Post by amatala January 11, 2008 (41 of 48)
|
|
Julien said:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant by 1 and 2 is that both 1)recording quality and 2)equipment are more important than the format or medium. Don't forget that I am a hardcore SACD fan. But in a pure stereo discussion, no matter how much information there is on an SACD, it is still about how much the player can extract. There is a lot more to extract from SACD than CD of course, BUT unfortunately there is still much more information (including spatial, harmonics etc, everything we love about SACD) on a well done CD than most stereo SACD fans ever heard from an SACD. I was just explaining why many audiophiles who heard SACD didn't like it, which is in my opinion a hardware quality problem.
I remember having a discussion with Claude about high-rez on portable players. He told me that I would get better sound on well done mp3 files with good earphones, rather than having high-rez files and lesser earphones. He was so right. Of course we also need some form of compression, or condensation, because with 120db range of dynamics your ears don't hear the pianos and explode on the fortes.
This is perfectly true. SACD sounds so much better than CD on cheapo players because cheapo players are extremely bad at decoding CDs.
As soon as you go high end this is no longer true. The best high end systems I have heard were all based on CD and I still haven't heard any SACD player capable of matching (or at least coming close to) the performance of those high end RBCD players.
I love SACD mainly because of its multi channel capabilities and because it allows us to get a taste of better sound for reasonable prices.
However, in a cost-is-no-object stereo-only system I see no reason for including SACD hardware - the best bet remain the high end RBCD-only players.
|
|
|
Post by Karlosak January 11, 2008 (42 of 48)
|
|
Julien said:
I remember having a discussion with Claude about high-rez on portable players. He told me that I would get better sound on well done mp3 files with good earphones, rather than having high-rez files and lesser earphones. He was so right. Of course we also need some form of compression, or condensation, because with 120db range of dynamics your ears don't hear the pianos and explode on the fortes.
I don't see a problem here. It's well known that headphones are able to convey greater dynamic range than even the best speakers (perhaps you can come close if you have got a super dampened room, where you can hear even your blood circulating, with no background room noise).
If you use some high quality IEMs (in-ear monitors) which isolate really well, you can enjoy a very dynamic sound even on the move. In my view, SACD in a portable player is more reasonable than SACD in a car, as far as sound quality concerned.
If the portable SACD player could be made reasonably shock resistant and if it would sell well, that's another question though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have got for what me is a pretty swanky and high-performance system, but for many would be a mid-range at best.
Regarding CD's I hear stuff that I have never heard before on the recordings, and it makes the music sound completely different. This was a revelation once I had set my system up properly - at first I thoguht it was a problem because there seemed to be so much "background" noise, but then I realised the background sounds were actually part of teh intended mix - no doubt about that now that I have got used to listening to CD's.
This made me realise that CD's are pretty good!
My point is, even on a system most here would not regard as high-end, CD's can sound very close to SACD - in fact I would say that the greatest benefit of SACD's to me is that I get more speakers to reproduce the sound - where the music is recorded with that in mind, e.g. Blue Coast, Linn Records - this is what takes SACD to a level above CD.
|
|
|
Post by Allen January 11, 2008 (44 of 48)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
My point is, even on a system most here would not regard as high-end, CD's can sound very close to SACD - in fact I would say that the greatest benefit of SACD's to me is that I get more speakers to reproduce the sound - where the music is recorded with that in mind, e.g. Blue Coast, Linn Records - this is what takes SACD to a level above CD.
Fully agreed on this point!
High rez audio never attracted me. The multi channel capability, at least for me, is the only selling point.
|
|
|
Post by Sigfred January 11, 2008 (45 of 48)
|
|
Allen said:
High rez audio never attracted me. The multi channel capability, at least for me, is the only selling point.
I rather have multi-channel traditional CD resolution than SA-CD stereo.
|
|
|
Post by Julien January 11, 2008 (46 of 48)
|
|
Karlosak said:
If you use some high quality IEMs (in-ear monitors) which isolate really well, you can enjoy a very dynamic sound even on the move.
Of course. But still with most of them it is hard to enjoy the full dynamic range of a big symphonic piece when you're in a noisy environment and on the move. But anyway it is hard in a small room on speakers too...
By the way, the quality of the new in-ear SCL5 by Shure is just outstanding. I had the SE530 already which I had kept because I never found anything better or even close, but the SCL5 have much better definition, sound a lot more natural, the isolation is also the best I have ever heard, and they are ultra sensitive.
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_SCL5_content
http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earphones/SEModels/us_pa_se530_content
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I rather have multi-channel traditional CD resolution than SA-CD stereo.
The same for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julien said:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant by 1 and 2 is that both 1)recording quality and 2)equipment are more important than the format or medium. Don't forget that I am a hardcore SACD fan. But in a pure stereo discussion, no matter how much information there is on an SACD, it is still about how much the player can extract. There is a lot more to extract from SACD than CD of course, BUT unfortunately there is still much more information (including spatial, harmonics etc, everything we love about SACD) on a well done CD than most stereo SACD fans ever heard from an SACD. I was just explaining why many audiophiles who heard SACD didn't like it, which is in my opinion a hardware quality problem.
Fair enough - I think we are pretty much in agreement then! I think my take on it would be that I'd prefer slightly erroneous reading of a superb source than a perfect reading of a (relatively) crappy one - you pays your money and takes your choice...
|
|
