right well most of the stuff I get is not recorded in dsd, so then that must be why.. its pcm remastered and converted to sacd I guess... |
No its not bashing, its just getting to the facts of the opposing formats and the advantages and disadvantages, but in 1999 I think SACD had a chance, and CD was a bit lower tier, but recordings now seem to be competing pretty well on standard DVD and CD... Its tuff. |
Yes, sir the BAT CD VKD5 I think is one I heard , VERY nice, but I love the wadia on redbook too... both great players, and I am glad people that are truly into the music found the path... SACD is nice but put the money where it really shakes things up, a good transport and even vinyl, its far more rewarding in the end I have found. |
Hmm, thats weird, some technical transfer issue... I have read some very strange things about sacd haveing almost a dog whistle effect on some younger humans and animals, with an ingrained kinda hi freq, pitch, I have heard this on a Bowie SACD that was the worst SACD recording I have heard to date. |
I can say this, that :
Sure Chesky and whoever can lay down Classical and Patricia barber all day, and be succesful on SACD...but for the more mainstream Audiophile it seems that many of the recordings are done on Hi-res just for that reason, to get the Audiophile to return to purchase another Sony stamped product that is in no way superior to its predecessors..
Now Dark side of the moon, for obvious reasons they could not fake the Upgrade as easily because all eyes and ears were watching on that one... but for most of the selection, Bowie, Neil young, or even Slipknot(I could care less but for a point) it becomes more of a marketing thing, and not even a very good one, because they have not pushed the format hard enough and In my Opinion, the last 5 years of Standard CD recording's Have truly Enhanced quite a bit, possibly due to the threat originally from SACD, I don't know, but just about any 2005 recording you purchase will unlikely fall short of your expectations to pretty good sound quality... I have even replaced some old 80's and 90's Cd's with current re-masters from about 2002 on up, and they absolutly sound as good as new Albums and even SACD... Why? Again I have no idea accept that the Standard Digital industry is finally catching up with itself, For Example BECK, SEA CHANGE is a very new Album, whether you are into the music or not I have tested it on the Standard CD and the SACD only release, the Standard Was as good if not better in some ways, Bass responce and all, had very good weight and overall very full nice smooth sound, Now the SACD was something Special in the Surround MODE, but casual Listening Head to Head 2 channel I would take the CD version... Whats my point, Nothing but the fact is technology has definatly advanced, but for Who? I think the old 16 bit system is starting to show its true capabilities as well if the recording is properly done in the first place. Surround sound Does still have its place, And Hybrid SACD's do sound excellent on the Redbook playback as well as SACD. |
Only question I have is , Who said it sounds worse then redbook once on this thread? Anyway, my only point was many redbooks that are newer do sound as good as many of the SACD's but not on a Sony player, but on very good redbook machines. I don't think anybody said all SACD's sound bad, just not that special, unless the redbook is from 92' then a remastered on a SACD or hybrid sounds better, thats all. |
True, sorry.... but I have to say I just decided from the thread to try another comparison, I bought a 2003 release of the Peter gabriel Shaking the tree, a best of kinda compilation, its a remaster I got from best buy yesterday and there is an SACD only disc I have too which is no longer used as I do not have the player, but going off memory as I heard that disc 100 times on my SACD, I can say the CD is just as good in general, and the SACD is only in 2 channel anyway so it would have some possible advantage if in 5.1 maybe? Again not slamming the format but, found the Redbook equivelant with a very good player, so it makes SACD less relevant, unless they had hundreds of titles worth buying for all music types. |
I am sure Acoustic music and classical in general are far better on a lot of SACD's due to the compression factors on CD, the same as vinyl not haveing that compression effect, but as you put it Processed music is definatly a different animal for Rock type style on CD and SACD, but I will correct my main statement and say More Modern Mainstream music gets little benifit from the SACD process as the CD counterpart if relatively current recording sounds just about as good. I am admitting however I listen to mostly rock, and some caught in between stuff like Bluesy, or Jazzy style, so Raw Voice, Piano, Acoustic guitar does in general sound better on Vinyl and SACD. So I will stand corrected and clarify. Thanks Robm321 |
I have to interject.... SACD is better, fine but agains a 5000.00 Ultimate redbook player??? It may even better it still in certain aspects, but lets go back to the ORIGINAL premise of my thread, I said there are some distinct advantages of SACD, but just in my opinion not to the MUSICAL sense extreme... So Untill you can put a TRUELY excellent dedicated Redbook machine with Recent CD' Quality recordings or HYBRID SACD, Not something from 1988, and A-B directly to the Same system you would be very surprised at the redbook development and comparison in sound... Hey ,SACD could still edge it out, especially in certain Genre of music, but in General, I find the Redbook an excellent format, Cheaper and way, Way, Way, sorry, WAY more Material and in turn Capability in the long run... But that is not to say the investment for those special recordings on SA' are not worth it... And Again I Gave up on the SACD journey only after Truly Hearing the Advantage of VINYL as everyone agree's in the end.. Yes it is a little more finicky, and truthfully I do not get bothered buy this, I listen maybe to one side of vinyl just for Kicks and really bringing back that natural sound and then Simply move on to very good Redbook and maybe get bored again and throw another side of vinyl in the mix... Its all about habits and enjoyment in the end, not the Superiority technically of each format... YES DVD-A could be super good for conveinence as you could fit from what I hear 10 albums on one disc with Excellent sonic results, its nice, but I don't mind getting up every 45 mins to play with the equipment. |
My guess is up to about the 1500.00 range SACD will get any player from redbook, you do have to advance quite a bit to grab the magic from a redbook Cd a little more.. So in the long run you could say Redbook actually cost more money to get right than SACD I can just about agree with that. A cheap CD player will not compete with SACD even in a Modest SACD player, so if you guys are basing on that then we are definatly comparing apples to oranges then. |
My guess is up to about the 1500.00 range SACD will get any player from redbook, you do have to advance quite a bit to grab the magic from a redbook Cd a little more.. So in the long run you could say Redbook actually cost more money to get right than SACD I can just about agree with that. A cheap CD player will not compete with SACD even in a Modest SACD player, so if you guys are basing on that then we are definatly comparing apples to oranges then.
and The fact is I was within SACD Small Scale, I would never tell anyone with a Collection of 500 titles to turn around and believe in Redbook and go backwards, this was a developed thread to show that Redbook is not an un-acceptable option in comparison done correctly,,, fista cuff to fista cuff, each will win their own battles, but I could never suggest anyone get into vinyl, although the advantages to some extent are big, its very hard to get good equipment, fairly expensive and takes some expansive knowlege to juice the best out of it, and you will pay near 25 dollars period for good and rare audiphile type vinyl copies, and time, convienence is out the window. But I had some funding to launch a pretty sweet setup, and its a new format to me never haveing vinyl before.
9 times out of 10 if shown the real advantages, I think the guy with 8 sacds will find that a used 2000.00 redbook player will benifit more greatly. but what do I know, I am not an engineer I just listen, also I always had to be on the cutting edge with Formats and Technology so logically I went straight for SACD lived with it for about a year, and got lucky to find the stronger options for myself, it was costly. Best advice I can give is Don't take anybodys word for anything, You have to experiance it first hand to learn and educate yourself on anything in the world, then you have the power to accept or reject and option.
by the way DVD and HD have been far succesfull for me being newer formats, SACD just can't pull enough to hold my attention |
Ben_campbell, You caught the Whole point of this forum... I did use some strong words in order to ENGAGE interest in the topic, it is not to say anything is wrong with supporting or denying a certain capability of a format, it was about the Bottom line... MONEY, LIVEING with your choices and Mainly directed to someone with Little experiance in Wanting to dive into the thousands that can be spent on SACD or even DVD-A and end up on a dead end road... Or a split road of is it important enough vs. very capable and nearly as good sounding equipment.... Sure if SACD can revive a 40 year old recording and make it Many times better than CD format could clean it up I BELIEVE IT... Beyond that it is all slight of hand in making huge improvements in the Digital quality medium. READ my EXPERIANCE on the first post, it was not negative at all, it was just a little informative as to the pitfalls and cost, thats it. |
Oh and, If you are looking to dive into SACD or DVD-A and there is a LARGE or even small scale percentage of discs, lets say at least 20-50 or even 500 titles that have strong interest to you GO FOR IT!! buy a Good universal and ROCK... Its great, but I have about 15-20 titles that would make sense for me, and actually was able to eliminat that need with Hybrids and Remasters that work 95% as well on a very good redbook player... so In my options, SACD is just really not in the cards anymore. Its that simple guys... but I do have to admit, I have not heard a UNIVERSAL player(we are not talking a Dedicated) SACD player that has sounded as good as straight and Strong redbook, but sounds decent on all 3 Redbook, SACD, DVD, whatever, MP3... if you want that go for it if you can build a resonable library out of it, but Ben_campbell maybe we do not have that capability, we are the minority in this case and 90% of the guys on this board go for mostly SACD titles and that is great that this occured for them. |
Tvad 99% redbook on an SACD player, or do you have a dedicated seperate?? Just curious not to be argumentative, just would like to know, obviously we cant all get our hands or wallets on top SACD and be able to to have a super extensive collection. Hell I only own maybe 150 cds period!! I just found the route of an excellent Redbook used was the easiest and most effective, But sure I guess it could be possible an SCD-1 Sonys could be very sweet on both formats, but have not had that experiance I just toyed with the Kill 20 birds with one stone approch in Universals and that. But I'll hand onto the WADIA I have truly never heard Redbook better, and I did get to hear the SCD-1 in a store once, but without direct comparison obviously nobody could make claims one sounds more correct than the other.. |
Check this out guys, I stole it from another forum, I completly agree Wadia for whatever reason has it right, What is funny is on my Unit it has "INVERT" which essentially plays the disc backwards I guess, not physically but the bits (zero's and One's) and it SOUNDS way better with the invert on many discs, its part of the wadia Digimaster system I believe, and This was the thing that really added the edge against SACD, it sounds so Holographic and like a 50ft high soundstage out of this player on standard redbook that I did not look back on SACD after hearing for sometime.. not to say this will be everyones experiance but is mine...
This is the post that reminded me, wadia knew something and WHY have they not Embrassed SACD???
06-21-05: Lawdog_949
In my opinion, the single most important factor is probably making sure that the digital signal is "clocked" as close the the DAC as possible. Many later models of of high end manufacturers now recognize this, and some, like Wadia, recognized the problem years ago which is probably a major reason why their stuff sounds so much better. But most transport/dac combos out there clock the signal at the beginning which means all the jitter resulting from the reading process gets sent along with the signal and are not dealt with in the DAC process.
I have a DVD-A and SACD playback system so I used a Sony SACD player for SACD and a the transport of a Pioneer "elite" unit for the DVD-A coupled with a MSB "gold" dac. I had serious problems with the jitter with that combination so I bought a Monarchy "jitter box" which not only reclocks the digital signal before sending it to the DAC but also upsamples cds to 24/96 kz.
I found a used upper end Denon SACD machine that played back SACD so well that I couldn't tell the difference between the $2000 Sony and the much cheaper Denon. The Denon let me scrap the Pioneer transport so all the units can be plugged together. The Monarchy box which lists for $299 (although they are dumping the units for $199 right now on the Monarchy web site as they are about to release something new to replace it) does such a good job that my DVD-As and upsampled cds sound better through it and the MSB than those processed by the Denon (better bass dynamics and "slam". . In fact, the upsampled cds sound better through this configuration than the upsampled cds through the Sony unit (which won't process DVD-A, the bastards!).
Hope this info is helpful! |
Okay.... I agree, drop 10,000 and it better take a step above 5000.00 just not always the case. So be it, if you can get the 8000.00 universal to be as good on all formats and better than an 8000.00 dedicated Redbook even on redbook , more power to you and if we could have access to this equipment without haveing to buy it to test used, which is mostly the case unless you have dealers in every state that carries every one of these variations, and Meitner or whatever modified machines we will all never find the holy grail as it is called.. So be happy with what you have, if you can make a step towards a very high expense in experimentation do it. This is an audio site for opinion, but seems that points are taken in the wrong direction completly, and we are all Long winded inferior writters in the end trying to prove something, but never come to an answer. Good luck, live on, I have said my peace.. Thanks guys for making it competitive and hopefully with the 9000 posts of jargon someone can come up with an idea of what it all means in the end. |
Well, I did not spend anywhere near any of those prices for a used wadia... I am content for now. Plus again I experimented enough at this point, and the fact is I do not miss the 2 or 3 SACD discs that made improvements, and definatly do not miss the ones that sounded worse... And I swear that a bowie and aerosmith SACD fell to redbook... but they were just bad recordings. If everything was available then I would definatly go back to a universal with plenty of titles to choose, but I think that train has parked in the sony camp, and may never see the capabilities of SACD universally to all music. |
Maybe this is Why Y2K never really happened, it has something to do with SACD vs. CD? Myths and audio legends... Who knows
(man I hope people do not take this all seriously) |
Its okay 99% of the world thinks were nuts anyway, especially if become aware of how much we spend to find audio answers and they can't even brind themselves to break the bank and buy a 400.00 receiver at best buy. So I can understand, damn I should've just bought a super sweet Plasma and everyone could enjoy!! oh well, back to the dungeon to listen to some overly well produced music. |
Sorry for the spelling and grammer mistakes in above post...I had no time. |
Yeah, there will always be decisions on all types of things. Formats, equipment, what is necessary what is not. But after about 6 years and nobody changing from Recording in the standard PCM to DSD in general and taking a chance on putting out pure SACD discs we just will get a few very interested in SACD. But my real point was In re-masters the SACD layer has not completly impressed me so if we go on the hybrid layer of SACD it is more or less determined it does sound about as good on redbook as playing the SACD layer unless running it in surround sound on a 5.1 disc. I never owned a DSD direct disc from the recording all the way thru so I guess my point is not valid as to the capability of SACD, so sure it is capable and in the end technology is advanced over Redbook, but if your looking to replace a portion of a collection of Horrible sounding CD's with SACD only disks then to me its definatly not worth it If you can get it remastered recently or a Hybrid SACD, and just play it back on an excellent redbook player I find it better off, However when possible I will purchase the Hybrid's if available over a standard CD as it has proven to me to sound better as well. Excuse the run-on sentences but its very hard to make technical points this way quickly. |
