Thread: The future of SACD in 2006

Posts: 163
Page: prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 next

Post by DSD January 20, 2006 (61 of 163)
Membran SACDs
A Membran test you can do at home. Compare the Telarc CD "Bond and Beyond" with the Membran SACD "James Bond Themes" both are multi-mic'ed affairs. The Telarc CD is an 18 Bit PCM Master downsampled to 16 Bit CD. The SACD is a 32 Bit PCM Master upsampled to DSD. While the Membran still has a "PCM" sound it is way more comfortable than the Bond and Beyond or any other CD I have ever heard. Thus the Membran SACD is listenable and the Telarc CD is not.

Now to sound quality the Membran sounds more real and the timbres more true and it is totally devoid of the stark "coldness" that infests every redbook CD ever made.

Membrans are getting better, although they use too many microphones. The highs are smoother on the lastest Membran SACDs and they are putting longer spaces between selections.

To make a long story short even a lowly Membran SACD is preferable to me over any CD. Even SACDs with resolution as low as 24 Bit 48kHz sound way better than CD and I believe it is the upsampling to DSD that removes most of the stress from PCM sourced SACDs. However the best sound is SACDs from PURE DSD and Analog master tapes.

Happy listening,
Teresa

Post by Nightingale January 20, 2006 (62 of 163)
Claude said:

Listening to SACD only is like reading only books in Luxembourgish or Maltese. You miss most of the good stuff.

I didn't say I don't listen to CD's. It happens I don't buy them now. SACD's in my collection are very few. And it's very disappointing.

Post by Claude January 20, 2006 (63 of 163)
DSD said:

Many of us find CDs sound stressful and unenjoyable.
Teresa

I agree that most (if not all) hifi fans prefer SACD over CD, but I don't think that many are not able to enjoy music when it comes from CD. This seems a very extreme attitude to me.

Just because CD is missing the higher resolution and bandwidth of SACD doesn't mean it must sound aggressive or unnatural to the point that it is unlistenable.

Post by azure January 20, 2006 (64 of 163)
Very bleak here in Australia
Sony AU does not distribute any stand alone high End/ES/ reference SACD players it appears any more
Only combined DVD/SACD players
I virtually import all of my SACDs from Japan
Lets hope Pink Floyd do release "Wish You Were Here" and "Animals" this year on hybrid SACD
I dare say SACD willl be in the shadow of Blu-ray this year
Maybe isome of the future BR HD drives will also support SACD and will be released in AU
Still, I would have hoped Sony AU kept a stand alone High End - reference SACD/CD on the market
very disappointed. . .

Post by barmaleo January 20, 2006 (65 of 163)
azure said:

Sony AU does not distribute any stand alone high End/ES/ reference SACD players it appears any more
Only combined DVD/SACD players
Still, I would have hoped Sony AU kept a stand alone High End - reference SACD/CD on the market
very disappointed. . .

No reason for anxiety - the SCD-XA9000ES has been replaced by the DVP-NS9100ES that has all the bells and whistles of the former. The DVP-NS9100ES has iLink outs, too - what else do we need? I for one always listen to SACDs through iLink..
Take it easy

Post by jbpfrance January 20, 2006 (66 of 163)
DSD said:

Mono is eaiser to listen to on LPs or SACDs than low resolution Stereo PCM on CDs. We are talking about the comfort level not sound quality. Many of us find CDs sound stressful and unenjoyable. Since the goal of listening to music means that you actually enjoy what you are listening to means that for me CDs are not an acceptable choice. If SACDs did not sound like "Analog" I would be listening to LPs, Pre-recorded Reel to Reels and audiophile cassettes.

To sum up it is only SACDs "Analog" sound that brings people like me to a digital medium. CD is unacceptable and in my book it is not music. And yes I have tried DCC, MFSL, Reference Recordings and other higher quality CDs but the LP versions blow them totally away. SACDs are much closer to the realism and comfort level of the best LPs and the finest pre-recorded Reel to Reel tapes.

For SACDs are like little LPs without the surface noise, they have nothing whatsoever in common with CDs except the use of a laser beam.

Happy listening,
Teresa

Let us mention what should be first mentioned: in anything we hear, we compare what we hear with what we heard before; All is and is only comparative. There is a listening memory. We must all agree this before anything.
Second point: I always thought we lose audition with time. So far, this is not the case for me. In the reverse, sound defaults can be recognized much easier now than before. Just by experience. Also this has to be recognized.

This being said, I can say that an educated ear (not only mine) really feels what Theresa wrote when hearing SA-CD.
Most people feel that. Some may not, of course.

After 20 years of listening to LP's, I "moved" to CD's like everyone else. After a few years, I felt HIFI was making no progress, I sold away all my stereo equipment (NAD, B&W, Celestion and so on...). During the last 10-15 years, I only listened, from time to time, to DAT tapes which I recorded from LP's and audio tapes which I also previously recorded from LP's and other sources. I had excellent listening BEYER earphones to plug directly into the DAT. I listened to stereo equipment of others, without much fun. Until... I read about SA-CD.
Know that the DAT was until very recently the only machine to record under uncompressed formats. Recording to DAT was still giving me pleasant listening, so this is not DIGITAL sound that is the problem for me, it is the compression or any filtering like DOLBY system that are used to make CD's.
It is only very recently that I borrowed from my brother some few years old HIFI equipment (NAD, B&W again). When we bought the SA-CD player, I definitively found out the rich timbers of analog music.
Just a fact.
In HIFI shops, sellers say SA-CD is a dead duck. Of course, I am disappointed. I just want to know.

CD is a very good system as far as versatility is concerned. It will remain THE system for quite some time, but now, the strange thing happens:
- SA-CD machines are available (good ones from 130 USD here in Europe)
- SA-CD's are not more expensive than CD's in shops.

For those who hear a difference, and that is obvious to the large majority who did hear SA-CD's (even on low cost Stereo), let us gather to say to manufacturers: "There are, there could be more people who hear that SA-CD is better than CD whch are themselves better than mp3. Please give the "high-quality music" lovers some more consideration, now that SA-CD is affordable. Give them more choice for SA-CD's. On top, most of those listeners are prepared to pay for highest sound reproduction, not much more, still a little more so that they approach the emotion of a concert. Do not forget, this is your future earnings ! "

Post by jbpfrance January 20, 2006 (67 of 163)
SAVE SA-CD

Post by mdt January 20, 2006 (68 of 163)
Aleph said:


Talking about technology... Being DSD a noise-shaping system, with 1 bit at 2.8MHz there's really no way of getting a clean signal up to 100KHz. Somebody here probably has the right number, but I'm sure that after some 40KHz or so there's just noise... lots of.

No one is interested in a signal up to 100k. The theorethical response of 100k means the low pass filter can be way above 20k, e.g. at 50k as in my converter. This means the filter is far away from the audible range, and therefore has minimal effect on that range. In the same time, because the upper limit of the frequency range is another 50k above the filter frequency, the filter can have a mild slope, yet another advantage.

Post by toddao January 20, 2006 (69 of 163)
azure said:

Very bleak here in Australia
Sony AU does not distribute any stand alone high End/ES/ reference SACD players it appears any more
Only combined DVD/SACD players
I virtually import all of my SACDs from Japan
Lets hope Pink Floyd do release "Wish You Were Here" and "Animals" this year on hybrid SACD
I dare say SACD willl be in the shadow of Blu-ray this year
Maybe isome of the future BR HD drives will also support SACD and will be released in AU
Still, I would have hoped Sony AU kept a stand alone High End - reference SACD/CD on the market
very disappointed. . .

Yes Sony Australia have been useless when it comes to SACD, but in the US when Sony first release Blue ray it will be in Playstation 3 that will include, for the first time ,SACD. Even if blue ray and hd dvd take off at once, which is unlikely, nobody is expecting the record majors to start releasing hi-rez music titles for a year or two. The high rez sound specs are still to be sorted out with apparently better systems in the wings than the mandated Dolby and DTS formats that blue ray and hd-dvd use.
It's possible that with the Playstation push, demand could grow for SACD, if they remember to push out some discs as well. Remember that DVD A was supposed to cream SACD because every one would have DVD players. Well they have-it's been the fastest growing market in consumer electronics- but that it not help DVD A.

When and if a new format becomes established, I see no reason why they could not play SACD's as well. It will make sense, hopefully even to the electronics industry.

Post by DSD January 21, 2006 (70 of 163)
Claude said:

I agree that most (if not all) hifi fans prefer SACD over CD, but I don't think that many are not able to enjoy music when it comes from CD. This seems a very extreme attitude to me.

Just because CD is missing the higher resolution and bandwidth of SACD doesn't mean it must sound aggressive or unnatural to the point that it is unlistenable.

It's not as much as what is missing from CD but what is "artificially" added. The cold sterile sound of CD is something I have never heard from live music, or recorded LP, RTR or cassette. The sound of massed strings on CD is more irritating than fingernails scraping a chalkboard. I have a harder problem listening to CD, as its problems are most effective in the area when my hearing has a spike. I hear frequencies between 14kHz-17kHz boosted by +4dB and it sloops down from there to the end of my hearing range at 24kHz. Other people without such a spike in their hearing may be able to tolerate CD better than I can.

A friend once suggested I get a equalizer to cut the frequencies -4dB between 14kHz-17kHz. I don’t like equalizers and I cannot take one with me to a live concert.

Happy listening,
Teresa

Page: prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 next

Closed