2. digital
  3. 999389338

SACD : why ?

I have a local dealer here in Paris, France who has become a very good friend. SACD technology is just starting to hit our shores, and after hearing several CDPlayers, inc. the Accuphase 100 transport, we just didn't get it. The differences are just so tiny and are entirely software dependend (a bad SACD sounds worse that a great mastered CD) that we can't see it becoming a new standard. Nor spending thousands of dollars for so little.

We did a blind test for 15 of his customers. We told them we would play them a normal CD version first, and then the same music but with the SACD version. 15 out of 15 said they thought the second sounded much better and that SACD was an amazing technology. They were surprised, shocked and embarrassed when they found out we had switched the order of play and they actually preferred the 'standard' CD.

Here is my prediction : SACD is dead, long live DVD-A. Not because DVD-A is better, it *technologically* speaking isnt, but it makes much more market sense.
badwisdom
dweller's avatar
dweller
2,152 posts
 
I agree SACD is in trouble but not due to sonics. I've heard it sound quite good although dcs 24/192 upsample still best IMO. It seems that Sony is not interested in supporting SACD purchasers with the musical icons (Beatles, 'Stones, Zepplin, etc.) that such an organization is capable of. Content provided will win this war.
cornfedboy
1,645 posts
 
badwisdom: one less-than optimal test in france does not a format make. or break. BTW, how many dvd-a titles are available at the paris le tour de record? -kelly
djohn
25 posts
 
One of the reasons that I am sticking to vinyl. I am sorry but I am getting tired of the next new wiz bang product. I can easily live with the limitations of vinyl, and I have enough LP's to last me for the rest of my lifetime.

Just my 2 cents.

David
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Was the SACD unit properly broken in ? It needs at least 300 to 400 hours to bring out its best. I own a top notch CD/upsampler frontside and comparing it to a well broken in Sony 777, my findings were not anything close to being as decisive as you infer. Besides, your so called "blind test" proves nothing, because it was not properly carried out, apart from being unfair and cheating on those unfortunate participants. Being a vinyl man and no friend at all of redbook CDs, especially as far as large orchestral music is concerned, my finding were, that SACD was indeed a step forward, as far as big symphonic sound was concerned. What I found lacking in the Sony (compared to vinyl, NOT CDs ), were dynamics and resolving power. That was the reason I am having the unit upgraded on its analog side by the Audience people.
lev335
220 posts
 
Badwisdom,
Here is my take. I feel that SACD will not survive also.I have heard it but I wouldnt go out and spend thousands of dollars on the player nor the software.One way to test the fromat end of the industry is to look at HDCD. A very simple format that they can easily make a standard format for all cds no matter what kind of music or record label. Also if you where to do a percentage of audiophiles versus regular run of the mill receiver/ no name $200 speakers. No offense , they are usally the happiest with their sound and dont feel the need to upgrade every few months like myself. Which gives them deeper pockets than me. The point is the % of people that they are trying to reach is maybe 30%. Which is anyformat will not survive. I talk to people who dont even want to spend $18.00 on a new cd. So if HDCD couldnt make it as a standard format then what makes anyone think anything else will? Especially at 25 & $30.00 per cd? Only time will tell. Me I am saving so I can Have my Revel Salons and my Mark Levinson 33H mono blocks. I have redbook cds that are mind blowing in sound And I paid 12.99 at Circut City. Good Luck let the smoke clear. Dan
More to discover