RAPTORMAN Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Let us say that you already have a niece CD player that plays HDCD and sounds great--All of a sudden you have this itch to have an addition on your front end. For a moment just say $$$$ is not an issue at this time. Would you get yourself a killer SACD/DVD audio player or a killer turntable?? WHY??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 If you like older music that is possibly out of print or the master tapes may be lost... Turntable Excessive cost of new high res format software means the same money can get you into many more LP titles of greater diversity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Very true. To fully enjoy the new hi-res music, which is in itself somewhat of an audiophile niche, you need to factor in the cost of a multichannel setup, the SACD/DVD-A player, 6 analog interconnects, and the high cost of albums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisK Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I'd get both. There is much great music that is still only available on vinyl. Not to mention that quite a bit of new music comes out in both cd and vinyl but not SACD. That being said, if something I want to buy is available on cd, vinyl and SACD, I'll get the SACD. To my ears, well done vinyl sounds best followed by SACD and then a big gap to cd. Right now we're listening to Janis Ian's "Billie's Bones" on vinyl. This is one of the best albums I've bought in quite awhile. Very highly recommended. Next up are the three new Eric Clapton SACD's my friend that works at UMG dropped off a little while ago. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Just because you go for an SACD or a DVDa system does not mean you have to go surround sound too. As I understand it both will play any title in 2 channel only format so the issue of the additional investment for multi-channel is a side issue - an option for later if you prefer. In terms of ultimate quality I think the jury is still out on whether either of the digital formats actually do match the very best of vinyl - but in terms of $$$ it does seem that vinyl is clearly the less expensive way to get really good sound. And just to further confuse the issue - some of the best CD players do an outstanding job with simple CD - and some CD's are so well recorded the benefits you would actually get from any other option may be very marginal. Vinyl wins on availability of titles - possibly even over CD (although not for music from about 1990 onwards), and, usually on the cost of individual albums (especially if you are fortunate enough to be a classical lover - $2 a piece for mint vinyl is not uncommon for some of the greatest performances ever recorded!!) Of course with unlimited funds having all would be the ideal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiob Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Go gor a turntable, dollar for dollar the cd type format, high resolution or not, can not come close to the sound of a well set up turntable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I'm going to be the gadfly here. If you have a ton of money to blow, I guess I'd spend it on a nice turntable because they are so expensive. BUT, dollar for dollar, if my Philips 963SA is any indication, SACD kicks vinyl's *** across the room and back. While I don't have a multi-thousand dollar turntable set up, I do have a solid set up. Dual 1228 and Ortofon X3MC. As to software, SACDs are around $14-$16, and the Philips at any rate, is a terrific red book player. I don't know where these guys shop, but I rarely find $2 LPs that aren't beat up and new LPs cost more than CDs. Even after you scrub and scrub used records, you still will have at least some surface noise. That said, vinyl, turntables and all the acoutriments (sp?") are a lot more fun, more of a hobby if you will. Slogging through big bins of vinyl is great, the art work is much more fun, and there's a lot more to fiddle with on a turntable than a CD player. So, IMO, quality/ease of use = SACD. Fun, hobby factor = Turntable, especially if you have a couple grand to blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 "And just to further confuse the issue - some of the best CD players do an outstanding job with simple CD - and some CD's are so well recorded the benefits you would actually get from any other option may be very marginal." "Vinyl wins on availability of titles - possibly even over CD (although not for music from about 1990 onwards), and, usually on the cost of individual albums (especially if you are fortunate enough to be a classical lover - $2 a piece for mint vinyl is not uncommon for some of the greatest performances ever recorded!!)" Max, said it all in a nutshell for me. Check out those 22 bit remastered on cd recordings, as close to vinyl on cd as I've heard to date. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickieheinz Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Get a multi format unit that will play sacd,cd,cdr,etc.I have some old cd's around 20 yrs now that still sound new.Albums tend to pop and make all kind of other noise unless you spend quite a bit on the turntable/cartridge and cleaning .And even then many albums will still suck.cd's are also sounding better all the time whether its through better recording or improvemnets in technology. If you like jazz though get the turntable as there is far too much music in jazz that has only been released on album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 TT without question. Chicks dig vinyl. The GTA should have a ton of used vinyl around. I find that many folks, as they get more serious about vinyl records, broaden their taste as well. There's lots of stuff that you may never have been exposed to only readily available on vinyl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 ---------------- I find that many folks, as they get more serious about vinyl records, broaden their taste as well. There's lots of stuff that you may never have been exposed to only readily available on vinyl. ---------------- Not to mention the fact that if a LP only costs a buck, you are more apt to pick up that unuasual recording that you might just walk on by if you had to spend $15 or more on. I have found some really great LPs that I would have never even looked at if it weren't for the price. 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.