[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFi FOR METAL /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think bringing up these AES DBT is as valid as saying some amateur video people were watching HDTV on a crappy SD LCD and through double testing couldn't see that HDTV was better or had less aliasing artifacts then interlaced TV. Most of these people are too ignorant about sound to know or be aware of the difference because there only reference point is an inaccurate one. Scientifically speaking it is better there is no doubt, but there are people who think that MP3 is just as good as CD, I would argue that since there point of reference isn't a good one they cannot tell the audible differences because they have usually never experienced them, I think the same can be said for SACD.

M & M used audio professionals and music students as their subjects. From what I have read the Amplification and Speaker parts were high quality as well. I think casting their listeners as ignorant is a bit speculative , if not actually slightly insulting. All the listeners had to do was detect a difference , not make a value judgment about which was better. SACD /DVD-A are technically superior but if when listening to music trained listeners, a lot of them in this study, cannot tell the difference between the high res and the downgraded sound then it seems the magic may exist in the production not the format itself.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFi FOR METAL /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think many of you need to actually talk to some people in the industry about this subject, because I also had a similar discussion about this a few months back. First there are players that do have above 120db SNR, I know esoteric has several in their line up that are.

Already answered this one

Quote:

That flaw is that none of their High-res players managed a SNR that was close to the theoretical limits of the format, however NO current High res player actually does this either, a good one might manage 120db or 125db not the 144db theoretically deliverable. Nor do any recordings have a Dynamic range within a mile of the limits of the High res formats.

Quote:

In fact many of those players allow for a play area mode and you can switch between an SACD and CD layer of the same disc. That would probably be the best comparison one could do.

This depends on whether you are trying to test formats or mastering. Your suggestion will tell you which layer is better, but unless you can guarantee that the mastering on the two layers is identical, that is all you are testing not the format.

 

[Oliver :)]

SACD is the poor man's vinyl. Nevertheless, the poor man must be able to afford a decent source in order to make it worthwhile, otherwise he might fall victim to strange misconceptions, especially regarding the quality of SACD-Stereo. That done, the poor man will also benefit from the higher quality production put into SACDs and end up with better quality, be it due to the format or due to greater care in production. In the end it is worth it if the available catalog caters to your taste.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver /img/forum/go_quote.gif SACD is the poor man's vinyl.

You can get into vinyl for a lot less and there's no way you can get a box of used SACDs for $10.

You don't have to be monogamous with a format. Vinyl, SACD, Red Book, and FM co-exist in my system. I'm getting ready to take the plunge into reel, as well.

It's all about getting to the point where you're not aware of the format/hardware and are focused on what you're listening to. I've been able to get that experience with all those formats.

I'll add reel not because I want to obsess over what it does and recite performance numbers, but because there's a lot of high-quality tape recordings not available elsewhere.

As for SACD, there are some terrific discs that are not hybrids. I think that if you're going to buy a high-end disc player, you might as well get one that will read the format. You should always go for inclusion and not limit yourself. Same reason I upgraded my turntable to play 78 records.

 

[bigshot]

How about 8 tracks? Frank Zappa did different mixes for 8 track than LP. (I confess the heads on my 8 track have split, but I'm still saving my 8 track of We're Only In It For The Money.)

Nick is well informed on all the tests... I believe there was one in a recent stereo magazine too. I did my own tests as well. I spent the better part of a month tracking down a difference between formats. There were none, just differences between mixes. I put my SACD player on the shelf. I pull it down if I need it, but I haven't needed it in six months. Perhaps when I get an amp that has analogue multichannel inputs.

See ya
Steve

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif How about 8 tracks? Frank Zappa did different mixes for 8 track than LP. (I confess the heads on my 8 track have split, but I'm still saving my 8 track of We're Only In It For The Money.)

How's the quality on 8 tracks? I remember them from when I was a kid and still see tapes and some players around. I'll confess ignorance, but have been assuming that they were like the MP3 of the day - good enough, but not the best quality on the market. If there were good mixes and quality for them, I might buy one.

I picked up a 12 position selector switch for the preamp I'm building. I've got a cassette deck and a few wideband communications receivers for the system, too. I intend to use all 12 positions, if I can. 8 track might be interesting. Maybe I'll stumble across an old wire recorder, too!

 

[bigshot]

8 Tracks sounded about as good as cassette tapes, but the problem was that the tape was in an endless loop and it had a tendency to jam. The main advantage was that there were four songs playing at the same time, which was better in the car than more linear cassette tapes.

See ya
Steve