You can see a review I wrote of the Sony SCD 777 at Audioreview.com. SACD is better than CD from almost anything. As for the Sony with regular CD my Genesis Digital Lens/Mark Levinson #36 D/A combo is better than Sony but it is close call. Hope this helps. Doug
Read user reviews on the two Sony sacd models in audioreview.com under cd players.
Made my system sound better than I ever thought possible. Amazing sound. Expensive though and few disk. I borrowed a friends to try. Can not wait to this format takes off. So natural, relaxed, does not fatigue the ear like cd. It is the first break through tech. that I have seen since the introduction of the cd. Go and listen for yourself
I know SACD is noticably better, but if you had a decent CD front end, you wouldn't get ear fatigue.
I hope it doesn't go the way of Beta Max. That's a real problem. Best possible "port in this digital format war storm" Pioneer DVD player (525/333- around $200) and a Perpetual P-1A/P-3A 24/96/ Upsampler/Jitter control - less then$1700. For more info go to www.audiotweakrs.com
I hope it doesn't go the way of Beta Max. That's a real problem. Best possible "port in this digital format war storm" Pioneer DVD player (525/333- around $200) and a Perpetual P-1A/P-3A 24/96/ Upsampler/Jitter control - less then$1700. For more info go to www.audiotweakers.com
I think we should do something about all these dealers.They are interfering with the discussions.Message for Audiogon owners as well.
The good news is SACD is superior sounding tech, however, several problems for SACD so far, recording industry slow to adopt...this is where fear of betamax comes back. Also the few SACDs on the market are very expensive compared to CD, this will kill SACD, must be close to same price as CD and soon..other competing formats being tested and they won't charge $30 per disc! Also I hear players take forever to cue up 1st track on a CD, at least they can play SACD and CD to a high level. Recording companies for whatever reason seem to be waiting for final copy encription standard for DVD Audio to commit and maybe feel it has more long term viability because of video capability......the real question is can audio quality of DVD Audio come close to SACD, if so SACD future is uncertain....regards Sam
Carl, I have a Calfornia Audio Labs SS-2500 SSP which I use for as a dac. However it is still fatiguing when compared to SACD. Sorry. Cal audio does cd very well, but in case you did not notice, cd sucks which is why SACD and DVD-A were created. I know this is a dead horse because many still love records, etc,ect. but SACD is the "real deal".
No offense, but your dac is not a highend piece of equipment, and you need to educate yourself with regards to superior CD players. You're just showing your ignorance here.
Carl, enough with the childishness, if you don't consider a 5400.00 processor high-end, so be it. I am sure you have the "ultimate" cd player if your small minded opinion. But it stills sucks because cd sucks. YOu can buy the most expensive player made and the Sony SACD will still sound better. If you have to spend more money on a dac than I already have, then that should tell you something. Any 16 year old format that still requires that much money to be spent in order for it not to be harsh is flawed. Bought a Pioneer dvd player, sorry if not expensive enough for you and no snob appeal like your Krell, with 96/24 digital out to my CAl SSP-2500 and damn for a couple of hundred dollars it blows the hell out of cd just not enough disk recorded to enjoy. I live hear in New Orleans and am close friends with a famous Jazz musican who is an audiophile as well and my little "cheap" dac as you say impressed the hell out of him with the Pioneer dVd player, so I had to laugh at you and figured you have started to take yourself a little too seriouly.
Yes, by all means, laugh at me. It's obvious that you know a whole lot more than me, and can hear better than me, so I absolutely defer to your thoughts here. I apologize for trying to tell you something, when I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about.
NOW,BOYS---If they came out with the "perfect"format everybody would have it,then what would we have to talk about? And if we didn't talk and exchange what would we learn? I'm an audio/video person. There are several similarities as I see it.I bought my Etite 09 dvd player for the movies it plays.It is mediocre at best,as a cd transport.If the sacd players are similar[ouch].Sort of like hdtv;not enough programing;so it has to do the reg stuff well, till there is enough software/programing.Sort of like the 1/2 speed Shefield lps I own. Great sonics but none of stuff I love to listen to
Try some 96/24 music only dvd on your pioneer. Chesky records and Classic records make and sell them. Better than cd but too limited in titles to take serioulsy. Cd sucks in my opinion regardless of transport. SACD is also limited by the titles availible. But soon I will jump on the band wagon and buy a player."Evil prevails when good men do nothing." Carl is a very knowledgeable guy but I can tell that he has not heard the CAl Audio Labs processor with a digital 96/24 signal being fed into it or he would have not made those comments. When he does, his tune will have to change. But right now cd the major format and I own a lot myself. However, SACD is so much better to my ears that I have to wonder if people have not heard it or have hidden agendas. I do not think this is the case with Carl. I would bet that he has heard it and just prefers to stick with his cd player for now. I am sure though that if the format takes off , many on this site will be changing there tunes.
And it is also true that you haven't heard the CD player that I have.
I would be surprise if I have not? What do you have Wadia, Krell? I am familiar with those as well as Meridian. Just difference of technology. I do not care how fast a prop plane you own, a jet plane will outperform it. 96/24 and SACd just sound better when done right that cd at it's best to my ears. "Different strokes for different folks." If I can hear the differences after years of bare knuckle, full force karate comp. with has included one busted ear drum though it actually test above normal, anyone should. I am confused as to why other do not. In time when you adopt the technology, I will be there to say I told you so.
Karate, hmm? I could still give you a pretty good punch, before you got any good moves carried through, perhaps...heh heh heh. The prop plane to jet plane is a funny analogy, but not a very good one (some propellors are even driven by jet engines...those happen to be the most fuel efficient designs/per gross weight, in existence, BTW). Would it matter if I told you what CD player I have? I submit that it would not......................WE ALL KNOW that higher resolution digital is better than CD, but unless you only own a few CD's, and ALL the SACD and/or 24/96 titles.....the new digital formats are TOTALLY irrelevant, until there are many hundreds of times the number of titles available, as there are now. Why can't you get that through your busted eardrum (no offense)?
Ok, if you are willing to admit that Cd is inferior to SACD then end of discussion. Of course they don't have any titles now. In the mid-80's that was the same case for cd. I am still betting that a little "cry baby" man like yourself is waiting on the fence to see what happens and then you will be on this site argueing about which SACD player is better. We will see.
Enough of this bickering 1 The price of the processor does not make it high-end. The performance does. 2 As good as the SACD format may be. There are still limiting factors. The mastering, the processor, and the amp (The signal needs to be amplified to line level). The fact that they made it backward compatable is a double edged sword. 3 DVD transports do a very poor job on audio signals. The jitter, bit errors, and signal loss is much worse than moderately priced CD transports. I've measured them. Even moderately priced transports lose a lot with high frequency data. (Over 10kHz) and it gets worse as the frequency goes up. 4 SACD is not better than CD. It has the potential to be better. Now the 96 KHz is a big step up although 192 would be better. The 24 bits is a big improvement also. Better than the 21 bits theoretically needed. ( This number was deduced by some engineers in the early to mid eighties, re an article in the AES Journal) There should be much less problem with roundoff error. But will it meet the potential? So far there are only a few disks. These disks sound good, but will all the rest be this good? I doubt it. Will SACD be sold to the masses? Will millions of people discard there CDs for SACD disks? I doubt it. Don't get too eager yet. Let's wait to see. I'm still waiting for something as good as my old Blue Note LPs or my Roy Orbison albums.
Bluesman, yes, I agree. The new version of my CD player upsamples to 700 kHz/24 bit..............Bullshagger, I'm not going to get personal with you. And really, you are completely wrong about the SACD to CD comparison of the mid 80's. There's zero chance that the public will get behind any new format, now that they think they're getting "perfect digital quality" MP3 and other audio off the net for FREE. Just not gonna happen, so you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
To Carl_eber Huh?? What are you saying. I pretty much said that I don't believe that SACD will ever catch on, just that it has excellent musical potential. I don't even like coffee.
Hey Blues_man, why don't you give me those old Blue Note LP's and get some wonderful hi tech digital? I don't know you, but since I am such a nice guy, I would do that for you! Are the Blue Note from 50th street area NYC? Signed, Your Buddy Albert.
Mr. Blues, read it again, that part wasn't addressed to you, hence the dotted line...
OK, I was not trying to start a holy war with this question. Bulldogger, thank you very much for your input. It was helpful I am curious as to which SACD player you were using that you so enjoyed and whether you tested its ability as a regular CD player or transport. I would understand if you wish to write to me privately rather than risk getting flamed again.