2. digital
  3. 987631787

Too snobbish for SACD as it exists?

Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the feeling that the reason SACD players have not been as successful as hoped lies with the fact that the very persons for whom the benefits of the higher resolution format are appreciable are hesitant to put a Sony, Marantz or Pioneer product in their systems. A product like Krell, CJ, Levinson, etc.,while usually significantly more expensive than the aforementioned "mid-fi" brands provide the purchaser with a certain cache and a greater level of satisfaction, albeit sometimes a psychoacoustic contribution to the listening experience. I, personally, would be more willing to spend more on a quality SACD player from a true high-end company, however elitist that may sound, even knowing that I may be paying for diminished returns. I just wonder if there is a large pool of high-end consumers waiting to see what marquis companies will introduce before they commit to the format.
jmslaw

Showing 1 response by ed_sawyer

ed_sawyer
588 posts
 
Like Craig I have a Ca9ES and an Xa7es. Both are good players, the Xa7 being as top notch and accurate a redbook cd player that exists, most likely. personally, I think Sony makes some great stuff. Sure, they make some junk too, but when they do it right they really do it right: Xa7, SCD-1, SCD-777, etc. If anything, I have almost a reverse bias on all these so-called high-end companies that take Sony (or others, like Teac, Pioneer, etc) guts, then slap on something trendy like a machined case or some tubes, and call it "way better".... that's bullshit. (the Tjoeb comes to mind) Different maybe, and perahps nicer looking but not necessarily better sounding. Whats' important, a nice looking box or better sound? (or, in the case of stuff like the SCD-1 and Xa7, have your cake and eat it too). Too many people get hung up on the cachet value of something like a wadia or Bat VKd5se, when something for 1/2 the price either matches or crushes it. I'll keep the $2000 in change, thanks.

An analogy: Ferraris are considered by many to be the epitome of sports cars. However, until the 355/360, most of their stuff was not all that fast on the track, difficult to drive, ergonomically weak (interiors), etc. (talking about cars like the 328, 308, and other precursors)... they'd easily get walked on at a roadcourse by something mundane like a Honda (I have several), VW, etc... (speaking from experience here). Same deal with Sony - sure, doesn't have the sex appeal of a Ferrari, but lap times (eg. good sound) talks and bullshit (fancy machined case) walks. ;-) All IMHO of course.

-Ed
More to discover