mobile homeless Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Believe me, I know what numbers can do. But some have trouble in teh ultimate translation when you have to eventually move the number and make the translation to perception, feeling....or analog. UIltiamtely, it gets converted. MAny that are good with numbers are clueless in the conversion. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Interesting on the Meridian 588. I have only heard one other report of it - from a friend who currently has the 508 and was toying with upgrading. He hated the 588 and applied much the same description to it as Guy ascribes to the Sony against the 588. The Sony 777 was THE machine for a while a few years ago and everybody was raving about it. I have only heard it at the high end show here in Athens on the Sony stand and the whole setup has singularly failed to impress 3 years running - but that is Sony (in Greece anyway). Totally incapable of putting together a decent sounding system. The show this year was the first that had SACD machines running on many stands with many manufacturers. Most were side-by-siding them with vinyl and on all but one stand the vinyl won out hands down. The exception, surprizingly enough, was the Klipsch stand. They were running a pair of KHorns driven by the new Accuphase 530 (30 wpc class A SS amp) mated to a Basis TT and the new Accuphase SACD player (Model 85 I think). The guy running the show was playing the same music (but not the same recordings) on vinyl and on SACD and switching between them - all classical. I would say from that brief sample (I was on the stand for about one and a half hours) the SACD acquitted itself very well. Of course we are in different price ranges here. The Basis all up was about $2,500 whilst the Accuphase is a cool $11,000. A better TT/cartridge/arm would doubtless have faired better and possibly won out. Still - that was the best digital reproduction I have ever heard. One point the displayer made during the listening sessions. He chose the recordings carefully as, according to him, SACD recordings are as variable as CD and vinyl. This means that really establishing what SACD can do is tricky. Pick the wrong recording and any SACD player will sound bad. The converse may or may not be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The music probably has more to do with it than anything else. I think digital is well suited for Pop, Rock, Metal, and Techno. Those chilling out in more intimate sessions with Jazz and Classical might notice the differences more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 This argument above is rich: If you like SACD, it is because you are not sophisticated enough to realize how bad it is. LOL. All engineers who work with SACD and master tapes say that they are indistinguishable or virtually indistinguishable. I have never seen an engineer write that he could not detect the difference between a 30 ips open reel tape and an LP. An LP does not equal a 30 ips master tape in any way. The only thing it has in common is that it is analog. Why care about what a mastering engineer says when it is a question of whether or not you personally enjoy it? Here's why: No one here has had access to a professional master tape and a DSD/SACD recorder and been able to switch back and forth between them. Also, no one here has ever heard a master tape played back against an LP cut from it. So, it's absolutely correct, experience makes the difference. LPs are fun, so are 45s, and I listen to some a few times every week. But I don't kid myself that I am listening to something that equals the master tape. The mistake a lot of audiophiles make is acting like the LP is the reference. It isn't. The reference is the original master high-speed open reel tape. Why should an SACD sound like vinyl, when vinyl doesn't sound like the master? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 So what happens between that recording transfer to the DSD format and the eventual release of the SACD's for sale that has such a dramatic effect on the quality observed? Or, could it be that however good the recording the equipment being used to play it back on is failing to get that great music "out of the groove" so to speak. Or, are the studio monitors these engineers are using of good enough quality to tell the difference? And, I wonder how many of these self same engineers claimed the same thing for PCM when digital recording first came out.. Whether vinyl sounds like reality or not the simple fact is that a growing number of people find they like the sound of vinyl better and are returning to it from digital media. It is also interesting to note that one of the boasts of DSD recording was, as I remember, that it sounds more like vinyl than CD did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/28/2004 9:39:17 AM maxg wrote: So what happens between that recording transfer to the DSD format and the eventual release of the SACD's for sale that has such a dramatic effect on the quality observed? Or, could it be that however good the recording the equipment being used to play it back on is failing to get that great music "out of the groove" so to speak. Or, are the studio monitors these engineers are using of good enough quality to tell the difference? And, I wonder how many of these self same engineers claimed the same thing for PCM when digital recording first came out.. Whether vinyl sounds like reality or not the simple fact is that a growing number of people find they like the sound of vinyl better and are returning to it from digital media. It is also interesting to note that one of the boasts of DSD recording was, as I remember, that it sounds more like vinyl than CD did... ---------------- Good points, Max. 1) Who says there is a dramatic difference? 2) There can always be a system limitation. 3) We have to assume so. It sounds like you're heading to the realm of "mastering engineers don't know their craft; sophisticated audiophiles are the better judge." 4) Some did, some didn't. Some engineers disliked PCM immensely. There were zillions of heated arguments about whether CD was an improvement over vinyl on strictly musical terms. And this isn't a case of rewriting history; there were people who hated PCM/CD from day one. But no one argued that CD wasn't better as far as convenience, ability to play in the car, and lack of ticks, pops. Recently the people involved in Mercury Living Presence stated that they never were satisfied with their CD transfers because the resolution wasn't good enough. They are ecstatic about SACD. (Unfortunately they just announced the release date of their SACDs has been delayed again.) 5) More power to them. They should play whatever they find more enjoyable. 6) I heard lots of people say it sounded more ANALOG. If someone said it sounds more like vinyl, they were making the mistake I mention above, equating an analog master tape with an analog delivery medium, the LP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/28/2004 2:16:12 AM mobile homeless wrote: I really think there is huge gap in experience and reference. I see this getting more and more noticable. Lately, it's been a whirlwind here. The reference point is just not the same so peope are talking right past each other. Music, experince, systems, sensitivity, reference points are all so varying. Conjecture is getting hard when one person's pot of gold is another's park bench. kh ps- snap crackle pop? I could say 0s and 1s ... Numbers are easier to remember, right? It seems so these days. ---------------- Classic Kelly Holsten statement !! He has the golden ear. I can not believe people put up with this here. What a insult to us all !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Craig, "Classic Kelly Holsten statement !!" It is - surely you have gotten used to them by now.... "He has the golden ear." So it seems. "I can not believe people put up with this here. What a insult to us all !!" I cant believe you still let this get to you. Personally I breeze past these things like they aren't there. What was said isnt untrue even though it is phrased badly. People's experience with different systems, music etc. is variable within this thread and that level of experience will often dictate how an individual will react to hearing other systems and components. 3 years ago I had a system I was very proud of - and reckoned it to be just about as good as any out there. Listening to the system I have now I can see that I was wrong about my original system. This is a change brought about purely as a result of my gaining more experience in listening to audio. Doubtless in 5 years time this system will have changed dramatically and my rating of it then will be very different from my rating of it today. Did I mention it is the best system ever assembled? I know I am going to be laughing at these home made speakers in the future.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Man Craig, I see an uphill battle here on this one. Although I have to agree with you in some ways. While stopping short of calling it an insult, I will say that it is less kind than I would have hoped and seems more buttoned up without invoking emotion in me. I think the differing levels of participation and experience is counting for some of these differences. Is the post as intimate and involving as some I've read? YES... and no. I dont think the post really brought out the same feelings I have had with others. While reading the comments, I felt at once slightly removed, admiring the syntax but somehow more apart than when reading posts elsewhere. But there are quite a number of souls who are less than happy... , a few are going to other forums, others just lurking. But I have avoided talking too much till I read some more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Quick comment. The SONY SACD 555 es is MUCH better than the 222. I have the 222 and it is a darn good player, no complaints. But the 555 is head and shoulders better. I played with one that I might be acquiring. The 222 has a noisy carriage compared to the 555, but definitely plays with crisp clean clarity. I have noticed an incremental improvement in my system, which is good. It has intuitive, and easy to use controls as well. I thought I got a good deal at $328.00. Definitely buy for $290. You'll be satisfied. But nothing compared to a 555. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDistortion Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I own a Sony XA777ES SACD player and think that it sounds excellent on both redbooks and SACDs. In my system, a NOSValves upgraded Scott 299-D and '76 Cornwalls, the XA777ES sounds very smooth and warm, with a nice laid back sound. Both well mastered redbooks and SACDs can sound amazing on this machine. Ed Hurdle HeavyDistortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 "I cant believe you still let this get to you. Personally I breeze past these things like they aren't there. What was said isn't untrue even though it is phrased badly." No, he phrased it that way intentionally (right Kelly?). However, like you Max, it's easier to just let it slide instead of engaging in a flame war over something as trivial as audio. Besides, it's just an opinion, and you know what people say about that. "People's experience with different systems, music etc. is variable within this thread and that level of experience will often dictate how an individual will react to hearing other systems and components." Certainly true, but only to a degree. It would be interesting to see how a newbie, as well as someone well entrenched in the hobby -- would react to the sound of my system compared to something being driven with 3 watts and groovy plastic. I'll take majestic scale, dynamics, and live presence over the emotive, abstract descriptions used to descibe the sound of naturally compressed systems. EDIT: I forgot to add that Paul made some very good points above regarding open reel and mastering -- and that last post is funny as hell. Now that's what I call 'Classic Parrot'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 BTW Max, I also agree that the 508 is more musical than the 588. I also had a chance to compare the 588 to my Burmester 939 (on different occasion) who sounded much better. Should have compared it to the Sony............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Dean, I think you have a dimmer view of Kelly than I do. "It would be interesting to see how a newbie, as well as someone well entrenched in the hobby -- would react to the sound of my system compared to something being driven with 3 watts and groovy plastic." The newbie would probably be floored, but that is the point. Listening to your system expands his experience and alters the reference by which he judges other systems. Someone who is entrenched in the hobby may react differently, or not. If they have heard "better" systems then they will start with the phrases I get to hear "Well it is very good value for money...", or, "Yes well it is much better than I expected...", or, "This system would benefit from....." All nice ways of saying - you aint there yet buddy. Of course they may be right and they may be wrong - and I may choose to agree or disagree with their findings. Bottom line - I think your argument is in full agreement with mine and roughly what Kelly was driving at, although I am sure he can confirm that for himself. Of course it applies equally well to cars, televisions, boats, planes, trains..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Guy, sorry - confused - which sounded better the Burmeister or the 588? PS - I will let my friend know he is not alone. We all thought he was barking - but we never got to listen to the 588... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/28/2004 10:37:32 AM DeanG wrote: I'll take majestic scale, dynamics, and live presence over the emotive, abstract descriptions used to descibe the sound of naturally compressed systems. ---------------- Killer sentence, Dean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/28/2004 11:01:01 AM maxg wrote: Guy, sorry - confused - which sounded better the Burmeister or the 588? PS - I will let my friend know he is not alone. We all thought he was barking - but we never got to listen to the 588... ---------------- The Burmester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Max, It isn't that it gets to me I just know how statements like that get to many others that refrain from posting here because of insulting statements like above and found it apropriate to point it out. I'm not upset in the least. This is the Klipsch forum not a Audiophile Elitetist forum. A insult is a insult whether stated politely or not. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Hey wait a minute. That sounds like a personal attack against Klipsch. Anyone with a Klipsch speaker is an "audiophile elitist" -- just ask us! I think it's the uppity, snobby, and arrogant attitude you object too. We'll, I'm certainly insulted -- because I'm all of those things, and have worked very hard at it! What, you have a problem with people talking down to you, like you're some Barbarian, or uneducated peasent? They don't do it on purpose -- they're just being themselves! Didn't you know this whole audio thing revolves around class warfare? BTW -- you're system sucks, and you really need to get a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I think the whole MASTER TAPE vs. LP/SACD is quite interesting when considering the VAST majority of the music I listen to---35-50 year old recordings! I am ABSOLUTELY certain that an LP cut from masters derived from tapes that were months if not WEEKS old deliver FAR superior sonics than LPs or SACDs or WHATEVER derived from new masters cut from FIFTY YEAR OLD DRIED OUT AND BRITTLE master tapes that have been stored in GODAWFUL conditions! I know this is true because I have quite a few very near mint original LPs that I can compare with both reissue "auidophile" LPs and CDs. The tapes have degraded and no amount of mastering magic from the likes of Steve or Bernie or whoever can make up for what is now lost forever. What these gurus do is pretty amazing, but no amount of their magic can really recapture what was originally there . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.