mid-priced CD players vs low-priced SACD player?

[dragonfyr]

Grateful Dead, Roxy Music, Procol Harum, Neil Young, Long John Baldry (look up who gave half of the Stones, Clapton, EJohn, Jeff Beck, Rod Stewart, and a list too long to remember or type, their start!!!), Steve Miller, Johnny Winter, and Mark-Almond - think jazz!!! (should I ask if you are familiar with a guy named John Mayall?). Exotic or esoteric???? Oh well! All titles from ~ 1969 to 1982.

And the Beta-VHS issue was during the first half of the 1980's! The Mac PC battle from 1984-say 1992ish.

Now I am glad I didn't mention any really obscure acts like the Who or, heaven forbid, Elvis!!!!

[Allan Songer]

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

On 8/11/2005 5:08:44 PM dragonfyr wrote:

Grateful Dead, Roxy Music, Procol Harum, Neil Young, Long John Baldry (look up who gave half of the Stones, Clapton, EJohn, Jeff Beck, Rod Stewart, and a list too long to remember or type, their start!!!), Steve Miller, Johnny Winter, and Mark-Almond - think jazz!!! (should I ask if you are familiar with a guy named John Mayall?). Exotic or esoteric???? Oh well! All titles from ~ 1969 to 1982.

And the Beta-VHS issue was during the first half of the 1980's! The Mac PC battle from 1984-say 1992ish.

Now I am glad I didn't mention any

really

obscure acts like the Who or, heaven forbid, Elvis!!!!

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

I saw the Grateful Dead once back in the late 70's. I also saw Neil Young once when he was singing about Johnny Rotten. I saw the Rolling Stones in 1971 when my mother MADE my older sister take me to the concert when one of her friends came down with mono--first time I ever smoked pot was that night.

I saw the Stones again about 2-3 years ago when a client laid 2 primo tickets on me and I had a really good time.

I didn't mean to say I had never heard of these guys, but when you start talking about specific albums I'm lost. I haven't bought more than 5 or 6 rock and roll albums in the last 25 years.

And when you start talking about CD and SACD and DVD-Audio I'm just as confused.

But BOTH of us like the same speakers. Says alot about the speakers.

[dragonfyr]

We do indeed agree!!!!!

And its scary that some of us remember the various format wars so intimately!

And some of us are still 'holdouts'!!!!

[aviserated]

This is a verygood SACD recording that is not overly bright sounding like most SACD recordings that I have witnessed.

John Mayall & Friends, Along For The Ride.

Mobile Fidelity AFZ 016

[Parrot]

SACDs too bright?! I own or have owned or borrowed close to 200, and I can't think of more than a couple that have been too bright. I've heard it said by others on some pop titles that I've never heard. Maybe classical is mastered a lot better, as are the particular pop titles I have. And then again, some pop titles were recorded bright as can be originally and so when they put them on SACD, they probably didn't want to change the tonal balance. But there is absolutely nothing that is inherent in the format to make SACD too bright. It'd be like saying an open reel tape is too bright compared to a cassette.

[aviserated]

Mostly mid to late 60's pop titles such as Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan.

[aviserated]

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

On 8/11/2005 8:13:00 PM aviserated wrote:

Mostly mid to late 60's pop titles such as Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan.

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

All while listening to my second system (Sonus Faber gph and ASL1003DT)they sound bright.

With my main B&K, Forte2 system they sound OK (tone controls maybe?)

[dragonfyr]

The remasters of the Stones were quite a shock for many, as they ignored the fact that Jimmy Miller intentionally muddied their mix as part of the production. So when the parts are presented in a clear pristine fashion alot of folks were horrified that an original production element was eliminated. Not to mention the difference in sound!

In other words, it was like Ted Turner colorizing all the movies whose directors COULD have made them in color had they chosen, but they intentionally shot them in black and white.

That is a real potential problem if not using the same engineer to remaster...

There is cleaning them up and pulling parts out of the mud, and there is changing the original intent of the artist. I like the first approach!

[psg]

What I might do is buy an inexpensive universal DVD player to get into the SACD format, and will try to borrow a proper CD player to see if makes a difference or not on Redbook CDs.

For around C$150, I'm looking at either of:

Samsung DVD-HD841

Pioneer_DV-588A

I'm not which has better bass management. The Samsung manual doesn't state the cutoff frequency used...

[edwinr]

Just a thought, psg, if you buy a dedicated CD player like the NAD, you will at least have proper programing facilities. Many universal players, while they play the CD's quite well, sacrifice the easy access to the CD play facilities.

[edwinr]

In relation to Sony's mismanagement of the SACD format - it's a sad fact, but true, that there have been many wasted marketing opportunities, where we, the consumer have suffered.

While I like the sound of the many SACD titles I own, you have to have your head in the sand not to recognise the true successor to CD rearing it's tecnological head. The future of mass market recorded music lies in the solid state format. I suggest that this storage medium will improve in quality (as it is doing day by day) to where it will compete with CD and maybe the higher res formats like vinyl and SACD/DVD-A.

There is no reason why albums couldn't be marketed like CD's, just that the silver disc will be replaced by a solid state device.

[Colin]

Isnt this like a two-channel versus 5.1 channel debate? I would think that a audiophile recording on 5 channels would smoke a audiophile recording on only two all channels being equal.

[Allan Songer]

One channel is even better.

[psg]

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

On 8/12/2005 3:18:17 AM edwinr wrote:

Just a thought, psg, if you buy a dedicated CD player like the NAD, you will at least have proper programing facilities. Many universal players, while they play the CD's quite well, sacrifice the easy access to the CD play facilities.

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

Can you elaborate on that?

You can't pop in a CD and press play and perhaps "next" to jump over a track or two?

[aviserated]

I have a NAD C520 dedicated CD player I will sell cheap. However it has poor error correcting. I have a couple of old favorite scratched CD's the NAD player will noy play. But my SONY 333 SACD player has no problems playing them.

No kidding, NAD C520 $100.00+ shipping

[dragonfyr]

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

On 8/12/2005 8:43:24 AM psg wrote:

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

On 8/12/2005 3:18:17 AM edwinr wrote:

Just a thought, psg, if you buy a dedicated CD player like the NAD, you will at least have proper programing facilities. Many universal players, while they play the CD's quite well, sacrifice the easy access to the CD play facilities.

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

Can you elaborate on that?

You can't pop in a CD and press play and perhaps "next" to jump over a track or two?

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

I have never encountered that in any of the DVD players I have had/used.

And the Pioneer multi-format CD/DVD/SACD/DVD-A players work just like any other CD player I have ever had, with the exception that they also handle DVDs.

Maybe you are referring to one of the over-priced exotic players where you pay extra for the inconvenience and then convince yourself that there is an advantage to the lack of planning!???

[Strabo]

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

On 8/11/2005 7:27:34 PM aviserated wrote:

This is a verygood SACD recording that is not overly bright sounding like most SACD recordings that I have witnessed.

John Mayall & Friends, Along For The Ride.

Mobile Fidelity AFZ 016

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

Correction in case anyone looks for this title it was put out by Audio Fidelity. AFZ is Audio Fidelity, Mobile Fidelity is UDSACD.

In addition, Mobile Fidelity's catalog numbers are in the thousands (IE 2003, 2027, 3005, etc).

[Strabo]

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

On 8/11/2005 8:18:07 PM aviserated wrote:

All while listening to my second system (Sonus Faber gph and ASL1003DT)they sound bright.

With my main B&K, Forte2 system they sound OK (tone controls maybe?)

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

aviserated,

I'm shocked. I recently replaced a Forte2 system with GPH's with the opposite outcome (which was the goal). This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say the GPH's were bright. I would bet that most would call them dull sounding.

IMO, the Vienna Acoustic Beethoven's (in the same price category) were bright.

What tubes are in that ASL? E-mail me if you would like to take this off-line instead of derailing this thread further.

[aviserated]

I'm sorry but my B&K/Forte combo just sounds more pleasing to my ear with most of the loud rock music I listen to. Although the GPH/ASL combo is no slouch at lower volumes it is not a better rock and roll speaker IMO than the Forte2.

For critical listening at lower volume levels I prefer the GPH/ASL with "well recorded" music. The midrange can sound more natural and 3D except for some excessive vocal sibilance at times (have you ever noticed the excessive vocal sibilance with GPH?). I think GPH just needs a bigger listening room than the one I am currently using 10' by 14' to solve most of the problem of being bright and forward sounding at times.

Set up is critical with GPH. Here is 3 important things I have learned so far:

Do not set closer than 9'.

Do not toe them in toward you.

Place close to wall to boost bass and balance out sound.

Tilt them back a little.

[Zen Traveler]

I drank the KOOL-Aid. I love the multi channel format. I have an overpriced Denon that has bass management and I love being able to add the extra slam. That is one area alot of SACD's/DVD-A's are lacking and being able to boost that 6th channel is cool.

Now the titles are shrinking. What a drag:-) Lousy market and corporate politics aside, a really good multichannel mix on a Good system is hard to beat!