Go back to the start of the thread...It was discussed. The reviews, videos, and input from folks here, as well as the audio samples shared, seem to indicate there is little to no impact. Whether that is accurate, well... we all have different hearing. I am intrigued and want to get one. Reality is, when they DO ship, MusicDirect has a 30 day return policy. I can decide for myself if it is a value add
After a few days to think it through, I have decided to wait. Mostly, because I would rather know the product is in stock and ready to ship when I order it, vs. it being an undetermined wait period. Not a bad thing, but not something I want to do. Also, maybe in 12-18 months there will be a version of the SC-1 that has the nicer screen but not the headphone/recording function that I really don't need. Yeah, cosmetically I dislike the Sc-1, and operationally I don't need the SC-2. So, patience will be my virtue this go round I am certain I will get one at some point, but I don't need it NOW. I'd rather see them sort out their (supposed) packaging hold up, start shipping units, and know that e-tailers have STOCK.
Trouble with the packaging? That is usually an excuse used to mask over far more serious issues-- like money, or bugs in the technology, or serious supply chain difficulties-- but difficulties surrounding getting your product into a nicely designed cardboard box are no way no how causing months long delays in shipping. Just ain't so. Just saying... Another theory is that they have received private feedback from folks that are in the industry, like Michael Fremer, that has given them cause for concern-- exactly in the A-D-A conversion chain. Also, hope the price eventually goes down once costs are covered as I suspect the parts cost for this item is just a tiny fraction of the actual cost, and the profit margins on this are likely many fold above cost. Early adopters please rock on! That's often the way problems are truly identified and resolved. No doubt we need something like this in the hobby-- would be nice to have more than one mfg trying to get products like this to market.
Yes, I think they have massively overpriced the product. I'm one of the people using Clickrepair RT very successfully which cost about £110 including the mini pc it runs on and the license. In the UK they are pricing the SC-1 model at £1500 which is absurd in my opinion.
Tell me, how do you use clickrepair RT when you listen to a vinyl "live"? And are you sure it make as good job as the sugar cube?
You would need one more set of interconnects. You currently wire preamp to amp. You would need to wire preamp to SC and then SC to amp. Tony
My two cents. I recently got the SC-1 and am blown away by how well it works. If the music on the LP is being degraded in any way, I simply can't hear it. Every extra step/device in an analog recording or playback chain alters the music to some extent. The goal is to minimize those alterations and leave the original signal as un-tampered with as possible. The SC-1 is inserted after the phono stage via RCA inputs. It digitizes the analog signal at 192/24, de-clicks and de-pops it, and converts it back to analog at the RCA outputs. I understand where analog purists might object to the inserting of a digital step, but hearing is believing. The A-to-D and D-to-A converters are, to my ears, transparent. I'm hearing no coloration to the music. All the warmth, fullness, and depth of the original LP comes through perfectly. And the removal of pops, tics, and clicks is astonishing. This is perhaps the most jaw-dropping device I've ever put in my system. I would like the ability to send a digitized signal to my Bricasti M1 D-to-A converter, but at the moment the SC-1 isn't able to do that. I'm told by Dan Eakins at SweetVinyl a software upgrade should be ready later this year to allow that via the USB ports. And as mentioned in this thread, the SC-1 doesn’t record your albums for you, it just de-clicks the music while it’s playing. The SC-2 can digitize your albums and download metadata for them, etc. The de-clicking algorithm is the same in both units. I wish I’d gotten in on this during the Indigo campaign as this unit isn’t cheap at $2,000, but for me it was money very well spent. Of course the SC-1 can’t perform miracles. I have a very beat up 10" LP of Frank Sinatra's "I've Got A Crush On You" (Columbia CL 6290) which my mother bought as a teenager. It doesn't have any skips, but it's got no shortage of pops, tics, clicks, and gouges. In terms of condition, it might be the worst record I own. Even raising the setting of the SC-1 to 10, I still hear the occasional deep thump of a particularly heinous gouge. But easily 95% or more of the noise is simply gone. It gives me the ability to assess the quality of the recording beneath all that noise, incredible. And as others have mentioned, you’ll hear whatever groove damage there may be too. I’m surprised to read SweetVinyl is working on software to remove that too, but I can’t imagine how it will be done without altering the music. Still, I’m curious to know where that effort goes. I’ve been using ClickRepair for years and have found it to be a bit of a challenge. Set the controls too aggressively and you get noticeable distortion. Even at lower settings it has an ironic tendency to create spiky clicks that don’t exist in the original file; I’m always checking for those and manually removing them. (Surprised I’ve never read anyone else complain about that.) So far the SC-1 does a much better job at removing clicks without damaging the music, and in real time. I’m loving the SC-1. I was skeptical at first, but took the plunge after reading impressive reviews. What an amazing device.
What setting are you referring to? I've used 9-11 all the time and it sounded pretty good. Even at lower settings it has an ironic tendency to create spiky clicks that don’t exist in the original file.[/QUOTE] The question is whether you hear these spikes in any way. If not, I wouldn't worry about it. Wonder how a recorded file by the SC-1 would look in that fashion compared to the same one processed by ClickRepair.
Super glad to hear it works well for folks. I’d like one, but I truly can’t get past the cost. It doesn’t have an emotional ROI for me that I value at $2k. I can (thankfully) afford it. I just don’t WANT to. When it was $800ish, cool. At $1200ish... maybe. At $2k? I will go without or buy one used. That is my stance as of today, fwiw. It’s cool, for sure. I just can live with the few clicks and pops I get, and spend that 2k on anything else. Everyone will have their own value prop. Just sharing mine. Not saying it’s “right”. Just how I feel.
About a week ago I called Sweet Vinyl and inquired about the coming software updates that will address surface noise. I was told it should be ready in about 2 months. No word on the cost yet.
Their record for keeping up with ETAs has been less than stellar. If I were you, I wouldn't keep my hopes up for the 2-month period to be accurate. Curious to see how that will be implemented and whether it'll have any negative effects on the sound.
This is a very interesting device, but the bottom line is; when this thing converts the signal to digital and then back to analog, it's the same difference as taking a vinyl sourced, high-res digital file, and then pressing an LP from it. And the fact that it's in "real time", will probably skew the timing off even more. While this may not be noticeable in some systems, in extremely revealing tube based systems, differences will be heard. We don't have to hear one to know this, it's simple science. There's a certain music label, that I love, that takes original pressings of impossible to find European LP's--when the master tapes are no longer available--then uses a certain (professional/studio based) Cedar no noise de-crackling system from which the 'de-crackled' LPs are made. The Cedar system is much more sophisticated than this device, and I can still easily hear differences between my original pressings and the de-crackled reissued pressings of this label. So keep that in mind, because this is effectively the same thing. With that said, this seems like a very useful device (at least on some terrible and irreplaceable record pressings), in which the benefits might outweigh the sonic degradation in most systems. Cheers, Bill
A perfect example of a post filled with assumptions about a device which has never been tested, used, or heard. I'll take the OP's actual experience over people's assumptions any day.
According to the specs, the Sugar Cube devices are 24 bit/192k sampling. http://www.audioaffair.co.uk/sweetvinyl-sugarcube-sc-2 SweetVinyl SugarCube SC-1 Speaking as an analog fan, that's a level of digital resolution I'm comfortable with. The problems associated with digital and CD have always been related to the early lock-in to the "kinda-sorta high fidelity" 16/44k standard, not about "digital" per se. Digital processing is inescapable, ultimately. The perceptual faculties of the human brain ultimately transform all sensory input into "digital", including sound. Straight-up activated/latent patterning by the neurons. Binary, on/off.
A closed system doing AD and then DA conversion can optimize the filtering and digital processing to be more transparent than you get if using a typical AD converter paired with a typical DA converter. If Sugar Cube has done their engineering well they could be getting better audio quality and more transparent results with their closed AD/DA system than you might otherwise expect.
Besides, an example was kindly provided where it was turned on and off. All the theories about sound degradation go out the window when there's a practical example proving it wrong.
Well, I listened to that sample, and the Sugar Cube's processing does leave an undeniable **effect**. For the average person (and indeed, maybe for most people), it probably doesn't "degrade" the experience of listening to the record in question, but the unit is not perfectly transparent. Having said that, I do find it very impressive for what it does, and I hope they can continue to extract even better results in the future. - Kevin
I hear a sound quality change in the posted samples between the original and repaired samples. Based on that I wouldn't consider the declicking process to be transparent based on the digital samples. But the proper way to test would be to listen to the album playing live and then listen to the same album playing through the Sugar Cube live. You can't do that sort of test with digital recorded samples of each. You need to be there live and listening to the Sugar Cube in the flesh. With the digital recorded samples I'm listening to the AD converter used and the DA of my DAC and how they sound together as much as I'm listening to what the declicking process sounds like. If I was able to listen to the Sugar Cube like I'd be listening to the closed system AD/DA process and that could very well sound more transparent.
I do see that the SC 1 IS being offered for $2k through MusicDirect. Their first listed price was, I think, $3k. That brings it down to a point where it's not totally out of the question. (Still the additionally interconnect(s) to consider though.)
$2000 was always the price Music Direct had for the SC-1, and the SC-2 has always been $3000. The problem is, those prices are $500 higher than they originally said they would be selling these for. The original prices were $1500 and $2500. I’m happy for those who got in early, but any interest I ever had in one of these was instantly erased by the company jacking the prices up.
I see that you are vehemently defending this product for whatever reason, but what I said is not an assumption--its a fact. If you take something apart and then reconstruct it, it will never be as good/complete as the original--no matter how well (or high bit-rate, in this case) its done. I can use a computer to digitize the Mona Lisa, remove all the 'imperfections', and then reprint it in its new "perfect" form, but does that mean that it will be indecernable or better than the original? Or, will it be lacking some virtues the original had? I hope you see my point now.. For those who can't hear the difference, the noise removal might be worth 2k. But to those with more sensitive ears or equipment, digitizing vinyl defeats the whole purpose of vinyl listening.
