SACD vs CD

[AndyKubicki]

Here's another twist to this: Data Play Disks ...oh boy!

Wow! Doesn't it just figure that they don't even mention improving the CD (like SACD, DVDa, etc). What matter to them is improving copy protection. Nevermind that many still feel that vinyl sounds better than CDs, it's good enough for them to just match the sound quality (or lack thereof) of audio CDs.

On the other hand, I wonder, with the speedy development of new technologies, something newer and better will be discovered before the music and electronic industries agree on a winning format. I think that we are approaching a time of technological advancement being quicker than the abitlity to implement new technologies.

As a consumer, I would always hope for bettering the audio quality of music. The downside (upside for the industry) is replacing the equipment and existing CDs. Remember, we had to replace all vinyl first (unless you kept vinyl). Then, because of the poor mastering on many of those early CDs, the remastered versions came out, so of course, we wanted to get those, many of which contained as bait "previously unreleased" material, and that bonus was enough for me to bite. I just picked up a cheap sony DVD/SACD player. Am I going to find that SACD will join Betamax? Remember, the better technology doesn't always win. That's not to say that SACD is better than XACD or DVDa, I don't know enough about those, but marketing does not always produce the best technology as the winning format. Examles are VHS/Beta and PC/Mac.

It is exciting when a new technology emerges. I remember how excited I was when Gentle Giant CDs were first being issued and I could replace my vinyl Free Hand which had a pop at the beginning of On Reflection. But it's costly, and for those of us with little disposable income it's a mixed blessing.

------------------

Andy

78 Khorns (20' apart!)

Audire Difet 3 Preamp

Adcom GFA 535 II

NAD 4130 Tuner

Marantz CD 63SE

Pioneer DV 434s>c>

[T2K]

My comments relate somewhat to this threads original subject matter. Disregarding any BS about equipment,recording,tastes in music, or otherwise there is simply no comparison between DVD-A and CD's. I hardly ever listen to CD's anymore. Huge difference.

Keith

[Deang]

Yes, you bet there is a huge difference, and I feel the same way about SACD compared to Redbook.

I would only like to add that the Sony players take a great deal of time to break in. At this point, you are comparing a cold, out of the box player -- to one that's had many hours of burn in.

There is only a small positive difference between "good", older Redbook recordings and the newer remastered renditions, and SACD. However, compare a current Redbook recording, to a current SACD release of the same recording -- and there is a tremendous difference.

Check out Roger Waters "In the Flesh" on SACD, to get a good idea of the true potential of this format.

[mobile homeless]

Except, Keith is talking about DVD-A and not SACD. Still, I dont think cheap DVD-A or SACD is the way to go. You have to sink some money into these players in my opinion as the $200 DVD-A or SACD does not sound too smooth to me due to all the same problems that plague poor CD players in general, such as cheap analog section with less than adequate power supplies.

kh

[Mallette]

Some of the issues addressed in this thread will be found in my "Card Deluxe...Indeed" thread of today. Basically, I've determined to my own satisfaction that the issues with digital are precisely the same type as those that plagued analog...engineering and execution. Certainly, I've found that 24/96 recordings of LP's are the most satisfying since reel to reel, and I can now listen to better quality CD's without feeling like I'm drinking a diet coke accompanied by a rice cake.

It actually seems a bit odd to me that affordable CD players are SO unsatisfying. Seems like even cheap DACS should do a better job...but they don't. Even a 100.00 Rat Shack TT and cartridge still sounds better. I constantly more amazed that the act of chiseling the image of sound into a material and recovering it so largely intact, as crude as that process appears (more like cuneiform compared to a word processor than a phonograph disc compared to digital), is so much more accessible than achieving satisfying digital.

Dave

[mobile homeless]

Why the problem understanding the cheap player point? The players are doing FAR FAR more than simply decoding digital; they are amplifying the signal and the analog section can RUIN the sound of CD player faster than anything, not matter HOW great the processor. Cheap op amps and a mediocre power supply can add a glassy, harsh, and unappealing sound. In addition, poor filtering can also cause problems. These type hassles are not within record players although they have other problems to deal with.

kh

[Mallette]

I have a 100.00 Rat Shack reciever hooked to Advent computer speakers in my daughters room. The FM sounds better than the average CD players. Isn't this cheap op amps as well?

Also, part of my point is that each medium has it's own engineering and aesthetic challenges that work out about equally in their deliterious effects when handled poorly. With my new player, I have found about the same percentage of poor sounding CD's as LP's. Granted, the best LP's still sound superior, but the gap is no where near as vast as before.

Dave

[AndyKubicki]

I just recovered from a win 98 crash, speaking of better and worse technologies.

I was at Best Buy looking at CDs and saw among the DVDa CDs with High Definition Audio? If I put that in my DVD player, is the audio better or do you need a player capable of tracking that?

Keith, when you said that about DVDa, are you using 2 channel or multi channel? My preferrence is whatever sounds better on my 2 channel setup.

Dean, that's what I was trying to do with the Celine CDs, but someone said that the SACD are mastered differently, which throws of any comparison. Also, what is it that "burns in" on Sonys or any other conductors of electricity? I think Al K had a point about the brain getting used to some changes when first listening to new equipment.

Kelly, would a good external DAC cure the shortcomings of a cheap player, or is there more than just that?

Dave, if I get what you're saying, this makes it even harder to judge as ultimately, a crappy SACD will not be as good as a well (sound) engineered CD, so mastering comes into play as well.

------------------

Andy

78 Khorns (20' apart!)

Audire Difet 3 Preamp

Adcom GFA 535 II

NAD 4130 Tuner

Marantz CD 63SE

Pioneer DV 434s>c>

[Mallette]

Andykub:

You will have to explain what you thought I said :->

Really...I would expect the same PERCENTAGE of ills to plague SACD as CD as LP as DVD-A, as you've got the same likelyhood of incompetent engineers. And I would expect that it will, for quite some time, still take a lot more money thrown at the digital end to equal analog.

I've got it to 400.00 plus an old computer, but that is still a lot more than a used turntable and an old amp with a phono input.

Dave

[TheEAR]

Oh Lord look at this mess,SACD gets pounded into the ground,because of a few sub par "SACD" players.Its like with cheapo crappo so called Hi-Fi mini systems.

Not real Hi-Fi

You know I have two quality SACD players and only a few SACD CD's,the sound quality of SACD at its best is simply amazing.NO it will not replace vinyl as the beloved medium of a few good audiophiles.I here will give vinyl its well deserved respect.Vinyl sound so natural,so full of body so many CD's(no amtter how great)simply lack.

But a quality SACD played back on a Pioneer DVAX10 matched to quality amplification and speakers like the Dynaudio Contour 3.3's or Spendor FL10's sounds quite simply,the next best thing,hank you.

Better then the standard CD? Yes,a good bit better,resolution,realsim.Too many CD's are very poor quality,SACD should force the studios to produce higher quality recordings.

That is all,please continue

I will interfere no more

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[SCOOTERDOG]

Well I have only listen to SACD's in my local Hi Fi shops. I think the sound is much better then a regular cd by far. But I must admit that I decided on a DVD A machine about a year ago and I'm glad I did. The DVD format offers much more flexibility then the SACD disc's do. More storage capacity is the first thing that comes to mind, the ability to place multi formats on a single disc and video as well. I have stated this before and will state it again. I think Sony has stuck its preverbal toe out to far and will stub it again. This format forces you to go out and buy a new SACD player. With DVD A, you can buy the discs and enjoy them right now in your current DVD player. You can listen to Hi Res DTS 5.1,DD 5.1 or 2 channel PCM. And when the day arrives when you decide to upgrade your DVD player. You can move into a DVD-Audio player and enjoy the entire DVD Audio disc's you have been collecting in all of their Hi Res glory.

And now that BMG has signed a big contract to release DVD A disc's this will only help enforce that DVD A is the wave of the future, not SACD...IMHO

------------------

Denon AVR 3801

Onkyo M504 Power Amp driving the mains

Technique A-10 DVD Audio/Video Player

Pioneer DVL-909 Laserdisc/Dvd Player

Dish Network Dolby Digital Sat receiver

Mitsubishi 50" Screen

Mitsubishi HSU-575 HiFi VCR

Klipsch La Scala ( Mains)

Klipsch RFC5 Center

Klipsch RSS6 Surround Side

Klipsch RSS .5 Back surround

Klipsch KSW 12 Subwoofer

Denon DRA-295 Stereo Receiver Driving Outdoor Speakers

Boston Acoustics OutDoor Speakers

My Home Theater Page http://www.geocities.com/scooterb4u/ScootersHT.html