Is the SACD Format Flawed?

"ooooo, sssss"? I always thought it was "boo, hsss".

Iseekheils, very interesting read. IAR had an older report that I saw several years ago but I can't remember if this is the same article by Moncrief or more of an updated follow up.

In either case, if there's any truth to Moncrief's words, then a lot of people have been and continue to be dup'ed.

And I am curious what others think this may say about Ed Meitner the person and his gear.

I myself have owned a Sony SCD-1 SACD/cd player for the last 3 years and love it. I think it plays both formats well, but redbook cds always seems a bit more lively or energetic than the SACD.

Some of the more significant and/or recent ways I've been able to obtain a more lively sound is through certain line conditioners, misc. electrical tweaks, cryo-treatments, and implementing engergy transfer vibriation control methodologies.

I rarely play SACDs anymore, but when I do, I simply do not notice the same improvements in the upper frequencies that I do with Redbook cds. Perhaps Moncrief's explanation explains why.

I think Moncrief is a real straight shooter and perhaps head and shoulders over most other reviews/columnists. But I don't think the SACD sound has been anywhere near as bad as he claims, but then again, I hear rumor that he has some extraordinary hearing abilities.

I'm sticking with redbook as I still think there's a lot more musical info yet to be extracted.

Thanks for the url pointer. It's good read.

-IMO

I have read from a couple of sources that SACD's actually have less resolution, dynamic range, and a lower signal-to-noise ratio in the mid and upper treble frequencies than regular CD's!
Has anyone else read about this, or heard this?

Its execution not format. Quality of original recording engineering, whether the player directly decodes DSD or first converts to PCM (a lot do), whether the recording was really PCM just converted in DSD for SACD release or whether it was DSD direct, the list goes on.

The DSD encoding method is fundamentally different from staightforward PCM, so there is plenty of room for people to argue about whether SACDs are better or worse than CDs. The arguement about high frequency deficiencies of SACD are persuasive, but so is the argument that these high frequencies do not require the same fidelity as those below about 8000 Hz.

The DVDA encoding is like CDs, PCM, but with a higher sampling rate and greater bit resolution. Although the disc mastering can make either format sound good, or bad, it's a "no-brainer" that DVDA is a superior medium to CDs.
.

C'mon..this guy is an eccentric wierdo. Have you read his "reviews" of Arcam stuff in Widescreen Review lately? Long, boring, repetitive, fawning crap. He runs out of superlatives, so repeats them Ad Nauseam over pages and pages and pages...in his totally unbelievable "best I have ever heard" claims. He OWNS Arcam now - wonder what HIS price was after that first review? Then he reviews a lower piece in the line and trips all over his drool raving about that one!!
Total loss of objectivity and impartiality...