|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.11.193.165
In Reply to: SACD compared to Vinyl ? posted by CLE on March 13, 2007 at 07:21:40:
I'd have to say that you've had more than enough great advice here to help you make an intelligent decision that you can surely live with happily. The question is, though, to what extent do you want to seek out this used vinyl that Kal and others have mentioned? It would take a long time and much money to collect the really good vinyl, and while everyone here appears to make you want to think that a bad sounding vinly LP was never made, that's just not true; I've got hundreds of them.Like Kal, I have thousands of records (about 3500 to be close to a full count), but some of them haven't been played in decades, or possibly as much as 35 years. I collected records starting about 1957, but stopped doing so in earnest about 12 years ago. Over the years, I had given away several thousands of older ones to make room for the newer ones. Sure, there has been the occasional purchase since i slowed down, but those have been used collectors' items that have never appeared in any digital format -- or if they had, the remastering was so bad as to render it useless to the avid audiophile.
As you get older though, you might decide, as I have, that the ritual for preparing an old LP for playback just isn't worth the time. I won't deny that LPs do sound better than digital recordings most of the time, but they're certainly far more inconvenient.
One poster mentioned that he doesn't play SACD all that often anymore, and I find this true chez moi also. In fact, just checking my collection database, I see that I've purchased only 29 SACDs -- 18 classical, 11 "other." And I'd venture that my SA-14 hasn't been fired up in a month or so. Why? Well, because it's my experience that there are literally hundreds more great sounding CDs in my collection than SACDs, and I have a CD-only player that sounds better than my SA-14. So, in order to preserve the SACD player for years to come without it becoming inoperable, I choose to use it only when necessary.
Having said all of that, I'd tend to disagree with all the well-meaning folks who've uged you to adopt vinyl playback, but only because you have placed a $2000 limit on the amount that you want to spend. For that kind of money, I don't believe that it's possible to put together a vinyl playback system that could rival the sound of a quality used SACD player that's been modified for optimum playback. Make it $10K and I'd be singing a different tune.
Follow Ups:
****and while everyone here appears to make you want to think that a bad sounding vinly LP was never made, that's just not true; I've got hundreds of them.*****
Amen! Many of the “vinyl lovers” that I know are really neophytes to the medium who have little meaningful experience with the format. They have a few (very few) cherry picked LPs that probably, in fact, do sound terrific. And they believe to the bottom of their shoes that what they have is representative of what the real world of vinyl is really all about. Much of the vinyl I have is flat out mediocre.As I pointed out in a response to one of Kal’s post many of the neo-vinylists that I know personally have decent turntable rigs but few have more than a 100 LPs and are really inexperienced with the good, bad and the ugly of the format. It’s no wonder that those of us who owned or have owned thousands of vinyl, while we do recognize it virtues, are not as enamored with the format as those who limit their collections to the “Absolute Sound” top whatever.
It was only during the late 70s and 80’s that I learned to avoid the really bad stuff. The consistency of good to excellent releases of SACDs is far superior to what was ever available on LP. I do acknowledge that CDs releases, at least, up until the time that I opted out of the medium altogether around 1990, did sound consistently worse to me than Lps. (Between 1990 and 1999 I bought almost no music. I did have hundreds of vinyl to sustain me). I have not found that (bad sounding) to be the case with SACDs, even after listening to very expensive turntable setups.
****I collected records starting about 1957***
I’d be really hearing your recollection of the transition from the mono era to the stereo era. I understand there were well entrenched prejudices against music lovers early adopted two-channels. In fact, I knew a couple of mono lovers who thought that two-channels were a gimmick (and this was in the late70s!). Was the transition smooth for you.
*****One poster mentioned that he doesn't play SACD all that often anymore, and I find this true chez moi also. In fact, just checking my collection database, I see that I've purchased only 29 SACDs -- 18 classical, 11 "other." [I understand you meant this year] And I'd venture that my SA-14 hasn't been fired up in a month or so. Why? Well, because it's my experience that there are literally hundreds more great sounding CDs in my collection than SACDs,****
I have little doubt that you have hundreds of great sounding CDs. Their seems to be a growing consensus (even in this forum) that CDs can sound great when compared to SACDs. I believe this consensus has damaged the credibility of two-channel SACDs beyond repair. Since I have almost no meaning full experience with CDs released after 1990, around which time my ears and brain simply could not take it any more, I assume that most of these CDs were released in the last 10-12 years are so.
As I have said before in this forum, I say this in all honesty, the Golden Age, for me, with respect to the quality of music reproduction in my home, is right now. Not 25 years ago, not 10 years ago, not with vinyl, CDs, or two-channel SACDs, but right now, today. The best recorded music I have ever experienced is sourced with multi-channel SACDs.
******I don't believe that it's possible to put together a vinyl playback system that could rival the sound of a quality used SACD player that's been modified for optimum playback. Make it $10K and I'd be singing a different tune.******
Regretfully, I may be coming to the realization that you might be correct on that one. I have listened to a couple of friends rigs (in their systems), one being a SME 10 system and the other being a lower cost Aries system. It is tough to make comparison under those circumstances and I may be able to have the SME rig in my house as a loaner. But based on what I can determine to meet my expectations, if I were to buy new, I will need to fork over about $8500-$10,000 for a turntable, tonearm, cartridge, matching phono pre, and in my case since I have a passive volume control, a phono pre pre.
From the better labels including Reference Recordings, Mofi, Groove Note, Harmoni Mundi, Dorian, BIS, Opus 3 and a real sleeper not generally centered around "audiophile" recordings per se but seem to have their act together very well when it comes to sound quality. The sleeper? ECM Records!!!And not only for sound quality sake. There is just so much more better music out there than lots of what has been released on SACD.
While the divorce is certainly final, the breakup was amicable and we are on friendly, albeit, limited terms. CD does have visitation rights.I may have given the impression that I have no more contact with CDs. That is not correct. I do have recent CD experience, probably more than most. True, I have only purchased or acquired few CDs recently, all jazz, the most recent being Scott Hamilton's "Nocturnes and Serenades" on Concord, The Classical Jazz Quartet (Kenny Barron, Ron Carter, Stefon Harris, Lewis Nash) "Play Rachmaninov"! on Blue Note, and Billy Hart "Quartet" (a Xmas gift) on HighNote. An interesting fact about the latter is that was recorded DSD on the Sonoma system. I have only purchased 25 or so CDs since 1999 (when SACD resuscitated my interest).
Also, I have a wife and young boys. There are CDs all over the house. But my serious CD listening is when several times a month friends come over to listen to music. 90% of the time they bring CDs, 10% of the time Lps), almost always jazz. Guess what they say, almost with unanimity? That CDs/Lps sound so two channel, so flat when compared to a live performance (recently we had a listening session immediately after leaving a jazz club) and that their favorite CDs simply don't hold a candle to the SACD multi-channel version when compared directly to the CD ("No Assembly Required" by Pieces of A Dream on Telarc). This is true even though previously they thought these same CDs were the cat's meow. Direct comparisons with SACD, especially multi-channel SACD are simply fatal to most CDs. I do acknowledge that very good CDs, and better yet very good Lps that sound great and are very enjoyable.
There is no question that CD is flush with good content and the 4000 SACD releases can't compete with that. But I can't listen to everything that I have already (on Lp, CD and SACD). And if I do have to have something that is not available on SACD, I will (and do) purchase the CD (or Lp). From that standpoint while I welcome more multi-channel SACDs into the catalog I really don't feel a dearth in music listening opportunities. Fortunately some of the labels you mention also release multi-channel SACDs.
Robert C. Lang
I happen to like vinyl quite a lot, and have a couple thousand LPs collected over 40+ years. And yes, many of them are audio stinkers, as are a few SACDs in my collection, and as are a comparable proportion of the many CDs I have purchased over the past 20 years. My vinyl taste runs to 50s and 60s small combo jazz, and at least on my setup, the LPs sound much better than most of the CD reissues of the same material. As you know, there is not a lot of jazz from that era on SACD, so vinyl is better way to go than redbook IMHO. But the SACDs of Monk, Coltrane, Davis, et al. that are available generally do sound terrific, with the vinyl reissues of the same albums running neck and neck. I think that many vinyl advocates are obsessive tweakers and tinkerers, and the work invested in keeping up a decent vinyl rig produces a form of cognitive dissonance reduction that biases their perceptions in favor of the LP. I know that I derive some odd pleasure from the daily rituals of vinyl that others would find quite annoying. And while I do enjoy SACD as a medium, my system is limited to 2 channel playback for a variety of social, economic, and environmental reasons. I have yet to hear a first class multichannel system, so I don't know yet what I am missing - there are only 3 specialty audio dealers in my area and none is setup for multichannel. Maybe that's a good thing - I need to top off my IRAs for 2006.
****I have yet to hear a first class multichannel system, so I
don't know yet what I am missing - there are only 3 specialty audio dealers in my area and none is setup for multichannel.***Welcome to the club. We have numerous specialty audio dealers in the San Francisco Bay Area and as far as I know *none* are set up for SACD multi-channel. Although you bet they can demonstrate HT multi-channel.
To get a SACD multi-channel demonstration you are strictly on your own to make it happen with the dealer.
Bob Woods of Telarc speakes to that very problem:
Robert C. Lang
Over time with CD, remaster after remaster in some cases (ie. Kind Of Blue), trial and error, different recording techinques and engineering with better equipment, etc. etc.SACD bases no claims to beat the top CD recordings released throughout the years, only the specific recording. No doubting with SACD the recording process is far from perfected which renders the name Super Audio a bit far fetched but I guess they needed to call it something.
The big benefit for which Robert Lang reiterates is multichannel and I agree. I unfortunately don't have the caliber of equipment he does. But I can hook up 3 add'l speakers to the Denon AVR3803 I have and hear the benefits depending on the specific recording and its quality.
Trouble here is most folks have high quality 2 channel amps and CDPs so the option isn't there nor is the interest for other reasons over and above that.Regarding vinyl, I chose to buy a $500 TT and a decent phono stage and buy used cheap LPs! That experience has been "priceless" and the resurgence is obvious.
CDs will have much better choice of software. And the original poster has 500CDs. Many people have not had a good jitter-free playback. They try to remove the digital nasties with cables, tubes etc. But once the jitter is fixed, then things get closer and closer to vinyl and sometimes I can understand when people say their digital beats vinyl (probably SACD or better recorded CDs).
Well I never really looked into improvements I can make regarding that as I have a XA777ES. Any recommendations or pointers where I may look to get some info regarding that?
What I meant to say about SACDs in my collection was that I've bought only 29 over the past two years.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: