2. digital
  3. 999389338

SACD : why ?

I have a local dealer here in Paris, France who has become a very good friend. SACD technology is just starting to hit our shores, and after hearing several CDPlayers, inc. the Accuphase 100 transport, we just didn't get it. The differences are just so tiny and are entirely software dependend (a bad SACD sounds worse that a great mastered CD) that we can't see it becoming a new standard. Nor spending thousands of dollars for so little.

We did a blind test for 15 of his customers. We told them we would play them a normal CD version first, and then the same music but with the SACD version. 15 out of 15 said they thought the second sounded much better and that SACD was an amazing technology. They were surprised, shocked and embarrassed when they found out we had switched the order of play and they actually preferred the 'standard' CD.

Here is my prediction : SACD is dead, long live DVD-A. Not because DVD-A is better, it *technologically* speaking isnt, but it makes much more market sense.
badwisdom
mikelavigne
2,143 posts
 
badwisdom, you seem to be the victim of bad wisdom. hehe, sorry,i couldn't resist.

if you listen to a piano or horn recorded in dsd on sacd and compare it to 16/44 of the same recording there an overwhelming difference. the additional resolution of sacd reveals a depth and completness of each note. the 16/44 recording has a roughness that pops out in direct a/b comparison with sacd. presence and bass foundation is on another level with sacd. the 16/44 seems flat, the sacd seems alive.

i agree that not every recording equally reveals these differences. but most dsd mastered recordings do. i could easily find 16/44 recordings that would be similar in sacd.

for these comparisons i used my linn cd-12 and my marantz sa-1, with nordost valhalla balanced interconnects, levinson #32 preamp, #33 amps, and watt/puppy 6 speakers.

the sacd format, properly implimented, is a definite improvement over the best 16/44 avalible today. but not all environments and recordings might reveal that fact.
badwisdom OP
145 posts
 
Mike : i knew someone what make that it sooner or later :)

My point wasn't to affirm or deny the superiority of SACD. As i specified in a later post, i honestly believe that most people will not be able to make enough difference between the two to justify an investment in both the SACD player AND the more expensive software which is too little too late imho. And the test proves that people hear what they want to hear : only serious audiophiles can honestly hear a difference, and we are an endangered species.
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Chances for SACD are slowly getting better. Emi and Virgin records have now jumped on the bandwagon with the promise to produce a lot of their popular stuff in this medium and sales of SACD players seem to be rising in Europe. However Badwisdom shows good wisdom in pointing out, that not all will hear a difference and those that do, don't matter much to the marketing guys in the big companies.
1953
140 posts
 
OK, I'll venture that the format that wins (DVD-A or SACD) will be the first one that makes it into the automotive environment.
roachone
20 posts
 
Yes. I use the 777es player. Regular cd's sound fine, and for a lot of folks, it will be all they want. The ? was do they sound better than cd's? I can't, for the life of me, believe 15 out of 15 liked regular cd's better.I'm still having "ordinary people" listen to mine, and have yet for anyone to tell me they liked the cd(ordinary) version better.Most tell me they are hearing things they never heard before. Oh well, just my 2 cents worth.
More to discover