Post by DSD October 9, 2008 (21 of 33)
|
|
Dumfy said:
Hi DSD,
Many thanks indeed for such an informative reply.
I guess you've hit the nail on the head. My first love is the good ol' vinyl LP and I was hoping that SACD would be more akin to this than the harsher sounding standard CD. After all, I thought that was part of the idea behind SACD - to use the extra data and resolution to improve on CD so that it becomes much more natural/smoother.
In terms of hooking up, I intend to use a dedicated CD/SACD player (no DVD or DVD-A) and connect this to an integrated HiFi amp (no multi-channel AV receiver).
I will be using the analog L-R phono out of the player straight to the analog input on the amp. The amp I'm thinking of will have a "source direct" option on it thereby shutting off display and un-needed circuits. I'll also be using quality interconnects.
Is this the right way to go..?
Thanks again for your time, one and all..
Dumfy
Hi Dumfy,
That sounds like a great way to go. For me 2 channel Stereo SACD has been the blessing that Sony promised way back in 1983 when they presented CD as perfect sound forever but never delivered. Those of us who enjoy analog formats know CD was no such thing.
Sony may have lied with their promise of CD, but there promises for SACD are true. From Sony's first SACD brochure "Super Audio Compact Disc, Eliciting the full Performance of Music. "Super Audio Compact Disc is the realization of an audiophile's dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound."
With 2 channel Stereo SACD I finally have a digital format that actually sounds like an analog format, for me it was a night and day difference as I can not stand the sound of CD, even audiophile ones, they just sound to digital for me.
In my system the difference between CD and SACD is larger than the difference between different components, cables or speakers. Or to put it another way to sum up the difference, it is greater than the difference between 8 Track cartridge and 2 Track 15 IPS Reel to Reel. I have never in my entire long life heard a difference greater than that between low resolution CD and analog sounding SACD. But of course that is my opinion and how things sound to me.
I wish you lots of good luck in capturing the sonic beauty of 2 channel SACD playback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theresa,
Do you listen primarily with headphones or loudspeakers?
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Dumfy October 9, 2008 (23 of 33)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Also this is entirely personal. I mostly listen to pop/rock (I've got a few dozen titles; see /library/2804) and am definitely going to replace my SACD player when it breaks down. Probably by a universal SACD/DVD-A player, perhaps one that also plays BD (if the Oppo or others are out by that time).
I mostly listen to pop/rock myself, so I guess like most opinions within HiFi, it's subjective and personal taste.
From looking at the titles list here, there is a good selection of pop/rock SACDs available, though maybe not as extensive as classical.
To be honest, I wasn't looking to buy a dedicated/specific player for SACD or even go the SACD route. I am in the market to buy a good standard CD player and the one I have in mind happens to play SACD as well - stereo only. (It's the Yamaha CD-S1000 incidentally. Does anyone have experience of this unit at all, or is too new?). I figured I may as well do some research on SACD and glad I did as I will give it a go if that's the player I end up with. In fact I'm pretty sure the player I buy will be SACD compatible.
Thanks to this research, I discovered this forum and it's a treasure trove of info with very helpful members. Based on the reviews and feedback here I've a "shortlist" of maybe a dozen SACDs I intend to purchase.
Time to get the plastic out methinks!
Regards
Dumfy
|
|
|
Post by DSD October 9, 2008 (24 of 33)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Theresa,
Do you listen primarily with headphones or loudspeakers?
Bruce
Both. Speakers during the day then my Sennheiser HD-580 headphones after 11PM. SACD sounds great though headphones but where SACD really shines is though my floor standing Infinity Reference Kappa 7's in which the EMIT tweeters are flat to 45kHz. My speakers are over 25 years old and I just replaced the surrounds on the 12 inch woofers this year.
|
|
|
Post by amatala October 10, 2008 (25 of 33)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Also this is entirely personal. I mostly listen to pop/rock (I've got a few dozen titles; see /library/2804) and am definitely going to replace my SACD player when it breaks down. Probably by a universal SACD/DVD-A player, perhaps one that also plays BD (if the Oppo or others are out by that time).
Indeed, I agree that this is entirely personal - but only looking at SACD numbers does not say everything.
I have today 304 SACDs in my collection - this looks OK, but is still not much considering that I have in total over 2100 albums in my music collection.
I have bought many of these discs in the past years when I was a big supporter of this format and I was choosing my music by the physical format...
But how many of these discs still mean something to me today when I've freed myself of this format craze and I only purchase music for the contents?
If I check my top 100 artists this is what I find:
http://www.last.fm/user/amatala/charts
Out of 100, only 13 artists have at least one album available on SACD.
Out of these 13, only 4 have more than one album available on SACD.
So there are 2 things I can conclude:
- if I would still choose music by the format, the I would not listen to the music I like most.
- out of the 304 SACDs in my library, only a few still mean something to me - for the vast majority I cannot even remember what they are...
It is sad and I would have liked the SACD format to become much more than this for me.
Once again, this is only a personal opinion, but based on these numbers, I hope that you understand better why I always say that pop/rock listeners should not pay too much attention to the SACD format...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree SACD is a total waste of time for Pop/Rock but multi-channels SACD is excellent for Classical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, multichannel in excellent for every kind of music.
The Depeche Mode remasters are exemplary in that respect and show what can be done outside the classical/orchestral domain in MCH.
The lack of non-classical SACD's is purely the result of commercial decisions, based on the general ignorance and lack of interest in the format from the (large majority of) people who basically listen to Pop/Rock/FM.
Simply put, there is a larger proportion of SACD's sold in the classical music genre than in other genres like pop/rock, so the ROI (return on investment) is acceptable in classical music, insufficient in other genres.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stardreamer said:
Simply put, there is a larger proportion of SACD's sold in the classical music genre than in other genres like pop/rock, so the ROI (return on investment) is acceptable in classical music, insufficient in other genres.
Apparently. The question is whether that has mainly got something to do with the economics of production (i.e. cost) or the size of the target market (i.e. revenue).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both I think.
Most people (98% is a reasonable guess) don't even know about SACD.
Among those who know, 80% don't care...
... And at least 50% of SACD capable DVD player owners are simply unaware of (and uninterested by) this possibility.
Oh well, welcome to the real world...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about the overall addressable market.
I was wondering whether sales volumes per SACD title are larger for pop/rock than for classical, and to what extent they need to be larger. Is making a multichannel classical SACD less costly than making a multichannel pop/rock SACD.
|
|
