Are Sony SACD Machine Owners Crazy??


I am sorry about the "tabloid" title..but another
post I did got little response on what, I think, is a real
question. Ie:.. many people have stated that the playback
of standard format cd's (16/44) on these SACD machines is
very good...indeed beyond things like Levinson..etc. The
question is ..in this age of "upsampling" 24/96..and beyond, how can these one bit/bit-stream (in "redbook" format) units
be so good? This is asking the owners of the model 1, 777,
9000..etc. Sony players..how can this be so. I had owned
the Xa-7es at one time, and thought that the excellent
playback was the FET analog stage...these new SACD machines
are all using OP-AMPS....not very "high-end". The concern
I have is that while we all hope for a format that will give
us analog sound in a digital format, the near-term concern
is what any unit...SCAD or DVD-A will do with my collection
of standard CD's?
whatjd

Showing 1 response by onhwy61

One thing that's very obvious from looking at the current high-end audio landscape is that there is a distinct lack of agreement as to what constitutes a good design. Tube vs. solid state, planar vs. dynamic drivers, no feedback vs. high feedback gain stages, cloth vs. metal dome tweeters, minimalist straight wire with gain vs. massive DSP based circuits -- the list goes on. Talented equipment designers are able to make superb sounding equipment based upon any of these design principals. As witnessed by a recent article in Stereophile and some of the above posts, there is a bias against op-amps in audiophile oriented equipment. However, Boulder, a high-end company if there ever was one, makes extensive use of op-amps. Should we dismiss the validity of Boulder designs because of this? I think not! As listeners, maybe we should pay less attention to circuit design and more to sound quality. I wonder how many of us are truly qualified to discuss the intricacies of circuit design?

BTW, I have a Sony SACD player and for normal CD playback I use an outboard DAC.