 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Re: Audio Note 4.1x Balanced Signature - First Impressions posted by Bob Neill on December 10, 2003 at 07:36:15:
The dealer through whom I bought the 4.1x read this thread, and sent me the following comment:***********************
"Tell your friends to stop hoping about SACD, as far as I am concerned, the 4.1, the 3.1 and the trivista is worlds above any and all SACD I have heard.If these guys want real SACD, go analogue man."
***********************He's been in the business - always at the high end - for a long time, and I trust his ears completely. It will be very interesting to confirm his impressions for myself.
Follow Ups:
HowdyLet me guess, he doesn't have any great SACD players to sell does he?
-Ted
Well, I've heard all kinds of "great" SACD players: the Lexicon RT-10, the Linn Unidisk, and the MF TriVista, and I'm totally underwhelmed, though I admit I've only listened to a few recordings. The best-sounding SACDs I've heard are the Norah Jones "Come Away With Me" and Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon".The Norah Jones sounds really great on a great Redbook system, though (as good or better than the SACD layer), and "Dark Side of the Moon" benefits more from a first rate multichannel remix, and remains to my ears the best example of SACD. But I'm not going to run out and replace anything.
He's had experience with pretty much every technology out there, and he calls it like he sees it. I have every reason to believe it's an honest opinion.On the other hand, he has also shown much evidence of preferring SET amps to class-D. Whether that makes him perceptive or a Luddite is also a matter of opinion...
HowdyI didn't mean to impugn his character, but there are some mighty fine SACD players out there, just as there are some fine Redbook players. My experience has been that people who say what your dealer have said have only heard 'average' SACD players, and then perhaps not in an ideal setup. I don't really think he's heard the best SACD players if he is seriously saying "... and the trivista is worlds above any and all SACD I have heard" I haven't had privilege of hearing the 4.1 or the 3.1 so I can't comment there.
In any case I'd never take the word of someone else about what I'd like as you are sort of asking us to. I have plenty of friends who probably have heard as many great players as you dealer who have come to the opposite conclusion (and some other of my friends probably agree with your dealer :)
-Ted
It's not big news that there are a hand full of redbook cdp's that better SACD. Furthermore we haven't even reached the full potential of the redbook cd yet. Then you throw in the fact there is a very limited amount of SACD's and of those, how many have been in fact recorded at the higher resolution and sampling rate? I'm not putting my money on SACD making it.
HowdyWhatever. You can put your money anywhere you like. In the mean time I'm enjoying my SACDs.
It's quite a misstatement to compare any particular player to a format. As I said there are some fine Redbook players out there, but apparently people don't seem to know that there are some fine SACD players out there too. You say "Furthermore we haven't even reached the full potential of the redbook cd yet.", but even more so we haven't reached the limits of SACD or DVD-A. There are very few SACDs who's source isn't higher res than CD and most of them have only a few low res tracks.
Bring you favorite player and discs over and I'll show you some good SACD :)
Back to music...
-Ted
In any case I'd never take the word of someone else about what I'd like as you are sort of asking us to.No sensible person ever would. In the end it's just one man's opinion. That's why I'm going to borrow a SACD player and see for myself. The only problem with my conclusions may be that I'm heading into the comparison with some pretty evident biases. In that case, the results may only be applicable to a population of one.
As a counterbalance to your argument about comparing great CD players to mid-line SACD's, it's entirely possible that most of those who say SACD beats CD have never heard a truly great CD player either. This whole thing kind of reminds me of the early days of digital, when comparisons of CD players to low-end turntables resulted in some rather erroneous conclusions (much to the delight of the Sony/Philips marketing departments).
> > it's entirely possible that most of those who say SACD beats CD have never heard a truly great CD player either. < <Well ... true enough!!!
However ... There was a time when SACD owners (fueled by there own justification and the blundering magazines and dubious webzine hype) countered that those 'great' SACD player were also 'great' cdp.
Thankfully time has dispelled that myth!!!
The newest and better SACD players sound 'different' to me ... and they do have aspects of sound that i have never heard from any redbook player to date - at any cost. That said ... other aspects of SACDs sound seem to be a bit of a compromise ... so ...
The fact is that SACD, DVD, DVD-A 24bit resolution is an inherited advantage that CD may never counter ... you can oversample upsample or dont sample at all ... but 16bit resolution will always end up being ONLY 16bit resolution!!!
TBone
done well.ja in clear and cool, waiting for rain later and snow in the mountains, Tucson, AZ
The Elaborate DAC=55/76 Preamp=Six Pac=Newform Research 645
If done well, I believe redbook cd's would satisfy most of us. I also think the biggest limiting factor is the reading of the disc by a laser. The future of redbook cd's will be from reading them off a hard drive.
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 ]
