2. music
  3. 1055645175

When does SACD make sense - my theory

I purchased a SACD player a few weeks ago. Sony SCD-C555ES. Also purchased about 15 SACDs.
Tried Kind of Blue by Miles Davis and compared to my vinyl. Vinyl was better. Tried the new Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd from 2003 and compared to vinyl. Vinyl also better.

My thinking is that Vinyl will always better from old stuff that was captured on Analog and mixed for Analog/Vinyl. Never purchase SACDs with 50s, 60 and 70s music. Rather focus on the period when the CD was young, the recordings were captured digitally and now need a major re-mixing to sound good.

My theory.
1. When there is vinyl it will always be better than SACD
2. SACD players do good job on CDs too. My a couple of years old CDs sound at least as good as when I played them on my previous Rega Planet. Consequently, do not replace a few years old CDs with a SACD version. Very small difference.
3. Replace early CDs - 80s and early 90s, before the figured out the technology that are very cold sterile recordings that will sound much better in SACD.
Looking forward to everyone's comments.
dcaudio
rsbeck
887 posts
 
It is a mistake to think you are hearing everything SACD
can do with a Sony SCD C-555ES.

I also don't believe you can generalize about decades like
that. I have some early [late forties, early fifties] Ray Charles CD's that are remastered from his recordings done
for Atlantic records. These are CD's, not even SACD's, but
they sound great.
pbb
1,135 posts
 
Usual trendy analog/vinyl can't be beat line. I don't spend my time comparing the same recording on different media. I don't own the type of equipment that the previous poster owns, but one thing I can say is that my $200 CDN Sony SACD player sounds better playing SACDs than my Arcam FMJ CD 23 does playing CDs most of te time. The Arcam does better on CDs than the Sony. I have yet to hear an SACD that does not provide very good to great sound. Each recording should be enjoyed for what it is, without trying to pigeonhole it. A priori thinking is the motor of subjective audio.
kana813
956 posts
 
If it takes $15K worth of playback equipment to hear "everything SACD can do," then the format is doomed
to failure.

But the bigger problem is, they're not making it easy to
find SACDs. How many record stores have you been in with SACDs on display? The Borders I shop at has none.
rsbeck
887 posts
 
>>If it takes $15K worth of playback equipment to hear "everything SACD can do," then the format is doomed
to failure.<<

Following this line of reasoning -- I suppose all audio
is doomed to failure.

>>But the bigger problem is, they're not making it easy to
find SACDs.<<

It is not "easy" to find LP's, either, nor to find play-
back equipment for LP's. How many "Good Guys, Tweeters,
Sound Advice" carry Kharma or Wilson speakers?

I would assume that most people who are dedicated to
this hobby are accustomed to a little trouble in finding
the neccessary stuff to feed thir appetite.

>>How many record stores have you been in with SACDs on display?<<

I have found it exceedingly easy to find SACD's.

Then again, I am looking for them.

"http://www.music-direct.com"

It ain't that hard.

Whether or not SACD *immediately* catches on with the
masses is beside the point.

The argument over whether or not a higher resolution
is the future of digital is far from over.

Make your bets and we'll settle up in about ten years.

kana813
956 posts
 
Rsbeck- Glad to hear it so easy to find SACDs on the mainland. And thanks for tip on www.music-direct.com. I prefer to buy directly from record labels like Concord & Telarc.

It wouldn't take 10 years to decide the format war. HT will
dictate the battle not Hiend audio. I don't have $15K invested in any digital format, so I real don't care who wins, but just for fun, I'll put my money on DVD...what would you like to wager?

Since this is a music forum and you own a lot of SACDs,
how about sharing some of your favorite SACDs.
More to discover