Post by DSD September 28, 2012 (131 of 214)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
This comparison is ABSURD. And, why use a cheapie tubed SACD player, rather than a quality transistor model?
I said the comparison was not fair as the SACD player cost three times as much as the turntable. If I still had my SOTA Comet turntable with the Alpha Genesis 1000II moving coil cartridge the comparison would have been more fair as the price would be more equal, $1,699 versus $1,800. However the amazing thing is that the $629 Music Hall turntable beat the $1,699 SACD player in every test. And I love SACD!
I loved the life-like analog-like sonics my Xindak SCD-2 tubed SACD player and I would have kept it if it didn't develop TOC reading issues every two or three months. In many ways it was the best sounding SACD player I've ever owned. My Yamaha SACD/DVD-Audio player has the Terra Firma Lite clock mod however I would love to upgrade the output to tubes as to my ears transistors are not as accurate or as realistic as tubes.
I don't consider Xindak SCD-2 or anything else $1,699 cheapie as I know the value of a dollar. The $629 Music Hall turntable, now that is a budget component that sounds much better than its price would indicate.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 28, 2012 (132 of 214)
|
|
DSD said:
$629 Music Hall turntable beat the $1,699 SACD player in every test.
It is absurd to say that, as they are playing totally different mediums. Like testing a boat against a car.
If somebody likes the distorted and severally limited sound of LP to the at the moment cleanest possible digital reproduction, that is fine. There is absolutely no question which is closer to the signal coming out of the microphones.
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 28, 2012 (133 of 214)
|
|
AmonRa said:
It is absurd to say that, as they are playing totally different mediums.
Actually I somewhat agree with that as I have always found that analog recordings sound best in an analog format, PCM recordings sound best in a PCM format and DSD recordings sound best in a DSD format.
All the LPs and SACDs compared were from analog masters, as I think it's silly to buy a digital recording on LP.
However to my ears audiophile pressings of analog recordings such as those from Groove Note, Opus 3, Reference Recordings, Tacet, RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, etc. really do sound the most realistic on LPs.
None of my audiophile LPs have more distortion than the SACD versions, any distortion is in the analog master tapes. I have never experienced "severally limited sound quality" with any turntable/arm/cartridge systems I've ever owned, perhaps you need to adjust VTA, SRA, balance or replace a worn stylus. Or perhaps you need a decent cartridge, my Alpha Genesis 1000II moving coil cartridge had a frequency response of 10-75kHz (20kHz ±2dB). I really can't explain why your LP playback is so poor.
With that said my favorite format is SACD, especially if they are DSD recorded.
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy September 28, 2012 (134 of 214)
|
|
DSD said:
With that said my favorite format is SACD, especially if they are DSD recorded.
I had a very good turntable - an SME Model 10 with SME Series V tonearm and a Benz Micro MC cartridge along with a Nagra SUT and tube phono stage. I sold it all and put the funds towards upgrading my dCS P8i SACD player to the dCS Puccini SACD player. The best DSD recordings played on my Puccini are unquestionably the best sound I've had at home. I won't go back to vinyl now!
|
|
|
Post by dcramer September 28, 2012 (135 of 214)
|
|
Nagraboy said:
I had a very good turntable - an SME Model 10 with SME Series V tonearm and a Benz Micro MC cartridge along with a Nagra SUT and tube phono stage. I sold it all and put the funds towards upgrading my dCS P8i SACD player to the dCS Puccini SACD player. The best DSD recordings played on my Puccini are unquestionably the best sound I've had at home. I won't go back to vinyl now!
That makes sense based on your listening habits - I can only imagine how good your system sounds! In my case, I'd be eliminating 90% of my rock/pop library if I got rid of my Garrard and would have to replace everything with CDs (if available) - the parameters of the debate change IMO when comparing vinyl to low res digital. SACD is still a classical music medium.
|
|
|
Post by jdaniel September 28, 2012 (136 of 214)
|
|
AmonRa said:
It is absurd to say that, as they are playing totally different mediums. Like testing a boat against a car.
If somebody likes the distorted and severally limited sound of LP to the at the moment cleanest possible digital reproduction, that is fine. There is absolutely no question which is closer to the signal coming out of the microphones.
Whatever, I get what you're saying, but as a life-long musician, and as someone who has sat in Classical music halls all over the world, someone who has sat through orchestra rehearsals since 15... I still prefer Lp's to my SACD players (< $3.5k) when it comes to immediacy, sense of hall, and sense of rhythm. To really annoy you, I'm listening through a Technics TT which cost around $120 bucks in the mid-80's, with a mm cart. It's on a $350 vibration isolation plate however.
With around 500 lp's at the moment, I can count the pops and clicks on one hand, but we're talking well-kept Classical. No one wanted SACD/DSD/etc to "sound better" than me.
I just can't lie to myself.
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy September 28, 2012 (137 of 214)
|
|
dcramer said:
That makes sense based on your listening habits - I can only imagine how good your system sounds! In my case, I'd be eliminating 90% of my rock/pop library if I got rid of my Garrard and would have to replace everything with CDs (if available) - the parameters of the debate change IMO when comparing vinyl to low res digital. SACD is still a classical music medium.
Agreed, personal music taste is paramount. If you have a lot of vinyl - particularly rock/pop - why replace it at this stage? Good vinyl playback is still very enjoyable. But starting from scratch today with no music collection, I think CD/SACD is the best choice, and I personally prefer both to vinyl.
Most of the music I buy is Classical on SACDs, and it's a rapidly growing collection. So a top quality SACD player was the right choice for me.
|
|
|
Post by dcramer September 28, 2012 (138 of 214)
|
|
Nagraboy said:
Most of the music I buy is Classical on SACDs, and it's a rapidly growing collection. So a top quality SACD player was the right choice for me.
I'm with you on that - I just happened to check your library; we have the same number of discs and the selections appear to be eerily similar. I just wish I had similar playback equipment! Three daughters eliminated any possibility of that - they're expensive!
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy September 28, 2012 (139 of 214)
|
|
dcramer said:
I'm with you on that - I just happened to check your library; we have the same number of discs and the selections appear to be eerily similar. I just wish I had similar playback equipment! Three daughters eliminated any possibility of that - they're expensive!
Well I'm fancy-free and free for anything fancy! But in the mean time I'll spend it all on the hi-fi!
|
|
|
Post by teac4010 September 28, 2012 (140 of 214)
|
|
dcramer said:
That makes sense based on your listening habits - I can only imagine how good your system sounds! In my case, I'd be eliminating 90% of my rock/pop library if I got rid of my Garrard and would have to replace everything with CDs (if available) - the parameters of the debate change IMO when comparing vinyl to low res digital. SACD is still a classical music medium.
Let's see, my vinyl and Reel to Reel stuff date back to the 60's. All my player equipment is mid level IMHO and is easily repairable, ensuring a lasting operational capability.
I doubt any of this poorly designed, IMHO, Universal SACD/DVD/CD stuff (regardless of price) will live, on average, more than 5 years (> 1000 hours).
Regards.
|
|
