2. digital
  3. 985876542

Fly in the SACD Ointment?

Yesterday, I almost got tears in my eyes going through the new audiophile format bin at Tower Records in New York. Spotting some old favourites in the SACD section, I was blissfully imagining throwing my CD player out my 17th story window and sitting down at a new system enjoying the best of analog AND digital. Then, it hit me -- even in the good old days, when I when I wouldn't dream of listening until I had Nitty Grittied my records, carefully cleaned the stylus, adjusted VTA, switched off the phone and dimmed the lights -- A LOT OF RECORDS STILL SOUNDED PRETTY BAD. Not nearly as bad (or as often) as a bad CD, but still pretty bad and ultimately unsatisfying which is what lead to my neurosis with this hobby and a never ending quest for great recordings in addition to great gear. So I am wondering -- maybe a $5000 SACD player and a new collection of software at $25 each is just going to take me back to bad analogue?!?!? Or is Sheffield Labs going to painstakingly remaster every title in the SACD catalogue? Has anyone thought about this or is there some magic to SACD that makes it all worthwhile, nonetheless. Maybe bad "analogue" without background noise and with greater dynamic range is still pretty special, but I really don't want to listen to Mannheim Steamroller in any format. Thanks for your thoughts.
cwlondon
elizabeth
6,726 posts
 
Yhank you, yes I agree.
Maybe when some NEW stuff that I want to listen to!!! is out on SACD, then I'll start thinking about a player...
detlof
1,899 posts
 
CW, splendid thoughts as usual. They make my hair stand on end but you may well be right and hence we will never get out of this rut. Being steamrolled by Mannheim again, no matter in what format, is hardly a pleasant prospective. So I suggest we take it all philosophically and hope for pleasant surprises all the same.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
4,163 posts
 
There's plenty to complain about Sony's roll out of SACD software, but the above comments (particularly Cwlondon's) are overstated. I too recently came across the SACD/DVD display at the Chicago Tower Records. The display had nearly the entire non-classical Sony catalog as well as the Chesky discs. Rather than see the Tower display as a problem, I see it as an advance in the public visibility and, hopefully, acceptance of hi-resolution audio formats. For the most part, Sony is re-releasing the old "warhorses" in SACD. I truly understand why many would think this is a problem, but then again, that's exactly how Red Book CDs and later, DVDs were initially marketed.

BTW, I purchased my SACD player for less than $1k (new) and the price of SACD disc is no different than what I was paying for new vinyl releases. Obviously, I see the glass as half-full.
rcprince
2,830 posts
 
I agree with Onhwy61 about being encouraged by the appearance of SACD in a more prominent place at Tower. A few months ago, it was with the minidiscs in the pop section at Tower here in NY, virtually out of sight. As far as Cwlondon's point, I've said it before, SACD (and 24/96, for that matter) gets you closer to the master tape, but be careful what you wish for, because some of those master tapes don't sound so great. As new recordings get made in these formats, this will be less of a concern, but you should be cautious about some of the re-releases. For example, I didn't realize that Billy Joel's "The Stranger", an album I've always liked, was cut at as hot a level as the SACD revealed. Now part of the difference is in the resolving power of my system now vs. then, but it's still clear that SACD has revealed more than I want to hear. But it has also revealed to me just how good the Bruno Walter series of recordings for Columbia are. So for now, a mixed blessing, but I prefer to look at it as the start of something which will be significantly better in the future.
More to discover