Makes sense to me Sol: I have been listening to some recordings tonight on CD "The Tiny Powell Gospel Collection" that were originaly recorded in 1949 and 1950 and had to take it to the mini system to make it listenable.
Fly in the SACD Ointment?
Yesterday, I almost got tears in my eyes going through the new audiophile format bin at Tower Records in New York. Spotting some old favourites in the SACD section, I was blissfully imagining throwing my CD player out my 17th story window and sitting down at a new system enjoying the best of analog AND digital. Then, it hit me -- even in the good old days, when I when I wouldn't dream of listening until I had Nitty Grittied my records, carefully cleaned the stylus, adjusted VTA, switched off the phone and dimmed the lights -- A LOT OF RECORDS STILL SOUNDED PRETTY BAD. Not nearly as bad (or as often) as a bad CD, but still pretty bad and ultimately unsatisfying which is what lead to my neurosis with this hobby and a never ending quest for great recordings in addition to great gear. So I am wondering -- maybe a $5000 SACD player and a new collection of software at $25 each is just going to take me back to bad analogue?!?!? Or is Sheffield Labs going to painstakingly remaster every title in the SACD catalogue? Has anyone thought about this or is there some magic to SACD that makes it all worthwhile, nonetheless. Maybe bad "analogue" without background noise and with greater dynamic range is still pretty special, but I really don't want to listen to Mannheim Steamroller in any format. Thanks for your thoughts.