SACD finally taking-off? non-classical listeners

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.

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.

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.

Great for us to evolve into a discussion of ECM and thinking about the music again. I have about 70 Watt and ECM records, and maybe only 15 CD's of same.

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.

Unsound. I hope you are right. How nice it would be to sit with a remote control and choose the song you want, enjoying the same quality of sound provided by state of the art analog.

I suspect it is possible. I have had the pleasure of listening to master digital tape at the home of Andrew Litton. He is a member of my music listening group, and won a music Grammy for his work. He is truly a creative genius.

( Walton: Belshazzar's Feast / Andrew Litton, conductor; Neville Creed, David Hill, chorus masters ).
     
The master takes from the live performances of the Dallas symphony is the only digital source I have heard that is equal to analog. Perhaps it's because it's a first generation tape, not mixed or re sampled, and because it is yet untouched by the record producers.

When the finished product is finally released, (compact disc) and played side by side with that master, it is an absolute joke. Truly a point of frustration for Andrew as well as myself.

http://www.dallassymphony.com/index.php

If the companies that produce and release the software shared Andrews passion, perhaps we could overcome these obstacles. I doubt that the cost (relative to all the expenses involved) would amount to a miniscule of the budget.

I think you would be stunned by the results of playing near perfect software in our present music systems. Bigger than many tweaks costing thousands of dollars. I feel cheated every time I think about it.

Marakanetz, your description is most likely what I heard when comparing the master digital tape against the (lower bit) Compact Disc.

By the way, the tape was only a Sony DAT plugged into the master board so Andrew would have a personal copy. I imagine the "true" mater tape from the big mastering deck was better quality still.

Obviously I agree with you that a master digital to LP is superior than converting to lower bit to accommodate CD format.

I have a good many examples of digital masters as a source in my ECM Jazz collection. Comparison between the CD and LP of the same performance prove the LP superior in every case.

Onhwy61, it is refreshing to read a post that is factual and informative. I am good friends with Russ Burger of RBDG. He is frequently featured in Spin magazine and is responsible for the design of several fine recording studios.

Our conversations have covered much of what you have posted, in addition I've sat in with him during recording sessions in his own place.

A valuable insight to the workings of producing the end product we wind up with.