|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
203.129.75.3
Hi all,As you may see below, I am pondering combo's for my new digital front end. In the back of my mind I am still hung up on one thing - paying for a d2a I would like to be able to have a cd only transport and a dvd/sacd combo transport hooked into this processor that can actually process sacd in digital realm. The only name I can find that can do this is DCs. The catch is, I don't even own any sacds - I just don't want to drop a bomb on a processor only to have it not be able to utilize what 'might' be a dominant standard down the road. I am not sure how much faith I can put in companies to upgrade if need be say 3 or 4 years from now what would then be an older product that does not have the ability now. I have got somewhat comforting comments from one manufacturer that should it be feasible it would be done but that is it.
So, how much should I care? If worst case came to pass and I played a sacd thru a more mass market player into a top notch preamp/amp via analog inputs, would it ever compare to the top notch cd/d2a on the other 'side' of the system going into that same preamp? If so, then I could sweat less about getting the whole sacd compatibility issue sorted now knowing I would not be giving up much by not having the sacd go into the d2a of 'today' upgraded down the road.
Regards,
Follow Ups:
The kind of discussion this thread sparks is worthlessly general unless placed in context of the level of system we are discussing. ‘Yellowwwwducky’ is looking to upgrade a system he describes thusly:
“My setup was very minimal - a Levinson 39 driving a Jeff Rowland 8t power amp with battery power supply onto Avalon Radian speakers.”
NICE! Color me lightly green with a touch of envy for both the gear and lovely simplicity it allows. ‘Yellowwwwducky’ in this and other threads, lists candidates for the No 39’s replacement all bearing price tags in the mid to upper four figures and even into five figures to the left of the decimal place in dollars, thus the context of our discussion is a state-of-the-art system with funding to match.First disclaimer, I hate audio snobs as much as any other snob. Spending a ton-o-bucks on a system comprised exclusively of class AAAA recommended flavors of the month is essentially a guaranty of run from the room screaming bad sound. Using sweat equity in the form of searching out great used gear or going the DIY route even working stiffs can assemble SOTA systems for less than the snob pays for his speaker cables. I begin my contribution to this thread highlighting Yellowwwwducky’s system not because he has to spend 1/3 of the five figure investment he has in power amp and speakers to fit some equation. Rather with a Rowland + Avalon back end we can eliminate all the good budget front ends, with or without SACD. Because in this context ‘good’ is going to at the least become a self fulfilling prophecy that ‘SOTA CD sounds as good/better than SACD’ or at worst actively annoying or boring.
The reason I used the provocative title above is because that has been my experience. Personally one of the thrills of layering being an audiophile onto being a music lover are those moments when one hears deep into the performance and a previously unheard new aspect of the sound illuminates what the artist is saying to us. Holt called these ‘goose bump moments’ because they can have that physical affect on us as both our mind and body react. I tend to think of them as ‘wow, I never heard THAT before’ because what first pulled me into hi-fi was hearing how much more of the sound and performance was revealed on a hi-fi compared to the portable record player I had at home. Now over 35 years later it is easy to become jaded. In the three years I have been exploring SACD as a third primary source it has provided more of the ‘wow, I never heard THAT before’ thrills than any other recent development or readily available home source.
Online and in the print media covering high end stereo there is a trend to discount post-CD high resolution digital sources as failed record company follies. One cannot open a magazine or browser window without tripping over some old geezer bitching and moaning over lack of media availability or predicting the eminent demise of SACD. Reading between the lines of these rants what I see is a longing to return to a simpler time when there was one dominate source and it was safe to build a system around optimizing that source. For many of us those good old days were putting together LP based systems happily immersed in the arcane world of overhang, VTA, VTF, MC, MM, and 47k vs. 100 ohm loading. There was another golden age for CD through the 1990s when we developed 44k 16 bit playback to a very high level thanks to its open standards and the royalty free ‘in’ the S/PDIF link gave our little garage shop operations. Choosing to stay in these warm fuzzy places is a valid choice. What is not valid in my experience is claiming they represent the state of the art.
Wishing and hoping for a simpler time never has and never will make it happen. After all if wishes were horses beggars would have always been riding and LPs and CDs would have always sounded exactly like master tapes and live microphone feeds. To my ears the added information density of good SACDs do get them closer to this ideal. That is the ideal of a truly transparent music storage media, not the ideal of free transportation for all.
All of which is a dang long prelude to get to Yellowwwwducky’s questions.
Question #1
“So, how much should I care?”Only you can answer that as it involves intensely personal tradeoffs. I see those who are ready to declare CD is good enough and/or persist in the belief that SOTA CD beats SOTA SACD are biased toward getting the most fi they can out of a large and diverse CD collection. Personally (there’s that word again as it is a very personal individual thing) I want max-fi out of my CDs but with an open mind that perhaps in 2005 there is something better than a format whose basic specifications were laid down in the late 1970s.
Question #2
“If worst case came to pass and I played a sacd thru a more mass market player into a top notch preamp/amp via analog inputs, would it ever compare to the top notch cd/d2a on the other 'side' of the system going into that same preamp?”Finally an easy one. No, not ever. Not even on a good day running downhill with a tail wind. That does not mean the “more mass market player” will not reveal the greater information density of SACD compared to “top notch CD/D2A” playing 16 bit 44k sources. Rather with Rowland + Avalon in the chain the compromises in the mass market player’s analog stage, power supply, DACs, and packaging will sooner or later be revealed. The way I experienced this was that from the start SACD provided thrilling moments and then as time wore on I noticed those Nth degree details we audiophiles chase after were missing. For me that meant the player in question (a $1k Sony DVP-NS900) was getting modified. Several rounds of mods brought it close to parity with the external DACs used for CD. Given Yellowwwwducky’s stated intent to upgrade from a Levinson No 39 the only way to give SACD a fair shake is to use a similarly SOTA SACD playback deck or system.
Implied Question #3
“I have got somewhat comforting comments from one manufacturer that should it be feasible it* would be done but that is it.” (*If I read him correctly “it” is the question of upgrading an external DAC to accept SACD source data.)The amount of smoke being blown you know where on this issue is simply amazing. The proverbial elephants in the room being ignored here are licensing and development costs. For many of us part of the romance of the high-end audio scene is that the individual designer or small team working alone can still advance the state of the art, or at least produce a cool product which sounds great. (And as a second disclaimer I wrote ‘us’ because I am one of those one man operations.) What SACD, DVD-A, DTS, DTS-ES and the rest of the alphabet soup of formats did to our little niche is by and large lock out all but the biggest and deepest pocketed players from the new game. Some of the resentment being shown toward SACD comes from those who always pull for the little David against the corporate Goliaths. It is very likely that “should it be feasible it would be done” is actually translated:
“I would love to if I had $100k to license the standard, $10k to hire an engineer to get ILink/IEEE-1394 hardware working and a final $10k to hire a software consultant to get the encryption protocols programmed and debugged”. As a professional design and production engineer I can assure you upgrades are a royal pain to install and support. They rarely happen because for the manufacturer it is a no win situation. If I charge you what it costs to pay to develop, build, and install it will be very expensive. So my customers (audiophiles by nature apparently being a whining lot) will accuse me of ripping them off. Do it as a loss leader writing it off to “we give great customer support” and very soon the whining will be I sold a bunch of expensive boxes then had the nerve to go bankrupt. The short version is I would strongly suggest deciding SACD yes/no before the fact and buying accordingly.In summary my personal experience is the finest sounding sources for home hi-fi are SACD on the digital side and open reel tape on the analog side. Neither of these formats will become dominate music delivery formats for the mass market as CD and LP did. Just as top echelon audiophiles in the 1960s & 1970s had both open reel and LP today we find top echelon systems support both SACD and CD. Being too young to have participated in that brief instant when one could purchase prerecorded open reel tapes I see it as a second chance to participate in SACD. I am buying them as fast as I can pick and choose among the 3000 titles currently available. Should this be my small vote to keep the format going, great. Should SACD disappear without a trace tomorrow I have a nice library of disks to enjoy for years to come. I am realistic that this being the 21st century we will never again return to a time when one music delivery format dominates.
Were I suddenly gifted with Yellowwwwducky’s system and upgrade budget I would be looking at adding a Rowland preamp and a universal player from Classe, Linn, Esoteric, or Marantz. Actually above we see the new dCS P8i all-in-one universal player just shown at the recent THE show which to my eye even makes a nice styling match to Rowland gear.
happy listening
Norman Tracy
The problem is, that he has no SACDs. Unless the SACD catalog has alot of music he wishes to own(or duplicate), I don't see the point of going in that direction. It will never be the dominant media. Period.
Superior technology is useless, if you don't like the software.
As for your praise in another post of the Levinson #39, I find it misplaced. I own the ML#39, and can honestly say that is isn't even close to competative with redbook players in the $3K range in today's market. That's why they came out with the 390. I also find it interesting that this CDP hasn't been replaced before now. I'm not convinced, that yellowwwwducky's references are up to date.This whole thread has a *TwilightZone* feel for it. Replacing a 10 year old CDP with what may be state of the art, but being more concerned for visual aesthetics than sonics? This reminds me of your statement, "Spending a ton-o-bucks on a system comprised exclusively of class AAAA recommended flavors of the month is essentially a guaranty of run from the room screaming bad sound.". Afraid a niche technology that he has no software for will make his purchase obsolete, while living with an obsolete CDP? Am I the only one who finds this BIZARRE?
Interesting indeed.
Jack
Jack, your not the only one that finds this Bizarre.hey - maybe it is just us, instead of gushing all over this thread with superlatives - we questioned it?
Is it possible that we just dont fully understand the requirements for "top echelon" systems - period end of story?
LOL!
TBone
the saga continues, SACD is just another short story or chapter in time.The story certainly will continue - time being the narrative truth.
And in time - SACD will probably fade away as just another contender that could/should/wouldhaveif ... just another promising young contender that stuck around for a few years - but in the end - it lacked staying power and a knockout punch.
Yes, if you look at talent alone, its overall sonic prowess, it was indeed a format that had enough promise to compete very well in any given format arena.
In terms of sonic gains - could it beat up on old CD? Probably - although given the best software - CD puts up a game fight.
The outcome of that fight was no surprise, CD had long been relegated to washed-up contender well prior to high-rez.
Could SACD best higher res PCM? Possibly - but the decision would be close - possible a draw?
No knockout yet ...
Yet, if your going to be considered a top echelon fighter - you need to go up against the champ sooner-or-later. When this contest played out, SACD proves to be second best - often by a wide margin or TKO.
So proclaim "end of story" to your hearts content; I dont care what back end you or others consider SOTA equipment, and why that should matter in this "context" or discussion, one that implies that only the best source would do for this "type" or quality back-end system(????).
For any "top echelon" back end to be proven as such - you would need a "top echelon" format to feed it - and in todays sonic arena - vinyl retains all the belts (pun intended).
TBone
Norman Tracy said:"First disclaimer, I hate audio snobs as much as any other snob. Spending a ton-o-bucks on a system comprised exclusively of class AAAA recommended flavors of the month is essentially a guaranty of run from the room screaming bad sound. Using sweat equity in the form of searching out great used gear or going the DIY route even working stiffs can assemble SOTA systems for less than the snob pays for his speaker cables."
Very bold statement (and I happen to agree whole-heartedly).
Cheers,
That was an awesome post, I was thinking ...finally, a reply from somebody who gets it. And I was in total agreement as you made a case for not compromising on anything less than SOTA CD and SACD playback.But then I got to the punchline: a universal player? You're kidding, right? Even the Esoteric, which is probably the best sounding stock universal player, will need mods to compete with SOTA CD and SACD sources. The Marantz and Linn are in another (lower) league - barely acceptable for a system like mine, but entirely out of place in a system like yellowwwwducky's.
I know that if I had yellowwwwducky's amp and speakers and $25k to spend on a front end, I wouldn't settle for anything less than the best digital reproduction, period. A stock universal player in his system would be like serving Swanson Hungry Man at an offcial state dinner.
Dave wrote:“That was an awesome post, I was thinking ...finally, a reply from somebody who gets it. And I was in total agreement as you made a case for not compromising on anything less than SOTA CD and SACD playback.”
Thank you for the kind words. I guess the post needed a bit more editing and specific declarations as my point was not so much “not compromising on anything less than SOTA” as a vote against the trend to view post-CD/LP high resolution formats as something that flew out of Pandora’s box to be wished out of existence.
Dave continues:
“But then I got to the punch line: a universal player? You're kidding, right? Even the Esoteric, which is probably the best sounding stock universal player, will need mods to compete with SOTA CD and SACD sources. The Marantz and Linn are in another (lower) league - barely acceptable for a system like mine, but entirely out of place in a system like yellowwwwducky's.“Ok, I’m busted. Guilty as charged of stepping onto the slippery slope of making specific recommendations. The certainty of Dave’s opinions leads me to guess he has much more direct experience with the players in question so I will refrain from making recommendations in favor of pointing out candidates like the Ayre C-5 Universal player seen above. One of the reasons I went into that discussion of licensing is that single issue sharply limits the number of candidates. That is too bad as it limits those working on answering the questions of what it really takes to achieve great CD/SACD playback. I believe the jury is still out on the question of if a universal player can be built which achieves the top rank. Even if no one has yet done it that does not mean the next one down the pike may not succeed. From my engineer’s point of view I can see no reason it cannot be done. From my audiophile’s point of view I wonder if with the limited number of companies allowed to work on the problem if one will rise to the challenge, throw enough resources at it, and not screw up that one vital detail!
Concluding Dave wrote:
“I know that if I had yellowwwwducky's amp and speakers and $25k to spend on a front end, I wouldn't settle for anything less than the best digital reproduction, period. A stock universal player in his system would be like serving Swanson Hungry Man at an official state dinner.”Of course a big part of the fun of treating ourselves to these toys is we inject into the selection process our unique blend of requirements. It seems styling is high on yellowwwwducky's list. Not a bit surprising given the home I would expect a rig with this price tag to live and that his Levinson No 39 has some of the best industrial design in all of high end audio. And what’s the fun if it’s so ugly you have to hide it in a closet?!? Now yellowwwwducky stated the dCS styling does not make the cut. Among “the best digital reproduction, period” candidates which include SACD capability that leaves the Meitner. Should it’s styling be found wanting I will suggest one possibility for yellowwwwducky is to keep a bunch of that $25k in the market growing while ‘settling’ for a top rank $4k to $8k player from the likes of Accuphase, Ayre, Marantz, Linn, Denon, or Esoteric. Opinions vary as to the suitability of these in yellowwwwducky's system. And of course yellowwwwducky has some decisions to make as to complexity, styling, and when to jump in whole hog vs. waiting for a technology to mature.
happy listening
Norman Tracy
I agree....except for the Denon or Marantz part....a better reccomendation substitution would be the Onkyo sp 1000 as it even sounds better than the 5910.
Sorry Norman, I was probably too harsh in criticizing your suggestions. I haven't heard the Classe, but I have heard the others you mentioned in your original post.I compared the Linn Unidisk 1.1 to my current modified SACD player and thought it fell short in most areas. Considering what it is - a compact, lightweight universal machine with a switching power supply, it sounds good. But I don't think it competes favorably with dedicated CD and SACD machines in the $3k range and it's grossly overpriced. It is a stylish machine though, so the suggestion certainly fits yellowwwwducky's concern for asthetics. I've owned a few Marantz units, including the DV-8400 universal which is similar in character to the Linn but not quite as good. The SA-14 (not a universal) is probably very close to Linn but warmer. I have not heard their current top of the line, the SA-11S1 or the DV-9500 (replacement for the DV-8400). A friend has the Esoteric DV-50 and it's clearly a step above the other DVD-based players I've had: Marantz DV-8400, Denon 5900, Sony 999ES, Philips SACD 1000 (in stock form anyway). But I don't think it reaches the level of many modified SACD players or high end CD rigs.
Like you, I don't think there are any fundamental reasons why a truly high end universal player cannot be built. However, I don't think many manufacturers perceive a market for it. The Ayre C-5 is probably the first real effort towards an all-out, no compromise universal player. Ayre is testing the waters, and if demand is for the C-5 is strong enough, maybe other manufacturers will follow.
Dave
To each his/her own.> > I've owned a few Marantz units, including the DV-8400 universal which is similar in character to the Linn but not quite as good. The SA-14 (not a universal) is probably very close to Linn but warmer. < <
I had a 8400 in my system for a few weeks and it is NOT similar to any decent Linn by any means. Noise floor is high, transparency low, extension is minimal, they lack dynamic capability and sound compressed in comparison. It was easily blown away by my resident player.
I have heard the SA-14 which is considerably better than the 8400 directly against a few good dedicated cdps - and although it is a half decent cdp - it did not compare well to dedicated players either. Compared directly to a Sim Nova - it was no contest. I thought the SA14 to be a decent SACD player, but certainly not in the Linn class.
I have heard many dedicated cd players, the linn unidisk 1.1 compares favorably to many to my ears.
I really like the Simaudio Nova. If I could live without SACD, I would own a Nova LE right now - that's how much I like it. But my dealer had both the Nova and Unidisk 1.1 in the same system and I thought the Nova was clearly better on Redbook.The Marantz DV-8400 is not as good as the Unidisk, I agree with that. But I found both to share some similar characteristics, with the most obvious differences being that the Linn had better resolution & transparency and a wider soundstage. Also, the Marantz was missing some low bass. I can't really say much about the dynamics except that the Nova sounded faster and more dynamic than the Unidisk, and that every piece of Marantz gear I've tried lacks dynamics. I did think that both the DV-8400 and Unidisk were overly smooth, too laid back, and shared a somewhat lightweight presentation.
I know you love your Ikemi. Maybe we just have different preferences. I haven't heard the Ikemi, but I suspect part of it is that the Ikemi is a better Redbook player than the Unidisk.
We don't share many interests, but that is one hell of a post.
Interesting and thoughtful post! I will reread a bit later (gotta get groceries!) to get a better feel for your points. I am afraid, once again, dcs comes thru with what to me is a just dog ugly looking product. My wife summed it up best when we were in a shop and she mentioned one thing looked nice and I asked if she was referring to an elgar in a rack of stuff to which she replied, not knowing anything about dcs - "no, that just looks cheap". Ouch.
...so many of the best posts on this forum have that "stream of consciousness" quality to them? They also tend to come around dinner time, or just after.Whatever. Brilliant post. Well done.
I would council that you should be prepared that you are more likely to get it wrong than right.
You will either upgrade regularly or hardly ever. You will probably spend far more than you think you will.IMHO any plan where you start at the pointy end is a hit and miss affair of grand proportions.
Don’t try and second guess the future, or your future, and buy what you like now.
IMVHO dedicated machines for different formats is the only way to achieve optimum results over all. Is it worth it or economical to have several digital front ends? Dunno, how long is a piece of string? YMMV
I must say I am truly perplexed that you don’t own a single SA CD yet you are pondering what you may or may not do regarding a purchase of not inexpensive gear that may or may not play a format that may or may not be dominant or otherwise in the future before you even know if you like SA Cd’s?
Good luck.
Smile
Sox
...but now I'm not so sure.There's some evidence (or so I've heard) that some labels are beginning view SACD as a product for a niche market: audiophiles. This is increasingly possible as SACD production costs come down. Once it reaches a certain critical mass--and it may not require that much--production costs (especially for reissues of stuff initially recorded high-quality analog or 24 bit) will continue to decline.
At a certain point, they don't have to sell a lot of copies for a disc to be profitable...especially if it's for music they already own or can license. I'm thinking here of jazz and classical reissues.
I doubt there will ever be much demand for--or supply of--run-of-the-mill, mainstream pop music in high-rez formats...especially those that won't allow you to use it on your I-Pod. But it's possible that SACD will continue to be an important format for audiophiles. That, anyway (FWIW) is my current view.
Not that you asked, but I believe--and I regret--that the nails are already in the DVD-Audio coffin, mainly because of DualDisk. That's a format that may have legs for the mainstream pop market, but for audiophiles its doomed by lousy labeling and a likely preference in the mass-market for video on the DVD side. You have to do serious research just to figure out what audio formats you're getting. And then there's the justified derision cast on the format by the manufacturers of high-end equipment...
Seems to be the best niche market for SACD. A quick scan of Grammaphone or Classics Today shows an increase in the number of SACDs being reviewed, either as a seperate group, or just mixed in with the CD reviews. SACD will probably never be big in POP, but it seams to have settled down in the classical world.
Jack
with your comments and observations.I'm trying to decide between up grading my digital by purchasing a Benchmark DAC or, for not too many more $$$, buying the XA777ES Sony player that will play SACDs. (I don't care about its multichannel capabilities.) The Sony is probably not quite as good as the Benchmark on CDees, but it plays SACDs too.
Clearly there's the expense involved in purchasing SACDs (usually, but not always, more than CDs) but just the other day, I went looking for the price of a vinyl record that was well-reviewed on Audiophile Audition -- $50.00!! vs. about $15 for the CD version. I'm not saying the $50 was unjustfied, given that it was a 180 gram pressing and probably was very low volume, etc., etc. But the $35 difference buys a lot of recordings!
Personally, I would be delighted if a hi-rez digital format did survive.
Hi Bruce,I've not listened to the 777ES, but I currently own the SCD555ES and the Benchmark. I purchased the Sony first, because I wanted to do the SACD thing. SACD on my 555 was better in every way than my prior experience with Redbook. Presence and immediacy, transparency/lack of grain, imaging, soundstage, etc. Frankly, Redbook on the Sony was a disappointment compared to my old, dead (for the umpteenth time) Cal Audio Labs Aria Mk 3 (long sad saga). I had ordered a headphone amp from my dealer, went in to pick it up. He had just received his first shipment of Benchmarks, and asked me to listen. It took all of 20 seconds of listening before I decided to buy (very unusual behavior for obsessive little me). Brought it home, ran a glass fiber toslink from the Sony to the Benchmark, and was absolutely blown away by what it could do using the 555 as a transport for Redbook. To make a long story short, in my system, I feel that Redbook on the Benchmark is sonically superior to SACD on my Sony. I haven't bought SACDs since. The ones I have get used on the Redbook layer. If you already have a lot of CDs, I would seriously consider the Benchmark.
Regards,
...is that a pretty good SACD player sounds great on SACDs, and makes a great CD transport.So far I haven't taken the SACD plunge. I'm using a Benchmark.
your "thinking" again - aye ?Jim ... i read your otherwise excellent (written, not content) "as we see it" article - and a few things accured to me. First - you labeled the GSIC as "snake-oil" yet you never gave it the time of day - you never listened to it.
Second - you go on to say that those that are hearing differences with the GSIC are being fooled by there own brains; that a market segment exist fueling by the natural human failure in justifying hearing some items (not all?) as truth.
I certainly dont buy into that hog-wash, but what strikes me as kinda-lame is that you and stereophile could have easily dismissed the product on a factual basis - by doing a review on it. Would you not be doing your readers a great service by actually reporting on experience with said product in question, calling it "snake-oil" because it porved to be just that?
So let me get this straight - you never reviewed it - you never heard it - you THINK you know otherwise what is going on in people brains that have indeed taken the time to hear it, and in this post you THINK that SACD players make "great" transports?
BTW - i did buy the GSIC to review for myself, at least what I "think" (pro or con) has some relationship to reality.
What I mean about using SACD as a transport is just that there's no reason why it wouldn't be just fine with a good, jitter-rejecting DAC like the Benchmark. I'm not saying it would be brilliant, or special, just that it would serve this purpose well. Also, I didn't say I haven't heard this setup--I have--only that I haven't bought one yet.As for the chip, no I didn't try it. Why? What if someone told you (just making up something dumb here) that you could turn on the oven in your kitchen by waving a stick around in the den? That you could make your bed by rattling your keys and winking three times, or making a funny symbol in the sand with your index finger? Would you try it? It's just that there's no possible--no conceivable--mechanism by which this thing can work. Maybe it's my scientific training, or maybe it's just my worldview, but--though I am in most respects very open minded, accepting of all sorts of human differences--I just don't believe in magic, and magic is precisely what it would take for this thing to work. Furthermore, I didn't want to give them any of my money. Maybe they would send me a free review sample? Well, maybe, but I'd feel very foolish asking for one, for the reasons listed above.
> > Furthermore, I didn't want to give them any of my money. < <That is a key point, one which i can totally agree with.
Even i had issues handing over cash for such a wierd product. Even if it did work, the cost per disk was rather high, but you pointed that fact out in your article.
However - $25 dollars is not going to make or break me, a good bottle of wine that i will gladly pee out is about the same price, going to a movie is going to cost me about the same. Hell - $25 wasted on a movie is always a possiblity - given the quality of movies today - and not once have i recieved a refund for paying for such crap entertainment.
I dont expect a refund. $25 gone .....
So - in reality it is a matter of principle with you. That i can understand - that i can relate - and that i can justify!
But you never said that in the article!
What i do not understand is your dismissal or limited view that for those that can or do hear a difference - they could not be legit under any circumstance.
Still - IMO - the very least you could have done is put your money where your mouth is - forsake principle in order to save your readership the cost of forfitting $25. Are you not there to help your readership?
You never know - happy Stereophile readers upon learning that you saved them $25 may actually have put that money back into renewal?
OR ... maybe they will buy more GSIC based on experience, even it you think you hear a difference - thats a good thing no?
Is there a difference? ... well between us ... we both agree that in theory it seems hocus pocus magic bullshit ... that we have in common ... yet only one of us is certain to comment on practical terms ... while i and others listen and try and understand it based on first hand knowledge and experience ... you continue to "think" and ...
TB1
A matter of principle? I suppose, in the same way that believing that when I let go of a paper clip it will fall downward is a matter of principle. There's no mechanism for interaction, no known force that could explain it.As for my having an obligation to help Stereophile's readers, I dealt with that obligation in the way I thought was most appropriate; the result was what I wrote. I do not believe that my responsibilities extended to wasting my time testing a product that is transparently fraudulent, by design.
BTW: I've tried most tweaks that don't come with too high a price tag: power conditioning, power cords, EMI reduction, cable elevators--anything with a conceivable mechanism of affect, I'll try it, as long as it doesn't cost too much. My main interest, after all, is in affordable audio, so the question in all these cases is whether the effect is noticeable in a modest system.
My conclusions: Shakti stones make no difference in my system; that EFI-reducing paper (can't remember what they call it): no effect. Power treatment (PS audio): subtle but unmistakeable effect. Power cord (PS Audio): obvious, positive effect (much to my surprise). Cable elevators: no effect.
If you have the budget, you can go with Meitner, dCS, accuphase, esoteric just to name a few and have the set-up as you've described (although each deals with the dsd stream differently). Personally, I think you'd be better off just getting a really good unit that plays excellent redbook as well as sacd and not stress out on it. There are lots of models in the 4-7K range and you'd be hard pressed to tell them from the Meitner gear that is so revered by the reviewers right now.Although the one posting suggesting that most sacd's are classical or chinese music is just silly, I would suggest you take a look at the offerings because the majority may not suit your taste.
Of course, the other thing to do is just pick up a decent vinyl rig and really be happy (listening to MoFi's Woodstock -- Arlo Guthrie -- right now...).
At least 80% of most peoples collections are CD and they are being made at higher and higher quality. I have compared Aquaphase which is a very good SACD player with the Audio Research CD 3 Mk. 2 and frankly the ARC CD player is way superior at playing CD's.
I don't know if 80 percent is the right figure esp. for the audiophools like those running around the asylum (I'd say I'm a bit atypical but 80 percent of my collection is vinyl with 10 percent sacd and 10 percent cd -- maybe its a generational thing). I can't really say about the cd playback of the ARC -- haven't heard it. However, I've got the accuphase dp100 transport and dp75v cd player (with sacd card) and I'd be suprised that the cd playback is so easily bested by the ARC. I've also got a MF Trivista sacd player and a Wadia 860se (heavily modded by GNSC) and the accuphase compares well with both on redbook (I still think that the wadia outdoes either the MF or the accuphase but the accuphase is reasonably close to the Wadia with the MF trailing behind on redbook).I'll try and give a listen to the ARC sometime -- sounds intriguing.
It will stick around for a while yet, but I don't see it taking over for CD's, especailly with the lack of home burners and an inability to copy them.In addition, you've got the next DVD format coming soon, with 10x the storage space of DVD-A/SACD discs, there won't be room for so many formats.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
Sony must be trying to boost sales a bit because sa-cd is going to be included on the upcoming high definition playstation 3 which will sell big.This should at least make sa-cd known to more Joe Average types imo.
Are you saying that you are reluctant to buy a DAC that will not accept a DSD (SACD) signal because of fear that SACD may someday be a dominant standard? What planet are you on, man? ;-) The chance of that happening is ZERO. Well technically it might be slightly more than zero but about as likely as the Sony Beta format making a come back.
I agree that while I do have some great sounding SACD's, I arleady knew this format was on shaky ground when I choose my player. I have a Marantz SA-14 that sounded great to me on either format.If you choose a d2a that is right for you don't worry about SACD. Most of the new material being released on SACD is eith classical or Chineese music, if these two genres of music aren't youre favortites I wouldn't even worry.
That is why I am asking....some people think zero, others think it is currently growing etc etc. This is why having it in a high end dac is good optionality. I would rather have it in and never use it then 3 years out find I want it and can't get it due to a manufacturer not wanting to or not being able to etc.Lets put it in perspective to explain things to your wife. Yes, we just dropped a bomb on a d2a that plays cds...only. No, sorry the dvd/sacd player we had to buy for the hdmi output to the new tv wont actually play sacd's on this. But trust me, it is no problem. I didnt waste any money buying cd only.
The option is better to have than not, even if I never use it. Heck, without it I can't even try it out as much as I would like to at this moment just to see what the hoopla is about.
If you have the budget for dCS equipment, this is a no brainer. Get the Meinter CDSD and DCC2. It's unquestionably *the* benchmark for SACD playback. Most people also consider it the best there is for Redbook playback, so you can have your cake and eat it too. If you buy the Meitner, you shouldn't have any regrets regardless of what happens to SACD.The people who have to make a hard decision are those who have $1-2k to spend and are considering whether to buy a universal player or a dedicated CD player/DAC.
How much will the Meinter CDSD and DCC2 combined cost? If he has money to blow and no concerns about SACD going bye bye I suppose he'll get what he needs out of this combo. A very poor investment in my opinion but some folks have money to burn. ;-)
Well, he did mention dCS in his first post and he asked about the Meitner gear above. The dCS stack (Verdi transport, Purcell upsampler, Elgar Plus DAC) goes for about $35k list and if you add the Verona master clock it's over $40k. The Meitner CDSD and DCC2 together are about $20k list and the DCC2 is also a reference quality pre-amp. Even if the guy never touches a single SACD, he will still be buying a Redbook source and pre-amp that compete with anything out there.Whether or not it's a very poor investment to spend $20k for a digital source and pre-amp is something I can't comment on because it's way out of my price range.
Yes, I did not mention budget in this post as was looking more for the general info over how concerned I should be on all these formats. I am hoping to come in for a transport/d2a/pre (all in one like Burmester 001, jason transport/medea d2a/rowland 2i preamp for example, cdsd/cdd2 meitner maybe) at 25k or under. A bypass for possibility of hooking up a surround sound processor 'through' they system to my amps would be 'bonus' - heck, it makes the 6 channel meitner interesting as well I guess.Upside of Burmester - under budget and beautiful. Downside of Burmester is no sacd and unlikely to ever accomodate it. I am replacing a Levinson 39 and don't really want all in one again either. They also have yet to reply to any emails for more information and discontinued their 'top line' transport/d2a which hardly inspires confidence in their uprgrade ability.
Meitner combos probably within budget. Not necessarily so keen on combining products (d2a/pre in one box) given my Levinson experience. Look a bit industrial for my tastes; the player in particular while the d2a is 'ok'. They do not accomodate more than 96khz processing - and I am not sure how important that is.
Weiss Jason/Medea and Rowland preamp gets me the modularity I like. Medea can accomodate greater than 96khz processing for what thats worth. Both companies are very responsive to queries via email. A ssp can control the synergy 2i in a surround sound setup. Downside is this is over budget, Weiss units I doubt will ever accomodate sacd regardless of their internal modularity - or at least not anywhere near cost effective so probably unlikely but I could be wrong.
These are my leading contenders at the moment. I do not want tubes. I might get vinyl at some point (which I could get a rowland phono amp for). I just want the most likely future proof front end - granted I know that is tough to do. The dcs is out of my price range and I do not want to buy used - it is also imho so heinously ugly that I just could not stand to look at.
Regards,
Meitner combos probably within budget. Not necessarily so keen on combining products (d2a/pre in one box) given my Levinson experience. Look a bit industrial for my tastes; the player in particular while the d2a is 'ok'.
You should see the Switchman pre-amp :)
You can use the DCC2 as a standalone DAC too. However, most everybody who has heard one prefers the sound when the DCC2 is connected directly to the amp, using its volume control. There seems to be a trend now to add volume control to high end CD players. I don't know who started it, Wadia maybe. Most everybody hears an improvement when they remove their pre-amp from the chain. But it's hard to take advantage of that feature unless you only have one source. That's one of the reasons why I like the DCC2. I hope we'll see more products in the future that combine a good DAC with minimalist pre-amp functionality.
However, I don't think the DCC2 offers a unity gain bypass option for its analog inputs, so if you connect an external surround processor or other multichannel source you'll have to calibrate at a known volume setting and return to the same volume setting every time you select that source - inconvenient.
They do not accomodate more than 96khz processing - and I am not sure how important that is.
Right now, it's not important at all. Only DVD-A can provide > 96k PCM, and DVD-A copy protection generally forces DVD-A players to downsample or disable the digital output. And even 96k PCM is only available on a handful of DADs (DVD-Video discs with unprotected hi-res PCM).
These are my leading contenders at the moment. I do not want tubes. I might get vinyl at some point (which I could get a rowland phono amp for). I just want the most likely future proof front end - granted I know that is tough to do. The dcs is out of my price range and I do not want to buy used - it is also imho so heinously ugly that I just could not stand to look at.
Unfortunately, I think "future proof front end" is an oxymoron. Even if the formats don't change, the state of the art in digital audio reproduction is moving fast. Within 5 years, it's likely that even the Meitner gear will no longer be considered state of the art.
And Abe is right that SACD is not likely to become a dominant format. It's still growing and new titles are being released all the time, but mostly classical, jazz, and asian music. The major labels who were putting out some pop & rock SACDs have given up for now. It's likely that SACD is going to stick around for some time as a favored audiophile format, but even the format's biggest proponents realize that it's not going to replace the CD.
Dave
It's all relative I suppose. If you can easily afford the $25k who am I to say what is or is not a 'good investment'. Any piece over about $5k gives me discomfort and makes me wonder if I really need it before I commit the cash. Your threshold of spending 'pain' is obviously much higher than mine.... or maybe you feel no pain at all. Best. ;-)
Trust me, it is painful. But I believe it is better to buy what you want the first time than something you don't only to end up upgrading later. If you know you want a ferrari and buy a bmw first, in the end you get the ferrari anyway and end up eating the depreciation on the bmw. So, why not save up and just get the ferrari in the first place and 'save' yourself money in the long run. I cheaped out the last time on my front end part of the system and it crapped out...so now I am needing to replace it and end up eating the cost of the Levinson. Funnily enough the speakers and amps I dropped a bomb on have been bullet proof and are not anywhere near in need of anything other than listening to.
I understand your reasoning but in my view it is flawed because:1) SACD will not become a dominant standard. I promise you that.
2) There are very very few DACs that accept DSD and they are extremely expensive. (IMHO, a very poor investment at this time).
3) A more reasonable approach would be to buy a very good SACD/CD player or universal SACD/CD/DVD player and not buy a DAC at all - or if the CD playback can use improvement, buy an outboard DAC just for CD playback.
I just got back from the Munich Show where we had a chance to talk to many people in the industry there about the future of SACD.I would say that the best-case scenario right now is that it holds on. In Munich there was no multichannel SACD demo, like there was in previous years, and absolutely no talk of it. Developers of SACD players seems to be slowing down with some of the big players offering two-channel SACD/CD player, which seems like it will be the high-end device to have right now, if you're into SACD, until something new comes along.
SACD has slowly been losing steam, and from what I learned in Munich, although it won't vanish, it's position in the marketplace will likely diminish further instead of grow.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: