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
olh
1 posts
 
While DVD-A makes the most marketing sense for equipment manufacturers, SACD makes the most marketing sense for record companies. Historically speaking, the record companies have always wound up setting the standards, not the electronics industry.

Incidentally, HDCD has by no means failed and a lot of new CDs have come out in that format. There is also nothing to stop the red book layer on a SACD from being done using HDCD.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6
1,071 posts
 
I agree sattothestars. This does not wash. I'm not sure of the adjenda you have Badwisdom, but I'm sure it is not to be fully honest. You say you compared the DD-100/DC-101 to a number of other players and heard only a tinny difference. I can only assume the other players were the likes of Burmester and Mark Levinson, or your full of ....
I will advise all who are listening to this review to accept it for the little it's worth, the opinion of a guy I've never heard from befor. And the war between the world and the Frence marches on......
abecollins
219 posts
 
Be sure to read this very informative post on AudioAsylum.com
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/34956.html
badwisdom OP
145 posts
 
I dont get it : why was such a test unfair ? Surely if they really heard a difference they would have said that the SACD was disappointing and sounded inferior, if they had been honest ? Doesnt it show how important the psychological aspect of audio really is ? How many people convince themselves that a Krell is the best just because they know they're listening to a Krell ? How many people tend to snigger and dismiss at less expensive models because just of the fact they cost less than the big boys ?

I dont think you can just put that aside. I agree that the technology is better, but i am more than sceptic (sp?) on people's honest appreciation of the format.
gregm
3,021 posts
 
Hi Badwisdom -- unusual experience you had there! I assume you used wide-band amplification & matching speakers during the test (to get well beyond the 20kHz "audible" spectrum)?

Of the few SACD titles available, it seems that many are remastered from pcm, i.e., not dsd conversions from the original analogue master. If you used one of these titles, the redbook version (with normal band electronics & tweeters) could give the impression of being "crisper" and therefore, preferable. It probably sounded harsher than sacd -- but the audience would not have had the time tire out during a test audition...

To my ears, SACD sounds superior in orchestral music, especially when voices enter the scene.

As to the format "war" of attrition or survival, as it were, the marketplace definitely seems to be shifting in DVD's favour: video content rules!

But your standard DVD player will play audio too... not so, the other way round, with the sacd player. Unless the deal with Universal/Vivendi supporting sacd makes the grade, I wonder how Sony expects the sacd to conquer the mass-market and become the standard?
More to discover