Post by canonical January 1, 2010 (211 of 234)
|
|
I find the image analogy can be very helpful:
SACD MCH is like watching a movie with those 3d glasses on.
SACD stereo is like taking a picture with a higher-resolution digital camera
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myrantz said:
Well, bully for you. I have a Rega Saturn cdp. It doesn't upsample and I've listened to quite a few that do. The Saturn run rings (pun intended) around every cdp I heard, including the upsamplers. I suggest you go out and listen to a few quality cdp's regarless of upsampling abilities.
Back to the Oppo, I recently sold my Marantz Dv-9600 and now have the Oppo BD-83. It's a great machine, but CD and SACD playback is only fair (but good for it's pricepoint) and you'll be hard pressed noticing much difference between them. I may get the SE upgrade if and when it become avaialble here, but with the lousy amount of SACD available, it will depend on the cost (which is usally sky-high in Aus compared to elsewhere on the planet).
Upsampling or not. My point is that a modern CD player normally has a number of functions/features such as upsampling, oversampling, multiple DACs etc . etc to handle the issues that the RBCD comes with. I also think that it is a bit drastic to draw the conclusion that there is no difference between CD and SACD just from using one type of player (which by the way the manufacture doesn't seem to recommend for high-end audio usage with analog output).
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 January 2, 2010 (213 of 234)
|
|
aristoteles said:
Upsampling or not. My point is that a modern CD player normally has a number of functions/features such as upsampling, oversampling, multiple DACs etc . etc to handle the issues that the RBCD comes with. I also think that it is a bit drastic to draw the conclusion that there is no difference between CD and SACD just from using one type of player (which by the way the manufacture doesn't seem to recommend for high-end audio usage with analog output).
A modern CD player has a lot of features in there for marketing reasons. There is no real art to designing a CD player, since the format has been around for quite some time and it hasn't changed. So you either do it right or you don't. All these bells and whistle "features" are just nonsense added in there so the manufacturers can keep selling their products. There is no innovation, except in marketing. Do you really think there is a need for a company to come out with a new CD player these days? Was there a need 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Not really. But a company must continue to sell or perish. My 13 year old Rotel sounds no better and no worse than my several month old OPPO BDP-83. Both were correctly designed - it's as simple as that, but hard for some reason for people to believe.
IMHO, a lot of money is being handed over to these companies who promise a lot but deliver the same. Or they color the sound on purpose to differentiate their product and make it seem as if it's doing something new and beneficial to the CD sound. It's unfortunate, but it's how the audio business seems to work. Money is always better spent on upgrading speakers. CD sound is only better when the recording and production is better. Unfortunately, it's easier to be cheap there, and then charge on the front end where it doesn't matter or makes things worse. And it seems to be damn easy to sell these "features" too.. The same is true for SACD players and many things in general. I'm not saying all CD players or SACD players are equal - they are not. But that's due to implementation, not innovation or new features. Cheap circuitry around the same DAC will make one player sound worse than one with the same DAC designed correctly. I can go on.
So, no, I don't think it's "drastic" to draw a conclusion by using one player. It might be if that player was badly implemented, but that's not the case here. I do my research quite a bit before purchasing something.
You're falling for the marketing again. Of course OPPO is now recommending their SE player for analog audio output. Why do you think that is? Because the SE sells for $900 and the normal player for $500. Yeah it has fancy new DACs that upsample and do "wonders"...I've heard that one before. They need to differentiate to charge a $400 premium. I'm amazed that in this day and age people still fall for this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
canonical said:
I find the image analogy can be very helpful:
SACD MCH is like watching a movie with those 3d glasses on.
SACD stereo is like taking a picture with a higher-resolution digital camera
;-)
I find your analogy misleading. I agree that SACD provides somewhat greater detail, particularly low level detail. It is also generally freer of certain digital artifacts that are usually noticeable only in direct comparison: RBCD vs. SACD. Hence, SACD is somewhat more natural sounding much of the time.
"3D glasses" gives Mch an artificial characterization that I find not to be true. To be sure, both stereo and Mch are artificial. But, Mch is a better approximation of the sound of the real thing live because Mch conveys more information from the live performance event, including the natural sound of the recording space, than does stereo. A Mch SACD of, say, my local Philadelphia Orchestra, is much more faithful to the sense of actually sitting in the hall at a concert. With stereo there is only sound over there, up front, whereas with Mch there is a sense of the ambient sonic envelopment that occurs at the live concert. Front soundstage depth is also improved in Mch. Stereo now sounds to me hopelessly truncated - more artificial - compared to a live performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
"3D glasses" gives Mch an artificial characterization that I find not to be true. To be sure, both stereo and Mch are artificial. But, Mch is a better approximation of the sound of the real thing live because Mch conveys more information from the live performance event, including the natural sound of the recording space, than does stereo. A Mch SACD of, say, my local Philadelphia Orchestra, is much more faithful to the sense of actually sitting in the hall at a concert. With stereo there is only sound over there, up front, whereas with Mch there is a sense of the ambient sonic envelopment that occurs at the live concert. Front soundstage depth is also improved in Mch. Stereo now sounds to me hopelessly truncated - more artificial - compared to a live performance.
Yes, I too found the 3-D glasses rather astray of the truth. My experiences with 3D glasses were never satisfactory, colors were polluted, lines etched - it was all very fakey. MCH sacds however do just what you said:
"with Mch there is a sense of the ambient sonic envelopment that occurs at the live concert."
Also, the sense of scale of those hall filling climaxes (described in my post to the "Why I love SACD" thread) are far more realistically reproduced. Plain stereo is hopelessly crippled when it comes to sound-staging.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 January 2, 2010 (216 of 234)
|
|
Guys, canonical was just joking around as usual to get me to reply. The analogies don't work for me either. I have heard some SACD MCH demos in some high end stores, and they sound great. But as I said in an earlier post, I do not currently have the ideal space I need to set up an ideal room for both video and audio listening. I will when we move into a new home where I will also set up a studio, etc. SACD will sound better then, due to the MCH. Unti then, as I've said all along.
As far as 3D films, I have yet to see Avatar, and that's supposed to be the leading edge. So I can't say one way or another, except that previous 3D films were just for fun - IMAX, etc. I do think from all I've read that Avatar is pushing the edge, so I'll see.
|
|
|
Post by zeus January 2, 2010 (217 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
You're falling for the marketing again. Of course OPPO is now recommending their SE player for analog audio output. Why do you think that is? Because the SE sells for $900 and the normal player for $500. Yeah it has fancy new DACs that upsample and do "wonders"...I've heard that one before. They need to differentiate to charge a $400 premium. I'm amazed that in this day and age people still fall for this stuff.
You know, a more flexible attitude to audio may allow you to enjoy it more.
On a general note, the reason to participate in a forum (any forum) is not just to get your views across but to listen to what others have to say and learn from their experience. It's a two-way street.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 January 2, 2010 (218 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
You know, a more flexible attitude to audio may allow you to enjoy it more.
On a general note, the reason to participate in a forum (any forum) is not just to get your views across but to listen to what others have to say and learn from their experience. It's a two-way street.
If flexible means I need to pay more each time OPPO decides to add "features" to their player and charge almost double for it, then I suppose I'm not going to be flexible in that way. I'm not into changing my equipment every 6-12 months, and not because I'm struggling for cash. I honestly don't see the point. If there are some real added features I may, but upgrading DACs when the previous one measure fine - I don't see the point. To me it's plain marketing, and we all know it works well in the audio world. Like I said, I'd rather upgrade my speakers and spend my money on creating a better room acoustically.
I'm listening to advice (I've bought/buy my SACDs based on what I read on this site - including your Handel one), but I didn't see advice from someone who had the OPPO SE, but rather someone contributing my test results to my "older" OPPO, which the company no longer now recommends for obvious reasons. I'm not sure what I missed to be honest. Maybe something is lost on me, sorry..!
|
|
|
Post by zeus January 2, 2010 (219 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
To me it's plain marketing, and we all know it works well in the audio world.
I wasn't alluding to just the Oppo, but your empirical approach to audio that I suggest gets in the way of your enjoyment of its possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir January 2, 2010 (220 of 234)
|
|
zeus said:
I wasn't alluding to just the Oppo, but your empirical approach to audio that I suggest gets in the way of your enjoyment of its possibilities.
What he said.....
|
|
