Should I get off the SACD wagon?

After my mixed comments on the format, it was ironic that my special-ordered Weather Report "Heavy Weather" SACD arrived Friday, and I listened to it about four times over the weekend. It sounds great. The instrumental timbre is superb. It's like you are actually listening to Weather Report, not some simulation of them.

 

Yes, exactly! That is why I was very careful to say that SACDs may be superior, but that *I* had not heard a good demo of it yet... Four out of five were worse, and one was equal to CD. This is why I have chosen to wait on the sidelines for now. I was still "licking my wounds" after blowing $90.00 on the first 5 SACDs (which are now gathering dust). So what rock SACDs are a "must have" to demo SACDs capabilities (Sony or otherwise)?

 

You might be able to rip the DSD code from the SACD disk but Sony and Philips will not allow any burning DSD tools and hardware to be released into the wild. Without those tools and hardware you will not be able to burn your own SACD disk. I guess that you could copy the code to your hard drive but those files are huge.

 

To me, the whole point is we are trying to get a system close to viynl when we already have vinyl. I only heard a few titles while I had my SACD player in my main system, and while I thought they were better than an average CD, I did not find their advantage to be enough to justify getting deep into a new format. Even if I had been impressed, the lack of titles that I cared about would have been very frustrating. I have a turntable and over 1000 LP's and I wish I had just saved my money.

 

What would be the point of trying to get a system close to vinyl? By its very nature, vinyl playback is incapable of reproducing the kind of dynamic range that is available even on a CD - and then, when one discovers that DSD affords another 10 dB of dynamic range, it suddenly becomes clear that SACD should not only get close to vinyl, it should surpass it in meaningful ways. Dynamic range notwithstanding, there's also the issues of signal to noise ratio and bandwidth which, again, can be surpassed with standard redbook, and I'm not just talking theoretically.

It would be interesting to know what those few titles were that you heard, just as it would be interesting to know what kind of audio system those who claim to hear little or no difference between DSD and CD used to make their comparisons, as I don't doubt that a system without the power to resolve microdynamics would provide a listener with less evidence of DSD's superiority over CD andvinyl.

I have over 4000 LPs, BTW, and only wish that the pace of SACD releases was faster and more diverse than it is.

 

Are you giving up on multichannel SACD and two SACD channel?

 

I believe that only new, made for multi-channel recordings are valid listening for MC mode. I really don't care for classic recordings remixed to multi. On the other hand, the stereo DSD transfers are great for the most part.

All in all, give the consumer both the stereo and MC remix and then make it a hybrid SACD for backward compatibility and mobilty and everyone will be happy.

 

Which is of course true of analog playback too. And then there's the
distortions..or let's call them *compromises* -- introduced by vinyl, and vinyl mastering.

It's funny that one of your main complaints is that you can't *upgrade* as dramatically with digital as you can with analog, which is to say, the worst analog is way worsE than the best analog, whereas the worst digital is only marginally worse than the best digital.
Only in the wacky world of audiophilia would that be counted as a *negative*.

Vinyl will never be digital (well, unless you count the ELP turntable, which I don't). Vinyol will never be as accurate as digital, all other things being equal. Both will continue to sound good, though, if they're done right

Being human, my neurons always fire in an all-or-none, zero-or-one fashion -- that is, 'digitally'. This include those involved in the auditory system. How about yours?

Vinylphiles tend to have 'common sense' ideas about digital -- e.g. that sampling and interpolation means 'missing' some of the music, or that analog reproduction 'fits' the human auditory system better
-- that aren't borne out by the science. These claims seem to me to be put forward by vinylphiles mainly to reassure themselves that their high-priced turntables, heavy-platter pressings, etc *must* sound better than a $12 CD played on a $150 player.

As for hi-rez formats: personally, I don't think SACD and DVD-A are *necessary*. They are answering a manufactured need. As I've said before, redbook CD done right is perfectly capable of delivering 'perfect sound', as the existence of *just one* great-sounding CD (or a CD burn of an LP) demonstrates.

The DVD-As and SACDs I've bought have been to hear 1) a different mastering job (I prefer the remaster of the original stereo mix on Deep Purple's Machine Head DVD-A done by Bill Inglot and Dan Hersch to any other version, for example) or 2) a different 2-channel mix or 3) a surround mix. I have never heard of any test which yet offers good evidence, much less proof, that the hi-rez format, of itself, offers better sound than Redbook --*given the same mastering*.

 

Nicely put, Krabapple!

btw, do you pronounce that "crab apple" or "kra bopple," as in Mrs. Krabapple, Bart's teacher on The Simpsons?

Ray

 

sjb - you raise good points. And I agree with you about Sony's release strategy. It's crazy. They have such a wealth of material in their vaults, but they release the same old stuff. Not that I don't like Kind of Blue - I'm just not interested in getting the whole Miles catalog on SACD at this point. What about the Columbia Duke Elligton catalog? There are some gems in the vaults there which have yet to see light of day on CD. It's the same pattern that we've seen with the Sony MasterSOund series, the CBS half-speed vinyls - they release the same material every time. It must be what sells.

Re the digital out issue - it doesn't concern me that SACD players don't have digital out for the hi-res layer. I think at this point most people would be getting into it for the sound, and the ability to duplicate discs would be peripheral (the argument about backing up your retail discs is a bit lame). If you were determined to copy them, you could in theory do a nice copy through the analog outputs to CD.

I was also wondering if there is scope, with DVD burners coming on the market, to resample a SACD via the analog outs, through the soundcard on your computer, and then burn it back to a DVD-playable format - that could be fun...

 

To answer sgb's above question the four discs I own are:

Santana - Abraxas
Carol King - Tapestry
James Taylor - Hourglass
Billy Joel - 52nd Street

I owned remastered CD versions of three of those and simply couldn't tell much difference between the two on my admitedly mid-fi system, which consists of a Yamaha RX-V3000 receiver with Paradigm Studio 60 speakers. I also own vinyl copies of all those albums and consider them to sound better across the board. To me that illustrates the reason SACD won't survive. If a true high end system is required to hear the difference just what is the market potential? What percent of consumers own true high-end systems? Why would people who use boom boxes and $1000 dollar stereos bother? Why would a company like Sony support a niche market format?

 

I belive it's the mastering that makes up a good portion of the sound. A badly mastered recording will not sound good in any format.Hi-Res formats have the capability to sound better. Check out Telarc's Nice and Easy, I played the cd layer of the recording by accident and was enjoying it so much ,that when I realized that it was the cd layer I found that there wasn't much difference between the two.

 

Those are the key words, "available" and "should". The dynamic range is available but seldom used and SACD should surpass the LP but does not in most cases. But we're getting there, hopefully. By the time we do, I pray that there is still some good ideas to record and that the master tapes of the classics aren't all worn out or lost.

 

Please, sell the dang thing and get on with your life...I'm tired of people bitching and moaning about everything...of course not all mastering is equal...of course not all the titles we want are out there..of course cheaper players do not sound as good as more expensive, better built ones..why you have to ask everyone on planet earth what you should do is beyond me (he posted the same exact question on Audio Asylum last week).
I happen to love my SCD777ES and SACD...why? For $1500, the 777 is equal to or better than any combo of digital gear I've had...it's also just one box instead of transports, DTI's, Audits,Tactics,
D/A's and bunches of wires. And the SACD is a free bonus...and it is night and day to me...most cd's give me the creeps...almost all SACD's are enjoyable...no they are not perfect, some are better than others...but I can listen and enjoy...something I've never been able to do with most cd's
Sell it and get on with your life!
Steve

 

It is sold and I am getting on with my life. Thank you for your thoughtful and well meaning advice (please note the sarcasm here).

I posted this mainly to see if I was just expecting too much from the format, or if I was missing something. From the 62 replies to my post, I can see that many people have the same feeling as me. Apparantly the format is not perfected yet. Since the sound quality is not as good as I had hoped, I sold my unit and am ebaying my discs.

You really didn't have to be so grouchy in your post. I for one don't care what you are sick and tired of hearing. If you are not interested, don't read it!

 

I just want to clarify that my previous post was directed to triodesteve's post, not to the many others that contributed nicely to this thread. I appreciate their comments.

 

The Simpsons way, of course!

 

Usually I just walk away from my keyboard when I get frustrated
(I almost always walk away from arguments in real life too). I just can't
understand how people can't hear what I'm hearing. If it was a disagreement
between 2 cartridges or 2 amplifiers..then I wouldn't care less..they all sound a
little different..but what I hear is like the difference between living and dead, between
my grandmothers' cooking and The Olive Garden. And it kills me to think that SACD may
go down in flames for whatever reason...and there are many...but none of them have anything
to do with the potential sound quality...Not all SACD's are great, but for the first time in a long time
technology is not the limiting factor. I apologize for being grouchy.
Steve

 

Actually, no one wanted SACD to succeed more than I. I WANTED to like it. I tried to convince myself that it was better. And it WAS better. But not by much. Not enough to convince me it was worth it. It IS possible my classic rock taste in music that limited my purchases to Sony discs might have limited my enjoyment in the format. The sony discs might not be the best example of the format's potential.

Why didn't Sony release any of their discs as Hybrids? Then we could buy them and buy a SACD player later (when they have all the features we want). They really seemed to have dropped the ball here.

Hopefully, they will get on the ball and straighten out the format. Then maybe I'll give it another shot.

No problem on the grouchiness. I probably was, too.

 

Krabbapple, that made sense, and I can agree with that 100%!

 

Look at it this way guys, even if SACD does not succeed, the improvements in the sound of red-book CD can be improved by the advanced technology. It is claimed that red-book CD sounds better on SACD players. Better chips?

 

Yeah, I know that's what Ed Meitner says in interviews, and he always sounds convincing, at least while I'm reading the interview.
However, whenever I listen to an SACD, my excitement tends to dissipate, as reality bites back.

Anyway, IIRC, Steve reported (a long time ago) that an SACD still does NOT capture the entire analog master tape -
which makes it pretty clear that DSD technology (which is getting to be a few years old now, isn't it?) is not going to be the final word in digital audio.

Just MHO, as always!

 

BTW, if your on the fence about getting a SACD player check out CC this week.
I see they have the Sony SCD-CE775 5 disc player for only $179.99 till 05/11/02.

Even more amazing, my local CC has 3 open-box players on display, so I would imagine they would sell those off for under $120.

This player has multi-channel capability. It can also be mod-ed to get its performance up to a more expensive SACD players specs.

I wonder if this is a Sony Marketing plan to reduce the price of their SACD players to gain new fans or is Sony cutting their losses and giving up on SACD?

JohnG

 

Not evidence of this at all. This is the time of year Sony's destributers clear the shelves for new models about to be introduced. The new stuff sport fuller bass management and time alignment for SACD. Prices start at a list of $400.00.

 

Despite our frustrations, it is still early days for SACD. The first Sony machines were pretty expensive and made with great attention to detail - but they are still first generation players.

I'm happy to see cheaper players coming out, so that i can get into the format - I don't have much money to spend on equipment. But I don't have illusions about getting the ultimate sound for a cheap price. I would still expect a $200 SACD player to sound better than a $200 CD player (though not necessarily just on CD playback).

What will we be saying when some of the dedicated audiophile equipment makers start putting out second and third generation SACD players with the best componentry? Such a unit that might sell for $1,000 or way beyond might blow everything away that we've ever heard from digital. We have to wait a bit and give it a chance.

I've always been amazed at how much some people were prepared to spend on top end CD transports and convertors, in an effort to get sound that is the equal of good vinyl. I understand their motivation of course, but could not justify that sort of expenditure myself. I've been prepared to settle for modest equipment, and try to improve the sound by getting the best source material eg. DCC stuff. But I do hope that modest expenditure on the SACD front in the future could yield the equivalent in sound to what you currently get from top end CD gear. That's going to annoy some people who have sunk a lot of money into their gear over the years.