Quote Originally Posted by RGA
Well I would question his turntable as a source with Rega -- I have one btw but it happens to have a differnet name on the badge but it's a middle of the road turntable maker in the big scheme of things. The article is comparing CD to LP and it makes no excuses for it.
As I have said earlier, it is easy to compare LP to CD, it would be much more difficult to compare good DVD-A amd SACD to LP, especially SACD.

You want to bring in DVD-A and SACD that is something else but then enters the discussion on what you can ACTUALLY hear.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to high frequency extension? That would be irelevant, its what you can hear right in the primary frequencies we can hear in that I am referring to. SACD has all of the clarity, low noise of digital, but the feel and sound of analog.


I have not been convinced by a single SACD disc I've heard and I have yet to hear DVD-A because no one here has one set-up. The big two chains in my Province carry at best 50 titles (and this is a very very generous number. I'll wait till they can convince me it sounds good.
I am not sure that most vinyl lover can be convinced. I don't think you guys really want to be. Your emotional tie to that vinyl disc may tough to overcome. There is too much good SACD out there for you not to have been convinced.

UHF covers the issues such as dithering but I can't type up the entire chapter. I think ti is balanced as they are not totally for ONE of the two.
Dither is not necesary with SACD, and I think that is why it tends to sound better to me than DVD-A. Dither is a band aid, and IMO it tends to cloud and de-focus the sound. In many cases its not necessary at all, the noise from the microphones, and mixer ought to be random enough to eliminate the need for dither. Tony Faulkner advocates not using dither during downconversions and his work sounds excellent.


If it's about the music you need both -- if it's about the gear then do whatever you want. And if it's about the argument then you'll have people who will stroke your ego -- see PatD. I could really care less -- Turntables have such a high pain the ass factor that I don't blame anyone who buiys a 300 disc mega changer (I did) and I enjoy it too. OTOH turntables can be fun tweakery for those so inclined. And if some misguided, in your eyes, indivuals enjoy listening to vinyl more becuase they subjectively hear more bass smoother treble and more dynamics then oh my the skies are going to fall...NOT.
Actually I don't think they are misguided at all. What I think is that they are so attached to the format/disc, that it keeps them from making any subjective opinion period.

Turntables are a pain in the ass, so is maintaining vinyl.

Different strokes for different folks!


I have both a DAC and turntable upgrade in my future...and if SACD ever shows me it sounds right then I will be in line for one of those -- but so far the music offerred isn't compelling me to make the leap. I'd probably have to buy a revceiver to run the surround and that alone would destroy "for me" any gain int he source.
Can't understand why in the heck you would invest in another DAC, but to each his own. If you think receiver will destroy any improvement SACD would make, then I am sorry that you are not well informed. SACD bypasses all the receivers internal DAC's, bass and treble controls, delay, and any other circuitry in the chain. As pure as you can get, so how can it destroy any gain in the source? Please enlighten me.