I just heard "kind of blue" on SACD , then redbook on the musical fidelity trivista. I have been very curioius for a long time... The SACD sounded more "detailed" and multilayered, but also more fractured, and less like music, kind of like a recording where you can hear the splices. I was missing the flow and organicism of the performance. When we put the redbook in, it was such a relief. It just sounded more like music.
SACD- my intial thoughts....
Having now given my Sony DVP 900 close to 350 hours break in I thought I would report back with my findings.
First off cleary this Sony machine is not at the top end of Sony SACD players but from what I can gather it's fair to consider it a mid-range player.
As an aside it's a great machine in terms of build,picture quality and seems to have a very good transport.
As a CD player it's decent.
From my limited listening experience on SACD I have came to the conclusion that it is a format that has potential but does not exhibit sonic differences that blow you away.
The presentation on SACD is smoother, less edgy but to my ears doesn't offer much more detail.
In some ways it is preferable to CD however I do find on some tracks CD sounds better wether that's because I'm used to CD sound or due to something else isn't clear to me.
The latest Stones CD/SACD hybrids show the effect up clearly,to my ears there really isn't much to choose between the layers in any sonic aspect.
The CD layer has a bit more spikiness or edge.
I have had two friends remark that the CD layer is actually slighty more suited to the Stones sound.
I concede perhaps the Stones aren't the best band to show off sound reproduction but there is the odd really well recorded track where SACD doesn't really come through superior on any aspect of it.
Whilst I have only heard about 25 different artist's on SACD and some dozen or so discs, to me the key to any new format is early on recognising this is clearly an improvement from what I've heard before.
Perhaps my expectations are too high but to me SACD has major problems in surviving and growing.......
First off cleary this Sony machine is not at the top end of Sony SACD players but from what I can gather it's fair to consider it a mid-range player.
As an aside it's a great machine in terms of build,picture quality and seems to have a very good transport.
As a CD player it's decent.
From my limited listening experience on SACD I have came to the conclusion that it is a format that has potential but does not exhibit sonic differences that blow you away.
The presentation on SACD is smoother, less edgy but to my ears doesn't offer much more detail.
In some ways it is preferable to CD however I do find on some tracks CD sounds better wether that's because I'm used to CD sound or due to something else isn't clear to me.
The latest Stones CD/SACD hybrids show the effect up clearly,to my ears there really isn't much to choose between the layers in any sonic aspect.
The CD layer has a bit more spikiness or edge.
I have had two friends remark that the CD layer is actually slighty more suited to the Stones sound.
I concede perhaps the Stones aren't the best band to show off sound reproduction but there is the odd really well recorded track where SACD doesn't really come through superior on any aspect of it.
Whilst I have only heard about 25 different artist's on SACD and some dozen or so discs, to me the key to any new format is early on recognising this is clearly an improvement from what I've heard before.
Perhaps my expectations are too high but to me SACD has major problems in surviving and growing.......