I heard a direct comparison (by reservation) of the SACD at the CES in Vegas last month. I was sitting with a reviewer from a prominent high end audio magazine. The people at Sony played Miles Davis, Joni Mitchell and other music that I was familiar with. After the demo, the reviewer and I walked into the hallway and he said, is this what all the SACD talk is about? This is better than CD perhaps, but just as far away from vinyl as it ever was. I personally think that unless a person has heard the ultimate that LP has to offer, you cannot say what it does against SACD. I certainly hope that the demo at the CES, in spite of the money spent by Sony and others, does not fully represent what this format can do. I have stated in other postings that the sound at the CES is generally bad, however it is still possible to separate what is tolerable and what is not. In general, digital is not tolerable for me at all. I have really tried too, there was a period of seven months, at the end of my five year journey into digital, when I used all of my favors and influence to obtain every combination of digital player, converter, etc. that I could get my hands on. There was a monumental test between all of them to see what was the best (judged by a group of not less than four or more than nine people on most sessions). In the end, I gave up on digital altogether, and sold all (over 2000) CD's. I have no built in hatred of any format, and I sincerely wish that SACD would beat my turntable. Heck, I wish I could even listen to SACD against my turntable and not be thinking all the time about putting the LP back on. I will admit, that I have about $30,000 just in the source and front end (not counting the preamp or any of the rest of the system) and perhaps that has everything to do with my tests (although I had tens of thousands of dollars worth of digital against it too). The SACD is not expensive by that standard. I should say here, that I have heard a direct master DAT pulled from the mixing board from a recording session by Delos. It was jacked into a stereo system belonging to one of the members of my audio group. That was the only time I ever heard digital sound good. My friend who was playing me this master tape was the performing artist on the tape. He, in fact, was one of last years Grammy Award winners, and when not playing his own performances (that he has direct masters of) he listens to a turntable. He records in digital because that is what he's paid to do, and it is what is convenient and what sells to the general public. When all the commercial stuff is over, and its time to listen to music, the LP goes back on. He has one entire wall covered in vinyl. A note also, in a brief discussion I had with the People at Sony, they admit that they have a very limited library coming at this point. They even stated that their best hope of making the switch to SACD successful, will be from analog recordings (what LP is), or new music, yet to be recorded. He agreed that much of the existing digital was pretty miserable, and that it was not possible to make more of it than is was when it was recorded. So, one can wait and hope for the next generation of yet to be recorded artists and hope that the antique masters in the vault will make yet one more transfer or, you can take advantage right now and enjoy most of the greatest music ever recorded in a format that is still available, in literally hundreds of millions of copies, pressed over the last 50 years. Much of it pressed from the tapes when the tapes were barley weeks old! This makes the LP the only true archival format for this great music, as much of that tape is now falling apart or has already done so. |
The subject was on the question of SACD and how it compared to older formats. It is important to consider that currently there are not enough software titles available for any serious music lover in SACD format. Even if there were 1000 titles, right now, how many would be the type of music that would suit you? Next, LP's as pressed today are extremely good, and yes, many even better than the original. But my point was, that there are thousands of master tapes that have NOT been properly cared for, and the album made when that tape was new, is the only remaining way to hear that music. I have thousands of albums, and I own many of the Mosiacs and most of Classic Records and Acoustics Sounds library, But, I guess it boils down to whether you want to have available the selection of any and all the music that existed in the last 30 to 50 years, or you wish to wait until enough of what remains in good condition on tape to be transferred to SACD. For me personally, I do not want to wait for that to happen, even if it worked out to be equal to LP. And, I do not believe it will be equal anytime in the near future. As far as the CD digital versus LP issue, you are entitled to your opinion, but among all the people in the audio business, it is pretty much common knowledge that the CD is not capable (not even possible) of making equal music to analog. Simply stated, the less quality you try to extract from a CD, generally the better off you are. There is a limit to what can be gotten from one, and once that threshold has been crossed, you hear a lot of stuff that is pretty nasty. Perhaps what all this comes to is that everyone posting here may well have equal hearing, and possibly even the discipline to test properly. However, if a system is pushed far enough, you get to the point where only LP will work. DCS upsampling, SACD and all the converters that I have tried do not equal LP. We can argue the point and there will be NO WINNER. I have my experience and you have your experience, and I doubt either one will change his mind. Next, we could argue about what is the best color, or tastiest food, or the prettiest girl. But unless you and I had the same experience on the subject, we would differ. You do not know my standard for listening, and I do not know yours. So be happy, and don't worry if I or anyone else does not agree about your choice in format. By the way, my extreme viewpoint comes from testing once or twice a week with a group of audiophiles. We have been meeting for 23 years. Before that, I was the factory rep. in 5 states for Infinity, Ampex, Yamaha, Sennheiser and M.B. (Germany). I was the technical rep. for JBL, and specified systems for recording studios and sound reinforcement. I also ran three high end audio stores, and previously or currently do advertising for 14 high end audio manufacturers. Many of which are hot topics on this web site. It is difficult, if not impossible, to not have an extreme viewpoint, it comes with the extreme exposure I have had with music. Last, you throw around figures about a 2 million dollar amp speaker combo, you seem to equate that money equals quality. While it is true that there is never "something for nothing," it is very easy to pay too much and not get what you paid for. There are things in my system that are $3.00 that won against things that cost $200.00 and there are things that cost $30,000.00, that I believe was the only choice. The price is not always the way to determine the end result. Its the music. |
And I said nothing about double blind testing. The reason for a group of people listening and testing together is so no one person controls the outcome of the test. The music is chosen based on what multiple people like, and subsequently this forces all of us to evaluate what the system can do in a variety of situations. Additionally, the equipment being tested is also available for use in the other members sound systems. The group owns (or owned) many types of equipment, from Atmasphere, Tube Research, Audio Research, B&W, McCormack, Soundlab, VIVA, Wolcott, Vandersteen, JM Labs, Aesthetix, Counterpoint, EASE Audio, Jadis, Basis, Graham, Versa Dynamics, Keuwetsu, Benz, Walker, and this is just a fraction. If you think that a single persons opinion is more value than a group of people, all testing together, then your logic is certainly different than ours. When a piece of equipment "works" on three, four or five systems, then that is a damn good sign that it is a winner. Or, if a piece of equipment fails on all the systems, it obviously has problems. Secondly, I disagree that I need the ultimate in equipment to get the most out of upsampling. The fact is that the CD format is limited in information (not to mention the brick wall filter, which causes phase problems) and you cannot get information (or restore phase) where it does not exist. The WHOLE reason for the SACD format was to rectify the problems with the old format, and give the industry a shot in the arm with new sales. CD format was established 20 years ago, and is ready for a face lift. How would you like to have a computer or any other digital based piece of equipment that is 20 years old, and try and make it the ultimate by plugging in a correcting device. Just as computers have upgraded each year (did I say YEAR?) The CD format has desperately needed upgrading for many years. The CD itself is the problem, not just the digital format. That is why I made the comment in the other posting about the master DAT tape sounding better. It is flawed, but not as flawed as the CD. Especially in the case I was describing, when it was a master and had not been resampled or downsampled from the original source. The CD cannot be corrected by any device, at least not corrected in the sense of making it into analog. The sampling rate is limited by the 20 year old format that now must be adhered to, to assure format compatibility. I would not disagree with you that upsampling is superior to not using it. BUT, it is still a poor contender for analog. The CD format was argued about, and like many things, pressed onto the public before it was perfected. However once the format was set, because it is digital, it cannot be changed, until a new format can be launched that is cross compatible. The LP was replaced for many reasons. First and foremost, it is more expensive to produce. The number is actually about 6 times. So, if you were Sony, Phillips, etc., and you also happened to own a lot of music (CBS) would you like to make a few hundred million dollars extra? And DONT THINK it is NOT about MONEY. The LP was a burden for the music industry because of all of the following reasons: More cost to make, heavier to ship, more likely to break in shipping, more returns due to "defects" (remember most people don't know how to set up a turntable, and therefore blame the LP), more space required to display, more storage area required for both the distributor and the re seller, inability to replace a defective (damaged) cover (all you need with CD is a new Jewel Box). And, the LP does not lend itself to be used as a portable source. All of these reasons contribute to the desire for the music people to push the CD. So, again, I state that CD is inferior in sound, not in popularity or profit margins. And, if you are getting better sound out of upsampling than you do from your LP, either your system is not pushed out to the limit, or your turntable needs upgrading. If you believe that your LP is better, and you simply like your CD player and the upsampling system you use, because you have a ton of music that is not on LP, and you want to listen to it, then I don't know what all this discussion has been about. Play it and enjoy it! |
"Snook2", if you will please give me your e-mail address, I will e-mail you so we can trade phone numbers, that way we can speak in person. I would be glad to pay for the call. Maybe you live near enough that you could join us in one of our music listening sessions. It is most often at my home. Sometime there are visitors that are very interesting. One is the Grammy winner that I spoke of, and one is the owner of the number one web site for audio, two own audio manufacturing companies, one is the importer for a line of audio product from Europe. All in all a super group of nice guys to listen with and learn from. By the way, I wish I knew who "Jazzman" was as well, I have read his postings for a good while now and he has a lot of things to say that not only agree with, but find very interesting. |
"Snook2", if you will please give me your e-mail address, I will e-mail you so we can trade phone numbers, that way we can speak in person. I would be glad to pay for the call. Maybe you live near enough that you could join us in one of our music listening sessions. It is most often at my home. Sometime there are visitors that are very interesting. One is the Grammy winner that I spoke of, and one is the owner of the number one web site for audio, two own audio manufacturing companies, one is the importer for a line of audio product from Europe. All in all a super group of nice guys to listen with and learn from. By the way, I wish I knew who "Jazzman" was as well, I have read his postings for a good while now and he has a lot of things to say that not only agree with, but find very interesting. |
Carl, you are definitely one poster who needs a category of "argument" rather that "discussion" as a button to push at this site. I think you are more interested in making wise cracks than stating your position. Or, perhaps wise cracks IS your position. The grammy winner happens to conduct live music, and there is very little compression in that. Of course you know everything about everything, so I guess all of us in the old folks home should turn off our hearing aid and bow down to your superior intellect. I certainly wish now that I had left you to argue with poor old Mikeam about Porsches, rather than try to discuss the subject of music. My guess is that you got your anger and bad attitude from listening to jagged sound, perhaps a Krell amp. Did I get it right? |
Calloway, I sincerely hope that you are right about SACD. I stated in one posting that the CES was not a proper place to listen as the results were often poor there. I will try SACD in my home (you are correct, that IS the proper place), as soon as there is sufficient software to consider the purchase. As I already said, I have no particular hatred for any format, just would like it to sound as much like real music as possible, and have a good quantity of software available. DVD has proven to take off very well, so maybe the time between introduction and practical and usable products has been shortened. |
Carl, I Could not agree with you more. And I am sincerely sorry if my postings back to you caused you any anguish, it became a game for both of us. The emotion that all of us audiophiles feel when we get the music better than the last time, makes us continue the fight. It is difficult to be unbiased, because all of us experience the same joy, but through different media (and pieces of equipment). I am sincerely happy that you enjoy CD. My teen age son loves them, and I care more for him than my own life. And as long as I am being totally honest, I saw a posting where you defended Krell, so it was a chance to mess with you. It might interest you to know that the Symphony Conductor and Grammy Winner uses Krell amps and Conrad Johnson ART preamp in his reference system (I am not joking). Best to you and your quest for excellence in music! |
David99. You have described my addiction exactly. I spend a lot of time at used book stores, Public Library Sales, Record Shows and especially on EBAY. The other day I noticed that there were over 90,000 (yes ninety thousand!) Just records! Posted on EBAY. Even if I only like 10 percent of what is posted, its enough to last me for a lifetime, even if I didn't have to work for a living. |
Yes, analog has problems, so does every format. I like to compare digital to a "connect the dots" picture that children like to draw. After the dots are connected, you can make out the image of the object that the dots represented, but all those straight lines loose the grace and dignity of the object. Yes, it is recognizable, and yes the lines can even be drawn in with a protractor to a more graceful shape, BUT it still does not pass for a good drawing. The point I am making is that there are simply not enough dots in the puzzle to explain a great drawing, and at least in the current digital format, there are not enough samples (or dots) to mathematically present a correct musical presentation. This is not to say that digital cannot be fun or satisfying, but the errors are the type that make it difficult (for me) to set aside my disbelief, and be passionate about the music. |
I am pleased with the postings here. At least they are on the subject of music. Even a disagreeable posting at Audiogon beats the heck out of what's on my television in the front room. Carl has given me some hard words too, but we "fought" it over and we both survived it and now continue with our quest. I certainly understand the positions taken on all sides of these issues, from the strong personalities, format choices, equipment, and even set up. I am certain that a great deal of this conflict is because ALL OF YOU give a damn enough to fight for your belief in the music and the passion that accompanies it, and for that, I am most grateful. Remember, knowledge and experience are more valuable when they are shared. I hope everyone will try to make that experience easier and more fruitful. |
Bmpnyc, I could not help but notice your comments about analog VS digital. I agree that digital will win in the end. But not for the reasons that you state. After all, there are more McDonald's than steak houses, and CD's are a perfect answer and a simple solution to those who want their appetite satisfied without hassle. However, I'll bet that you are more near my age than some of the young people who post here, and I'll also bet that you have never owned a decent LP playback system. You somehow think that because you graduated to digital that you are now on the cutting edge. Its comforting to think that you can achieve state of the art without having to spend your hard earned cash, but the digital solution is the ultimate (cheap) solution. I agree that if a person only has $150.00 for a playback that digital rules!! However this is a audiophile (high end) posting site as well, and there are those of us that don't limit our systems performance based on dollar amount. That is not to say that there are not wonderful systems at every dollar point, but I still contend that if you are after the ULTIMATE performance, analog is it. I even agree that digital will win over analog for the ultimate performance in the end, but it may be when I am too old to care or even worse, dead. A perfect analogy is the digital camera compared to (analog) film. I do photography for a living, and I work for some very large companies all over the world. The new night time viewing system in Cadillac is built by Raytheon. This week I had some very sensitive government equipment in my studio for photography by that same company (Raytheon). They build equipment that you can only imagine (for the military). Guess what format was specified for the job? Yep, horse and buggy, 4X5 film, just like M. Brady used in the Civil War days. Guess who requested it? Yep, on of the top defense contractors in the USA. My point is that the 4X5 camera is still the ultimate in resolution (unless you compare to 8X10 or 11X14 format and film), but digital cannot currently match this resolution, even with a new Leaf or Sinar back at $30,000.00. If you doubt this, I can give references for you to call and confirm. My issue is not if digital is enjoyable now, not that it will win (eventually) in the end in some years from now, but rather RIGHT NOW I WANT THE BEST THAT THERE IS, and it, like my $25,000.00 View camera, is another expensive antique format that has resolution beyond anything most people have ever experienced. |
Bmpnyc, great story about the industry. Do you know Russ Burger from JPR, the design group for Sony/CBS. He and I used to work together when I was a rep for a bunch of audio lines some years ago. He too ran a Recording studio, and even did some work for commercials as well. His experience with JPR landed him the job of keeping Woody Allen's NYC apartment quiet and isolated from the annoying sound of the nearby elevators. Russ absolutely hated CD, and the last time I spoke to him, he seemed to have not changed his mind. On to the other topic, your comments about digital imaging being new is true, compared to film. And true too, the CD is 20 years old. However, the CD format was set "in stone" 20 years ago and cannot be altered or there would be compatibility problems. And digital imaging can and does change frequently, as different systems are introduced. The good news is with digital cameras, at least the professional versions, is that it need only fit the existing "film" cameras in the area where normally the "old" film format goes. The primary ones are designed to fit professional cameras like I use, Hasselblad, and view formats like the Sinar 4X5 camera from Switzerland. Back to audio, the comment about listening to a turntable, I hope that it will be with a great cartridge, tonearm, and superior phono stage. If not, you still will not have heard analog at it's best. I have stated in other postings that I would love for digital to be in my system, and I was sincere. Perhaps things have changed drastically since three years ago when I had my big digital "shoot out". I had Theta, Krell, Number Cruncher, Wadia, Sonic Frontiers, Barclay, CRC, Audio Research to name a few. The tests went on for almost seven months, and end the end I was frustrated. I could not find a digital system that delivered the quality of resolution that my high end turntable did. By the way, if you are looking to test a turntable, go no lower than the big VPI or Basis. It would be Preferable to listen to a Walker or Clear Audio. |
