SACD : why ?

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......

Be sure to read this very informative post on AudioAsylum.com
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/34956.html

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.

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?

If this discussion were about the differences between two CD players, we'd all join our preferred camps and cheer for the unit we thought sounded best. While the SACD format can theoretically provide for a higher resolution output, we are still talking about the differences between two pieces of digital audio equipment. I've had the same experience as Badwisdom the few times I've auditioned SACD players. Both times they were Sony players and both times I preferred the sound of the CD, not because of resolution but simply because of the sound (the CD players happened to be ones I liked quite a bit). I'd have to believe when other manufacturers produce SACD units, they’ll apply their own audio signatures to the sound and the comparisons will be somewhat more balanced.

SACD and Redbook are just formats and can theoretically produce comparable results. In practice, SACD should have a significant advantage, but in the end its up to the manufacturer to take advantage of this and produce a better sounding unit. I’m sure that Sony does with their audio line, but for many folks theirs is simply not the preferred sound. The enjoyment that many people get from their SACD players needs to be put into this context, and not attributed to the format alone.

Cheers,
Ken