Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by DigMyGroove, Nov 12, 2017.
Channel D. Have you heard an SC-1 or SC-2?
You tested one application and make a statement like that? Ooook...
And yet you clearly haven't heard the SC-1 or 2 and make a statement like you did. Why can't you answer MY question?
And I didn't "test" it. But used it extensively. Your assumptions are insulting. Yes, there are computer programs that offer similar features. I don't want a computer in my listening room. The SC-2 does a far better job invisibly and without the need for input from me like a computer program does. I find that very convenient. You keep your computer, I'll keep my SC-2 and we'll both be happy.
I recently bought a Music Matters Blue Note title from a Forum member who cautioned that there was a bit of non-fill on one track. With the SC-2 click removal engaged the non-fill could be heard, but as though it was "under a pile of blankets" (so to speak); not gone, but very much lessened in impact.
I'm surprised that they didn't think the Sugarcube could help with MCA crackle. My experience thus far has shown that it does wonders with eliminating noise beyond just pops and clicks.
That's good to know. Thanks!
I have to imagine that using a computer to do what the Sugarcube does, is "somewhat" like using a PC as a movie hub vs using Kaleidascape... SURE, you can put the same 4K movies on the PC and run them with some great software etc... but the Kaleidascape offers a component design, easy to use, plug and play, and with upgrades along the way that are also easy/automatic. Designed for those who appreciate the end result of the device, and don't have the desire or knowhow to build/use a media hub PC. I am sure this is not a PERFECT analogy, but I believe there is some merit here, and a premium is always charged for design and convenience.
That is a good analogy. There's no question either model of the SugarCube is far more elegant, straight-forward, and easier to use for most than having a PC perform the same tasks. Also, the SC-2 promises the ability to record the whole LP side with automatic track splitting and tagging, something (AFAIK) no PC application can do. For some, that is worth the extra cost. For me personally, it's not. Well, not at the current price, anyway.
If the price does come down significantly, I'll likely reexamine my position.
Im pretty sure the Sugarcube is a small computer in a box. Computer size is dramatically smaller nowadays... for example the computer I use to do real-time click repair fits in the size of my hand, is fanless, is hidden behind the rack and the interface automatically boots to run the program and I can interact with it via remote app on my phone/ipad if I choose to.
That seems like a perfect solution. The SugarCube is a computer in a box, sans HD and memory (other than what might be hard-wired to one of the boards inside) and I like it for the same reason you like your set-up; it's clean, quiet, and works without having to futz with it. I get that some people would perhaps want more control and prefer a computer interface, I' just not one of those people. At least not in my listening room.
What are the odds that the endgame isn’t to revise and improve the units, but simply to use them as proof of concept to license out the tech to others, maybe for inclusion in preamps and phono stages, etc?
Could be interesting... thoughts?
I believe that a preamp with the SC technology was Sweet Vinyl's first go at packaging the technology. The feedback was that people wanted to use their own choice of preamp with the SC unit as an accessory.
Sure But that’s not what I’m suggesting, exactly. I’m thinking more like how companies licensed roomperfect or Audessy... perhaps many companies will do so with this tech? Just a thought.
I have been lurking here a bit. I am one of the first 50 SC-2 beta testers. I got in on the Indiegogo campaign, so yes, I got a great price. So far, my thoughts on the SC-2 match those of the other owners here. In my case, however, the track-splitting and digitizing features of the SC-2 are every bit as important to me as is the click processing. I am 12 years into a massive project to digitize my tapes and LPs for use on a server and in my car. Much of what I own is not available on CD, and I have found in nearly every case that my own Red Book digitizations of my LPs sounds better to me than the standard CD release of the same album. Also, although time consuming, it is cheaper. I have been using a pro-sumer CD recorder from Marantz since 2006 for this. I now feed the Marantz with the output from the SC-2, with excellent results. I then rip the CD-R to my server and to an SD card for use in my portable audio player for the car. I would like to skip the CD-R step of the process, and that is why I look forward to the track-splitting ability, and to the ability to send the digitized signal over my network to my server. Also, once this is all working, I can finally move beyond Red Book. Currently my system can only handle up to 96/24, so that will be my FLAC resolution of choice. The current firmware for the SC-2 allows the selection of both digital format, bit rate and sampling frequency.
I am happy to answer any questions about my experience with the SC-2.
When will the track-splitting and automated tagging features be released?
This is a great question. The next question is how well does it work???
It was advertised the moment the campaign started. This is almost 2 years ago and still unreleased as of now.
I understand they're a small outfit but omitting one of the main selling points of their SC-2 device is rather shortsighted on their part. They're expecting people to pay 3K for a box that can't do what they've been promising for 2 years. I don't know anybody naive enough to take the plunge with those circumstances.
Well, I look at this way. First of all, I understand the difficulties of reliable software that will split tracks. I have been told that there will be ways to manually correct errors in track splitting. But I realize that this can take a while to properly implement. There are many other things that will be added as well. I look forward to a more adjustable record level, Left-right balance adjustments, and calibration memory settings to accommodate those with multiple 'arms, 'tables and cartridges.
As to whether the SC-2 as it is now is a good value at retail, I pretty much would say not really. The SC-2 really doesn't do much more than the SC-1, especially if the recording feature isn't useful to you. It's not useful for me without the track splitting and without being able to send the digitized files over my network to my server. Right now, it is really just a novelty. I still have to feed the SC-2 into my CD recorder, which is exactly what I would do with the SC-1. But having gotten in on the Indiegogo campaign, I think I got a great value, even if the promised features never become available. But having met and spoken to Dan over the last year and half, I am pretty confident that Sweetvinyl is serious about delivering a finished, fully-realized product. It has been interesting to be involved in the beta testing process. Dan has been very responsive to my comments on the SC-2, and even added one item to the "to-do" list based on my suggestions.
As for their current status, it is kind of chicken-and-egg. They need sales to support their efforts to get all the features working, yet they need all the features working to drive sales. A conundrum. I am willing to give them the time they need.
The chicken and the egg comment really nails it on the head. I would like to buy one sometime but a big reason holding me back is the fact that it is a new start up company. What if I have trouble with the unit and the company goes belly up? I'll be stuck with a very expensive door stop.
Technically, that's a risk we all take with those types of purchases. Look at Pono, for instance. Or Oppo.
Heck, I read the fine print at Indiegogo, and it clearly said that I might not get anything at all for my $1500 contribution. And if that happened, I basically had no recourse. It was a bigger gamble on audio gear than I had ever taken before. Only having met Leo and Dan and seen a working prototype gave me some confidence. But I knew the risks. As for reliability, should Sweetvinyl fail, yes, that's also a risk. However, it is basically a Linux computer running software, so depending on what goes wrong, it might not necessarily become a paperweight.
Most people I know would be entirely lost trying to operate a computer running Linux so I doubt that'd help them much but if you're a Linux user, then I guess that's an extra security blanket.
2 laptops at home running Linux. 2 PC's running dual boot Windows/Linux. But, that's straying quite far from the point.
I do believe I'm just going to have to fork over the money and get in on the fun with an SC-1. I have run scenario after scenario with ClickRepair (pitch protection, manual approve, reverse, simple, wavelet x2, wavelet x3, etc.) and I've never, ever been able to get the satisfactory results on big pops like I have heard these units do with ease. And, at this stage, I am about ease, not pencil re-drawing waveforms, manually, for hours at a time. I have many first pressing records and many rare records (with that one repetitive bugger of a scratch and/or chandelier rattling pop) that would be very, very expensive to replace. It would cost me several times the cost of this unit, if not more. I acquired some of these records (original John Coltrane on Prestige, original Art Blakey on Blue Note, etc. etc.) for less than a dollar in the 90's............ .......when it was common knowledge that hanging on to vinyl was absurd.
Did you try iZotope?
Every time I see an alert that a new post has been made on this thread, I keep hoping it’s one that states the new “Sc-3” is coming for $799 LOL.
I’ll go back to my wishing room, now
Separate names with a comma.