Whenever someone says that a recording or piece of equipment sounds "dry and clinical" I go out and listen to it right away, and often end up buying it! They said it about the wonderful Bruel & Kjaer 1" measurement mics, they said it about DAT, they said it about Scan Speak 2905-series tweeters and about Meridian CD players. I've heard it said about B&W 80x-series loudspeakers. In all cases, they sounded accurate, transparent and involving to my ears. I guess it's time to put SACD on my "want" list!
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.