What is the answer for a "2-Channel Person" who wants great sound without the "snap, crackle, and pop" of the LP?
The answer to that part of the question is buy a good quality turntable and set it up correctly. There will be no snap crackle and pop.
As for longevity, LP will still be around and so will SACD and redbook.
i disagree. i use rumours as one of my reference redbooks. sounds utterly fantastic. (at least the release i have does)
That's very interesting about "Rumours". I don't believe there has been any remastering or revision of the original mid-80's CD. The dismal quality of my copy is noticeable on every player I have ever tried. My only recourse has been "The Dance".
I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong on the "Rumours" issue.
Alas, no amount of setting up, tweaking, adjusting, cleaning, polishing, or praying will eliminate the snap, crackle, and pop. You just have to learn to listen around it.
Would that it were not so. Many of us would still be listening to vinyl.
I was actually perusing at the local music emporium the other day and came across a couple SACDs that were a) actually in the bin with the other CDs, where you would most naturally find them, and b) albums I wanted. Getting a player is not a big deal if the software is there. Being able to buy titles for less than an outrageous premium is definitely an issue. In any case, it was the first time it REALLY crossed my mind that SACD capability would be good to have. -Kirk
The sad thing regarding SACD owners is:discovered latter they pay more for less!!HE,He,He,He.Sorry
I have to agree with Albertporter. In a correct anolog system, even less-than-pristine albums will play quietly. Proper tracking and a quality, well designed phono stage will remove nearly all of the "snap, crackle, and pop" that was not removed by proper record cleaning. Any remaining scratches and such will be rendered to the smallest type of "click" that is easy to disregard. Most scratches are not nearly as bad as they sound. They just overload the hell out of a mid fi phono stage which then blasts the hash out through your speakers. I can assure you that Albert's Aesthetix IO phono stage will not engage in any of that nasty type of activity. Nor does my MFA tube phono stage. Nor will a Naim phono stage. I prefer the tubes, but for a SS phono stage, the Naim is nearly overload proof. I played thousands of used records that didn't look too good through my Naim preamp years ago, and the clicks and pops were negligable. A quality front end AND phono stage are a requirement for enjoyable analog listening. DO NOT skimp on your phono stage.
About the SACD, I use SACD and I hope it is taking off. I look forward to many new releases, but am not too wild about the Rolling Stones. I would definitely go for a Supertramp "Crime of the Century" however. Or a Mercury Living Presence "Khachaturian Violin Concerto". Or David Bowie "Alladin Sane". Or Joni Mitchell "Miles of Aisles".
The real answer is as Albert and I both do. We both have the Sony DVP-S9000ES CD/SACD/DVD player and an analog system. We play what we can on the turntable, and what is available only on CD or SACD, we play on the Sony. That way you get the best sound you can from whatever format the music is available on. By the way, I just bought over 100 near mint records from a used record store for $1 each. Eat your heart out.
Ah, another thread of wishful thinking about the viability of SACD (and DVD-A). With due respect to CB, even a release of an old Rolling Stones recording will not make SACD a success. The reality is that, barring a major change in the market, there are simply too few serious listeners today who are willing to pay for SACD and DVD-A releases. The sales figures for CD's have been headed downward for the past two years, and given the state of the economy it will be necessary for the newer formats to provide better audio quality than CD's, at lower prices, with a significant number of contemporary artists (not just people who are either dead or getting there), and direct digital output on playback machines (which ain't likely to happen any time soon, given the recording industry's paranoia about copy protection), or they simply won't attract enough people to generate the sales volumes necessary to satisfy the major labels. The moral to this story is: don't sell your LP's and CD's just yet....
Interesting comments on Rumours and Crowded house .... my CD of Rumours is quite bright but listenable, but my CD of Woodface by Crowded House is one of the best sounding CDs I own. Which Crowded House CD did you not like, and would you characterize your system as rather bright in the first place ?
IMHO nothing will make SACD take off since the vast majority of the population listen on systems that are not able to distinguish CD from SACD. CD beat LP because of convenience ... I can't see that SACD will ever be more convenient.
Unfortunately, the digital domain is still in it's infancy. I doubt very much if the spinning disc actually survives whatever lies ahead for this format. The NASA tech briefs sometimes give a glimpse into the future of the digital world. Houston, analog has landed.
Like many others posting on this thread I too ran to my CD archives and pulled out my copy of Rumors. I have it playing right now as I type. Ok, I admit it sounds very flat and dry, see what happens when you stop using drugs :^)
It's no wonder the only Fleetwood Mac that ever gets any airplay in my system is *The Dance* on DVD. This is actually one of my reference discs when making changes to my H/T system or trying to impress friends (Track 9 & 10 are about worn out)
Despite the poor quality of this particular disc I'm still not ready to commit to another format change, Not till the war is over.
As far as I'm aware Rumours has never been remastered and it does have that typical mid-80's flat,quiet,dead sound that some early CD's have.
A friend of mine commented recently the Rumours tracks on a Fleetwood Mac greatest hits sounded a lot better than on the original CD.
As much as I'd like to see the new formats take off-I agree with my namesake Sd's post which accurately states the economic and market reasons why the odds are against them.
Interesting to note that Meridian's new state of the art digital set up,some £10k's worth ($16.5k?)totally ignores SACD-they've went DVDA with no plans for SACD...and even then the top man said he wasn't sure either format would survive
It's not that strange that Meridian are backing DVD-A as it is their code , the so called "loss less packing" that is used for DVD-A.
Bishopwill, your lack of experience with proper analog setups renders your comments uninformed and irritating as well.
If you believe the record companies invented and promoted the compact disc to help us audiophiles achieve high quality results you are sadly mistaken.
Albert Porter states that SACD and redbook (cds)will be around for a long time. My understanding is the redbook cd's have an expected life of 10-15 yrs; at some point physical decay sets in. Please don't laugh at this comment. I enjoy both cds and lps, but I've read along the way that cds will not have a long life. Has anyone read similar things?
I agree with Famaraca, why pay more for less! I agree with Sean , 80% of the population are not about to upgrade to SACD player. And not even upgrading their speakers or amps. SACD is a big gamble for Sony and Philips. The investment loss is a drop in the bucket in their loaded pockets, especially Sony (Sony , MADE IN CHINA, worth half what you pay) It's a shame that Philips channeled the SACD research into their version of the "Capitole" at a fair price. It's amazing how labs get blindly carried away with tech! New is not always better, most often it's not. I mean they already have the transport down to the worlds best..??? Anyway i've worked up a nice classical cd collection, i one of the majority that will remain a "plain old cd" owner.
Calm yourself, Albert. My goodness, such upset about such a little thing. I regret that you were offended; such was not my intention.
The fact is that I had several thousand LPs for many years, a fine analog setup, and a very dedicated and careful approach to cartridge and arm setup and record cleaning. As twl notes, good equipment reduces impulse noise. It does not totally eliminate it as you very well know. Some people "find it easy to disregard" as twl observes. Others do not.
I'll ignore your remark about CDs as it had nothing to do with my post and does not speak to my opinions.
This is supposed to be fun. Let's let it be so.
Newton: I seem to recall some early concerns about the quality of adhesives used in CDs or something, but that was a long time ago. I've got CDs that old or older, and they're fine. Old news, my friend.
As for SACD, it will not "arrive" until Britney's *next* album appears simultaneously on CD and SACD. Don't hold your breath.
My comments about CD being around for a long time was referring to continued production for the millions who own the hardware to play them. I was not referring to the archival qualities of the format.
I have some early CD's issued in 1983, and they still look and play fine (though they don't sound particularly good in retrospect!).
VINYL IS FINAL. WHO CARES ABOUT THE DIGITAL WARS AND THE FORMAT OF THE MONTH.THE ONLY REASON DIGITAL TOOK OFF IS BECAUSE OF MARKETING,MALPRACTICE AND MENOPAUSE.YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN,AND LAZINESS TOO.IT STILL BRINGS TEARS TO MY EYEYS THAT THEY FOOLED SO MANY PEOPLE,THE SAME ONES WHO STILL THINK BOSE ARE THE BEST SPEAKERS.OH BY THE WAY, I SAW BAD COMPANY IN CONCERT MONDAY NIGHT IN THE BEACON THEATRE, N.Y.C. THET WERE FANTASTIC AND PAUL RODGERS IS THE MAN.
Was it a LOUD concert, Captain? Don't have your hearing back yet, eh?
I wasn't ever impressed on SACD compare to the regular red-book CDs or HDCDs. Why jump over there if we still can't read enough from the red-book CD? SACD automatically implies on the more complicated equipment that maybe have a future but for now it simply sucks.
Face the fact: from my simple listening test between two sources a good CD player(Gamut CD1) still outperforms a good SACD player(SONY SCD1) in both playbacks especially on red-book.
I think people are missing an important point here which will make record companies mucho bucks......they are going to force consumers to buy the SACD/CD hybrid discs at a premium price over regular CDs, person who just wants CD has no choice.... no wonder record companies love this!
If price for hybrids were close to same as CD no complaints,
but I have a feeling that there will be several dollars premium for SACD/CD discs. I think I read somewhere that Sony was considering making all new releases hybrids.
Obviously stores don't want to stock both formats, and will
also like hybrid disc concept.
I've noticed much more advertising for SACD players and almost none for DVD-A players. I hope this is because SACD IS taking off and will beat DVD-A. I do not like the fact that DVD-A uses a data compression technique. Happily, SACD does not.
When it comes to FM's "Rumours", I must say, my standard copy purchased around 1990 in the USA (disc pressed in Germany) still sounds excellent although I can tell there's room for improvement.
Welcome to the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY web page. Please come in and believe the state of audio has reached it's peak!
SACD is the first advancement in digitial in 20 years, why do so many want to hold on to the past?
Jadem .. perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think that we want to hold on to the past, so much as we're suspicious of the future. In my previous post I explained that 99% of the population will not have a resolving stereo system to hear the details between red book and SACD. Then someone else made the very good point that this might all be about record companies trying to make more money.
But one thing is for sure (IMHO) ... once the marketing execs get hold of SACD then it will no longer be about better audio quality ... it will be about hype and profit.
Better audio quality has its foundations in the recording studio from the mike to the mixing and finally the mastering. We don't need SACD to know how badly this is done for the majority of popular music albums ... redbook already demonstrates it clearly enough.
Finally I think if the record companies use SACD as an excuse to double the price of CDs then that will be the final nail in the coffin of the music industry. What we need now is $5 CDs, not $20 SACDs.
"Is the purchase of a dual SACD/DVD-A player foolish, or the only answer?"
I don't think so. Someday the SACD catalog may be large enough to invest in an SACD player, but even with the Stones it is too puny for me. The current SACD players are not as good as some of the CD players at the same price, and with such a limited number of (uninteresting) releases SACD is not worth the compromise. That's just me, though. I'm going to wait, and listen to my Stones on London/Decca.
I think it's very unlikely that the record companies will be able to use hybrid SACDs to raise prices on people buying just for the CD. I presume they're charging as much as they can get for those CDs now. If people were willing to pay more, they'd already be paying more.
I also agree with Sean Taylor: What makes a big difference is recording and mastering. (In fact, I suspect they account for many of the reported differences between CD and SACD.) If you really want to improve what you hear, patronize the companies that do good recording and mastering. And expect to pay for quality.
I agree with Maraka, all i want to do is upgrade my cd player, but not SACD and have to buy a new classical collection. I agree with Sean don't temp me with the new toy for the worlds wealthy, bring cd prices to around $10, ($5 is too low), AND more importantly re-release some great classical recordings. For some very strange unknown reason Sony will not release Bruno Walter , Columbia S.O. recordings of Mozart's last 6 symphonies???? That's weird! There are a few more great recordings i'm waiting years to see avaliable. SACD...it's all about the money.
I dont trust any "Hybrid" format,because Frankstein Monster and Werewolf are hybrids formats too.These guys make anything to save money!!Give me a brake!!
This whole thread is kind of funny! I'm old enough now that I have a vast CD collection that has taken me 18 years to accumulate (got my first CD player in '84) and I don't have any intention of re-purchasing all of the same titles again!!! In addition, there isn't any new music worth a damn to even care about whatever scheme the record companies are going to push next! Watermarking sound degredations, discs causing hard-drives to crash, etc. - it makes me thank my lucky stars that I'm not "into" any music that's currently subject to this crap! Maybe I'm getting too old and cranky but as far as I'm concerned a good transport/DAC combo or one-box CD player is they way to go IF you already own your favorite music on CD. Same thing applies to you analog guys. If you own several hundred or more LP's you can snicker, along with me, about the new formats. I feel sorry for the young 'ens who are just now trying to figure out what road to go down (analog, CD, hi-rez, multi-channel, etc.) If you find yourself waiting impatiently for the next Britney or N'Sync release, go with the cheapest combo player you can find. That way, when you get older, you won't feel so bad that you blew so much dough on a player that became a footnote in the digital playback evolution - right beneath the footnote about the DIVX DVD format! Enjoy the music you have NOW - the stuff you have enjoyed for years - because by the time they do issue it on the next digital format you'll be too old and your hearing too bad to care! As for the Stones, I'll bet they release it in chronological order. That way you can hear "December's Children" in glorious hi-rez mono - over your multi-channel player of course!
I make my comparisons ala VHS vs Laserdisc. There are many parallels. Laserdisc was SO FAR above VHS tape from the day I saw a Pioneer demo in the mid 80's, and it never took off in the mainstream. I believe Pioneer absolutely dropped the ball by not marketing the software more aggressively!
SACD (2 channel) sounds great in my system. I bought my Sony player used (mint!) for less than half of the original price. The frosting on the cake is that unlike LD & VHS my Sony SACD plays all my red book cds & sounds very good with them too. So far, Sony is doing a dismal job of bringing software to the market...
Nevertheless, does anyone on this site really think the big manufacturers are going to rush to market with anything (especially 2 channel!) close to or better than SACD anytime soon, to please our small segment of the market?
I bet my investment in my SACD player & the discs I've purchased so far that digital will languish for some time right where it is now.
I've heard multi channel SACD. I'm convinced the reviewers who praise it now are the same shills who would have also praised early digital...
Long Live 2 channel SACD! Until I hear something better, this is my format of choice.
Would be nice to see a list of SACDs that you folks think
sound as good or better than their LP or CD counterparts.
Having tried both SACD & DVD-A, I can say the best recording
in both formats sound very good, but a good turntable set up
still has more musical information.
A lot of the remakes, like the DVD-A version of Rumors
aren't worth the price of admission, and who wants to listen to audiophile recording of no name groups recorded in some old church by wantabe engineers like JA.
It's obvious Sony is trying to save SACD with the release
of many low priced players, but they also have to lower the price of the software and increase the catalog.
Happily, both SACD's and DVD-A's are in the process of price reductions that make them comparable to cd's. This should help both formats.
What is sad to see is so much mis/disinformation about the formats themselves. Imin2u, DVD-A and SACD *both* use LOSSLESS compression, which means that the values of bits are regenerated exactly as they were originally recorded. There is nothing wrong with, and everything right with, lossless compression. If you are reacting to the advertising by DTS that they produce 'DVDA' discs, you are right about that one. DTS is a compressed DVD-Video format, whether used for music or not, and their advertising is baloney.
We have all heard for years and years that the problem with CD is that it was limited to begin with. Now with not one but two options (probably the biggest problem) and people are complaing that they don't want an expanded format because it's too complicated (please!), it will require dual layers to be backwards compatible and yet don't want to have to replace their existing library (doesn't the first part negate the second part?)and because auditions of first generation players can't compete with much more expensive and sometimes more labor intensive gear that has had up to 50 years of maturity behind it. Some of which isn't portable, more than a little delicate has issues of software availability if not obsolence and not a great deal of hope for any dramatic improvement in the for seeable future. I'm unhappy because the prices are too high, the selection is too limited, the new formats are rarely compatible (I know of only 2 players, both Pioneers that are not exactly high end) and worst of all not future compatible. No digital out stifles independant artists and small firms, means no upgrade path, doesn't allow for recording (customizing various tracks for your car or what ever) and the one that really gets my goat, forcing one to go from native digital to analog back to digital (what a cluster#&*!) to perform what may become IMHO the greatest boon to audiophiles, room correction.
Excellent, Unsound. I'd like to add a point here. As I can see it from my point-of-view, The main sticking points are backward compatibility, and needing to purchase a new player. First, there is backward compatibilty with all the CDs that we have. Naturally, if you want to play any of the old stuff on SACD format, you have to buy a new disc. But if no SACD were available, you'd be playing the old disc with no option to upgrade. So, you can play your old one or upgrade at your option. Number 2, buying a new player. With the rate of equipment replacement that is already going on, I can hardly believe that this is a problem. I see people changing their CD players, sometimes 3 times a year. And spending multi- thousands of dollars to do it. So I think that this is not a real issue, but a "log rolling" activity in resistance to the new format for whatever reason. I think some of this resistance is related to the "consumer brand" names of the players, like Sony, Philips, and Marantz. There is no "boutique" gear out there with the exception of Accuphase. This leads audiophiles to think they are getting stuck with "mid-fi" products. I have not found this with my Sony. It is a good product and there are already "boutique" modification houses that do tweaks to it. I would have thought that the audiophile market would embrace a new format that offers a sonic improvement over the existing CD while retaining the convenience and quiet background and backward compatibility. I guess I thought wrong.
Just now, it occurs to me that it may be the same crowd who is always finding some reason to dislike vinyl, claiming that CD is better. You know, surface noise and all. Now they don't want SACD either. Maybe it is not us vinyl-philes that are the flat-earthers.
I don't see the downside to SACD that alot of you fear. If Sony releases all selections on hybrid disks, they will have to lower the price to compete. There are already alot of SACD's available for $17 online. If you don't care about better sound, you can just play the hybrid disks on your CD player. I use a Sony 9000es. It is a much better cd player than a Rotel 971 or Rega planet. I Owned both those players and did direct comparison with the rotel . It was not even a close contest. SACD will not make your CD collection obsolete. Ohlala, what sub $1000 cd player sounds better than a 9000es?
Twl you make some excellent points as do most who have written here.
I have no complaints for those who enjoy vinyl as I too believe with a great set-up the sound is the best available. I do have a problem with people who out-right disregard a new technology with little to no experience with it. To compare SACD to Beta and laser disk is silly, to say because Sony developed it that it must be dismissed without testing is close minded, and to not see the benefit available to us by advancing the audio industry is sad. Most SACD players will perform better than a similarly priced cd player on your existing library. Isn't that what we are all looking for, better sound?
Now for my system I would need to begin approaching Albert's vinyl playback equipment ($70,000) in order to justify what I'm hearing and not hear the flaws inherent in vinyl playback. (I've had $15,000 worth of front end in my system and felt I was listening to the flaws more than the music)Even with $1 software, I'm not interested in spending in excess of $50,000 to get the benefits of vinyl when for $5000 I have 95% of the enjoyment with my modified SCD-1. My library has grown for future advancements in the technology and I've been able to upgrade the playback of my existing cd library by almost 100%. Now can someone please explain what is wrong with my thinking? Vinyl's great, but not for everyone and not everyone enjoys the time it takes to keep the playback at 100%. CD is flawed but not all that bad on red-book cd through my modified SCD-1. The new technology introduced in the digital filters is as good as I've heard for cd playback, and SACD is as close to a top notch vinyl set-up at 1/10th the cost. I'm extremely happy and hope more people open there eyes to what's available.
One last thought, I hear people talk about SACD and the players available. I hear comparisons of $300-$1000 players to there existing players and there vinyl set-up. If your using a $300-$1000 cd player or a $300-$1000 vinyl set-up please don't expect too much from any format, your simply missing the point. If you fit this category, your system will not display too much of the advantages of SACD or vinyl.
Jadem, your thinking is right on target. One may be dismayed at the instant hackle-raising that occurs whenever there is an analog-digital comparison, but it isn't really hard to understand.
Obviously, someone who has invested tens of thousands of dollars in analog hardware (not to mention vinylware) is going to hold forth stoutly on the superiority of analog. This will be true if the individual is genuinely convinced that s/he hears differences in the media of sufficient magnitude to warrant the expenditure of such sums. It will be true if the individual has found and fallen in love with an intriguing hobby (which I used to liken in my own case to building ships in very expensive bottles). It will be true even if the individual has no motive other than conspicuous consumption.
Contrariwise, some persons who long for analog systems but are unable to purchase them may find the vinyl grapes most puckeringly sour. The pH of those grapes is likely to be low whether the individual sincerely believes that s/he is missing the chance for nirvanic audio through entrapment in the digital domain or merely feels chagrin at his/her inability to acquire the latest and greatest mechanical impedimenta and thereby join the analog literati.
Persons on the analog side of the debate are likely to be the more volatile of the two, at least in my experience, on account of the really staggering amounts of time and money some of them spend. They become, in Eric Hoffer's brilliant construction, True Believers. One does not tweak their noses with impunity.
Members of the digitali, feeling the inferiority of having spent a mere $2000 on a CD player rather than a princely $20,000 on a turntable, tend to retreat into querulous objectivism, thereby treading on one of the most sacred totems of the high end, namely that What One Says One Hears Must Not Be Discounted.
One must not be surprised, then, that the bringing together of these divided camps is often accompanied by donner und blitzen. Indeed, so hair-trigger are some of the tempers and so vituperative some of the personalities that one comes clearly to understand that for them audiophilia is not wholly about the enjoyment of sound, their varied remonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding.
In the end, one must choose a camp and live with one's tentmates as best one may. A healthy self image helps, as does some knowledge of human nature and a puckish sense of humor. But beware: the little girl who dared to observe that her emperor rode abroad unclothed gained neither the love of her king nor the admiration of her fellows. And it wouldn't have made the slightest difference if the potentate had claimed to be attired in sensuous black or in shimmery silver.
With all due respect to those who see this as a modern-day version of the Hatfields and the McCoys, some of us do rest in the middle. I happen to like the sound of vinyl, and listen to plenty of it. But I don't need to make myself feel good by spouting a lot of bogus technical reasons why vinyl is superior to CD. I'm quite aware of all the real reasons why CDs are more accurate than vinyl can ever hope to be. But I still like to listen to vinyl.
For the record, I now have analog, CD, SACD, and DVD in my system. I use all of them to varying levels of enjoyment. I have no desire to have my comments interfere in any way with anyone else's enjoyment of their system. I have my preference as I have stated in the analog section of this forum. And I believe that I have stated the technical facts in a cogent and mathematically supported way. If anyone disagrees with my position, and prefers CD or something else, that is his/her right and privilege to so do, and I would not try to interject my preference over theirs. I may engage in friendly, lively discussion of the matter, though.
It occured to me that if some of the arguments used against SACD were used years ago, we would only have one band on our radio dial, AM.
I was thinking during dinner tonight (something I try to avoid at all cost) and it occurred to me that one of the great banters of the "down with SACD" group is that there is no software and it costs too much. If this is being stated by a pro digital person than they are missing the boat on getting great playback from there existing library through a SACD player. If the comment is coming from the pro vinyl than I find myself a bit confused. I was paging through a couple of catalogs, Music Direct and Acoustic Sound and found that the new vinyl re-mastered is approx.. $30-45. The new re-mastered cd is about $15.00 and the SACD is $17-25. So the argument must not be price in that vinyl is more and SACD is only 15-50% more. It comes down to available titles right? Well it seems as though a lot of the new released "re-mastered" older jazz is coming out in both SACD and vinyl so that must not be the issue. Of course there are titles coming out in SACD that have not yet made it to vinyl and as there are the other way. So as far as I can see it's just plain stubbornness and as Bishopwill states a blind love for one or the other. Do you think in 5 years the price of SACD or the price of vinyl will drop? Let's see, .01% of the population for vinyl and a potential 50% for SACD, hard to say where the new releases might come out. Oh and in response to all of you who pride yourself on finding the $1.00 album from 1972, I'm thrilled for you, I'll stick with the re-mastered version even if it is in digital.
I think we could all agree that some will insist on vinyl until the day they die, no matter how much new material becomes available. I believe some will stay with there 300b SET tube amps even when the NOS becomes $1000 per tube. That's what the Audiophile industry relies on, our stubbornness and willingness to buy the obscure.
Again, Jadem, well said! And Bomarc demonstrates the enlightened attitude that we all might well adopt: Listen to what you will, believe what you will, eschew dogmatic pronouncements about the superiority of one medium over another, have fun.
Since my name has been mentioned, here are a few issues that seem to have been overlooked.
Ultimately, this is about music, and with over 6,500 LP's in my personal library the cost to replace with SACD (even at $9.95) would exceed $70,000.00. This would be a larger investment than my analog playback system, and leaves no budget for upgrade of the digital hardware.
Lets assume I was willing to change formats, spend the money time and effort, the quality of reproduction would be less than I began with. LP is superior with the hardware currently available, and would require the release of a few hundred thousand SACD's in order for me to access the "culled" 6500 piece library. After more than 20 years, many of my LP titles are still unavailable on compact disc. I doubt any of these will ever be released on SACD.
For the record, I own a Sony 9000 ES SACD player and consider it a true bargain. It does a good job on redbook and much better on SACD. I enjoy its rugged construction, good looks and non fussy personality, not to mention the convenience of remote control. I buy CD of artists that do not release on LP and buy SACD's when possible, due to it's superior sound.
My Sony, even after adding Purist Dominus interconnect and power cable, Symposium Roller blocks, and isolation shelves still cost less than my analog or any previous high end digital systems.
That being said, there is a great deal of difference between acceptable, good, great, excellent, and unbelievable or unforgettable.
I realize it must be difficult for those who have not heard analog at it's ultimate to understand where our passion comes from. All of these discussions about quality are relative. Relative to the listener, the situation and the actual experience of the audiophile.
Limited experience combined with an unwavering defense of a one sided opinion is what angers me. Happily that there are only a couple of these posters that come to mind at Audiogon forums.
Unfortunately there is no way for a person who owns both formats and has tested at every price level to convince those who have not. I don't mind having a person tell me it does not matter to them. What disturbs me is the person who has not experienced both sides telling everyone that it should not matter to anyone.
I agree with Albert. Those of us who have extensive experience with high quality equipment in both formats are probably better prepared to speak to their relative merits. But see again my remarks about why people who have heavily invested in one format are unlikely to have much good to say about the other.
Just for the record, I haven't heard anyone say that "it should not matter to anyone." I have, rather, heard quite a few calls for tolerance interspersed with dogmatic pronouncements that one or the other format is superior.
I don't think anybody really expects one to replace their entire library with the latest "Johnny come lately". Old titles are rereleased so that new comers can enjoy them on "their" systems and to expand the use of recordings so that they may be used in cars or where ever (as well as adding to corporate profits). While I don't expect it anytime soon, maybe one day these new formats will be competitive with the sound (the very reason it exists) of analog.
Albert your comments are correct and well stated. Of course anyone who has an extensive library in one format will continue to invest in hearing it at it's best. You have also built extensive cd and SACD libraries if I'm not mistaken, meaning that you have opened your thinking to all formats. This is good, it's those who simply discount SACD as the latest "beta" or "marketing" scam that I get tired of. If I had a library of 6000+ albums I too would be heavily invested in vinyl playback, but I'm not going to go out and buy every $1.00 album just so IO have such a collection.
I hope we can see all formats are viable, and that it's reasons other than price and availability of software that we chose our format. Sound quality is one, but at the levels we are speaking of the quality is there in all three, cd, vinyl and SACD.