 
|
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 |
71.107.14.162
In Reply to: I am a fan of SACD but... posted by tunenut on August 14, 2006 at 15:50:32:
Tunenut,I believe this is a forum to discuss topics concerning digital, which is what I am doing. I hope I did not offend anyone and it was certainly not my purpose. A couple of statements you make leave no doubt that you feel I'm wasting time and space with this topic or I don't have the experience required to voice an opinion or ask a question.
I don't believe I was being melodramatic in the premise that SACD is far superior to redbook in terms of sound quality. I felt compelled to start this thread because I feel strongly that SACD as a format has been swept neatly under the carpet and I was trying to get other peoples feelings on this. Sorry it bothers you so much. Perhaps you have invested in a very expensive CD player and it is painful to think that such an investment could be bested by a run of the mill $1,600 player?
Yes I have heard several very expensive CD players and Transport DAC combos (at least expensive in my estimation) some of which I thought to be excellent, and you could have ased me this before suggesting that I am making a statement when I don't know what I'm talking about - in other words you are misdirected in your attempt to make me look like a fool. Attempting ridicule as a form of debate is uncalled for.
The fact remains that the SACD format is superior to redbook CD in terms of sound quality. The question is why has SACD been labeled a 'dead' format and why have so many articles I've read in the audio press clearly attempted to paint a picture of a technology not worth investing in?
Follow Ups:
"The fact remains that the SACD format is superior to redbook CD in terms of sound quality."
You say "I believe this is a forum to discuss topics concerning digital, which is what I am doing...", but the statement above leaves no room for debate whatsoever.Myself and others with experience disagree with you, but what's the point arguing against 'fact' simply with our misguided opinions?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Chris I'm sorry about that. Didn't mean to sound overbearing. I do hear a very clear improvement from SACD, but I guess there are many who prefer the sound of redbook CD. Honestly, I can't see why but I've heard some interesting suppositions including the pervasiveness of RFI during intense number crunching and perhaps that is valid. But even considering this I still find high-rez formats to be superior, especially SACD. Example of a good player (CD and SACD) is the EMM DAC6e / CDSD transport, where CD reproduction is very good but SACD reproduction has been desribed as pre-conception-shattering.
While SACD and also DVD-A do ultimately have more 'resolution' which will show when the same player is used for demonstrating both the higher rez and CD playback, dedicated CD players/combinations have evolved and refined over the years to the point where the best provide digital replay that does not leave the listener wanting anything to do with SACD/DVD-A.Modern transports are detracting from the advances being made in DAC technology, and the belief that transport quality is now irrelevant due to jitter-correction or buffering post transport is proved to be be laughable to anyone who puts this to the test in a half decent system.
Apart from the TEAC VRDS NEO, where is there an 'audiophile' quality, 'over-engineered' SACD or DVD-A transport to stand against earlier TEACs or Philips CDM1 CD transports?
Resolution is not the be all and end all when it comes to sound reproduction - it's quality rather than quantity - and I for one have never heard any high-rez replay which came close to the best CD replay based on the parameters I judge to be most important.
Yes, SACD does do some things that CD can't, but what the best CD does is render SACD's slight edge in resolution irrelevent by doing the most important things better.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Or you just feel that CD on the APL modded player exceeds SACD? Or is your opinion that CD on another player exceeds the SACD on the APL player? Just curious, as I expected your tune to change once you got a good SACD player.
"Just curious, as I expected your tune to change once you got a good SACD player."
Are you sitting comfortably - I don't want you to fall off your chair, but I still haven't actually got any APL SACD player to make the comparison with. :0(On a more positive 'note' though, I do have an almost full Audio Note system which I'm reviewing which will be completed by the arrival of an AN DAC and transport combination soon. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Your patience is quite amazing. AP is lucky, assuming you are still waiting for delivery. Anyway, I will still be curious whenever you may get it, please post your impressions.
"Anyway, I will still be curious whenever you may get it, please post your impressions."I'm quite curious myself! :0)
Yes, of course I'll post my impressions and in fact I'll possibly be writing a full review for Dagogo.com although I'm not sure if I'll be ending up with an APL integrated player such as the APL Denon 3910, or the new APL DAC combined with a decent transport; a lot depends on rack space, but now I've put a second system in the bedroom there are various options I need to get my head around.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"Modern transports are detracting from the advances being made in DAC technology, and the belief that transport quality is now irrelevant due to jitter-correction or buffering post transport is proved to be be laughable to anyone who puts this to the test in a half decent system."
Here's what I have. A Sony SCD-1 that I've had for over 6 years. And no less than 1000 SACDs, although I don't keep count, I've bought many over the last 6 years.So in some sense, I do know about the sound of SACD.
I am nowhere near as sure as you are that it blows away the best of CD, for the simple reason that I have not heard the best of CD. I have heard the highly regarded Reimyo CD player, but only in rather poor show conditions, so I don't consider that to be a real data point.
At any rate, on my SCD-1, the best SACDs are better than the best CDs, but hardly in the hyperbolic terms that you use.
If SACD has been swept under the carpet, it is not my doing. If everyone had bought SACDs as I did, this would now be the dominant music format. But the fact is, they didn't. And as I said, I enjoy the music I like on whatever format it exists.
I use to have an SCD-1 too. I agree that on a direct comparison of that machine playing redbook and SACD the SACDs sound better, but not dramatically better in most instances. The difference is best heard on good classical recordings where the sound of the hall and the natural decay of reverberant energy is critical. A lot of rock music is so poorly recorded that SACD's superiority cannot really be appreciated.I replaced the SCD-1 with a redbook Naim CDS3. I MUCH prefer the sound of the Naim over the SCD-1, even when comparing the SACD layer to the redbook layer played on the Naim. I know this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, given that the SCD-1 is much less costly and is an early version of an SACD player. But, this does illustrate that the putative inherent superiority of SACD is not so great that it swamps other differences in quality of players. I have heard other comparisons where redbook players come out ahead: EML vs Audionote, Cary 306 vs. Naim CDX2, and modified SCD-1 vs. Audionote.
I too am waiting for a machine to arrive on the scene that is terrific with both SACD and redbook (I did not like the dcs stack I heard and the Esoteric X-01 I heard). In the mean time, I have purchased at least 50 classical dual layer discs even though I now have only a redbook player. In almost all instances, these are terrific sounding discs (to me, this shows that careful recording and mastering is more important than the format).
Larry,Thats not really a fair comparison. The Naim CDS3 (terrific player - I've heard it) has better power supplies, caps, so on and so on. It is 'pimped' as my 21 year old son might say (in fun of course) compared to the first generation SCD-1, which as you rightly point out is bested by the latest generation SACD players. But if you compare the Naim - as wonderful as it is - playing a redbook CD along side the DCS Delius/Verdi La Scala playing the same music in SACD (as long as it is from a well-recorded original source or native digital recording then the difference will become more significant. Plus the dCs can do multi-channel.
But I have heard the full DCS set up. I did like its SACD performance, but there was something missing for me in the redbook performance. I cannot say exactly what, but the music was not quite engaging and seemed a touch polite. This could easily be a matter of system integration, but it did not blow me away.No question that the SCD-1 and CDS3 comparison was not fair. I was merely pointing out that those who claim that SACD is so vastly superior that it blows away any implementation of redbook is wrong.
Right now, I have a friend's Naim 555 player in my system. It is a very subtle improvement over the CDS3 (boy, do you have to pay BIG bucks for marginal improvements). There is also no doubt in my mind that a good transport coupled to an Audionote DAC-5 signature would easily trump the CDS3. But, it took quite a while for redbook to reach this level of refinement and I am sure SACD has plenty of room for refinement too.
"I replaced the SCD-1 with a redbook Naim CDS3. I MUCH prefer the sound of the Naim over the SCD-1, even when comparing the SACD layer to the redbook layer played on the Naim. I know this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, given that the SCD-1 is much less costly and is an early version of an SACD player. But, this does illustrate that the putative inherent superiority of SACD is not so great that it swamps other differences in quality of players. I have heard other comparisons where redbook players come out ahead: EML vs Audionote, Cary 306 vs. Naim CDX2, and modified SCD-1 vs. Audionote."I think with SACD vs. redbook, this apples to apples thing can be overrated as a concern. I'm pretty sure I heard what SACD has to offer on the $5000 Audience modified Sony 999 and musically it came in a clear second to several different AN transport/dac combos. I would expect the same with 47 Labs gear. And you are the second guy to say that they preferred an AN dac to the EML. With the Sony and the Naim, I think you may have been listening to the differences in the marques as much as the differences in the technology. But then, SACD does have some of the characteristic Sony sound, which I have always found a bit unnaturally smooth, tending toward grey. A very nice grey, but grey nevertheless.
"A lot of rock music is so poorly recorded that SACD's superiority cannot really be appreciated"Except for a few scattered instances, I like rock music on SACD much more than CD. Dylan, Stones, Can- these are absolutely superb reissue sets. I was hoping for a golden age of such reissues, but it looks like that's about all we're getting.
For whatever reason, I still like vinyl LP- and in many cases, the rock music SACDs I have are reminiscent to my ears of good old LP sound and much more so than even my favorite CDs. Big Star, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Talk Talk, Richard Thompson - excellent SACD reissues. Unfortunately, rock and related music has always been extremely poorly represented on SACD.
Tunenut,I think my observation is correct, and not hyperbolic as you would have it.
If you don't mind me saying so, its revealing that you have chosen to invest so heavily in SACD software - at $15 (usally they're about $19-$22) a pop that would be about $15k according to your more than 1000 SACDs in your collection - yet you don't hear much of a difference especially given that SACD sofware is generally more expensive than CD. You are clearly a man of considerable means to afford $15k on software that does not particularly impress him over an alternative (CD) that would cost much less.
Incidentally the newest generation of SACD players are better than the first generation. Although the SCD-1 is built extremely well and is an excellent transport, my Denon 3910 sounds better. I have a friend I visit regularly who owns the SCD-1.
The Reimyo CD player you mention costs the price of a small car. As a CD player I have no doubt it sounds very good, but compared to SACD, I doubt it sounds better. Besides, my SACD player is $1,600. Perhaps you may feel that this is too low cost to meet the definition of an 'audiophile' class player?
First- "exceptionally good Denon 3910 and it is so much better than even the most expensive redbook rig."Second- " but compared to SACD, I doubt it (Reimyo) sounds better"
A note of uncertainty has replaced the dogmatic hyperbole of your first post. And this is quite rational.
Since you have not actally heard the Reimyo, you should keep an open mind rather than promulgating absolutes.
And the Reimyo is far from the most expensive CD player out there these days.
The reason SACD is dead is because of the lack of music available on SACD not because of sound quality. I think its pretty obvious to most listeners that a well recordered SACD sounds better than a well recordes CD, but the fact that i cant get any of my favorite music on SACD really means its useless in my book.
Yes Frank25 - you're right. But why is there a lack of software out there. Doesn't seem to make sense. Obviously many audio enthusiasts know that SACD is better and we are always looking to get closer to the 'real' sound. Knowing this, why are the folks who record music in the real world not cutting to SACD? Is it becuase the licensing costs are too high from Sony or Philips? I'd like to get some feedback on this.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
