SACD vs DAC 7

That's a good sign for SACD. A year or two ago when they launched their
NU-Vista upsampling $5k player they said that they decided not to make it an SACD player because of the lack of software! Looks like they've rethought that decision.

 

I was at the first stateside demonstration of the Tri-Vista. I don't really have a basis for comparison apart from my relatively cheap home system, but I wasn't very impressed. I listened to SACD versions of recordings I am very familiar with (Kind of Blue, Stones stuff) and heard nothing that would make me want to drop the kind of money they were asking for, even if I had that kind of money to give.

The demonstration made me feel much better about my budget system, and not too eager to jump on the SACD bandwagon.

 

Well, Gardo, unless you are a successful mind reader, yes, I would prefer that you not speculate regarding my intentions. Fair enough?

-----
As for the sound of DSD software, my oh my, that is a perilous subject at this early stage, isn't it?

I admit that I have managed to project a lightly taunting tone when discussing this subject -
out of nervous necessity because most people are still intoxicated with that new DSD sound.

But whether or not we ever agree that DSD software sucks or doesn't suck, let's enjoy the discussion! This is the best audio forum on the web!!

-----
Myself, I think they should have called the DSD software "Yes-Noise" (as opposed to "No-Noise" software.)

No-Noise software tries to remove the noise from the music, but it doesn't work and has come to be despised.

Yes-Noise software tries to create music by converting noise into sound. It's new... and, heck, it's "better than Red Book", ain't it??

-----
So, Gardo, I will ask you once again whether you have any complaints about the sound of your SACDs or SA/CDs.

Or are you suggesting that the Yes-Noise software has brought you Perfect Sound Forever?


FFF (As always, this is just MHO and YMMV.)

 

FFF:

Yes, that lightly taunting tone is what I detected, and why I inferred a lack of seriousness. I understand your nervousness. A lot of audiophilia makes me nervous too, including my own.

But down to cases. I have complaints about every sound carrier I've ever heard. Turntables rumble, records are pinch-warped and off-center and bring a light rain into my listening room (read: surface noise), tape has hiss and head-bumps and print-through, CDs have jitter and (most of all) a lot of piss-poor mastering, and there just aren't enough SACDs out there! That's all a way of saying that so far, SACD's sound better to me than any other sound carrier in my collection. I'm sure I'll have complaints once I settle into the medium, but what it does right is often overwhelming. More space for the instruments, a greater sense of ease in presentation--it just sounds unconstrained, compared to CD or LP. It has the solidity and stability of a good master tape, if I can trust my audio memory on this point.

Others on the forum (hello Krabapple) have argued that the superiority of SACD may be down to nothing more than careful mastering. I don't think so myself, but I see his point. My redbook DCC CDs have much, but not quite all, of the ease and 3D-quality I hear with SACD. And I see your point, that we need more examples and a lot more listening before we can feel secure about this technology.

And yet, when I listen to the SACDs of BEGGARS BANQUET or BLUE COUNTRY HEART or GRATITUDE or BLOW BY BLOW or ABRAXAS, I hear better sound than I've yet heard on my stereo. By now I know what to beware of: compression, euphonic EQ, tricks with phase. I don't hear any such jiggery-pokery.

I understand that there are theoretical objections to the DSD process having to do with noise-shaping and so forth. I pay attention to those objections, myself, because I want a reality check on "what sounds good to my ears." Self-hypnosis is a wonderful thing, but I need some reality too. Yet there are strong theoretical defenses of DSD too. And when I do critical A/B comparisons, the SACD sounds better to me.

So I dunno. Given my experience (and with a lowly SACD/DVD combo) and the testimony of those whose ears I trust (my best reality check at present!), SACD sounds a winner.

What do YOU hear?

Cheers!

 

Just judging SACD by the Jame Taylor releases and Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield, I feel SACD is a winner at this early stage.

I was never really a JT fan. I liked some of his hits but never seriously listened to his albums (my wife likes him more).

But his 2 SACD's sound incredible. I'm very impressed with his music and the way it sounds even in Mult-Ch.

Tubular Bells in Multi-Ch is a revelation. What a wonderful recording that is!

 

Tubular Bells is one of the primary reasons I bought into this format. The quad mix is just wonderful. Adds a new layer (so to speak) to my enjoyment of this longtime favorite.