I am a diehard analog person, but after only 36 hours and 5 SACD's with my Sony DVP S9000ES player my ears tell me that SACD is the real deal that rivals vinyl and analog recordings. The Red Rose/Sony demo at CES convinced me to try it. The $6000 worth of hardware(speakers/SACD player/Sony receiver) used in the demo rivaled--not beat--some of the finest analog I've heard. For point of reference my analog front end is a VPI TNT5/Koetsu Urishi/Aesthetix IO/Nordost Quatrofil IC's. The poor S9000 uses Canare coax IC's. Got to do something about that. dr
SACD vs. DVD-A and Audio DVDs
My experience so far using Muse DVD equipment is that the best redbook CDs sound as good as the best Audio DVDs from Chesky or Classic Records. It would seem that the recording and mastering process has more impact on the final sound than the medium. It reminds me of the notice on early CDs which stated that the CD's resolution "could show the limitations in the source recording" or something like that. Does anyone else think that well executed redbook can be almost indistinguishable from 24/96 Audio or even SACD ? By the way, my experience with SACD has been that the sound is very dry and clinical, and I am wondering whether SACD will fare the same way as CDs, namely that it will take years before the recording and manufacturing process are up to par with the technology. This was evident in redbook CDs. The sound of the best conventional CDs has improved dramatically since four or five years ago.