CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-Audio vs Vinyl vs...

I have been reading the above discussions about the vinyl vs. digital. It is quite entertaining, but I would like to say something here that is very simple and very basic. What is the digital signal basically? It is a mathematical description of the originally produced sound. This “description” is then be recorded onto a CD or dvd or whatever those marketing scientists produce for us (yes, marketing scientists, not physics). And it is still a description, for Gods sake!!! Further more, this description is as sensitive to the “reading” devices (just as the analogue is). The errors produced during reading are “corrected” by some “cleaver digital processors” who “compensate” the missing data and fix the error? Hello? Then, the remains of the mathematical description go into another processor who is supposed to recreate the originally produced sound? God, please help me see the light!!! Are we trying to clone the sound like we cloned Dolly? Well, I think it is just too complicated, too far away from something that we already have! I live in Bosnia and I have not been able to test equipment expensive more then a $10k. What you guys have been listening, it costs more then Bosnian GDP (Gross Domestic Product), but it seems that discussion is about the same basic things. All of us want just one thing: the absolutely natural sound reproduction. And we do not want any illusions, we want the entire symphonic orchestra in our rooms. Not any illusions and not any descriptions! Is that possible? Well, of course it is, just like it is possible to travel to Mars today and it was not imaginable 50 years ago, but the point is, where do we start from? We should start from the truth, from the basics, and not from illusions that are offered by the marketing experts! The best solutions are the simplest ones, but not too simple”, like our good old Einstein used to say. And vinyl perfectly fits into this. It is simple, but still has some problems that are complicated to solve! Hazim Sabanovic [email protected]

Yes, analog has problems, so does every format. I like to compare digital to a "connect the dots" picture that children like to draw. After the dots are connected, you can make out the image of the object that the dots represented, but all those straight lines loose the grace and dignity of the object. Yes, it is recognizable, and yes the lines can even be drawn in with a protractor to a more graceful shape, BUT it still does not pass for a good drawing. The point I am making is that there are simply not enough dots in the puzzle to explain a great drawing, and at least in the current digital format, there are not enough samples (or dots) to mathematically present a correct musical presentation. This is not to say that digital cannot be fun or satisfying, but the errors are the type that make it difficult (for me) to set aside my disbelief, and be passionate about the music.

here we go..........imho and iit is h, vinyl is the current best consumer source if only due to the sheer number of titles avail. the satisfying, relaxed, wanting to hear more music, but tired of cleaning feeling one gets compared to 44.1 should convince the music lover ot seek out a good but affordable player, lets face it, most cant afford the sota/vpi/basis etc level of vinyl nirvana (vinyrvana?) that some of you can. my advice is to find as good of a used tt as you can afford, preferably with a tonearm that accepts a universal headshell. that will allow you to change the sound at will to enjoy cartridges in the round. yes the fixed type is more rigid but the flexibility is wonderful. tjere are good affordable arms with this feature such as the sumiko mmt to warrant callng them hi end. enough of that. cd is way more convenient, i have plenty of them, some music is only avail on cd just as it is on LP. the new steely dan frinstnc. i have double inventory on many items when i could get them cheeeep. LPs are usually cheeeep used, plenty of that here in the LA area. ther are some oportunists that consistetly sell for elevated prices. if they need to do that to stay in business then ok. $100 will get you a way better sound than a $100 tt at list prices. but as soon as you get to the 300 range, the reversal starts big time. a trip to the store for music reults in way more used LPs than CDs, and more work but mare satisfaction w/LP. SACD. man, i hope the consumers with expendable income can support this long enough to get the format to affordable stage in a reasonable time frame. i havent heardi a demo yet, but we do rightly trust certain ears.....hp,harley,ahc,valin,holt,brisson(not hirsch,mostly not pohllman) and thats where i feel justified in trusting that sacd will prove to be what weve been waiting for. the sheer sampling rate alone aproaches the analog standard of being always on. now we have nearly non existent noise, appropriate sampling, dynamic range seemingly limited by that of music, and absence of low frequency garbage(one of the bugaboos of LP). bring it on. i think the 24/96 is a great step, but i for one hope that it falls by the wayside. the sacd from sony will play redbook cd AND sacd, thank you sony. what a brillliant and brave first step to stay away from multi channel. hey, i like surround in the proper dose, ive been using a dynaco quadaptor since the 70s to great effect( now have the 5ch, fornt ctr gets turned off for music liosteneing), most visitors not realizing they were listening to 4 channels until the soundfield collapsed to the front upon returning to stereo(and thats with the rear ch adjusted to near audibilty, the way it should be, when there is really rear ch info, youll hear it there) when the multichannel development in sacd comes, im sure sony will make the software backwardly compatable. even at that the pro logics and quadaptpors out there can handle stereo and recover the ambience to an effective degree. i guess some people must have discreet, let them pay for it. give me vinyl, give me sacd, dont take away my cd but dont force me to get dvd for audio. the software ppppurveyors will quickly adjust to the demise of dvd based audio.

You guys are getting a bit cranky lately. For most of us our interest in music began with the records our parents played or the songs we heard on the radio. These sources were usually barbaric by todays' standards. I had a cheap Emerson console and my best friend had a Macintosh amp and preamp. His high fidelity system was instrumental in training my ears to appreciate good quality audio. Strangely enough some recordings were much more effective at producing an emotional response to the music when played on my parents' console. So.. Higher fidelity does not always equal deeper enjoyment of music. The CD format has been besieged by complaints from audiophiles from the beginning. What a waste of time. I was fortunate to hear the first CD player before public demonstrations and was startled by its realism despite its first generation shortcomings. We have enjoyed this elegant format for 20 years now. Now that we are beginning to see the end of vinyls superiority the same types of people are doing the same thing. Nag, nag, nag, nag. The prospect of high resolution audio and video in a universal player is near and I for one can't wait. It is only a matter of time until science finds a way to clearly better the sound quality of vinyl at a far lower cost than a high end turntable rig with virtually indestructable software. I really wonder if all of the vinyl enthusiasts think they are enjoying the music more because of the analogue format when they are really enjoying the quality of thir systems and not the music. I can appreciate aesthetics as much as the next guy but this sounds like a classic car collector who enjoys looking at his collection but doesn't have quite as much fun driving around anymore. Digital will win in the end. Don't mourn the loss of the horse and buggy. Try www.tweakaudio.com (audio news) And a good time was had by all, Martin Butler Matin Butler

Martin is the cranky one that's doing the nagging here. Just because you've never heard vinyl on a decent rig doesn't give you the right to be a smart guy with me. We enjoy vinyl because it IS better. I enjoy CD as much or more than you do, that's not the point (my player is very likely better than yours). And it costs about the same to have a decent analog, OR digital rig. When you liken vinyl to the "horse'n'buggy", YOU'RE JUST SHOWING HOW SILLY YOU ARE. I liken vinyl to a car racing analogy: There was once a racing series far better than, say, Nascar. It was in the 1970's, and the cars were more powerful and much higher in technology than Nascar. (I'm using today's Nascar racing as an example because of it's popularity, and because of the irony of its inferior technology; leaving off the most high tech racing of all time, Formula One, which is far above the technology in even the Indy CART series). THIS 1970'S SPECTACLE WAS CALLED CAN AM, or Canadian American racing series. Perhaps those in the northern lattitudes (Michigan, Wisconsin) remember it. Even more than the Grand Touring Prototype racing at Le Mans, THIS CAN AM SERIES made Porsche a legend with the 917 race car. This machine produced 1500 horsepower, was the first road racing model to employ DRASTIC amounts of turbo charge boost, could go 240 mph, and won more races than any other CAN AM car. IN THIS ANALOGY, vinyl (on a decent, NOT stratospheric rig) is the 917, and CD is Jeff Gordon in his ugly, low tech Nascar. The 917 overtakes him at about 80 mph, when the Nascar racer is going all out.