooms poor acoustic characteristics.

Whats more laughable is the notion that after 600hrs of 777's break-in suddenly the room display even better acoustic qualities.

Are you kiddin me!!!

>>I was referring to a phenomena where, whatever the content of the original post, some respondents manage to twist it around to continue to assert positions clearly articulated by them elsewhere (e.g. the whole, 777 sucks as a CD player {my hyperbolic illustration}<<

I have stated many times - I liked the 777 player - but I am against such propoganda that claims the 777 as a GREAT CD 'giant killer' and a sudden fix for room induced distortions (amounst other insitefull but ludicrous happenings).

My agenda is based on reality, not the "hyperbolic illustration" put forward by many sacd 777 advocates!

TBone

My intention was not to have a drawn out argument. I just see no logical reason why the lenses worked before and they no longer effect the sound. I mean they must have made a difference before:

• Click

Explaining simple logic should not be this complicated - So damn complicated, that instead of simplifying and submitting a logical explaination - we have been asked to "brainstorm" and think of the impossible.

Hey Mike, do you think that with my NEW cartridge arrival - I may have to move into a new house after it breaks-in?

TBone

I'm not out to repeal the laws of physics, simply to report what I've heard. Rick's original point was that we may have to rethink how we look at (listen to) our systems in light of the technology. My admittedly limited experience with the lenses suggests that such a rethinking may very well be in order. That's why I posted.

If you hear differently, no problem. I view this forum as largely a learning experience where we share observations, perceptions, etc....and we may sometimes disagree...but I would hope that out of the dialogue we wind up broadening our vistas maybe just a little. That's the point, I think, of communication. And if we can do it without seeming to bash the other person, so much the better.

No sweat. It's cool.

--Jim

I'm outta this thread. It's becoming counter productive.

Mike

It would be hard for me to imagine this sort of vivid discrepancy comparing a good turntable with a TOP quality SACD player resting on BDR Cones/Shelves and Vibraplanes, damped with a little Rock from the top, treated to gourmet A/C by a King Cobra Powercord from a Power plant, with SACDs Illuminated by Auric.

Sure, all this could cost much more than a good turntable. But getting stomped in the dirt? Maybe if the special flavour Vinyl adds to the master tape, or that extra musical coherence at the minutae analog level that can't be captured even by DSD sampling, were particularly important to the listener.

In the areas I mentioned above I stand by my feelings. I'm hoping to see a player come out with direct heated triodes or maybe just triodes on the output. Then I'll probably be further under this SACD spell. Till then, I will enjoy the Sony.

Mike

Sorry, you haven't heard my horns or SETS. You also haven't heard my TT. Yet you feel free to make bullshit statements like I don't know "accuracy". I however have heard and own an SACD player.

So there! LOL.

Mike

Mike

I think there is a great deal more going on that those of us who have and will make the plunge are going to be learning together. It would be wonderful if this could be a forum for learning, as well as debate.

Rick Gardner

Perhaps this is why I am experiencing less of a need to control reflections in my room, and "opening" it up more by changing how it is tuned.

Highly subjective, but what I am experiencing.

Rick

I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that an SACD player will alter room accoustics, and in that you sort of missed the point. The point is that, at a rudimentary level, some of us are rethinking our room treatments in light of the subjective experience of listening to SACD.

As to hyperbole, well we all can accept a mea culpa on that!

Rick

My analog front end sound great within the same room, using the same damping as my digital plus the 777 in sacd mode(borrowed) was also excellent, displaying great focus.

The same room!!!

Rick, my room damping was done to tame reflections of walls that potentially "smear" the image, including phasing errors of allowing reflected sound to "invade" the soundstage while helping to keep the sound in focus even during loud dynamic peaks.

My damping had nothing to do with source problems or inherited tonal problems of other equipment.

I should point out that my room was set up using analog and digital - and getting better analog equipment or digital equipment did not change the rooms nature!

I can only understand that by having terribly bright or boomy equipment would damping need be removed or added, but in that regard the room is still not at fault.

TBone

I have owned Dunlavy's, Von Schweikerts, Infinity, Genesis, InnerSounds, Magnepans, Apogees, B&W, Dahlquists, Spica's, Soundlabs, ect.... as well as "high-end" amps to drive them with. None of them can match my horns and SETS as far as telling the TRVTH. These ain't your typical Madisound boxes, I can tell ya that. SACD sounds fantastic, but as I said before I think it can get better based on what I'm getting off of LP's.

Mike

Yeah I know, I looked at your system.

Mike

Rick

Why, what do you use?

Mike

So what do you use to set up your compressed SS system?

Mike

No need to justify one's preference in choosing different technology.

I am not a SET fan, although I am aware and respect the fact that many reputable audiophiles love it. I also have heard and liked SET, tube amps and SS amps. I prefer SS not because it is better, but because it is my preference to the music I like!

I also respect the fact that Mike owns both units and his decision making process is based on first-hand experience. Why would you Mr 'HiFI guy' speculate that his findings are only based on his SET preference. Did you invade his home and make that decision on fact - or just empty speculation based on the theory of measured performance.

Anybody with a subjective thought would realize that maybe - Just maybe - Mike was correct! No No No - Instead because of SACD rhetoric - he (or his system) must be doing something wrong!

Why?

To this day I have heard SACD advocates claims that speakers, lack of break-in, rooms, and different amp technologies are all major limitations of sacd sound, esp compared to cd and analog.

Mike and I claimed SACD sounds excellent, yet thats not good enough!
What Next?

TBone

Geno

There is always that certain magic that only materialises from DHT tubes and Vinyl, that would be forever alien to SACD and solid state, no matter how truthful or accurate they may profess to be!

Great food for thought...

Jim Cate