Thread: current info on sacd players

Posts: 36
Page: prev 1 2 3 4

Post by scorpion November 8, 2005 (31 of 36)
Johnno said:

With all respect, if you're not noticing an enormous improvement in sound quality with CD playback over your 20 year old Hitachi model I can only assume that other equipment in your set-up must be limiting the reproduction you're getting. Sounds like more upgrading is necessary. The SA-11S1 is an exceptionally fine CD player.

Please view my profile information. While I do not own HIGH end equipment I don't think my system is a slouch either.

Post by scorpion November 8, 2005 (32 of 36)
Peter said:

I found SACD compelling for your second reason first. Having toyed with the idea of "going surround" I've pretty well decided not to, not because I feel stereo (which means "solid", not "two channel") sound is better, and also not because stereo sound is good enough. It's the housing of the extra speakers, and the cables, and the expense.

My last three listening experiences, for what it's worth, were:

Mozart Flute concertos with Bezaly on Bis, just wonderful, and, for me the Aho cadenzas complement and compliment Mozart completely. SACD layer, listened in stereo.

Tchaikovsky and Korngold Violin concertos with Mutter on DG, the first live in the Musikverein. Both third movement beginnings tested the full working condition of my heart and my body's adrenalin production. Mutter is balanced a little too forward for my taste. SACD layer, listened in stereo.

Mahler Symphony No 2, Concertgebouw conducted by Otto Klemperer on Guild. This is a live recording from the Holland Festival of 1951. The performance is truly awfully amazing, the recording quality amazingly awful, but is well worth persevering with. I am incredibly lucky to have been born with an upsampling brain which fills in all the missing bits, and makes me think I was there. RBCD, listened in mono.

All three discs gave me the feeling of being there, and this listener never felt for an instant that he was eavesdropping.

We are all different, and as Tream so rightly says, both camps are well served by hybrids. I see no problem.

Hey guys. I did not mean to stir up a hornets nest here! I chose stereo because, in my opinion, live music is usually played from a stage in front of the audience and thus the closest format to the live performance is stereo located in front of the listener. I know there are other points of view and they are just as valid is mine. It really comes down to what you prefer your music experience to be like. I do have a seperate surround sound system for video. I enjoy this just fine. Movies are designed to be experienced as an all around you event even though the picture is only in front of you (unless you're filthy rich). However, my origianl point was, that having just upgraded my entire system, the least significant difference in my listening experience came from the the SACD player. The speakers, amp and cables all had more of an impact in sound quality improvement. I am not saying the Marantz is not a nice step up. But I thought I would be hearing a more analog quality like a good piece of vinyl. The Marantz still sounds more like a CD than I expected it to. Maybe my expectations were just too high.

I must say I do enjoy all the bickering! Keep it up!!!!! Enjoy the music.

Post by Windsurfer November 8, 2005 (33 of 36)
scorpion said:

I chose stereo because, in my opinion, live music is usually played from a stage in front of the audience and thus the closest format to the live performance is stereo located in front of the listener.

curiouser and curiouser

The discs Peter cites are the kind of music that benefits from being played in something other than an anechoic chamber, ie a concert hall. Do you enjoy that kind of music? If so, do you want to hear it at home as if it were played in a concert hall or as if it were recorded with only the stage and the rest of the hall cut away? If pop/rock is your thing I can see why stereo is satisfactory to you.

The issue is important to me and to all folks who are interested in the ultimate reproduction of acoustic concert music, not just classical. But it is of primary import to the classical afficianado.

The reactionary trend I was referring to is the recent phenomenon of several mfgs producing top-of-the-line stereo only players these include Musical Fidelity, Marantz, Sony, and Ayre. To me this is as big a step backwards as if in the 60s the mfgs of phono cartridges made their premium cartridges mono only.

Its not that we want to hear instruments coming from behind us, we don't. We want to hear the concert hall in our listening rooms. We want the illusion of being transported to the concert hall with, as you say, the stage in front of us. Its just that now with multi-channel the best record companies are capturing the hall sound and it really sounds like we are in a concert hall when we play our multi-channel SACDs.

I for one do not want to see backsliding in the industry on this issue - the classical music lover needs multi-channel to accurately reproduce the sound of music in a real concert hall. The jazz enthusiast and folk enthusiast needs it for the same reason. But if your concerts come from loudspeakers on an outdoor stage, you really don't need it.

Post by ramesh November 9, 2005 (34 of 36)
scorpion said:

Please view my profile information. While I do not own HIGH end equipment I don't think my system is a slouch either.

Johnno and I have valve amplification, and this seems to work very well with any digital source.
Alternatively, your player could have some fault in the analogue sections. Have you tried plugging it into a nice system elsewhere to see how your sample performs? Do you have a line conditioner to get rid of digital crud from computer switch mode power supplies etc travelling down the lines like digital termites?

Post by scorpion November 9, 2005 (35 of 36)
ramesh said:

Johnno and I have valve amplification, and this seems to work very well with any digital source.
Alternatively, your player could have some fault in the analogue sections. Have you tried plugging it into a nice system elsewhere to see how your sample performs? Do you have a line conditioner to get rid of digital crud from computer switch mode power supplies etc travelling down the lines like digital termites?

Boy, I guess It sounds like I'm complaining. Which I'm not. I would definitly not say there is any thing wrong with my Marantz. There is no niose or clutter from it or the rest of my system. But these is more of a differnce, in my opinion, between different cables than there was between my old cd and my sacd. Another way to put this is, maybe the Hitachi was a pretty decent player for it's time.

Post by scorpion November 9, 2005 (36 of 36)
Windsurfer said:

curiouser and curiouser

The discs Peter cites are the kind of music that benefits from being played in something other than an anechoic chamber, ie a concert hall. Do you enjoy that kind of music? If so, do you want to hear it at home as if it were played in a concert hall or as if it were recorded with only the stage and the rest of the hall cut away? If pop/rock is your thing I can see why stereo is satisfactory to you.

The issue is important to me and to all folks who are interested in the ultimate reproduction of acoustic concert music, not just classical. But it is of primary import to the classical afficianado.

The reactionary trend I was referring to is the recent phenomenon of several mfgs producing top-of-the-line stereo only players these include Musical Fidelity, Marantz, Sony, and Ayre. To me this is as big a step backwards as if in the 60s the mfgs of phono cartridges made their premium cartridges mono only.

Its not that we want to hear instruments coming from behind us, we don't. We want to hear the concert hall in our listening rooms. We want the illusion of being transported to the concert hall with, as you say, the stage in front of us. Its just that now with multi-channel the best record companies are capturing the hall sound and it really sounds like we are in a concert hall when we play our multi-channel SACDs.

I for one do not want to see backsliding in the industry on this issue - the classical music lover needs multi-channel to accurately reproduce the sound of music in a real concert hall. The jazz enthusiast and folk enthusiast needs it for the same reason. But if your concerts come from loudspeakers on an outdoor stage, you really don't need it.

I'm not getting in to the stereo vs. surround debate. However, I am more inclined to listen to modern music than classical. I will listen to (and enjoy ) just about everything except hip-hop, hard core country and opera. My preferences are to Jazz, Blues, accoustic small groups, rock, alternative, celtic, blue grass. I particulary enjoy accoustic guitar, violin, flute etc, I currently have the String Cheese Incident playing. I prefer my music experiences to be in smaller settings such as a club or small concert. I hope that gives you an idea of where my tastes lie. However, none of this really has anything to do with my original post, which was simply a comment about the difference in sound quality (or lack of a stunning difference) I found between my 20 year old cd player and my new and 17 times more expensive SACD.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4

Closed