Should I buy an SACD player?

[cpt998]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C325BEE-Stereo-Integrated-Amplifier

I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp

Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?

Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?

[aevans]

I have the Denon in question, I would not recommend it for audio, unless you upgrade the output stage. Although it does have a pretty good dac in it, you can read my post here for more information:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=21126

Overall the Marantz is probably the cheapest route to good sound.

[Dusty Chalk]

If you don't know anything about SACD, then I wouldn't recommend it. You would have to buy special SACD's to play in it (which I do, and I recommend at least hearing it before you decide), which you probably don't have yet. Peoples' biggest complaint is lack of catalog available on SACD.

I personally find the fidelity of SACD superior to redbook (CD), so if you can hear the difference, then I would definitely recommend it. Do you like vinyl/records? That's probably a good test. If you think analog is superior to CD's, then you'd probably like SACD as well. If you're happy with CD's, then continue being happy with CD's.

[bobsticks]

At the very least it is worth investigating. If there is a boutique store within reach I recommend that you audition SACD in a decent environment. I am a huge proponent of hi-rez music and, like Dusty, find it to be worth my time to search out titles.

That said, what kind of music do you favor? The SACD catalogue tends to be deepest within the classical and jazz genres.

If you are a strictly rock'n'roll kind of character that Marantz may be the way to go. I doubt you'll find too many units at that price point that will outperform it. If SACD is something that appeals to you I would recommend saving up a bit more cheese and moving up the Denon ladder to the 2930CI. Also an option, you might be able to find boxstock of the Denon 2910, the precursor to the 2930, at a very reasonable price. I can't imagine that unit not meeting your expectations.

[Feanor]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C325BEE-Stereo-Integrated-Amplifier

I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp

Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?

Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?

First: do you like classical music? The SACD catalogue is heavily weighted towards this genre. Check this link for info and virtually all SACD releases ...
http://www.sa-cd.net/

Second: do you have a multi-channel system? (The info you provided suggests not, but if so ...) Most SACD releases are multi-channel, and good M/C recordings provide a level of realism than surpasses anything possible with stereo.

Third: do you have a "golden ear"? That is, do you care about the best possible sound? SACD provides this -- yes, it beats vinyl, IMO. Bear in mind though, that 90% of sound quality has to do with the recording process, not the medium in which its delivered.

If you can answer "yes" to two out of three of these questions, (or feel strongly about the 3rd), then SACD should be a "go" for you.

A couple more things. No, you don't have to have a special amp or receiver to support SACD; (multi-channel receivers ought provide 6 channel, discrete input: most do). And finally, don't be unduely concerned about SACD becoming obsolete: most SACDs are "hybrid", that is, they can be played on standard CD players, (though at standard CD resolution) -- and CDs are going to be around for a long, long time.

[shokhead]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C325BEE-Stereo-Integrated-Amplifier

I am looking for a CD player. I can get a brand new Marantz cd5001 for $250... This has been suggested: http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/418.asp

Does it matter? Is it worth having the SACD function (I don't know anything about it), and is one CD player better than the other?

Does a receiver/amp have to support SACD?

Yes,get one.

[cpt998]

I am going to purchase the Marantz player. It is in my budget, I can get one for a good price, and SACD does not appeal to me. I do not listen to classical music/blues heavily, so I don't think I would really benefit from the format. Maybe if/when it becomes more mainstream I will invest.


First: do you like classical music? The SACD catalogue is heavily weighted towards this genre. Check this link for info and virtually all SACD releases ...
http://www.sa-cd.net/

Second: do you have a multi-channel system? (The info you provided suggests not, but if so ...) Most SACD releases are multi-channel, and good M/C recordings provide a level of realism than surpasses anything possible with stereo.

Third: do you have a "golden ear"? That is, do you care about the best possible sound? SACD provides this -- yes, it beats vinyl, IMO. Bear in mind though, that 90% of sound quality has to do with the recording process, not the medium in which its delivered.

If you can answer "yes" to two out of three of these questions, (or feel strongly about the 3rd), then SACD should be a "go" for you.

A couple more things. No, you don't have to have a special amp or receiver to support SACD; (multi-channel receivers ought provide 6 channel, discrete input: most do). And finally, don't be unduely concerned about SACD becoming obsolete: most SACDs are "hybrid", that is, they can be played on standard CD players, (though at standard CD resolution) -- and CDs are going to be around for a long, long time.'

1. Not particularly
2. No
3. I'm practically half deaf

Until SACD becomes more 'maintstream', I'll pass on the player. Sounds like it will be around for a while, as you described. I'll pick up the marantz. Thanks for the suggestions.

[bobsticks]

...and good luck with the Marantz. I suspect you'll be pretty happy as they generally make solid stuff.

[shokhead]

Its as mainstream as its going to get and my CCR or SRV ,Police and others isnt classical . Me,i wouldnt buy a player nowadays unless its a universal. You can find plenty at the right price. Why limit yourself.

[hugh9269]

The Denon does play DVD-Audio as well, which will help broaden the catalog along with Super Audio Disc's. I have about 10 DVD-A's for my car, since it can play the format.

I was in the same boat trying to find a Universal DVD player that had great audio quailty. I ended up buying Oppo DVD player and Arcam 73T for CD's.

Couple other Universal DVD options for you:

http://us.marantz.com/Products/2047.asp
http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html

[jrhymeammo]

I agree with Da Shoky. If you can get a solid SACDP or a Univ. P for around 400, then why not? I'm sure their RBCD playback capability would be just as good. You can always get a disc of two of your absolute choice. Why wouldnt that be a plus? As long as CDP exists, SACD format will not die out. DSD function would be nice, but not sure if sub $400 players would support that. I'm not sure. What happened to all the Cambridge Audio recommedations? They make some budget universal players as well.

[Woochifer]

I would suggest that you scan the sa-cd.net site and look through the SACD releases available. If any of them are on your "desert island" disc list, then a SACD player might be worth exploring.

In general, the companies that issue SACDs have put a lot more care into the mastering process on those releases. Thus, in most cases with the actual discs themselves, the SACD version will sound noticeably better than the CD version (whether this improvement is due more to the extra resolution or to the attention to detail at the mastering stage is a source of endless debate).

In addition to the higher resolution, SACD also lets you hear favorite recordings in 5.1 surround. This not only provides an extra dimension of imaging, but it can also dramatically improve the sound quality. The sound quality improvement happens because the 5.1 remix require going all the way back to the original multitrack master tape. With many older recordings, the stereo mixdowns were done using inferior analog tape players that audibly degraded the sound with each mixing pass. And to create a strong stereo image, many of the mixes required extensive processing and signal compression. By remixing these original tapes with modern high res digital equipment, and no longer having to process the signal to squeeze the multiple tracks down to two tracks, the 5.1 remix can greatly improve the sound clarity.

Also, most SACDs are hybrid discs with a separate CD layer that you can play on a regular CD player, and in many cases the CD layer also improves the sound quality over the previous CD version.

I bought my SACD player primarily so that I could hear the SF Symphony's magnificent Mahler series in their full resolution and in multichannel. As great as they sound with the CD layer, the SACD layers are even better. Those recordings were originally done in the one-bit DSD format, which is what SACD uses.

Getting a SACD that was originally recorded in DSD is basically a one-for-one transcription of the master recording. And hearing those recordings in multichannel brings the listener that much closer to how it actually sounds sitting inside Davies Symphony Hall (I usually attend 3-4 SF Symphony performances a year, including one of the recording sessions for the Mahler series)

[Carl Reid]

I am going to purchase the Marantz player. It is in my budget, I can get one for a good price, and SACD does not appeal to me. I do not listen to classical music/blues heavily, so I don't think I would really benefit from the format. Maybe if/when it becomes more mainstream I will invest.

'

1. Not particularly
2. No
3. I'm practically half deaf

Until SACD becomes more 'maintstream', I'll pass on the player. Sounds like it will be around for a while, as you described. I'll pick up the marantz. Thanks for the suggestions.

The Marantz is a great choice... IMHO it's easily one of the best value for your money CD players available....

It's cheap enough that if later on you want to buy a more expensive SACD/DVDA player, you won't feel bad about the money you spent on the Marantz...

I'm not a fan of cheap universal players.... I find it very hard to believe that a company can produce a player that does justice to Redbook CDs, SACD and DVDA all for around $400... I'd say get the Marantz and later if you really find that there are SACD titles that you are interested in, then upgrade from the Marantz 5001 to the 8001....

[cpt998]

I am only running a 2 channel system. Some of the SACD's appeal to me,and I purchased the Marantz 5001 for a very good price.. are there any SACD players in the $400 range that will work as well as the Marantz? I know little about either.

[audio_dude]

how is the 5400 (the previous model before the 5001) compare? I can get one used for $200CDN no takes and shipping included. good deal?

[Rock789]

--Focal 706V speakers
http://www.focal.tm.fr/accueil_en.htm
--NAD C325 integrated amplifier
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C325BEE-Stereo-Integrated-Amplifier

With your equipment, an SACD will sound better
I have a Marantz 6500 all in one player, and it plays SACD's very nicely

SACD's may be 2 or multi channel...
my marantz player actually has both multi ch and 2ch outputs... (I have both going to my preamp)

later
Mike

fyi, the Marantz 6500 was ~$450 2 years ago... maybe find it cheaper now?

[P mac]

You will need Three sets of rca cables .

[Feanor]

You will need Three sets of rca cables .

A pair is fine for stereo.

[shokhead]

:10: :9: :9:

[Rock789]

shokhead, are they real?

[shokhead]

What?

[Rock789]

What?
http://forums.audioreview.com/image.php?u=243221&dateline=1168094212

[shokhead]

Oh! Beats me. For me,it just does'nt matter.

[Rock789]

lol good point ;o)

[basite]

Oh! Beats me. For me,it just does'nt matter.


boob-o-phile...:smilewinkgrin:

IMO, they're quite big...

[Rock789]

so who is this chick?

[BillyB]

Sounds like your decision is made so enjoy the Marantz as I hear they're quite good for the money.I think you have to be realistic when considering these players that have multi-function as a selling point.To get a SACD player that is outstanding with redbook CD's you have to spend big bucks.There's going to be some sacrifice by the manufacturer somewhere when incorporating SACD technology into the same box unless the unit is very high end.It's obviously a budget related decision so there's no perfect scenario.In a perfect world you would have a dedicated player for each and I realize that's neither practical nor inexpensive.To me it's just like an Amp and Preamp combo usually sounding better than an integrated amp,and an integrated amp usually sounding better than a reciever.I suppose you get an investment return with the SACD playback though as the theory is the higher resolution of the SACD's should bring better sound,so maybe a $400 SACD player playing an SACD will sound as good or better than a $700 redbook player playing a standard CD.I just don't think it will sound as good playing the redbooks but that's just my opinion.Enjoy your new player as I don't think you could have made a better choice at your price point.

[Woochifer]

Sounds like your decision is made so enjoy the Marantz as I hear they're quite good for the money.I think you have to be realistic when considering these players that have multi-function as a selling point.To get a SACD player that is outstanding with redbook CD's you have to spend big bucks.There's going to be some sacrifice by the manufacturer somewhere when incorporating SACD technology into the same box unless the unit is very high end.It's obviously a budget related decision so there's no perfect scenario.In a perfect world you would have a dedicated player for each and I realize that's neither practical nor inexpensive.To me it's just like an Amp and Preamp combo usually sounding better than an integrated amp,and an integrated amp usually sounding better than a reciever.I suppose you get an investment return with the SACD playback though as the theory is the higher resolution of the SACD's should bring better sound,so maybe a $400 SACD player playing an SACD will sound as good or better than a $700 redbook player playing a standard CD.I just don't think it will sound as good playing the redbooks but that's just my opinion.Enjoy your new player as I don't think you could have made a better choice at your price point.

You'd be surprised at how well a dedicated SACD player will handle regular CDs. For example, Sony's low end $150 SACD changer (as well as previous universal players from Pioneer and Toshiba) uses the Burr-Brown 1791 digital-to-analog converter, which happens to be the same DAC used in Arcam's $800 CD72 (which also uses a Sony transport). That DAC is capable of decoding the 1-bit DSD signals from SACDs as well as the 16-bit PCM signals from CDs -- the SACD player happens to use both capabilities, while the Arcam only uses the PCM decoding.

I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.

[Rock789]

I use my marantz to play cd's... they sound good

[BillyB]

You'd be surprised at how well a dedicated SACD player will handle regular CDs. For example, Sony's low end $150 SACD changer (as well as previous universal players from Pioneer and Toshiba) uses the Burr-Brown 1791 digital-to-analog converter, which happens to be the same DAC used in Arcam's $800 CD72 (which also uses a Sony transport). That DAC is capable of decoding the 1-bit DSD signals from SACDs as well as the 16-bit PCM signals from CDs -- the SACD player happens to use both capabilities, while the Arcam only uses the PCM decoding.

I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.

I hear this all the time regarding the inexpensive Sony's and other brand multi- Cd players as well as SACD players.There's a theory that the newer CDP technology has crept into even the low-end Cd players and there's no longer a need to spend big money to get a good CDP(Redbook or SACD).I would consider that only part true at best as there is still some logic to getting what you pay for .Companies like Toshiba and Sony mass produce their audio products and make their money through sheer volume as opposed to outperforming the competition.I don't doubt they sound OK and qualify as a good bang for the buck.I guess I'm just old school and have a hard time believing that the $150 player which uses the same DAC as the Arcam can compete with it for Redbook playback.Arcam doesn't bother with SACD and focuses it's research and development on redbook playback .They will never be confused with a Sony when listening to one.There's so many other factors in how a unit is built like the quality of circuit boards,capacitors,filters,power supply,etc.If you took a Sony and an Arcam apart the difference in build quality would be clear the minute you got the shell off.The component needs to sound musical and that is where the art of CDP design comes in.That being said there is always the law of diminishing returns as you start to spend big money on audio equipment so when saying a unit like the Sony sounds really good I can only assume you mean it's good for the $150 investment.I bought a Sony 5 CD changer for my secondary stereo and it's really quite awful even though it's paired with a decent amp and speakers.I bought it for the 5 cd playback capability and got just what I paid for.It's not the SACD model though so not apples to apples there.Serious CD player manufacturers don't even bother with multi cd changers(there are exceptions like some very good and expensive Marantz units) and there's a reason.They want to put their focus on things that effect sound as opposed to convenience features.Sony and Philips have always made some of the most reliable transports,but Sony will never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers.Their strength is their video products not their audio products.In fairness I would say they are the best of the inexpensive brands most people think of when they think of electronics.I consider them to be reliable but that's about it.I am aware that Sony has an ES line that's more high end but I don't have any experience with it.I didn't even realize there are enough CD's available in SACD format for it to even be considered a serious alternative to Redbook CD's but I listen to mostly older music so maybe that's why I'm out of the loop on that one.I would think if Redbook CD's still make up the majority of whats available then a very good redbook player is going to provide you more service than an SACD player that only sounds it's best when playing the few SACD's you may own.Of course if you are a collector of SACD's you obviously need something to play them on so I am by no means suggesting there's no place in the market for these SACD units,just that the better CDP manufacturers also don't bother with SACD with a couple of exceptions so there must be a reason they make this conscious decision.If they felt they could make their units to the same standards(without driving up cost significantly)or making "compromises" to their Redbook playback while including SACD playback I would think more would.The Arcam 72T(now the 73T which uses wolfson 7840 DAC)was considered a groundbreaking player at it's price point of around $700 so when I suggest a player like this to someone I still feel they are at a price point where the return vs investment is very high.

[Feanor]

...

I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.

Thanks, Wooch,

This under scores how advances in techology have been used to great effect in mass market products -- regardless of the motives of the manufactures who are, admittedly, not targeting the audiophile fringe.

My Sony SCD-CE775 is the immediate predeceasor of the Sony you alluded to, and is very good as a stock product. A bit of an industry sprung up modifying this unit whose goal was to bring it very close to high-end products. Note that the typical upgrades were maily to the analog chain, although some improved the clock. I passed up these mods because they would have tripled the total cost and I just didn't want to spend the case on them versus speakers and amps. This is about diminishing returns. :)

I'm not above blowing a litte dough to get fine improvements. I recently bought a used Assemblage DAC 1.5 for $75. (I've mainly used it with my circa 1991 top-line Technics SL-PS70 which makes a nice transport.) I notice as subtle but, I'm reasonalby convinced, real improvement in resolution, especially for HDCD discs for which the Assemblage has the decoder. Now I'm going to spring another $220 or so to have Parts Connexion upgrade the op amps, wiring, and RCA connectors.

But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
:16: :21: :19: :16:

[shokhead]

2CH SACD is even better then rebook cds like the CCR SACD's,they are so good.

[BillyB]

Thanks, Wooch,

This under scores how advances in techology have been used to great effect in mass market products -- regardless of the motives of the manufactures who are, admittedly, not targeting the audiophile fringe.

My Sony SCD-CE775 is the immediate predeceasor of the Sony you alluded to, and is very good as a stock product. A bit of an industry sprung up modifying this unit whose goal was to bring it very close to high-end products. Note that the typical upgrades were maily to the analog chain, although some improved the clock. I passed up these mods because they would have tripled the total cost and I just didn't want to spend the case on them versus speakers and amps. This is about diminishing returns. :)

I'm not above blowing a litte dough to get fine improvements. I recently bought a used Assemblage DAC 1.5 for $75. (I've mainly used it with my circa 1991 top-line Technics SL-PS70 which makes a nice transport.) I notice as subtle but, I'm reasonalby convinced, real improvement in resolution, especially for HDCD discs for which the Assemblage has the decoder. Now I'm going to spring another $220 or so to have Parts Connexion upgrade the op amps, wiring, and RCA connectors.

But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
:16: :21: :19: :16:

For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory.Last I checked music was 2 channel and DVD/movie soundtracks were multichannel.If your home theatre plays back music better than your 2 channel stereo than you need a better stereo unless of course your A/V reciever is your stereo which in itself is a problem,so not having a killer Redbook CD player is the least of the problems.High fidelity audio playback has always been 2 channel audio which simply means playing back your music through 2 high quality speakers firing from directly in front of you not coming at you from 5 or 6 or 7 channels.I'm way too much of an audio purist for this thread so I will now leave you guys alone.

[Carl Reid]

But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
:16: :21: :19: :16:

I think a lot of people will disagree with you on that one.... and I'm yet to be convinced that a mutlichannel set-up is inherently better than a 2 channel one.... keep in mind that for the budget spent on a crappy 5.1 setup you could easily get a good 2 channel setup (simple economics... since you're buying less than 1/3 of the number of speakers required for 5.1 you can get far better quality speakers for the money and the same applies for amplification as well).... so I really doubt that a modest mutichannel setup will outperform a quality stereo setup.... Good music is more about quality than quantity....

I'm not saying that I don't think Mutlichannel SACD can sound better than redbook CD, but just that I really doubt that you will be able to best a quality redbook setup with a SACD setup costing less or even the same amount....

[Feanor]

...
But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.


I'm not going to duke it out with you on the subject. Let me say I listen 90% to my stereo system which is hugely better than my multi-channel which is just a modest HT. And of course 90% of my music collection is 2-channel. But every now and then I trot downstairs with two or three SACDs and listen for a hour or two.

With the best recordings, (and I'm talking classical music), the experience is strikingly different from stereo. It shows the M/C potential to me even though on my system the sound coming from each individual speaker is a good deal less good than my stereo system

[Rock789]

I have to dissagree... but then again, I decided to build my system for 5ch+sub sacd's...
had I only built a 2 ch system at the time, I would have used the same speakers... had I not been interested in 5 ch sacd's... I probably would have gone with different surround speakers.. (probably the 806 or 705 rather than the 716...
now I know some of you have systems which play 2ch much better than my anthem/focal jm lab, but to me, it is what I like, and it plays 2ch and 6 ch sacd's better than my 2ch system in my room... (blame components)

[shokhead]

For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory.Last I checked music was 2 channel and DVD/movie soundtracks were multichannel.If your home theatre plays back music better than your 2 channel stereo than you need a better stereo unless of course your A/V reciever is your stereo which in itself is a problem,so not having a killer Redbook CD player is the least of the problems.High fidelity audio playback has always been 2 channel audio which simply means playing back your music through 2 high quality speakers firing from directly in front of you not coming at you from 5 or 6 or 7 channels.I'm way too much of an audio purist for this thread so I will now leave you guys alone.

HT speakers. 2CH speakers. Poop. Explain the difference between a set of 2CH speakers and the front mains in a HT? Is one speaker square or something?

[Feanor]

For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory....

BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.

The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.

My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.

[Woochifer]

I hear this all the time regarding the inexpensive Sony's and other brand multi- Cd players as well as SACD players.There's a theory that the newer CDP technology has crept into even the low-end Cd players and there's no longer a need to spend big money to get a good CDP(Redbook or SACD).I would consider that only part true at best as there is still some logic to getting what you pay for .

I think you're placing way too much credence in the value of the price tag in determining performance. The performance difference between digital components is far narrower than between analog components. In the analog era, you could safely say that you get what you pay for. But, with digital components where measurable differences are at best negligible, that same "logic" does not hold up quite as well. You're paying a lot for subtle differences.


Companies like Toshiba and Sony mass produce their audio products and make their money through sheer volume as opposed to outperforming the competition.I don't doubt they sound OK and qualify as a good bang for the buck.I guess I'm just old school and have a hard time believing that the $150 player which uses the same DAC as the Arcam can compete with it for Redbook playback.Arcam doesn't bother with SACD and focuses it's research and development on redbook playback .

What do you mean "can compete"? Of course, those lower cost CD players can compete. Since they measure almost identically within the audible range, any audible differences will be more subtle than obvious. Old school in the audiophile world IMO lies with analog components where the audible differences were obvious AND verifiable through measurements.


They will never be confused with a Sony when listening to one.There's so many other factors in how a unit is built like the quality of circuit boards,capacitors,filters,power supply,etc.If you took a Sony and an Arcam apart the difference in build quality would be clear the minute you got the shell off.

Have you actually done this for yourself? Or is this just speculation on your part? You seem to equate mass production with inferiority. Although Sony is clearly pricing their products at the mass market, one of the advantages of mass production lies with cost reductions through economies of scale. Even Arcam realizes this, otherwise they would not purchase their transports from Sony in lieu of developing their own.


Serious CD player manufacturers don't even bother with multi cd changers(there are exceptions like some very good and expensive Marantz units) and there's a reason.They want to put their focus on things that effect sound as opposed to convenience features.Sony and Philips have always made some of the most reliable transports,but Sony will never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers.Their strength is their video products not their audio products.In fairness I would say they are the best of the inexpensive brands most people think of when they think of electronics.I consider them to be reliable but that's about it.I am aware that Sony has an ES line that's more high end but I don't have any experience with it.

Here again, you're equating "expensive" with "serious." Marantz IS a mass market manufacturer. Until recently, they were one of Philips' nameplates. Now, they are in a conglomerate with Denon and Boston Acoustics (among others). Are their multidisc changers acceptable to you because they're more expensive? Or because you've actually compared them with other disc changers on the basis of their sound quality?

When you say that Sony will "never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers" you ignore the many high end components that they do manufacture. They might constitute a small portion of their overall sales, but they do manufacture a sizable range of components that are obsessively spec'd and yes, very expensive.


I didn't even realize there are enough CD's available in SACD format for it to even be considered a serious alternative to Redbook CD's but I listen to mostly older music so maybe that's why I'm out of the loop on that one.I would think if Redbook CD's still make up the majority of whats available then a very good redbook player is going to provide you more service than an SACD player that only sounds it's best when playing the few SACD's you may own.Of course if you are a collector of SACD's you obviously need something to play them on so I am by no means suggesting there's no place in the market for these SACD units,just that the better CDP manufacturers also don't bother with SACD with a couple of exceptions so there must be a reason they make this conscious decision.If they felt they could make their units to the same standards(without driving up cost significantly)or making "compromises" to their Redbook playback while including SACD playback I would think more would.The Arcam 72T(now the 73T which uses wolfson 7840 DAC)was considered a groundbreaking player at it's price point of around $700 so when I suggest a player like this to someone I still feel they are at a price point where the return vs investment is very high.

For someone who purportedly cares about "serious" sound reproduction, I'm a bit surprised that you haven't taken a look at SACD or DVD-A and tried it out for yourself. For all of the features going into high end CD players, they cannot get around the fundamental 44.1/16 resolution of the CD format itself. With a digital recording, nearly all CDs require some form of downsampling during the mastering process. With SACD or DVD-A, the resolution of the source matches the playback format. Like I said before, the analog signal paths on dedicated SACD players are already spec'd higher than normal because they have to handle the wider range of the SACD format, and nearly all of that circuitry is shared. Without actual hands-on experience with these SACD players, you're speculatng quite a bit over the "compromises" that they incorporate, and what, if any, detrimental effect this has on sound quality with regular CDs.

[Rock789]

HT speakers. 2CH speakers. Poop. Explain the difference between a set of 2CH speakers and the front mains in a HT? Is one speaker square or something?
I have seen square ht speakers hehe

[Woochifer]

BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.

The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.

My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.

This is a point that two-channel purists often miss -- that two-channels are simply not enough to reproduce a live event. Given the tenor of the typical comments I've read over the years, I also question how many of the negative comments about multichannel arise out of actual experience. If someone hears multichannel music through a HTIB or an otherwise improperly aligned and setup system, then they won't get the full impact of what multichannel is capable of.

Even going as far back as Bell Labs' groundbreaking research into psychoacoustics in the late-30s, which indicated that at least three speakers were needed up front to properly render the front soundstage, the rationale for multichannel has always been there. The only reason why the audio industry standardized around two-channels was the technical limitations of the available consumer formats in earlier eras. Those limitations no longer exist.

It doesn't matter how good a two-channel system is, multichannel is capable of things that stereo is not. This is evident even with a modest system, and if you use comparably high end components all the way around, then the contrast is even more striking.

[BillyB]

I know I really stoked the fire this time with my opinions on this matter so let me just say a couple of things in regard to the replies and then I'll do my best to leave this touchy subject alone.In terms of the live sound multi-channel SACD can provide that would obviously be of major benefit only when playing back live concert CD's which make up a very small percentage of most peoples CD collections.To stokhead I would simply say that the front HT speakers wouldn't be the weak link, the fact that you're using an A/V reciever to drive them is the problem.People love these A/V recievers for the works because you save all sorts of money on interconnects,no separate amp and preamp,HT and stereo in one,built-in tuner,etc. and it simplifies your life regarding source and connection issues.Does a high quality separate amp and preamp combo sound better for 2 channel stereo,of course they do.I totally understand people being defensive about their equipment being criticized as you guys don't want to hear your inexpensive SACD players aren't up to snuff any more than I want to hear my high end Redbook player and 2 channel set-up isn't superior in overall sound quality to a $150 CDP being played through a home theatre A/V reciever..I'm extremely particular about my 2 channel system and while I have a decent HT set-up using a separate A/V reciever the few times when my stereo has been out of commision and I've had to play back CD's through the home theatre I cringe at the overall sound quality and imaging of all those speakers playing at once.Of course you'll say that a multi-channel SACD that was designed to be played back in this fashion will sound much better,but is it really a better sound with proper imaging or just a lot of sound coming at you from all directions.I suppose you correct any sound problems with the A/V recievers speaker settings, but In my mind that is HT.not CD playback.If these SACD's are all they're cracked up to be then they will become a mainstream format that's more readily available including remasters of older non-SACD's(assuming that's technically possible which I wouldn't know).Obviously many older CD's were first mastered during the vinyl era and then remastered for digital CD's when that format became mainstream.Time will tell.As far as the quality of digital equipment like CD players being less of an issue than the older analogue equipment that's also very subjective.Obviously some people had $50 turntables and some people had $400 turntables.I'm sure the guy with the $400 turntable felt it was a better playing unit than the $50 model and his investment was justified.I have had CD players apart and the difference inside the box between the $150 players and the $700 players is quite striking.They don't even look that similar.If anything quality and design is even more important with a digital device like a CDP because CD's of course can sound very harsh and the better players are designed and built to reduce that weakness as it doesn't happen by accident.( the DAC and transport used are just the tip of the iceberg in CDP design)It's the result of R & D and you have to pay for that when you buy any product.At the end of the day the only thing that matters with this hobby is that the person listening to their equipment is enjoying their music regardless of what it cost so I don't want to sound like an Audiophile who bashes other peoples equipment based on cost or brand name,but at the same time don't think the extra money spent putting together a high end stereo doesn't equate to better results because if the equipment is properly mixed the results can be magical and worth every penny..System cost is nothing to get too caught about because no matter what you have there is always someone with deeper pockets who can afford a system that blows yours away.(I certainly include myself as someone with a limited amount of money to delegate to electronics)I am obviously very passionate about 2 channel stereo and will always feel that it is the most natural sounding audio format and the way music was intended to be listened to but that's just me and it shouldn't be a right or wrong kind of issue,but rather a matter of opinion and I do respect the input of fellow audio lovers regardless of whether we agree or not..The best of both worlds of course would be to have a great 2 channel stereo for Redbook playback and a good HT set-up that can also play your SACD's(2 channel or multi-channel) but I totally respect the fact that that is not within's everybody's budget.I believe woochifer mentioned that's how he gets around the format issue.When I can no longer tolerate the sound of my Sony standard 5 disk carousel player in my second system I will give serious thought to replacing it with one of these less expensive SACD players as my player cost $100 and at $150(entry level of course) or so an SACD player is not a huge investment.If it sounds way better playing SACD's than my current conventional Sony I will gladly admit it but it's not going to rival my Arcam 192T upsampling player and for what the 192T cost that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation.Enjoy your systems as my intention is not to offend.This stuff isn't personal but of course we get pretty hopped up about anything we really care about and that's not all bad.Take care.

[bobsticks]

Hey Billy B,

Nothing wrong with being passionate about 2-channel. Man, have I heard some great 2C systems that made the listening experience a complete joy. With the right system synergy imaging and clarity can be wonderous.

That said my own journey has taken me the path of Multi-Channel application. I think the most important thing to recognize is that it is a very non-traditional medium and probably cannot be thought of within exactly the same perameters as 2C. Yes sound is sound but the increase of spatial cues and ambience can be amazing. Admittedly, it takes some perseverance.
I wanted to address a couple of things that I view as popular misconceptions. Not all MC is necessarily the exclusive product of receivers, and by that I mean that there are a few dedicated higher-end processors out there that supercede that. More in line with the current conversation, many receivers have pre-outs ( preamp outputs ) that can function as a line to an external amp. Many, if not most, have a "direct" mode which bypasses the processing for the purist.
Also, not all HT speakers (?) are square boxes. . I would humbly submit my own system (photos in the gallery) as a counter-example to this. I have put together what I regard as a decent mid-level system and the shortcomings are indeed included in your argument. Would I like to upgrade the source and processing unit? Sure, and when the funds and opportunities become available I will. I will say that "opportunities means "deals" because frankly I am in very little hurry to make unecessarry changes. From this point on upgrades have to provide a distinct and substanative improvement.

I bring these points up because while I agree that MC requires a degree of tweaking and unconventional thought, I have experienced to a greater extent the rewards and they are numerous and palpable. I hope you follow through with your proposal to experiment, at least with hi-rez music (SACD, DVD-A). Despite much of the catalog being skewed toward classical and jazz I am confident that you will find enough "old stuff" (Clapton, Beck, Elton John, The Zombies, etc.) to make it rewarding.

Remember: There's room on the boat for everyone and, for God's sake, enjoy yer tunes.

Peace

[Woochifer]

I know I really stoked the fire this time with my opinions on this matter so let me just say a couple of things in regard to the replies and then I'll do my best to leave this touchy subject alone.In terms of the live sound multi-channel SACD can provide that would obviously be of major benefit only when playing back live concert CD's which make up a very small percentage of most peoples CD collections.

Au contraire. The ability to map the ambient soundstage from the room acoustics is but one of the benefits with multichannel. With multitracked studio recordings, multichannel allows the recording engineer to space the instrumentation into different channels. This can produce a cleaner and more coherent sound because the recording now eliminates a lot of the processing, compression, and extra downmixing needed to create a phantom center effect out of two channels.


To stokhead I would simply say that the front HT speakers wouldn't be the weak link, the fact that you're using an A/V reciever to drive them is the problem.People love these A/V recievers for the works because you save all sorts of money on interconnects,no separate amp and preamp,HT and stereo in one,built-in tuner,etc. and it simplifies your life regarding source and connection issues.Does a high quality separate amp and preamp combo sound better for 2 channel stereo,of course they do.I totally understand people being defensive about their equipment being criticized as you guys don't want to hear your inexpensive SACD players aren't up to snuff any more than I want to hear my high end Redbook player and 2 channel set-up isn't superior in overall sound quality to a $150 CDP being played through a home theatre A/V reciever.

You're making an awful lot of generalizations pertaining to AV receivers. In case you don't know, there's a rather sizable range of AV receivers on the market, with very different capabilities. And in my experience, the biggest issues with the majority of systems I've heard pertain to the speakers and the room acoustics, so you have no basis for definitively concluding that someone's system issues have more to do with the amplification than the speakers.

The points have nothing to do with being defensive, they have to do with our hands-on experience not coinciding with the broad generalizations you're supporting.


I'm extremely particular about my 2 channel system and while I have a decent HT set-up using a separate A/V reciever the few times when my stereo has been out of commision and I've had to play back CD's through the home theatre I cringe at the overall sound quality and imaging of all those speakers playing at once.

Statements like this make me question any statement you might make about multichannel if you're playing CDs with "all those speakers playing at once." Simply put, CDs are intended for two-channel playback, and should be played that way. All AV receivers allow you to switch off the processing and go with straight two-channel playback with two-channel sources.


Of course you'll say that a multi-channel SACD that was designed to be played back in this fashion will sound much better,but is it really a better sound with proper imaging or just a lot of sound coming at you from all directions.I suppose you correct any sound problems with the A/V recievers speaker settings, but In my mind that is HT.not CD playback.If these SACD's are all they're cracked up to be then they will become a mainstream format that's more readily available including remasters of older non-SACD's(assuming that's technically possible which I wouldn't know).

Setting up a multichannel setup is a lot more involved than simply identifying whether the speakers are "LARGE" or "SMALL." It involves proper alignment (position, toe-in angle, and height), level matching with a SPL meter (matching "by ear" is not nearly accurate enough to simultanously match levels on five speakers at once), the delay timing (compensating for the different distances between different speakers), and properly setting up the bass management. That's something you do with movies and music alike. If you have not taken the time to properly set up your multichannel system or heard a properly done 5.1 setup, then you're in no position to argue the merits and dismerits of multichannel.


Obviously many older CD's were first mastered during the vinyl era and then remastered for digital CD's when that format became mainstream.Time will tell.As far as the quality of digital equipment like CD players being less of an issue than the older analogue equipment that's also very subjective.Obviously some people had $50 turntables and some people had $400 turntables.I'm sure the guy with the $400 turntable felt it was a better playing unit than the $50 model and his investment was justified.

Absolutely not true. With turntables, you could measure sizable differences in frequency response, dynamic range, wow & flutter, and acoustical isolation -- and those differences are clearly audible. With CD players, differences in the measured parameters are far narrower, if not nonexistent in most cases. So, this is not merely a subjective argument as you suggest, but rather a point that can be verified objectively as well.


I have had CD players apart and the difference inside the box between the $150 players and the $700 players is quite striking.They don't even look that similar.If anything quality and design is even more important with a digital device like a CDP because CD's of course can sound very harsh and the better players are designed and built to reduce that weakness as it doesn't happen by accident.( the DAC and transport used are just the tip of the iceberg in CDP design)It's the result of R & D and you have to pay for that when you buy any product.

I don't agree at all with your contention about the design and quality being more important with a digital component than an analog component. Like I said, CD players are working within a far narrower parameter. The harshness associated with CDs has not been as much of an issue for about the past decade with improvement to the filtering on the DACs. But, in many cases, the harshness is just part of the source material. A poorly mastered CD will sound bad no matter what you use to play them on.

But, if you think the range of playback quality with CDs is every bit as audible as with turntables, I would challenge you to do some listening tests. Turntables (along with their variety of tonearm and cartridge setups, and audible variations resulting from the overhang angle, VTA, counterbalancing, etc.) have much more obvious sonic signatures, and there are plenty of bad combinations out there. On the other hand, there aren't any CD players out there that sound nearly as bad as some turntables can.


At the end of the day the only thing that matters with this hobby is that the person listening to their equipment is enjoying their music regardless of what it cost so I don't want to sound like an Audiophile who bashes other peoples equipment based on cost or brand name,but at the same time don't think the extra money spent putting together a high end stereo doesn't equate to better results because if the equipment is properly mixed the results can be magical.System cost is nothing to get too caught about because no matter what you have there is always someone with deeper pockets who can afford a system that blows yours away.(I certainly include myself as someone with a limited amount of money to delegate to electronics)I am obviously very passionate about 2 channel stereo and will always feel that it is the most natural sounding audio format and the way music was intended to be listened to but that's just me and it shouldn't be a right or wrong kind of issue.The best of both worlds of course would be to have a great 2 channel stereo for Redbook playback and a good HT set-up that can also play your SACD's(2 channel or multi-channel) but I totally respect the fact that that is not within's everybody's budget.I believe woochifer mentioned that's how he gets around the format issue.When I can no longer tolerate the sound of my Sony standard 5 disk carousel player in my second system I will give serious thought to replacing it with one of these less expensive SACD players as my player cost $100 and at $150(entry level of course) or so an SACD player is not a huge investment.Enjoy your systems as my intention is not to offend.This stuff isn't personal but of course we get pretty hopped up about anything we really care about and that's not all bad.Take care.

That's all well and good. I would hope that at some point you get a chance to explore what some of the better SACDs are capable of delivering.

[BillyB]

Au contraire. The ability to map the ambient soundstage from the room acoustics is but one of the benefits with multichannel. With multitracked studio recordings, multichannel allows the recording engineer to space the instrumentation into different channels. This can produce a cleaner and more coherent sound because the recording now eliminates a lot of the processing, compression, and extra downmixing needed to create a phantom center effect out of two channels.



You're making an awful lot of generalizations pertaining to AV receivers. In case you don't know, there's a rather sizable range of AV receivers on the market, with very different capabilities. And in my experience, the biggest issues with the majority of systems I've heard pertain to the speakers and the room acoustics, so you have no basis for definitively concluding that someone's system issues have more to do with the amplification than the speakers.

The points have nothing to do with being defensive, they have to do with our hands-on experience not coinciding with the broad generalizations you're supporting.



Statements like this make me question any statement you might make about multichannel if you're playing CDs with "all those speakers playing at once." Simply put, CDs are intended for two-channel playback, and should be played that way. All AV receivers allow you to switch off the processing and go with straight two-channel playback with two-channel sources.



Setting up a multichannel setup is a lot more involved than simply identifying whether the speakers are "LARGE" or "SMALL." It involves proper alignment (position, toe-in angle, and height), level matching with a SPL meter (matching "by ear" is not nearly accurate enough to simultanously match levels on five speakers at once), the delay timing (compensating for the different distances between different speakers), and properly setting up the bass management. That's something you do with movies and music alike. If you have not taken the time to properly set up your multichannel system or heard a properly done 5.1 setup, then you're in no position to argue the merits and dismerits of multichannel.



Absolutely not true. With turntables, you could measure sizable differences in frequency response, dynamic range, wow & flutter, and acoustical isolation -- and those differences are clearly audible. With CD players, differences in the measured parameters are far narrower, if not nonexistent in most cases. So, this is not merely a subjective argument as you suggest, but rather a point that can be verified objectively as well.



I don't agree at all with your contention about the design and quality being more important with a digital component than an analog component. Like I said, CD players are working within a far narrower parameter. The harshness associated with CDs has not been as much of an issue for about the past decade with improvement to the filtering on the DACs. But, in many cases, the harshness is just part of the source material. A poorly mastered CD will sound bad no matter what you use to play them on.

But, if you think the range of playback quality with CDs is every bit as audible as with turntables, I would challenge you to do some listening tests. Turntables (along with their variety of tonearm and cartridge setups, and audible variations resulting from the overhang angle, VTA, counterbalancing, etc.) have much more obvious sonic signatures, and there are plenty of bad combinations out there. On the other hand, there aren't any CD players out there that sound nearly as bad as some turntables can.



That's all well and good. I would hope that at some point you get a chance to explore what some of the better SACDs are capable of delivering.

Quite true regarding the range of A/V reciever quality because we mustn't forget that an A/V reciever is being asked to provide 6 or 7 X 90 watts per channel(amongst all it's other functions) which obviously is asking a lot out of any reasonably priced component.Is it logical to think that those channels are all putting out the same powerful clean signal that a dedicated 2 channel combo puts out.Unless you're feeding that source to an external power some of the improved sound you say the SACD's produce is obviously offset by the inherent weaknesses an A/V reciever has.If they built an A/V reciever that could do it all equally well very few of us could afford one.They can only fit so much in one box so even in 2-channel mode a reciever still has a limited amount of power to provide the scheer power that very good speakers require.I'm talking about your typical decent quality A/V recievers,not the outrageously good ones that most people can't or don't want to spring for that have completely separate dedicated sections inside them that do everything and do it very well.I['m sure we both realize we're not talking apples to apples here anyway as multi-channel and 2 channel couldn't be any more different.Where we do part ways is your theory that a $150 SACD player will more than suffice for someone with a critical ear in a high end 2 channel system and I know there are other people out there who own fabulous redbook CD players other than myself who would also beg to differ with you.You're right about me not tweaking out my HT system for optimum CD playback including SACD format but I still haven't heard anyone here say there is a wide enough selection of these disks to even justify the time and expense.To look at it as a Home theatre set-up that also play SACD's is certainly a logical and financially sound approach,but what happens when you're playing the other 80 or 90% of the available CD's that only come in Redbook format.Is there no compromise there.It's certainly a personal preference but I'd rather focus time and money on the Redbook set-up and leave the HT set-up to do what it was originally designed to do.I'm unsure how much priority you put into your 2-channel system in terms of quality to ensure optimum sound so It's impossible for me to know what you're comparing your SACD set-up to and that's as relative to this discussion as me not being an expert on SACD playback in 2 or multichannel format.If I'm hearing you guys right the multi-channel disks aren't even a given so now you're reduced to an even smaller segment of the incredible amount of music that is all available in Redbook.I'm so old school I don't even like sub-woofers for 2 channel stereo use as even though I know they are unavoidable with small speakers I believe the sound should all come from 2 high quality speakers that are capable of handling the bass and treble equally well for optimum imaging.I realize bass is considered virtually non-directional but I like my 2 speakers to be the only thing making any noise as I don't want any rumbling bass going on during music playback.While that's a discussion for a different day I'm just using it to help explain how particular I am in regard to music playback.I wouldn't even consider speakers that made a subwoofer essential for good bass.I just want to add that there couldn't be a more subjective issue to discuss and I'm far from the most knowledgable Audiophile on this site.We're talking about 2 approaches to music that couldn't be any more different in theory or application.The less is more principle is how purists approach 2 channel audio.This approach involves the least amount of speakers,the least playing with settings or calibrations or anything else that influences sound in any way.My Rotel RB-980BX 120W amp has an on/off switch.My Rotel RC-1090 pre-amp doesn't even have tone or balance controls as the theory is music should be played at a flat setting and eliminating these features reduces unwanted circuitry(that's Rotels theory and they make very nice components).The different inputs all have dedicated circuitry for each inputs playback or record modes.My Arcam 192T CDP is a single disc player that has virtually no bells and whistles, and all my sound comes from 2 well positioned bi-wired Quad 22l's that handle just my 2-channel audio playback.They are not the front speakers in my HT set-up as there is no perfect way to create 2 different sources for one pair of speakers(especially when bi-wired) so using them for both stereo/AV use isn't practical and I believe that one problem in itself is what makes these A/V recievers so alluring.They solve connection issues as I previously stated.I'm not oblivious to some of the newer ways of playing back music but rather unsure if they have enough major sonic improvements over high quality 2 channel audio.If I did set-up my HT system to play back SACD's the problem is I would then want a state of the art A/V reciever,killer HT speakers,and an above average SACD player because I know I would not be happy with multi-channel audio sound from a marginal HT system after listening to my Redbook set-up.That an awfully big second investment to listen to a selection limited format.We couldn't disagree more on this subject so I suggest we basically just agree to disagree and I will respect your counterpoints as I would hope you respect my opinions as they are not just general statements but rather statements based on basic audio approach.Enjoy both your systems as the way you use your 2 systems for the 2 different formats is the correct way to accomplish your goal and I did respect that enough to specifically mention that in my previous thread. .

[Carl Reid]

BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.

The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.

My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.

Excellent clarification, since I think most of us took your original statement to mean that you think a modest M/C setup will sound better than a similarly priced 2 channel setup...

I have NO problem with the idea that a properly setup M/C system would sound better than a 2 channel setup using the SAME quality components.... BUT this fails to take into account the substantial price difference between the two.... (Which is in IMHO why M/C has not totally crushed redbook CDs and may never really take off)....

Let's say you have a budget for a dedicated audio system of $4000.... to buy a 2 channel setup you could spend $1500 on an integrated amp or an amp and pre-amp, $500 on a CD player and $2000 on Speakers....

To do mutlichannel, You'd need to spend that same $1500 on a 5.1 receiver (which will be inferior in sound quality to a $1500 integrated or amp/preamp combo).... then you need to buy a $500 SACD player and finally 5 speakers and subwoofer for the remaining $2000.... (those 5 speakers & sub will also be of inferior quality than a $2000 pair of speakers)...

(Note: I'm talking about products that are good value for the money, so we are comparing a good $1500 integrated with a good $1500 Receiver and a good pair of $2000 speakers versus a good set of 5 speakers and a sub for $2000)...

So my question is: do you think that M/C is so inherently better, that the $4K M/C setup will sound better than a $4K 2 channel setup? I don't....

However if you were to build a M/C setup of similiar quality to our $4k 2 channel setup, then I would expect the M/C to sound significantly better... but NOTE, to build a M/C of that quality would likely cost around $12K. (3 times as many speakers and 3 times as much amplification and processing)....

So I do believe that M/C is better but just impractical for most audiophiles.... and what it has been aimed at is the HT crowd (since they already have the setup required to do basic M/C).... however much of the HT crowd are not audiophiles and will not see the benefit of buying SACD or DVD-A discs....

[Dusty Chalk]

The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). I don't know about that. If your stereo system images properly, the Weavers Live at Carnegie Hall just leap out in front of you in a way that really needs to be heard to be believed.

[shokhead]

Really,i need to know what the real difference is between a stereo receiver with 2 main speakers and a HT receiver playing in the stereo mode on its mains 2 speakers. It should be a very short answer.

[Rock789]

I have a heart live sacd which is very awsome! Having the crowd all around, it just sounds great!
I have listened to the same sacd in 2ch mode, and although it still sounds very good, it is missing the feel of being in the middle of the crowd...

for "non-live" sacd's, I have a police and a pink floyd which do sound good, but when I play in 2 ch mode, sound just as good... the difference, in multichannel mode, the instruments are separated more than 2ch mode...

I have a couple others but they do not seem to impress me as much...

on the 2ch note... I have a couple albums on both sacd and normal cd... with my setup, I can hear a difference, and prefer the sacd over the normal cd in all instances...
these vary in music from a couple classical, a michael jackson (when he was still black), a couple george thorogood, and a billy joel...

I must say I was disappointed with my denon and sacd playback (both 2 and multi channel) but 2ch with my B&K and both 2 and multi ch with my anthem are very nice...

when I chose my speakers, I knew I didn't want to spend more than $500 / speaker, so had I only been interested in 2ch, I could have gone up to a "better" speaker for $2500 a pair... but 2ch was not my goal, and I am very happy with my system...

it is all in what one's goals are... I think multichannel sacd's are great, but that is just me...
others have goals for great 2ch, and others yet are all for ht...

so perhaps multi channel sacd's are not for you, but if you do like 2ch, I would recommend trying 2 ch sacd's... esp if you did spend more than $1000 for a pair of speakers... most likely you will be able to hear a difference...

back to work for me...
Mike

[Rock789]

Really,i need to know what the real difference is between a stereo receiver with 2 main speakers and a HT receiver playing in the stereo mode on its mains 2 speakers. It should be a very short answer.

ht receiver has additional channels (and perhaps additional video processing)

[Feanor]

...

I have NO problem with the idea that a properly setup M/C system would sound better than a 2 channel setup using the SAME quality components.... BUT this fails to take into account the substantial price difference between the two.... (Which is in IMHO why M/C has not totally crushed redbook CDs and may never really take off)....
....
However if you were to build a M/C setup of similiar quality to our $4k 2 channel setup, then I would expect the M/C to sound significantly better... but NOTE, to build a M/C of that quality would likely cost around $12K. (3 times as many speakers and 3 times as much amplification and processing)....
....

For sure, to build an M/C system of comparable quality will cost you more than stereo. Not only that, the M/C system will be a lot harder to set up in most rooms, and whereas dipole planars, (such as my Magneplanar 1.6's), might be doable for stereo, one might just not have the space for them going M/C.

Nevertheless -- and I dare say you won't agree -- with a given budget, I would go for M/C if it were true that a majority of new recordings were well-made M/C. Of course, this is a long way from being the case.

[Woochifer]

Quite true regarding the range of A/V reciever quality because we mustn't forget that an A/V reciever is being asked to provide 6 or 7 X 90 watts per channel(amongst all it's other functions) which obviously is asking a lot out of any reasonably priced component.Is it logical to think that those channels are all putting out the same powerful clean signal that a dedicated 2 channel combo puts out.

That is highly dependent on the receiver you're talking about, and which amp combo you're talking about. Another point that you've missed is that speakers are rarely driven with more than ONE watt of power to achieve normal listening levels in medium sized rooms. The amp load is highly dependent on the types of speakers that you select. You might question the "logic" of whether a receiver is putting out the same powered signal as a dedicated two-channel amp, but that argument's a non-starter because 1) the amp will rarely, if ever, be required to deliver at full wattage; and 2) a multichannel receiver does not play CDs with all channels driven, unless you want it to, in which case you're listening with a layer of signal processing that makes any comparison to two-channel irrelevant.


Unless you're feeding that source to an external power some of the improved sound you say the SACD's produce is obviously offset by the inherent weaknesses an A/V reciever has.If they built an A/V reciever that could do it all equally well very few of us could afford one.

Again, you're making some presumptuous statements here, and equating cost with performance. The point that you miss here is that there are cost reductions associated with higher volumes. AV receivers are in much higher demand in the market right now. As such, they are produced in higher volumes than analog two-channel components, which lowers unit costs.


They can only fit so much in one box so even in 2-channel mode a reciever still has a limited amount of power to provide the scheer power that very good speakers require.I'm talking about your typical decent quality A/V recievers,not the outrageously good ones that most people can't or don't want to spring for that have completely separate dedicated sections inside them that do everything and do it very well.

And how much power do "very good" speakers require? Are you listening at concert levels? Do you actually have experience with the midlevel receivers that are on the market right now? Unless you're trying to power inefficient low impedance speakers in a multichannel configuration, none of the models I'm familiar with have any limitations whatsoever with most of the speakers out there.


I['m sure we both realize we're not talking apples to apples here anyway as multi-channel and 2 channel couldn't be any more different.Where we do part ways is your theory that a $150 SACD player will more than suffice for someone with a critical ear in a high end 2 channel system and I know there are other people out there who own fabulous redbook CD players other than myself who would also beg to differ with you.

Again, you're using highly presumptuous language here regarding who has a "critical ear" and whether a $150 SACD player (which you have no experience with) will "more than suffice" for them. You can "beg to differ" with me all you want, but the difference is that I've actually listened to Sony's low end SACD players, as well as the Arcam CD72. I'm not saying that they're identical, but they're a lot closer than you give credit for. And I would question if anyone (including myself) can reliably differentiate between them if the listening took place under blind conditions. In blind listening tests I've done, many differences that I thought were "night and day" under sighted conditions turned out to be far less obvious when I was not told in advance what changes took place betwen listenings.


You're right about me not tweaking out my HT system for optimum CD playback including SACD format but I still haven't heard anyone here say there is a wide enough selection of these disks to even justify the time and expense.

This point is entirely subjective. To me, it's worthwhile simply because I'd been wanting to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in their full multichannel DSD resolution. They sounded so good in two-channel that I was compelled to get a SACD player to hear them in multichannel, and that track did not disappoint. What I spent on my SACD player was about the same as the cost of the tickets to attend just one of those recorded concerts with my wife. If you want to see what discs are out there, go to www.sa-cd.net.

If you're using your HT system for movies, you still need to optimize the system. If you don't take the effort to optimize your multichannel experience, then of course you'll persistently come away with negative impressions. Things like level matching, timbre matching the speakers, optimizing the delay timing, properly setting up the bass management, etc. are highly consequential variables that you don't worry about with two-channel listening, but can make or break the imaging cues and tonal coherency with multichannel playback.


To look at it as a Home theatre set-up that also play SACD's is certainly a logical and financially sound approach,but what happens when you're playing the other 80 or 90% of the available CD's that only come in Redbook format.Is there no compromise there.

Of course there is a compromise if you're taking a set budget and listing out the components that can be purchased within that budget. But, I take a more linear view of putting together an audio system. As I've stated countless times on this board, you don't have to buy the entire system all at once. If you add the speakers gradually, rather than all at once, then costs are more incremental. My current system started entirely as a two-channel setup, and the speakers were gradually added as my budget allowed. The only difference is that at the outset I went with a multichannel receiver rather than a two-channel amp.


It's certainly a personal preference but I'd rather focus time and money on the Redbook set-up and leave the HT set-up to do what it was originally designed to do.I'm unsure how much priority you put into your 2-channel system in terms of quality to ensure optimum sound so It's impossible for me to know what you're comparing your SACD set-up to and that's as relative to this discussion as me not being an expert on SACD playback in 2 or multichannel format.If I'm hearing you guys right the multi-channel disks aren't even a given so now you're reduced to an even smaller segment of the incredible amount of music that is all available in Redbook.

The flip side though to your approach is that from the outset you deliberately compromised your multichannel playback by going with two separate systems and investing far more attention to one than the other. In my experience, the room acoustics are every bit as important as any component in an audio system, and with one unified system it's easier to focus on optimizing one room rather than trying it in multiple rooms. The approach I took to taming the acoustical issues in my room are every bit as beneficial in two-channel playback as with multichannel.

As far as what I'm comparing my SACD setup to, it's with other high end systems I've heard over the years. The higher resolution with SACD (or the remastering) already provides a notable improvement in sound quality, but the multichannel aspect simply renders a dimension of listening that is not possible no matter how good a CD setup you have. People will spend tens of thousands of dollars just to get that extra "airy" sensation and all-encompassing imaging from two-channel playback, yet a properly aligned multichannel setup of relatively moderate cost can render that sense of space and "air" far more convincingly. My system might not have the greater tonal coherency and overall balance that a high-end two-channel system has, but the multichannel playback indeed opens up areas of listening that two-channel is incapable of.


I'm so old school I don't even like sub-woofers for 2 channel stereo use as even though I know they are unavoidable with small speakers I believe the sound should all come from 2 high quality speakers that are capable of handling the bass and treble equally well for optimum imaging.I realize bass is considered virtually non-directional but I like my 2 speakers to be the only thing making any noise as I don't want any rumbling bass going on during music playback.While that's a discussion for a different day I'm just using it to help explain how particular I am in regard to music playback.I wouldn't even consider speakers that made a subwoofer essential for good bass.I just want to add that there couldn't be a more subjective issue to discuss and I'm far from the most knowledgable Audiophile on this site.We're talking about 2 approaches to music that couldn't be any more different in theory or application.

Another incorrect assumption here -- people with multichannel systems do not all use small speakers, not do they all use subwoofers. With SACD playback, I can run all five of my speakers at full range (I've measured the in-room bass extension for all of my speakers below 40 Hz). With the playback in this direct mode, any signal content going to the subwoofer is there because the recording engineer intentionally mixed low frequency content into the LFE track, not because a crossover routed the signal into the subwoofer output.

But, with CDs I will use the subwoofer because I've taken the time to tune my sub to the room acoustics. Even with expensive high-end speakers running at full range, you're not immune to the room acoustical effects that cause huge peaks and dips in the lower bass. These effects are room induced and unavoidable without room treatments or equalization. By rerouting the bass content through the subwoofer, you have the option of equalizing just the low frequencies to even out the bass. It's not about "rumbling" it's about making the bass sound fuller and more even. If all you heard from a subwoofer was "rumbling" then it was set up incorrectly and/or had room-related problems that you did not correct.


The less is more principle is how purists approach 2 channel audio.This approach involves the least amount of speakers,the least playing with settings or calibrations or anything else that influences sound in any way.My Rotel RB-980BX 120W amp has an on/off switch.My Rotel RC-1090 pre-amp doesn't even have tone or balance controls as the theory is music should be played at a flat setting and eliminating these features reduces unwanted circuitry(that's Rotels theory and they make very nice components).

And yet even with all of this "purity" coming from the amp section, it all goes for naught once the sound goes into the air and starts interacting with the room. Every surface of a room has a sonic signature, every material has a different absorption coefficient at different frequencies. Obsessing about front end components and amplification, while ignoring the speakers and the room acoustics takes care of the least consequential variables without addressing the most important ones.


I'm not oblivious to some of the newer ways of playing back music but rather unsure if they have enough major sonic improvements over high quality 2 channel audio.If I did set-up my HT system to play back SACD's the problem is I would then want a state of the art A/V reciever,killer HT speakers,and an above average SACD player because I know I would not be happy with multi-channel audio sound from a marginal HT system after listening to my Redbook set-up.That an awfully big second investment to listen to a selection limited format.We couldn't disagree more on this subject so I suggest we basically just agree to disagree and I will respect your counterpoints as I would hope you respect my opinions as they are not just general statements but rather statements based on basic audio approach.Enjoy both your systems as the way you use your 2 systems for the 2 different formats is the correct way to accomplish your goal and I did respect that enough to specifically mention that in my previous thread. .

There are plenty of ways to set up a system that will work with both functions, IF you're willing to give them a try. SACD is not exclusively a multichannel format, all of the SACDs out there include a two-channel layer that very likely improves upon the original CD version. But, IMO the real extension of listening enjoyment indeed comes from listening to the multichannel tracks. As Feanor mentioned, even setting up his SACD player on his secondary system, he can hear a lot of facets to the music that aren't present in the two-channel playback.

[BillyB]

That is highly dependent on the receiver you're talking about, and which amp combo you're talking about. Another point that you've missed is that speakers are rarely driven with more than ONE watt of power to achieve normal listening levels in medium sized rooms. The amp load is highly dependent on the types of speakers that you select. You might question the "logic" of whether a receiver is putting out the same powered signal as a dedicated two-channel amp, but that argument's a non-starter because 1) the amp will rarely, if ever, be required to deliver at full wattage; and 2) a multichannel receiver does not play CDs with all channels driven, unless you want it to, in which case you're listening with a layer of signal processing that makes any comparison to two-channel irrelevant.



Again, you're making some presumptuous statements here, and equating cost with performance. The point that you miss here is that there are cost reductions associated with higher volumes. AV receivers are in much higher demand in the market right now. As such, they are produced in higher volumes than analog two-channel components, which lowers unit costs.



And how much power do "very good" speakers require? Are you listening at concert levels? Do you actually have experience with the midlevel receivers that are on the market right now? Unless you're trying to power inefficient low impedance speakers in a multichannel configuration, none of the models I'm familiar with have any limitations whatsoever with most of the speakers out there.



Again, you're using highly presumptuous language here regarding who has a "critical ear" and whether a $150 SACD player (which you have no experience with) will "more than suffice" for them. You can "beg to differ" with me all you want, but the difference is that I've actually listened to Sony's low end SACD players, as well as the Arcam CD72. I'm not saying that they're identical, but they're a lot closer than you give credit for. And I would question if anyone (including myself) can reliably differentiate between them if the listening took place under blind conditions. In blind listening tests I've done, many differences that I thought were "night and day" under sighted conditions turned out to be far less obvious when I was not told in advance what changes took place betwen listenings.



This point is entirely subjective. To me, it's worthwhile simply because I'd been wanting to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in their full multichannel DSD resolution. They sounded so good in two-channel that I was compelled to get a SACD player to hear them in multichannel, and that track did not disappoint. What I spent on my SACD player was about the same as the cost of the tickets to attend just one of those recorded concerts with my wife. If you want to see what discs are out there, go to www.sa-cd.net.

If you're using your HT system for movies, you still need to optimize the system. If you don't take the effort to optimize your multichannel experience, then of course you'll persistently come away with negative impressions. Things like level matching, timbre matching the speakers, optimizing the delay timing, properly setting up the bass management, etc. are highly consequential variables that you don't worry about with two-channel listening, but can make or break the imaging cues and tonal coherency with multichannel playback.



Of course there is a compromise if you're taking a set budget and listing out the components that can be purchased within that budget. But, I take a more linear view of putting together an audio system. As I've stated countless times on this board, you don't have to buy the entire system all at once. If you add the speakers gradually, rather than all at once, then costs are more incremental. My current system started entirely as a two-channel setup, and the speakers were gradually added as my budget allowed. The only difference is that at the outset I went with a multichannel receiver rather than a two-channel amp.



The flip side though to your approach is that from the outset you deliberately compromised your multichannel playback by going with two separate systems and investing far more attention to one than the other. In my experience, the room acoustics are every bit as important as any component in an audio system, and with one unified system it's easier to focus on optimizing one room rather than trying it in multiple rooms. The approach I took to taming the acoustical issues in my room are every bit as beneficial in two-channel playback as with multichannel.

As far as what I'm comparing my SACD setup to, it's with other high end systems I've heard over the years. The higher resolution with SACD (or the remastering) already provides a notable improvement in sound quality, but the multichannel aspect simply renders a dimension of listening that is not possible no matter how good a CD setup you have. People will spend tens of thousands of dollars just to get that extra "airy" sensation and all-encompassing imaging from two-channel playback, yet a properly aligned multichannel setup of relatively moderate cost can render that sense of space and "air" far more convincingly. My system might not have the greater tonal coherency and overall balance that a high-end two-channel system has, but the multichannel playback indeed opens up areas of listening that two-channel is incapable of.



Another incorrect assumption here -- people with multichannel systems do not all use small speakers, not do they all use subwoofers. With SACD playback, I can run all five of my speakers at full range (I've measured the in-room bass extension for all of my speakers below 40 Hz). With the playback in this direct mode, any signal content going to the subwoofer is there because the recording engineer intentionally mixed low frequency content into the LFE track, not because a crossover routed the signal into the subwoofer output.

But, with CDs I will use the subwoofer because I've taken the time to tune my sub to the room acoustics. Even with expensive high-end speakers running at full range, you're not immune to the room acoustical effects that cause huge peaks and dips in the lower bass. These effects are room induced and unavoidable without room treatments or equalization. By rerouting the bass content through the subwoofer, you have the option of equalizing just the low frequencies to even out the bass. It's not about "rumbling" it's about making the bass sound fuller and more even. If all you heard from a subwoofer was "rumbling" then it was set up incorrectly and/or had room-related problems that you did not correct.



And yet even with all of this "purity" coming from the amp section, it all goes for naught once the sound goes into the air and starts interacting with the room. Every surface of a room has a sonic signature, every material has a different absorption coefficient at different frequencies. Obsessing about front end components and amplification, while ignoring the speakers and the room acoustics takes care of the least consequential variables without addressing the most important ones.



There are plenty of ways to set up a system that will work with both functions, IF you're willing to give them a try. SACD is not exclusively a multichannel format, all of the SACDs out there include a two-channel layer that very likely improves upon the original CD version. But, IMO the real extension of listening enjoyment indeed comes from listening to the multichannel tracks. As Feanor mentioned, even setting up his SACD player on his secondary system, he can hear a lot of facets to the music that aren't present in the two-channel playback.

No sweat.I know you're into this hobby as much as I am by your spirited replies and this stuff is all so subjective anyway.My HT set-up just isn't good enough to give the multi-channel SACD's a fair shot as obviously some guys build their system based on HT and music playback.My HT set-up is barely adequate for HT DVD playback.When I can no longer tolerate the standard Sony in my Secondary stereo that feeds my garage and my backyard area I'll certainly consider spending a few extra bucks and trying out an entry level SACD player as that would probably still be a step-up from the standard Sony which is brutal.This system is just a basic set-up so probably no need to go crazy there.Are SACD's two sided disks that also play in Redbook CDP's or are they designed exclusively for playback in SACD players.I hope this format expands it's availibility for the guys that built their system specifically for this format(multichannel) as it would seem the record industry is on the fence regarding mass producing these things.I love older progressive rock like Rush,Yes,Genesis,ELP,etc. and I get the impression this niche isn't that available.Truce

[shokhead]

You need to look up SACD and DVD-A and read abit as it sounds like your just not quite up to par on the discs.CDs,SACD,DVD-A,DTS,all different. They dont all take the same route from your player to your receiver either. CDs do one thing,the rest do more.

[PeruvianSkies]

Considering that they are making machines now that support SACD for bottom prices it's a no-brainer in my opinion that everyone should be able to play and support the SACD format. I understand that not everyone wants to go out and buy the SACD titles and replace what they have. Anyway, I would not necessarily buy a new machine JUST for SACD playback, but a really good high-end machine or even some of the low end stuff it's almost standard.

[Woochifer]

No sweat.I know you're into this hobby as much as I am by your spirited replies and this stuff is all so subjective anyway.My HT set-up just isn't good enough to give the multi-channel SACD's a fair shot as obviously some guys build their system based on HT and music playback.My HT set-up is barely adequate for HT DVD playback.When I can no longer tolerate the standard Sony in my Secondary stereo that feeds my garage and my backyard area I'll certainly consider spending a few extra bucks and trying out an entry level SACD player as that would probably still be a step-up from the standard Sony which is brutal.This system is just a basic set-up so probably no need to go crazy there.Are SACD's two sided disks that also play in Redbook CDP's or are they designed exclusively for playback in SACD players.I hope this format expands it's availibility for the guys that built their system specifically for this format(multichannel) as it would seem the record industry is on the fence regarding mass producing these things.I love older progressive rock like Rush,Yes,Genesis,ELP,etc. and I get the impression this niche isn't that available.Truce

You're in luck. The entire Genesis catalog is due out in 5.1 SACD starting in March. All of the tracks have been remixed from the original multitrack masters to create new 5.1 and two-channel tracks (this is a totally new mix, not just a remaster from the two-track mixdown with some different EQ or processor settings). Some of the two-channel remixes have already been released as part of the Genesis Platinum Collection CD set. The imaging is improved, with noticeably improved differentiation between the different sound elements and a lot more heft in the lower end, which remedies the somewhat tinny sound of many Genesis CD releases.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=11616317

Also, Rush is rumored to have turned all of their original multitrack masters over to a producer for 5.1 remixing. Alex Lifeson did the 5.1 remixing himself on the Rush: Replay concert DVD set. Even though they like the SACD format, the major labels have not been as supportive, so it remains to be seen if these 5.1 mixes will get a release. If any band needs fresh remixes of their albums, it's Rush. Their first CD releases sounded horrible, and the remasters still had problems. Problem might be that the original mixes were optimized for vinyl (where their LPs typically sound far superior to the CD versions), and need a lot of clean up work going all the way back to the source tracks before they can sound decent on CD.

ELP and Yes have also had several releases in DVD-A, which includes high res versions in both 5.1 and two-channel. DVD-A uses 192/24 PCM resolution for the two-channel tracks, and 96/24 resolution on the 5.1 tracks -- either way, much higher than the 44.1/16 resolution with CD audio.

Most of the SACD releases include a CD layer that's totally compatible with regular CD players. Even if you don't own a SACD player, these are often worth buying because the remaster can fix problems with earlier CD versions on a particular title. In addition, all SACDs include a two-channel track.

[jrhymeammo]

I understand that not everyone wants to go out and buy the SACD titles and replace what they have..
I just want to direct that idea to people who are afraid......

If it's going to be worth paying, then......... why not? Seriously. I mean, wouldnt you buy it, because you already love the album? CDs can still be enjoyed tremendusly, even after playing some incredible SACDs. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC. Aint it?(strong posibility of moving to KY so....AINT IT?)

[BillyB]

You're in luck. The entire Genesis catalog is due out in 5.1 SACD starting in March. All of the tracks have been remixed from the original multitrack masters to create new 5.1 and two-channel tracks (this is a totally new mix, not just a remaster from the two-track mixdown with some different EQ or processor settings). Some of the two-channel remixes have already been released as part of the Genesis Platinum Collection CD set. The imaging is improved, with noticeably improved differentiation between the different sound elements and a lot more heft in the lower end, which remedies the somewhat tinny sound of many Genesis CD releases.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=11616317

Also, Rush is rumored to have turned all of their original multitrack masters over to a producer for 5.1 remixing. Alex Lifeson did the 5.1 remixing himself on the Rush: Replay concert DVD set. Even though they like the SACD format, the major labels have not been as supportive, so it remains to be seen if these 5.1 mixes will get a release. If any band needs fresh remixes of their albums, it's Rush. Their first CD releases sounded horrible, and the remasters still had problems. Problem might be that the original mixes were optimized for vinyl (where their LPs typically sound far superior to the CD versions), and need a lot of clean up work going all the way back to the source tracks before they can sound decent on CD.

ELP and Yes have also had several releases in DVD-A, which includes high res versions in both 5.1 and two-channel. DVD-A uses 192/24 PCM resolution for the two-channel tracks, and 96/24 resolution on the 5.1 tracks -- either way, much higher than the 44.1/16 resolution with CD audio.

Most of the SACD releases include a CD layer that's totally compatible with regular CD players. Even if you don't own a SACD player, these are often worth buying because the remaster can fix problems with earlier CD versions on a particular title. In addition, all SACDs include a two-channel track.

Very nice to hear about the availibility of some of my favorite stuff on SACD.The fact that it sounds like most of them play on regular CDP's makes them a much better bang for the buck as does the multi-channel SACD's also playing in 2 channel which would probably be my application.Still a tough decision because I own every album Genesis ever released on standard CD so it becomes a little less user-friendly if you're duplicating your collection.Of course I would start out by trying Disks I don't already own to increase the selection of my CD collection.A regular CD usually runs anywhere from about $12 to $18.How much more expensive are the SACD's you're talking about.

[Dusty Chalk]

It's entirely up to the record company. Some SACD's like the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd/DSOTM were priced reasonably (I.E. the same as CD's), some (like classical) are a dollar or two more expensive. The MoFi's are, of course, priced premiumly. You might have to shop around a bit more to get them on sale, since they are so hard to find -- that's what'll have the biggest effect on the "street" price of SACD's.

You really should try at least one that you're well familiar with, just so that you can go, "oh, wow, so that's the difference".

[BillyB]

You need to look up SACD and DVD-A and read abit as it sounds like your just not quite up to par on the discs.CDs,SACD,DVD-A,DTS,all different. They dont all take the same route from your player to your receiver either. CDs do one thing,the rest do more.

As I just said in my previous post I don't consider my HT set-up good enough for music playback.I'm much more into listening to music than watching movies on home theatre so I didn't put a lot of effort or money into setting up my HT equipment.I realize a better HT set-up would be much more suitable for Multi-channel SACD's but since I'm not a big HT guy it doesn't make sense for me to upgrade my whole HT set-up just for listening to the few Multi-channel SACD's I might buy.My DVD player actually is a DVD-A player from Toshiba so I'm familar with most of the DVD formats.just not so much with the SACD's to date and since I don't own any it's been a moot point.You guys have tweaked my interest in the SACD Format so I'll check a player out in the near future.God knows I don't need that much arm twisting to buy anything A/V related.You have to realize My 2-Channel stereo which only plays back Redbook CD's and is quite good is where most of my money has been spent as my entire CD collection is obviously Redbook only.

[Feanor]

As I just said in my previous post I don't consider my HT set-up good enough for music playback.I'm much more into listening to music than watching movies on home theatre so I didn't put a lot of effort or money into setting up my HT equipment.I realize a better HT set-up would be much more suitable for Multi-channel SACD's but since I'm not a big HT guy it doesn't make sense for me to upgrade my whole HT set-up just for listening to the few Multi-channel SACD's I might buy.My DVD player actually is a DVD-A player from Toshiba so I'm familar with most of the DVD formats.just not so much with the SACD's to date and since I don't own any it's been a moot point.You guys have tweaked my interest in the SACD Format so I'll check a player out in the near future.God knows I don't need that much arm twisting to buy anything A/V related.You have to realize My 2-Channel stereo which only plays back Redbook CD's and is quite good is where most of my money has been spent as my entire CD collection is obviously Redbook only.

My advocacy of SACD is based on its multi-channel capability. So to be fair, I have to warn you that you might well prefer 2-channel RBCD from your expensive CDP over 2-channel SACD from an inexpensive universal player.

Lots of people claim they prefer the sound of 2-channel SACD over CD, but most often are comparing the different modes on the same player. For my, I don't really hear a significant difference even on the same player, viz. my Sony SCD-CE775. If you do a comparison, try a record that was mastered in DSD, not in PCM. This should ensure not only the best SACD sound, (argueably), but also the fairest comparison between the SACD and CD layers.

[BillyB]

Really,i need to know what the real difference is between a stereo receiver with 2 main speakers and a HT receiver playing in the stereo mode on its mains 2 speakers. It should be a very short answer.

It is a short answer as I wasn't comparing an A/V reciever to a traditional 2 channel stereo reciever.I was comparing it to a high quality amp/Pre-amp combo dedicated to stereo use only.You must at least know that a good quality Amp/Pre-amp set-up is superior to an A/V reciever to power 2-channel stereo regardless of whether you're playing 2 channel SACD's or Redbook CD's.

[BillyB]

My advocacy of SACD is based on its multi-channel capability. So to be fair, I have to warn you that you might well prefer 2-channel RBCD from your expensive CDP over 2-channel SACD from an inexpensive universal player.

Lots of people claim they prefer the sound of 2-channel SACD over CD, but most often are comparing the different modes on the same player. For my, I don't really hear a significant difference even on the same player, viz. my Sony SCD-CE775. If you do a comparison, try a record that was mastered in DSD, not in PCM. This should ensure not only the best SACD sound, (argueably), but also the fairest comparison between the SACD and CD layers.

Thanks for the heads up on this as I would probably be using it in a 2 channel application so your advice is to be realistic about my expectations.To be clear I just want to add that I would really be comparing the SACD player to the terrible standard Sony on my secondary system it would be replacing as I don't like that unit at all despite it's ability to play 5 Disks.I have a decent Sherwood reciever and a nice pair of 2-way bookshelf speakers in that system but the Sony just kills it.I play XM Radio through the same set-up and the Quality of the satellite radio is superior to the Sony playback which is kind of scary.I have no illusions of the $150 player making me think less of my $1600 Arcam 192T upsampling player in my main system.Thanks for the reply.

[shokhead]

It is a short answer as I wasn't comparing an A/V reciever to a traditional 2 channel stereo reciever.I was comparing it to a high quality amp/Pre-amp combo dedicated to stereo use only.You must at least know that a good quality Amp/Pre-amp set-up is superior to an A/V reciever to power 2-channel stereo regardless of whether you're playing 2 channel SACD's or Redbook CD's.

The question wasnt at you,just a general question for whoever. BTW,i dont know that at all.

[Rock789]

A regular CD usually runs anywhere from about $12 to $18.How much more expensive are the SACD's you're talking about.

I have purchased new SACD's from Best Buy and local Music stores for anywhere between $9 to $25 with most being in the $12 to $18 range...

[Feanor]

Thanks for the heads up on this as I would probably be using it in a 2 channel application so your advice is to be realistic about my expectations.To be clear I just want to add that I would really be comparing the SACD player to the terrible standard Sony on my secondary system it would be replacing as I don't like that unit at all despite it's ability to play 5 Disks.I have a decent Sherwood reciever and a nice pair of 2-way bookshelf speakers in that system but the Sony just kills it.I play XM Radio through the same set-up and the Quality of the satellite radio is superior to the Sony playback which is kind of scary.I have no illusions of the $150 player making me think less of my $1600 Arcam 192T upsampling player in my main system.Thanks for the reply.

If you're tempted to compare 2-ch SACD to CD as an experiment, I suggest you temporarily subsitute your new, SACD player for the Arcam in your main system. Then use the former to compare the 2-ch SACD layer and the CD layer of a DSD-mastered disc. You might well prefer your Arcam over either, but you will have a more valid comparison of SACD to CD. Possibly you will hear no significant difference, or you might argree the majority who feel SACD offers some improvement.

Then you might decide you'd like a really high quality SACD player. Personally I'd like a dCS Verdi Encore & Elgar Plus ...
http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/index2.html
:thumbsup: :biggrin5:

[Woochifer]

Very nice to hear about the availibility of some of my favorite stuff on SACD.The fact that it sounds like most of them play on regular CDP's makes them a much better bang for the buck as does the multi-channel SACD's also playing in 2 channel which would probably be my application.Still a tough decision because I own every album Genesis ever released on standard CD so it becomes a little less user-friendly if you're duplicating your collection.Of course I would start out by trying Disks I don't already own to increase the selection of my CD collection.A regular CD usually runs anywhere from about $12 to $18.How much more expensive are the SACD's you're talking about.

If those SACDs are released as hybrid discs, then they you can play them on your regular CD player. My experience with the early Genesis CD releases is that they were not good transfers, and from what I've heard on the Genesis Platinum Collection, the new remixes are a step up in sound quality. Even without a SACD player, the CD layers should at least include the remixed two-channel versions of their albums.

Like I said, this is not just a remaster where the engineer takes the same two-channel mixdown used on previous releases and just tweaks with the EQ and processor settings (this can improve the sound quality substantially if the original transfer was not done properly, but it does not fix issues with overprocessing and signal degradation during the analog mixdown). These new releases go all the way back to the original 8-, 16-, and 24-track masters, and fix any issues with the original mixdown, which was likely done using older analog recorders.

[Woochifer]

Thanks for the heads up on this as I would probably be using it in a 2 channel application so your advice is to be realistic about my expectations.To be clear I just want to add that I would really be comparing the SACD player to the terrible standard Sony on my secondary system it would be replacing as I don't like that unit at all despite it's ability to play 5 Disks.I have a decent Sherwood reciever and a nice pair of 2-way bookshelf speakers in that system but the Sony just kills it.I play XM Radio through the same set-up and the Quality of the satellite radio is superior to the Sony playback which is kind of scary.I have no illusions of the $150 player making me think less of my $1600 Arcam 192T upsampling player in my main system.Thanks for the reply.

Have you actually tried that Sony CD player in your main system, and done the comparison under blind conditions? Otherwise, you have no idea if the "terrible" sound that you experience results from the "decent" receiver, the "nice" bookshelf speakers, or the "terrible" CD player.

Judging by the inherent preference you have toward your CD player, it looks like you absolutely have to do any critical listening under blind conditions. Otherwise, you're in no position to make even remotely objective observations if you're going into the listening with an anticipated outcome in mind. It's no different than when the late John Dunlavy conducted demos where he would pretend to switch out a cable and then observe people claiming to hear "night and day" differences in the sound when in fact nothing changed. They simply heard what they wanted to hear.

Satellite radio really rolls off the highs, and I believe that the signal gets downsampled to 32/16 resolution before getting compressed for broadcast. If you have any components in your setup that exaggerate the highs, you might prefer a source that deemphasizes the hghs.

[BillyB]

Have you actually tried that Sony CD player in your main system, and done the comparison under blind conditions? Otherwise, you have no idea if the "terrible" sound that you experience results from the "decent" receiver, the "nice" bookshelf speakers, or the "terrible" CD player.

Judging by the inherent preference you have toward your CD player, it looks like you absolutely have to do any critical listening under blind conditions. Otherwise, you're in no position to make even remotely objective observations if you're going into the listening with an anticipated outcome in mind. It's no different than when the late John Dunlavy conducted demos where he would pretend to switch out a cable and then observe people claiming to hear "night and day" differences in the sound when in fact nothing changed. They simply heard what they wanted to hear.

Satellite radio really rolls off the highs, and I believe that the signal gets downsampled to 32/16 resolution before getting compressed for broadcast. If you have any components in your setup that exaggerate the highs, you might prefer a source that deemphasizes the hghs.

I thought we had gotten past this nonsense over the CDP quality issue as I will try out an SACD player at some point.Why are you disputing my opinion of my own Sony CD player.I know junk when I hear it and the fact that Xm radio on the same system blows it away confirms it's junk.That player isn't even the SACD style player you love so much so why do you care that it's a $100 piece of junk.Now you are simply being contrary and argumentative to the point where I question your motives and your level of knowledge regarding Audio in general.You obviously love Sony,I obviously love my Arcam 192T.If it makes you feel better to think you can get a great CD player for $150 then just enjoy the thing and accept the fact that some people are willing to spend big money on equipment they think warrants it.You obviously aren't one of them.I don't need to mate the Sony to my stereo to determine whether or not it's any good.It's not and my high end stereo would sound horrific with this player in it.You need to spend some time in a high end audio store so you know what a good stereo sounds like.You're coming across as very inexperienced at this point by desparately defending cheap equipment that doesn't warrant all this attention.Your issues with expensive equipment must be based on not owning any so I say it is you who needs to rethink your opinions on audio.Of course you'll hammer back at all this with the little paragraphs picked out and debating my every point but you're wasting your time as I'm firmly convinced you are not a serious Audiophile.Audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about inferior equipment, they save up for better stuff themselves knowing it will be worth it in the end when their system sounds better.You throw around a lot of very technical terms like you just read them in a stereo magazine but this hobby isn't about technical mumbo-jumbo.I would love to know what you consider very good equipment as all you keep talking about is this Sony CDP.I started out with inexpensive equipment and was quite pleased with it as a starting point.When I developed a more critical ear and learned more and could afford it I gradually put together the fine system I now own.Do you own any very good equipment or do you just like to talk about this stuff as if you know the difference.At least I can honestly say that I have some good equipment that I spent a great deal of time researching and saving the money for and the results speak for themselves.Spare me your technical BS and tell me the names of some good pieces of equipment you would buy if you could. If you don't have a critical ear then of course this is all a moot point anyway.I've had many different levels of equipment so I know for a fact that better equipment does sounds better.Your last post has convinced me you actually are at the entry level of this hobby and haven't upgraded anything yet so when you talk about the lesser equipment sounding just as good you aren't talking from experience.If I'm wrong then educate me on some high end equipment and stop telling me how great the Sony CDP's are.And before you even waste your breath of course more expensive doesn't always equate to better sound.The equipment needs to be carefully selected and all mate well to get the right result, but spending some money isn't a bad way to get this process started.

[bobsticks]

...sounds of popcorn popping in the background, cracks open a beverage, waits for the show to start...

[Woochifer]

I thought we had gotten past this nonsense over the CDP quality issue as I will try out an SACD player at some point.Why are you disputing my opinion of my own Sony CD player.I know junk when I hear it and the fact that Xm radio on the same system blows it away confirms it's junk.That player isn't even the SACD style player you love so much so why do you care that it's a $100 piece of junk.Now you are simply being contrary and argumentative to the point where I question your motives and your level of knowledge regarding Audio in general.You obviously love Sony,I obviously love my Arcam 192T.

Getting awfully touchy over some simple questions, aren't we? A simple, "No, all of my listenings are done under sighted conditions" and/or "No, I've never tried my Arcam with my multichannel setup" and/or "No, I've never plugged my Sony CD player into my main system" would have sufficed!

For you to say that XM radio "blows away" the CD player is quite a bold statement considering how compressed and processed the XM transmission is (I get XM's feeds through Directv and the signals are very audibly degraded compared to the original CD). How do you know that it's not exaggerated highs in the speakers (very common with low end bookshelf speakers)? Or harshness with the receiver itself?

Maybe you should try an MP3 player for comparison, since the resolution of the XM signal is more akin to that format than the CD. Or perhaps you should try that XM tuner on your main system and see how it fares versus the Arcam.


If it makes you feel better to think you can get a great CD player for $150 then just enjoy the thing and accept the fact that some people are willing to spend big money on equipment they think warrants it.You obviously aren't one of them.

It's not about me "accepting" anything about how much you or anybody else chooses to spend on their audio system. I could care less about what others own, and what they think of my system. What I don't accept though are all of these presumptuous statements you make about components and formats that you have NO experience with.


I don't need to mate the Sony to my stereo to determine whether or not it's any good.It's not and my high end stereo would sound horrific with this player in it.

If you haven't actually tried this, how would you know?

Like I said, you've already concluded that your receiver and your speakers are just swell. Yet, you have no idea if your Arcam would sound just as bad if it got patched into your HT system, or if that "horrific" Sony would sound better when plugged into your main system.
I'm simply asking the questions because it seems that you want to draw conclusions regardless of whether or not you have a basis for supporting those conclusions.

I bring up the issue of blind listenings because it's very obvious that you've got some ingrained biases that need to be controlled before you can objectively investigate anything for yourself. My statement about the Sony SACD player is simply that you might be surprised at how well it performs, since I've actually used that player as well as the Arcam CD72.


You need to spend some time in a high end audio store so you know what a good stereo sounds like.You're coming across as very inexperienced at this point by desparately defending cheap equipment that doesn't warrant all this attention.

What makes you think that I have limited experience with high end audio? My opinions are bourne out of first-hand experience over the last 25+ years, which includes many hours spent listening to and tinkering with high end, midlevel, and entry level equipment alike. From having done blind listenings, to seeing first hand how easily influenced people can be when they know in advance which components they're listening to, there's plenty of smoke and mirrors out there. It's through this process of trying things out, and seeing what works and doesn't work, that I form my opinions.

If I'm so inexperienced, then how would I be able to work on room acoustical corrections or multichannel speaker alignment or azimuth alignment on tape players or VTA adjustments on turntables or PCM downsampling or pulling down the media tag information from DVDs or using parametric equalization or conducting frequency and time domain response measurements with my systems? Judging by your comments on this thread, you haven't tried any of this with your own system.

And if all else fails, I still have my ears and experience with live music.

Your defensiveness about the price tags of components indicates to me that you've accepted the industry's marketing claims at face value, and chosen not to take a more objective and investigative approach.


You throw around a lot of very technical terms like you just read them in a stereo magazine but this hobby isn't about technical mumbo-jumbo.I would love to know what you consider very good equipment as all you keep talking about is this Sony CDP.

Nope, magazines like Stereophile generally don't get into practical issues dealing with room acoustics and system calibration. They're trying to sell you stuff, and you're obviously buying.

Things I learned in this hobby have come from a combination of listening AND learning.

The technical side of the hobby is every bit as important as the subjective side that you're so enamored with. You have to know what you're hearing and why before you can conclusively say what will improve upon what you hear.

As for why I'm talking about the Sony SACD player, when was the last time you checked the title of this thread?


Spare me your technical BS and tell me the names of some good pieces of equipment you would buy if you could. If you don't have a critical ear then of course this is all a moot point anyway.

Other people on this board introduced me to the concepts regarding room acoustics. They challenged me to investigate things further. I took them up on the challenge, and the results spoke for themselves. If you think that's "technical BS" then it's no wonder your knowledge of subwoofers is limited to the "rumbling" that you observe.

And the insults about my so-called "critical ear" are a typical response from someone who lacks the experience to take issue with any of the technical points.

Asking someone to name equipment they would buy is yet another tactic to try and divert the topic away from issues that they cannot respond to. I'm simply asking if you've ever actually investigated YOUR OWN equipment! And the answer's obviously no. What I would buy is totally inconsequential to this basic point.


Your issues with expensive equipment must be based on not owning any so I say it is you who needs to rethink your opinions on audio.Of course you'll hammer back at all this with the little paragraphs picked out and debating my every point but you're wasting your time as I'm firmly convinced you are not a serious Audiophile.Audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about inferior equipment, they save up for better stuff themselves knowing it will be worth it in the end when their system sounds better.And before you even waste your breath of course more expensive doesn't always equate to better sound.The equipment needs to be carefully selected and all mate well to get the right result, but spending some money isn't a bad way to get this process started.

Right, because I don't automatically assume that every sound quality improvement requires new component purchases, that makes me a facetious rather than a "serious" audiophile! :cornut: Being a "serious" audiophile I would think entails a lot more than just sitting in an audio salon and having a pow-wow with the sales reps about which $500 cable they want to sell you, or spending an afternoon swapping out components in a demo room.

Taking the time and effort to systematically identify what actually makes a significant difference versus what costs a lot of money for subtle improvement I would think is a "serious" enough endeavor for an audiophile. And my general take on audio entails focusing on optimally setting up what someone already owns and fixing problems with the room acoustics (which in my experience has a much bigger effect on sound quality than which CD player or amplifier you own) before perpetuating a cycle of component upgrades. It's a low cost approach, but it works very well and keeps the priorities straight. If that makes for a less-than-"serious" audiophile in your view, then so be it.

[Woochifer]

...sounds of popcorn popping in the background, cracks open a beverage, waits for the show to start...

Ah, so you've also seen this show before, eh? :6:

[Dusty Chalk]

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[BillyB]

Getting awfully touchy over some simple questions, aren't we? A simple, "No, all of my listenings are done under sighted conditions" and/or "No, I've never tried my Arcam with my multichannel setup" and/or "No, I've never plugged my Sony CD player into my main system" would have sufficed!

For you to say that XM radio "blows away" the CD player is quite a bold statement considering how compressed and processed the XM transmission is (I get XM's feeds through Directv and the signals are very audibly degraded compared to the original CD). Maybe you should try an MP3 player for comparison, since the resolution of the XM signal is more akin to that format than the CD. Or perhaps you should try that XM tuner on your main system and see how it fares versus the Arcam.



It's not about me "accepting" anything about how much you or anybody else chooses to spend on their audio system. I could care less about what others own, and what they think of my system. What I don't accept though are all of these presumptuous statements you make about components and formats that you have NO experience with.



If you haven't actually tried this, how would you know?

Like I said, you've already concluded that your receiver and your speakers are just swell. Yet, you have no idea if your Arcam would sound just as bad if it got patched into your HT system, or if that "horrific" Sony would sound better when plugged into your main system.
I'm simply asking the questions because it seems that you want to draw conclusions regardless of whether or not you have a basis for supporting those conclusions.

I bring up the issue of blind listenings because it's very obvious that you've got some ingrained biases that need to be controlled before you can objectively investigate anything for yourself. My statement about the Sony SACD player is simply that you might be surprised at how well it performs, since I've actually used that player as well as the Arcam CD72.



What makes you think that I have limited experience with high end audio? My opinions are bourne out of first-hand experience over the last 25+ years, which includes many hours spent listening to and tinkering with high end, midlevel, and entry level equipment alike. From having done blind listenings, to seeing first hand how easily influenced people can be when they know in advance which components they're listening to, there's plenty of smoke and mirrors out there. It's through this process of trying things out, and seeing what works and doesn't work, that I form my opinions.

If I'm so inexperienced, then how would I be able to work on room acoustical corrections or multichannel speaker alignment or azimuth alignment on tape players or VTA adjustments on turntables or PCM downsampling or pulling down the media tag information from DVDs or using parametric equalization or conducting frequency and time domain response measurements with my systems? Judging by your comments on this thread, you haven't tried any of this with your own system.

And if all else fails, I still have my ears and experience with live music.

Your defensiveness about the price tags of components indicates to me that you've accepted the industry's marketing claims at face value, and chosen not to take a more objective and investigative approach.



Nope, magazines like Stereophile generally don't get into practical issues dealing with room acoustics and system calibration. They're trying to sell you stuff.

Things I learned in this hobby have come from a combination of listening AND learning.

The technical side of the hobby is every bit as important as the subjective side that you're so enamored with. You have to know what you're hearing and why before you can conclusively say what will improve upon what you hear.



Other people on this board introduced me to the concepts regarding room acoustics. They challenged me to investigate things further. I took them up on the challenge, and the results spoke for themselves. If you think that's "technical BS" then it's no wonder your knowledge of subwoofers is limited to the "rumbling" that you observe.

And the insults about my so-called "critical ear" are a typical response from someone who lacks the experience to take issue with any of the technical points.



Right, because I don't automatically assume that every sound quality improvement requires new component purchases, that makes me a facetious rather than a "serious" audiophile! :cornut: Being a "serious" audiophile I would think entails a lot more than just sitting in an audio salon and having a pow-wow with the sales reps about which $500 cable they want to sell you, or spending an afternoon swapping out components in a demo room.

Taking the time and effort to systematically identify what actually makes a significant difference versus what costs a lot of money for subtle improvement I would think is a "serious" enough endeavor for an audiophile. And my general take on audio entails focusing on optimally setting up what someone already owns and fixing problems with the room acoustics (which in my experience has a much bigger effect on sound quality than which CD player or amplifier you own) before perpetuating a cycle of component upgrades. It's a low cost approach, but it works very well and keeps the priorities straight. If that makes for a less-than-"serious" audiophile in your view, then so be it.

You still haven't mentioned a single piece of equipment other than this Sony SACD player.My reciever isn't a reciever at all but rather a Rotel Amp and Pre-amp which you would have figured out if you were paying attention.Mention some very good Audio companies and the things about their products you liked and then I will be convinced you know the difference between entry level equipment and upgraded equipment.If you've been at this game for 25 years and are still waiting to upgrade so you don't make a foolish or un-necessary upgrade then I'm the Pope.Stop embarrasing yourself with all this techno-babble and lets hear what high end equipment you're familar with or have listened to and what you thought of it and why.You should have figured out by now that I've done my homework and actually know what good equipment is.I'd quit while you're behind and by the way there is no more accurate way to test a source than by switching between them on the same system.If I turn on my Sony CD player in my garage stereo and listen to it and then hit the input for the XM AUX input selector and the XM sounds better than I know the Sony bites.A satellite transmission should never sound better than a hard wired digital device.You really should find someone with less experience with this to debate with.Get back to me quick on the high end equipment because I don't want you to have time to look up some really good companies,research their specs and then spit the information back at me or tell me what someone else actually said about them..I'd like to know what high end companies you like and why.I think that is a simple and fair way to tell what you've heard before and what about it made you think that you don't need to cough up some serious coin to get a killer stereo.I could fill pages and pages with the technical highlights of my 2 channel audio system but I really thought that would be quite boorish and felt that simply saying I have very good equipment would suffice.No more stuff about bit rates,DAC's,frequencies,etc. as that stuff can all be researched online without auditioning or owning the actual equipment.Tell me something about a high end CD player model you've listened to and why you came away thinking that it didn't sound better than your $150 Sony.You could also mention what pre-amp,amp and speakers were used with it if you want.Lets leave recievers out of this because no-one in there right mind can tell me a reciever will sound as good as separates unless they don't want to spend the extra money on dedicated pieces and have to convince themselves a reciever is just as good and not just easier on the pocketbook.There's no doubt you can overpay for poorly selected components or just the wrong mix of equipment but to think you can achieve great things with your system without even taking that chance is just fooling yourself based on budget issues that have tied your hands.You can pick on an Arcam model if you want as that is what I have and it could make up for me picking on your Sony.I honestly don't mind and I figure it's more tactful than actually asking you what your 2-channel stereo consists of because you'd only tell me that it's awesome and you didn't have to overpay for it like I did when I bought my equipment.

[Woochifer]

You still haven't mentioned a single piece of equipment other than this Sony SACD player.My reciever isn't a reciever at all but rather a Rotel Amp and Pre-amp which you would have figured out if you were paying attention.Mention some very good Audio companies and the things about their products you liked and then I will be convinced you know the difference between entry level equipment and upgraded equipment.If you've been at this game for 25 years and are still waiting to upgrade so you don't make a foolish or un-necessary upgrade then I'm the Pope.Stop embarrasing yourself with all this techno-babble and lets hear what high end equipment you're familar with or have listened to and what you thought of it and why.You should have figured out by now that I've done my homework and actually know what good equipment is.I'd quit while you're behind and by the way there is no more accurate way to test a source than by switching between them on the same system.If I turn on my Sony CD player in my garage stereo and listen to it and then hit the input for the XM AUX input selector and the XM sounds better than I know the Sony bites.A satellite transmission should never sound better than a hard wired digital device.You really should find someone with less experience with this to debate with.Get back to me quick on the high end equipment because I don't want you to have time to look up some really good companies,research their specs and then spit the information back at me or tell me what someone else actually said about them..I'd like to know what high end companies you like and why.I think that is a simple and fair way to tell what you've heard before and what about it made you think that you don't need to cough up some serious coin to get a killer stereo.No more stuff about bit rates,DAC's,frequencies,etc. as that stuff can all be researched online without auditioning or owning the actual equipment.Tell me something about a high end CD player model you've listened to and why you came away thinking that it didn't sound better than your $150 Sony.You can pick on an Arcam model if you want as that is what I have and it could make up for me picking on your Sony.

Frankly, you're out of your league with this argument by trying to badger me on what I've actually heard over the years.

Just for starters, friends of mine used to work at high end audio stores, so not only have I heard components such as the Infinity IRS (both the reference system and the smaller "consumer-class" systems), the Apogee Duetta and Full Range, Krell and Audio Research's top-of-the-line monoblock amps, the Carver Amazings, and the Klipsch K-horn, but we've actually tinkered with them, measured them, and tried them outside of the demo rooms. CD players I've heard include (aside from Sony's top-of-the-line ES models and the Arcams), models from Meridian, Carver (their tube-hybrid models), Theta, Classe, and Musical Fidelity, among others. Amps would include tube, hybrid, SS, and digital amps from SAE, Carver, Conrad Johnson, Bryston, Adcom, Classe, Parasound, McIntosh, Theta, Audio Research, among others. Speakers would include the Dynaudio Evidence Master, and various models from Vandersteen, Dunlavy, KEF, Energy, Mission, B&W, Paradigm, Magnepan, BSR, Quad, Acoustat, Martin Logan, Innersound, among MANY others. And this does not include the "mass market" brands that I've tried over the years, or DIY mods that my friends built.

This is the reference point that I'm starting from. If it's not good enough for you, then you're obviously breathing a more rarified air than us mere mortals on the ground. But, unlike your approach, I don't just stop at demo room listening and component swap outs. I try to actually learn more from the listenings than simply what component brands are out there. I want to learn how to optimize my setup, how the room interactions affect what I hear, etc. That's the technical side, and learning about those concepts have had every bit as fruitful a practical application as comparison listenings. Your hissy fit about "technical BS" just demonstrates to me that you're not open to the possibility that putting your beliefs about audio to the test might actually prove something to the contrary, or at least call a lot of things into question.

Why not hook that Arcam up to your HT system or your Sony up to your main system, and do an objective A/B comparison with some bias control in place? (A blind comparison only requires someone at the other end switching between the components without you knowing which one you're listening to) Are you afraid that your "horrific" CD player might not be so "horrific" on your main system, or that the Arcam might not be a world beater when hooked up to your HT system?

I've been in your position before. Thought I knew it all just because I heard a bunch of high end components in the store. But, then my friends and I decided to try the A/B comparisons under blind conditions, and suddenly all of those "night and day" differences that we observed suddenly narrowed or disappeared altogether.

It's obvious at this point that you're not even reading my responses and trying to impugn that I would glean some satisfaction by "picking" on Arcam because it's what you own. Weren't you the one that said audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about their equipment? Geez, it's not even like I've said anything negative about Arcam.

Nothing personal, but if you actually read what I'm suggesting without getting all wound up and defensive, you might actually learn something. For starters, it's clear that you don't know much about room acoustics. Look up some previous theads on this topic if you want to know more about the biggest improvement you can make to your system.

[BillyB]

Frankly, you're out of your league with this argument by trying to badger me on what I've actually heard over the years.

Just for starters, friends of mine used to work at high end audio stores, so not only have I heard components such as the Infinity IRS (both the reference system and the smaller "consumer-class" systems), the Apogee Duetta and Full Range, Krell and Audio Research's top-of-the-line monoblock amps, the Carver Amazings, and the Klipsch K-horn, but we've actually tinkered with them, measured them, and tried them outside of the demo rooms. CD players I've heard include (aside from Sony's top-of-the-line ES models and the Arcams), models from Meridian, Carver (their tube-hybrid models), Theta, Classe, and Musical Fidelity, among others. Amps would include tube, hybrid, SS, and digital amps from SAE, Carver, Conrad Johnson, Bryston, Adcom, Classe, Parasound, McIntosh, Theta, Audio Research, among others. Speakers would include the Dynaudio Evidence Master, and various models from Vandersteen, Dunlavy, KEF, Energy, Mission, B&W, Paradigm, Magnepan, BSR, Quad, Acoustat, Martin Logan, Innersound, among MANY others. And this does not include the "mass market" brands that I've tried over the years, or DIY mods that my friends built.

This is the reference point that I'm starting from. If it's not good enough for you, then you're obviously breathing a more rarified air than us mere mortals on the ground. But, unlike your approach, I don't just stop at demo room listening and component swap outs. I try to actually learn more from the listenings than simply what component brands are out there. I want to learn how to optimize my setup, how the room interactions affect what I hear, etc. That's the technical side, and learning about those concepts have had every bit as fruitful a practical application as comparison listenings. Your hissy fit about "technical BS" just demonstrates to me that you're not open to the possibility that putting your beliefs about audio to the test might actually prove something to the contrary, or at least call a lot of things into question.

Why not hook that Arcam up to your HT system or your Sony up to your main system, and do an objective A/B comparison with some bias control in place? (A blind comparison only requires someone at the other end switching between the components without you knowing which one you're listening to) Are you afraid that your "horrific" CD player might not be so "horrific" on your main system, or that the Arcam might not be a world beater when hooked up to your HT system?

I've been in your position before. Thought I knew it all just because I heard a bunch of high end components in the store. But, then my friends and I decided to try the A/B comparisons under blind conditions, and suddenly all of those "night and day" differences that we observed suddenly narrowed or disappeared altogether.

It's obvious at this point that you're not even reading my responses and trying to impugn that I would glean some satisfaction by "picking" on Arcam because it's what you own. Weren't you the one that said audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about their equipment? Geez, it's not even like I've said anything negative about Arcam.

Nothing personal, but if you actually read what I'm suggesting without getting all wound up and defensive, you might actually learn something. For starters, it's clear that you don't know much about room acoustics. Look up some previous theads on this topic if you want to know more about the biggest improvement you can make to your system.

Now we're talking.There are some very good Audio names in that first paragraph and you say you actually listened to them to draw your own conclusions about them.So apparantly after listening to some or all of this high end equipment you and your friends came to the conclusion through A/B switching that you didn't need to spend the money on this equipment but could rather play with room acoustics to make lesser equipment sound just as good.You can certainly tweak a good system by playing with room acoustics ang get it to sound better but you're not going to get a marginal system to sound great by moving some speakers around or by moving furniture or putting an area rug on the floor.Any other tweaks you are talking about must be sound processing or something and I don't believe in altering the sound of 2 channel audio in an attempt to get lesser equipment to sound as good as better equipment.As I thought You haven't actually bought a single piece from those higher end companies you mentioned have you.I didn't just listen to some high end systems in the store I actually bought some of them and yes they weren't cheap.Wouldn't it be easier for you to just admit you don't want to buy good stuff because it's too expensive instead of spending all this time and energy defending entry level equipment.Nothing is for nothing in life and if you want to play you have to pay.There are no shortcuts to success in anything let alone this expensive hobby.I know you don't have a great 2 channel system because other than your Sony SACD player you haven't mentioned a single other piece of equipment that you own and I'm sure that's on purpose.With the way you like to quote technical info if you had good pieces you'd be going on at great length about all their sonic and technical attributes.You're all talk,no substance.When you see an 80K Mercedes do you think wow that's a nice car and while it probably cost too much it must be a dream to drive,or do you say boy what a waste of money my chevy(just an example as I don't care what you drive) drives just as nice and cost 50K less.My system is as follows.Rotel RB-980BX at 120 WPC.Rotel RC-1090 Pre-amp.Arcam 192T upsampling CDP.Quad 22L floorstanders using Tara lab prism Bi-wire and I use Tara Lab RSC silver interconnects.At just under 6K I don't even consider that very high end but rather in the middle somewhere.There are guys on this site with systems that make mine look sad and I'm over that as they obviously have much more money than me and that's cool.So you need to get over the fact that if you want a really good system you'll actually need to spend some money instead of playing with cheap equipment.Do a google on the pieces I own and then get back to me and tell me what the audio community as a whole(not just you) thinks of these pieces at their individual price points.I actually think you can put together a nice little system for under 2K if you pick the right stuff that could sound better than a poorly designed much more expensive system,but I get the idea you think you can get a rocking system for about $800 total and that's not happening.No rarified air here by the way because as I previously stated there are folks here with systems that blow mine away,you're just not one of them.Save your money and buy some real equipment.

[Rock789]

question...

through direct comparison with all other equipment held equal, XM is better than Sony for some given reason...
To what else have either of these been directly compared?

[Rock789]

example... I have a marantz sacd player which sounds much better when directly compared to an old pioneer cd changer...
but the pioneer sounds better than FM or internet radio (also directly compared)
I also have a Denon DAC, which sounds better than using the pioneer's onboard DAC, but I have not done a direct comparison to the marantz,... I would speculate the marantz is better, but never tried it, ;o)

[shokhead]

I thought we had gotten past this nonsense over the CDP quality issue as I will try out an SACD player at some point.Why are you disputing my opinion of my own Sony CD player.I know junk when I hear it and the fact that Xm radio on the same system blows it away confirms it's junk.That player isn't even the SACD style player you love so much so why do you care that it's a $100 piece of junk.Now you are simply being contrary and argumentative to the point where I question your motives and your level of knowledge regarding Audio in general.You obviously love Sony,I obviously love my Arcam 192T.If it makes you feel better to think you can get a great CD player for $150 then just enjoy the thing and accept the fact that some people are willing to spend big money on equipment they think warrants it.You obviously aren't one of them.I don't need to mate the Sony to my stereo to determine whether or not it's any good.It's not and my high end stereo would sound horrific with this player in it.You need to spend some time in a high end audio store so you know what a good stereo sounds like.You're coming across as very inexperienced at this point by desparately defending cheap equipment that doesn't warrant all this attention.Your issues with expensive equipment must be based on not owning any so I say it is you who needs to rethink your opinions on audio.Of course you'll hammer back at all this with the little paragraphs picked out and debating my every point but you're wasting your time as I'm firmly convinced you are not a serious Audiophile.Audiophiles don't get insulted when negative things are pointed out about inferior equipment, they save up for better stuff themselves knowing it will be worth it in the end when their system sounds better.You throw around a lot of very technical terms like you just read them in a stereo magazine but this hobby isn't about technical mumbo-jumbo.I would love to know what you consider very good equipment as all you keep talking about is this Sony CDP.I started out with inexpensive equipment and was quite pleased with it as a starting point.When I developed a more critical ear and learned more and could afford it I gradually put together the fine system I now own.Do you own any very good equipment or do you just like to talk about this stuff as if you know the difference.At least I can honestly say that I have some good equipment that I spent a great deal of time researching and saving the money for and the results speak for themselves.Spare me your technical BS and tell me the names of some good pieces of equipment you would buy if you could. If you don't have a critical ear then of course this is all a moot point anyway.I've had many different levels of equipment so I know for a fact that better equipment does sounds better.Your last post has convinced me you actually are at the entry level of this hobby and haven't upgraded anything yet so when you talk about the lesser equipment sounding just as good you aren't talking from experience.If I'm wrong then educate me on some high end equipment and stop telling me how great the Sony CDP's are.And before you even waste your breath of course more expensive doesn't always equate to better sound.The equipment needs to be carefully selected and all mate well to get the right result, but spending some money isn't a bad way to get this process started.


You a funny one.:confused5:

[BillyB]

question...

through direct comparison with all other equipment held equal, XM is better than Sony for some given reason...
To what else have either of these been directly compared?

I don't believe that the XM signal is superior to CD playback despite it's claims that it rivals CD quality and that's my whole point.My XM tuner sounds much more crisp on my secondary system than my Sony CDP and that's as apple to apples as you're going to get.On my good and more revealing system this scenario would only be more pronounced.I just want to mention to you guys that I don't think my system is god nor do I think I'm the most experienced audio guy on here.However I do have a nice system that I worked very hard putting together and saving the money for the purchase.When someone starts saying that entry level equipment is as good or better I have no choice but to respond in a defensive manner because they haven't even made the sacrifices to acquire this better equipment.I know you high end guys are out there but I don't blame you for staying out of this thread as it's not the most pleasant one to join in on.I really don't mind being the only one who is really questioning woochifer's theories about audio because I feel that strongly about this subject and know that right is right and all else falls under the BS heading.I think I've said about all I can on this touchy subject so while I will definitely read the upcoming responses(especially woochifers as I find them very redundant regarding the Sony CDP issue)I'll probably sign off on this matter.Other High end equipment owners certainly have the option of joining in as this guy is basically saying you overpaid for your equipment un-necessarily and could get the same great sound for a bundle less if you just knew how to tweak cheaper equipment.

[Feanor]

I mean, that he is as patient with you, BillyB, as he has been. But it does show his metal. All of us who have been around here for a while will attest the Wooch's knowledge, experience, rationality -- and patience.

Wooch is more rational than most audiophiles because he has the integrity to put his ears to the test. And he is no less a true audiophile because he doesn't unconditionally "trust his ears" -- much less your ears.

Wooch has explained that he has experience with a wide range of equipment; he has condescended to list some of it. Where's your list? Please produce it, because your own system is barely mid-range as judged by "audiophile" standards of either price or reputation: it is really insuffient to support your arguement that pricier equipment of high "audiophile" reputation is invariably better.

As for your crappy sounding Sony, I remain as sceptical as Woochifer. Sound worst than XM radio? Humm?? :confused: Frankly, I question where the Sony or your receiver inputs aren't in fact defective. That does happen! Get back to use when you have taken Wooch's advise and swapped the Arcam for the Sony and vice versa.

By the way, learn to write. Geez! It's something about run-on paragraphs. :ciappa:

[shokhead]

No boomboxes for cd testing,please.

[Woochifer]

Now we're talking.There are some very good Audio names in that first paragraph and you say you actually listened to them to draw your own conclusions about them.So apparantly after listening to some or all of this high end equipment you and your friends came to the conclusion through A/B switching that you didn't need to spend the money on this equipment but could rather play with room acoustics to make lesser equipment sound just as good.

It's not about making "lesser equipment" sound just as good, it's about optimizing what's most important and prioritizing things accordingly. A bad room will make ANY system sound less than optimal no matter how much money you dump into it. Your perspective is dutifully ignorant of room acoustics, yet it's the second most variable component of any audio system next to the speakers. Yes, the room IS part of your audio system. Why bother with spending big bucks on equipment upgrades when problems with the room acoustics will render any subtle improvements that might result irrelevant?


You can certainly tweak a good system by playing with room acoustics ang get it to sound better but you're not going to get a marginal system to sound great by moving some speakers around or by moving furniture or putting an area rug on the floor.Any other tweaks you are talking about must be sound processing or something and I don't believe in altering the sound of 2 channel audio in an attempt to get lesser equipment to sound as good as better equipment.

You obviously got a lot to learn. Room acoustical improvements are a lot more involved than placement and putting rugs into a room. It's about learning how the reflective properties of the room impact on the frequency and time domain response. Think that's "technical BS"? Think again. Surfaces in a room will reflect at different frequencies, and can make equipment that sounds neutral in one room sound unbearably harsh in another room. Also, the boundary dimensions will directly affect whether your bass sounds even or boomy or anemic.

For whatever reason, equalization is considered some kind of taboo with a lot of self-annointed audio purists. Yet, the proper usage of an equalizer is for correcting room anomalies, which in my experience more than compensates for whatever coloration they might add to the signal, especially in the lower frequencies. If you think your room isn't every bit as important as which CD player you choose, I would say your priorities are out of line or you don't have a clue.


As I thought You haven't actually bought a single piece from those higher end companies you mentioned have you.I didn't just listen to some high end systems in the store I actually bought some of them and yes they weren't cheap.

Nope, because my goals with my current system were not limited to two-channel analog. And my curiosity about audio does not stop with knowing what component brands are out there. But, I don't need to own expensive equipment to call out BS whenever I see it.

Y'know, like your points regarding ...

- how differences between CD players are no different than differences between turntables
- how subwoofers are just about "rumbling"
- how CD playback on a HT system is inferior because of how it sounds when playing from "all those speakers at once"
- how an XM tuner "blows away" a Sony CD player, when you haven't bothered to investigate whether the speakers or the receiver are more to blame for what you hear
- how the Sony SACD player must be inferior, yet you haven't actually heard any of them

You still haven't clarified any of these points, and seem content with taking shots at my system in lieu of coming up with any rational responses to those highly questionable assertions.


Wouldn't it be easier for you to just admit you don't want to buy good stuff because it's too expensive instead of spending all this time and energy defending entry level equipment.Nothing is for nothing in life and if you want to play you have to pay.There are no shortcuts to success in anything let alone this expensive hobby.I know you don't have a great 2 channel system because other than your Sony SACD player you haven't mentioned a single other piece of equipment that you own and I'm sure that's on purpose.

Hey Mr. Technical Guru -

There are these things called "links" and they're like highlighted in blue. And some posters y'know like have these things called "signatures" where they ... y'know ... place these links! And like, some people have like created galleries where they like list the equipment in their systems.

Yup, I'm purposely hiding from what I own. :rolleyes: That must be why I make people take the trouble of clicking on a link if they're so inclined to see what I use in my system.


With the way you like to quote technical info if you had good pieces you'd be going on at great length about all their sonic and technical attributes.You're all talk,no substance.

Nope. Regardless of what I own, I'd still be harping on getting the setup done right, and getting the room acoustical issues squared away. My purpose on this board has nothing to do with bragging rights, it's about shared learning and cutting through the BS that's out there. Going on at length about what I own makes for rather boring conversation since most of the regulars are already familiar with what I use in my system.

If I'm all talk and no substance, then I don't know how to describe your approach since your curiosity about audio seems to end with the brand label and model number, and a blind belief in whatever marketing claims accompany them.


So you need to get over the fact that if you want a really good system you'll actually need to spend some money instead of playing with cheap equipment.Do a google on the pieces I own and then get back to me and tell me what the audio community as a whole(not just you) thinks of these pieces at their individual price points.

Like I said, I could care less about what you or anybody else owns. Having more expensive toys doesn't make any of your questionable assertions any less nonsensical than they are, or compensate for the obvious gaps in your understanding of the technical issues.


I actually think you can put together a nice little system for under 2K if you pick the right stuff that could sound better than a poorly designed much more expensive system,but I get the idea you think you can get a rocking system for about $800 total and that's not happening.No rarified air here by the way because as I previously stated there are folks here with systems that blow mine away,you're just not one of them.Save your money and buy some real equipment.

Gosh, I didn't know that these components in my living room were illusionary? You now telling me that they're not real? Lemme guess, yer one of them philosopher types!

[Carl Reid]

It's not about making "lesser equipment" sound just as good, it's about optimizing what's most important and prioritizing things accordingly. A bad room will make ANY system sound less than optimal no matter how much money you dump into it. Your perspective is dutifully ignorant of room acoustics, yet it's the second most variable component of any audio system next to the speakers. Yes, the room IS part of your audio system. Why bother with spending big bucks on equipment upgrades when problems with the room acoustics will render any subtle improvements that might result irrelevant?

If I'm all talk and no substance, then I don't know how to describe your approach since your curiosity about audio seems to end with the brand label and model number, and a blind belief in whatever marketing claims accompany them.

Like I said, I could care less about what you or anybody else owns. Having more expensive toys doesn't make any of your questionable assertions any less nonsensical than they are, or compensate for the obvious gaps in your understanding of the technical issues.


I'm seriously reluctant to get in the middle of this debate, but from what I've read in this thread and others from Both of you guys, I doubt that either of you is an idiot.....

What seems to be happening is that you have very different views on the best way to optimize sound..... Billy clearly focuses more on getting better (not neccesarily more expensive or well reviewed equipment).... though you guys are attacking his credibility about not comparing the Sony to the Arcam, I can't really regard that as a valid point because the first thread I read from him was about downgrading from far more expensive B&W 703 Speakers to Humble Quad 22Ls, because he found the Quads to sound substantially better to his B&W's (which cost about twice as much)... so clearly he does compare components and is not just hung up on price....

Woochifer's focus appears to be more on optimizing room setup to get the best out of your existing equipment.... which makes a lot of sense to me... since I too believe that the room is a major variable in sound quality (though I will agree with Billy that no amount of room tweaking will make a crappy setup sound great).... I know the importance of room size/setup because I currently have a very small audio room (a humble 9 x 12 rectangle).... so a simple pair of dual 6 and a 1/2 inch woofer Missions have substanial bass in my room... Which is part of the reason why I'm yet to upgrade my speakers since I like floorstanders (and many of them would have overpowering bass in my small room). I'm not really into equalizers... maybe if I heard one used in a good setup I'd change my mind.... but I still regard them as that joke I used to have on my Panasonic mini-systems....but one day I'll some research on them....


Anyway, the point is that rather than allowing this thread to degenerate even further, can we get back on topic.... since ironically, before this cat fight broke out.... you guys were actually convincing Billy and even myself to check out SACD.... so let's try and get back to that and stop attacking each other's credibility.... yes arrogant statements have been made with no real backing.... but that happens a lot on this site and in real life... but it doesn't automatically mean that the person making the statement is stupid or even incorrect!

[shokhead]

Why wouldnt someone try sacd,either 2ch or surround or both?

[Carl Reid]

Why wouldnt someone try sacd,either 2ch or surround or both?

Surround - Lack of a ht setup will deter many 2 channel lovers from trying multichannel SACD

2 ch - Well that's not so easy to defend... I have to be honest and just say the reason I haven't tried it is lack of research... I was initially waiting to see if either SACD or DVDA would take off before commiting to one or the other... but since then I just forgot about both of them... and assumed (yes I know assumptions are bad) that they were still substantially more expensive than CDs...

And also people who own very expensive CD players may be reluctant to shell out big bucks for a high end SACD player as well.

[Woochifer]

Woochifer's focus appears to be more on optimizing room setup to get the best out of your existing equipment.... which makes a lot of sense to me... since I too believe that the room is a major variable in sound quality (though I will agree with Billy that no amount of room tweaking will make a crappy setup sound great).... I know the importance of room size/setup because I currently have a very small audio room (a humble 9 x 12 rectangle).... so a simple pair of dual 6 and a 1/2 inch woofer Missions have substanial bass in my room... Which is part of the reason why I'm yet to upgrade my speakers since I like floorstanders (and many of them would have overpowering bass in my small room). I'm not really into equalizers... maybe if I heard one used in a good setup I'd change my mind.... but I still regard them as that joke I used to have on my Panasonic mini-systems....but one day I'll some research on them....

Geez, what the hell you thinking by trying to find some civility and common ground on this board?! :D

On your topic, I would add that equalizers have improved by leaps and bounds in recent years. These are not the graphic EQs of yesteryear that functioned as nothing more than glorified tone controls. The newer ones are almost exclusively parametric EQs, which work very differently because the bands have variable center frequencies and variable bandwidth settings. They've been around for years, but the newer designs now incorporate auto calibration using a microphone (and sometimes a PC), which dramatically simplifies a process that otherwise requires SPL meters (or RTA software/devices) and a sizable learning curve. At the very least, I would highly recommend them for anyone who uses a subwoofer. The resultant bass response from an equalized sub is flatter than you'll get from almost any full range speaker in a typical room.

When I first learned about parametric EQs on this board about five years ago, it was like a small band of missionaries trying to convert the masses who were weaned on audiophile paranoia of any type of processing device, including equalizers. Since then, a flood of products built around parametric room correction have hit the market, and you can hardly find any midlevel HT receivers nowadays that don't include some kind of parametric calibration function on board. The issue has never been about the merits of equaization (since a properly used parametric EQ can produce a stunning level of sound quality improvement, especially in the bass), but making the devices simple enough to use so that you don't need to reread your physics texts to understand how to use them. The newer EQs out there directly address the ease-of-use issue.


Surround - Lack of a ht setup will deter many 2 channel lovers from trying multichannel SACD

2 ch - Well that's not so easy to defend... I have to be honest and just say the reason I haven't tried it is lack of research... I was initially waiting to see if either SACD or DVDA would take off before commiting to one or the other... but since then I just forgot about both of them... and assumed (yes I know assumptions are bad) that they were still substantially more expensive than CDs...

And also people who own very expensive CD players may be reluctant to shell out big bucks for a high end SACD player as well.

SACD will live on more as a niche format. Its window as a successor format to the CD has pretty much shut. As I mentioned earlier, the incentive to try SACD has to do with the opportunity to revisit titles that might have had a poorly done CD transfer (and there are plenty of those). If any of your essential discs are available in SACD, then it might be worth getting a player to hear them. And SACD is getting a second lease on life because the format is part of the HDMI 1.3 spec that's used on all Blu-ray (including the Playstation 3) and HD-DVD players.

People who shelled out big bucks for CD players very well might be the ones who should try SACD for themselves. They paid all that big money for those CD players, yet they're hampered by the many poorly done transfers that are still on the market. (Check some of the previous theads on how the demand for high levels on CDs are now forcing mastering engineers to compress the signal during the transfer) The best SACDs sound absolutely stunning -- difficult to describe, but the best transfers have a relaxed yet highly detailed sound, qualities that a lot of people would ascribe to a high quality analog playback.

If anything, the high res digital audio world might soon transition over to high res downloads. Music Giants has started selling digital downloads on their site in 88.2/24 resolution (using Windows Lossless), which is the resolution that a lot of audiophile labels have been using for their studio masters because it allows for the downsampling to the CD format to occur in even multiples. It's no different than DVD-A, but major label support for that format is pretty much gone. Another avenue is Blu-ray and HD-DVD, which both use lossless formats. Either way, the resolution on the formats available to consumers will continue to progressively approach that of the master tape itself. Like it or not, the CD is now the big bottleneck.

[BillyB]

I mean, that he is as patient with you, BillyB, as he has been. But it does show his metal. All of us who have been around here for a while will attest the Wooch's knowledge, experience, rationality -- and patience.

Wooch is more rational than most audiophiles because he has the integrity to put his ears to the test. And he is no less a true audiophile because he doesn't unconditionally "trust his ears" -- much less your ears.

Wooch has explained that he has experience with a wide range of equipment; he has condescended to list some of it. Where's your list? Please produce it, because your own system is barely mid-range as judged by "audiophile" standards of either price or reputation: it is really insuffient to support your arguement that pricier equipment of high "audiophile" reputation is invariably better.

As for your crappy sounding Sony, I remain as sceptical as Woochifer. Sound worst than XM radio? Humm?? :confused: Frankly, I question where the Sony or your receiver inputs aren't in fact defective. That does happen! Get back to use when you have taken Wooch's advise and swapped the Arcam for the Sony and vice versa.

By the way, learn to write. Geez! It's something about run-on paragraphs. :ciappa:

I just spent some time in the high end A/V shop that I buy all my electronics from as I was looking for a plasma and I bounced a couple of pertinent questions off of the owner that are relative to this discussion.He has owned this shop for 25 years and probably knows more about this stuff than almost anyone here.He is not a Sony dealer but is a Marantz dealer and sells a lot of their universal SACD players.His answer regarding SACD CDP's was very short and to the point.Better CD manufacturers have come to the conclusion that they can't make a CDP that does both SACD and Redbook playback while doing both well.The fact that almost no high end CDP's have both formats is proof enough for me.He sells them and said he owns one as well so I can't imagine he would need to mislead me on this subject.He also said that he owns many multi-channel SACD's and there's only a couple of them that he actually thinks sound good enough to get excited over.He has spent his entire adult life in this field and yes I do consider him an expert.As far as woochifers patience with me your off the mark as I had basically agreed to let this subject go and even agreed to check out an SACD player at some point.He then decided to go after me one more time regarding the Sony so I say he is a glutton for punishment.Your comment about my system is pathetic at best as not only is it a well thought out system that sounds great but Rotel has a reputation for being very hard to beat at their specific price points.I admitted that it was somewhere in the middle and that many people have much better systems so your comment was childish.You are obviously also a big fan of Sony so your credibility immediately comes into question with me as I have never seen a non-ES series Sony CD player anywhere other than the discount chains.Is that where you buy your electronics..Do you also think the $150 Sony SACD player would sound almost as good or possibly better than my Arcam 192T upsampling player for playing back Redbook CD's.For you to imply that I need to try out my $100 Sony CDP in my better system to see if it's as good as my Arcam 192T is nothing short of absurd.Do you actually think my 5 disk Sony is on anybody's short list when they plan a system that will have a separate Amp and Pre-amp driving some very good speakers.If you guys would just stop talking about how good entry level Sony CDP's are compared to upgrade level players I would have a lot more respect for your opinions.I'm in total dis-belief that you said my system barely can be considered middle of the road yet you think very highly of cheap Sony CD players.That's quite a contradiction in terms even for this subjective subject. The 6K range my system is in is at a very nice price point as it's not ridiculously expensive but yet to get something that would blow it away you would probably need to spend around 10K to hear a huge difference.The law of diminishing returns starts becoming much more of a factor when you start spending more than 5K on a system as the leaps in quality become smaller versus the increased cost of the system.
I guess it's safe to say that you also feel you can put together a great sounding system for next to nothing as that is what your involvement in this thread implies.Woochifer never actually stated that he owns any of this high end equipment so I'm not sure what his "involvement" with these manufacturers has to do with anything unless you're willing to actually buy their products.They don't let you take them home unless you pay for them..If he does own them and just hasn't said that then I stand corrected.I get the feeling that is not the case.If being patient means never actually upgrading your equipment than I'm definitely impatient as I can't enjoy what I don't own.As far as the run-on paragraphs go I really didn't think it was necessary to break my paragraphs down by subject so you could keep up as this isn't grammar school.The content of the post is far more important as lets stick to audio issues and leave the grammar corrections for the school teachers.Your broken up little paragraphs don't exactly qualify you as an English scholar.As far as the connections to the Sony CDP go what do you think the odds are that the Monster cable RCA cables connecting the cd player to my Sherwood reciever are defective or improperly connected.I think I can figure out that the CD player gets connected to the CD player inputs on the reciever and they're even color coded just in case someone should get confused.Another ridiculous suggestion as to why my crummy Sony CDP sounds awful.I would think I should be allowed to say that a piece of equipment I own isn't any good so defend your own stuff but mind your own business in regard to my criticism of my own stuff as admitting something you own isn't very good shouldn't be of huge concern to others..I took a beating on trading in a pair of 3K B&W 703's that I hated and bought Quad 22L's for just over half the price instead.I realised I had made a terrible mistake with them and couldn't live with the results but at least I was willing to take the initial step with the goal being a great sounding system.This happens to guys all the time when trying to improve their system even when you've done your homework as sometimes equipment just doesn't sound the way you thought it did when you demoed it at your audio dealer so no shame there.Point being I know all about more expensive not always meaning better sound.I corrected the problem and yes Quads are very good speakers especially at their price point as I'm actually not into overpaying for equipment based on name alone.That's why I bought Rotel as they don't slam dunk you for their stuff as you would have to spend a good bit more to get something that may be marginally better. My equipment not reviewing that well is news to me as I spent many hours researching each piece and while no component is liked by everyone they recieved favorable reviews from almost every source I could find.I try to go by professional reviews as user reviews tend to be so inconsistent at times weeding through them can be torture.This is an expensive hobby when taken to a critical level so to say that upgrading equipment is un-necessary or a waste of money or impulsive is a very no guts approach.There are a lot less fun ways to spend your money than on purchasing audio equipment when you're passionate about it.Mistakes will be made along the way as it's just part of the process of getting the best system you can.I notice virtually no 2-channel purists with good redbook players adding anything to this thread other than myself so all I can figure is since this thread has the SACD heading they don't realise where it ended up going.I know I'm not the only guy on this site who feels this way about equipment but I don't mind dealing with this issue as I'm obviously not overwhelmed by the negative reactions to my feelings on this subject.

[PeruvianSkies]

Reading this thread is like WAR AND PEACE...long, epic, detailed, and there seems to be some sort of war happening over nothing.

[jrhymeammo]

MC setup is not absolutely neccesary to enjoy SACD format. I couldnt be happier with my Marantz SA8001. Maybe that'll work for you as well. The $150 SONY didnt work in mine, but it does for many here. I just dont have to time to address everything facotrs to make equipements sing. Wooch does, so that's great.
I bet MC would sound better if my tube integated could control 2 more of the same amp to run MC setup. Would that work out for you Billy? But whotta hell can afford three SA7S2($24,000).

What exactly makes someone a 2ch purist? A source player with adjustable gain straight into a pair of mono blocks?

Is that SACD vs. LP thread still available? This just goes nowhere.

[jrhymeammo]

I'm bet Sir T is keeping up with this thread

[shokhead]

I just spent some time in the high end A/V shop that I buy all my electronics from as I was looking for a plasma and I bounced a couple of pertinent questions off of the owner that are relative to this discussion.He has owned this shop for 25 years and probably knows more about this stuff than almost anyone here.He is not a Sony dealer but is a Marantz dealer and sells a lot of their universal SACD players.His answer regarding SACD CDP's was very short and to the point.Better CD manufacturers have come to the conclusion that they can't make a CDP that does both SACD and Redbook playback while doing both well.The fact that almost no high end CDP's have both formats is proof enough for me.He sells them and said he owns one as well so I can't imagine he would need to mislead me on this subject.He also said that he owns many multi-channel SACD's and there's only a couple of them that he actually thinks sound good enough to get excited over.He has spent his entire adult life in this field and yes I do consider him an expert.As far as woochifers patience with me your off the mark as I had basically agreed to let this subject go and even agreed to check out an SACD player at some point.He then decided to go after me one more time regarding the Sony so I say he is a glutton for punishment.Your comment about my system is pathetic at best as not only is it a well thought out system that sounds great but Rotel has a reputation for being very hard to beat at their specific price points.I admitted that it was somewhere in the middle and that many people have much better systems so your comment was childish.You are obviously also a big fan of Sony so your credibility immediately comes into question with me as I have never seen a non-ES series Sony CD player anywhere other than the discount chains.Is that where you buy your electronics..Do you also think the $150 Sony SACD player would sound almost as good or possibly better than my Arcam 192T upsampling player for playing back Redbook CD's.For you to imply that I need to try out my $100 Sony CDP in my better system to see if it's as good as my Arcam 192T is nothing short of absurd.Do you actually think my 5 disk Sony is on anybody's short list when they plan a system that will have a separate Amp and Pre-amp driving some very good speakers.If you guys would just stop talking about how good entry level Sony CDP's are compared to upgrade level players I would have a lot more respect for your opinions.I'm in total dis-belief that you said my system barely can be considered middle of the road yet you think very highly of cheap Sony CD players.That's quite a contradiction in terms even for this subjective subject. The 6K range my system is in is at a very nice price point as it's not ridiculously expensive but yet to get something that would blow it away you would probably need to spend around 10K to hear a huge difference.The law of diminishing returns starts becoming much more of a factor when you start spending more than 5K on a system as the leaps in quality become smaller versus the increased cost of the system.
I guess it's safe to say that you also feel you can put together a great sounding system for next to nothing as that is what your involvement in this thread implies.Woochifer never actually stated that he owns any of this high end equipment so I'm not sure what his "involvement" with these manufacturers has to do with anything unless you're willing to actually buy their products.They don't let you take them home unless you pay for them..If he does own them and just hasn't said that then I stand corrected.I get the feeling that is not the case.If being patient means never actually upgrading your equipment than I'm definitely impatient as I can't enjoy what I don't own.As far as the run-on paragraphs go I really didn't think it was necessary to break my paragraphs down by subject so you could keep up as this isn't grammar school.The content of the post is far more important as lets stick to audio issues and leave the grammar corrections for the school teachers.Your broken up little paragraphs don't exactly qualify you as an English scholar.As far as the connections to the Sony CDP go what do you think the odds are that the Monster cable RCA cables connecting the cd player to my Sherwood reciever are defective or improperly connected.I think I can figure out that the CD player gets connected to the CD player inputs on the reciever and they're even color coded just in case someone should get confused.Another ridiculous suggestion as to why my crummy Sony CDP sounds awful.I would think I should be allowed to say that a piece of equipment I own isn't any good so defend your own stuff but mind your own business in regard to my criticism of my own stuff as admitting something you own isn't very good shouldn't be of huge concern to others..I took a beating on trading in a pair of 3K B&W 703's that I hated and bought Quad 22L's for just over half the price instead.I realised I had made a terrible mistake with them and couldn't live with the results but at least I was willing to take the initial step with the goal being a great sounding system.This happens to guys all the time when trying to improve their system even when you've done your homework as sometimes equipment just doesn't sound the way you thought it did when you demoed it at your audio dealer so no shame there.Point being I know all about more expensive not always meaning better sound.I corrected the problem and yes Quads are very good speakers especially at their price point as I'm actually not into overpaying for equipment based on name alone.That's why I bought Rotel as they don't slam dunk you for their stuff as you would have to spend a good bit more to get something that may be marginally better. My equipment not reviewing that well is news to me as I spent many hours researching each piece and while no component is liked by everyone they recieved favorable reviews from almost every source I could find.I try to go by professional reviews as user reviews tend to be so inconsistent at times weeding through them can be torture.This is an expensive hobby when taken to a critical level so to say that upgrading equipment is un-necessary or a waste of money or impulsive is a very no guts approach.There are a lot less fun ways to spend your money than on purchasing audio equipment when you're passionate about it.Mistakes will be made along the way as it's just part of the process of getting the best system you can.I notice virtually no 2-channel purists with good redbook players adding anything to this thread other than myself so all I can figure is since this thread has the SACD heading they don't realise where it ended up going.I know I'm not the only guy on this site who feels this way about equipment but I don't mind dealing with this issue as I'm obviously not overwhelmed by the negative reactions to my feelings on this subject.


So is that a yes or no that you would like to try sacd in your home because most sound so darn good?

[Feanor]

We have many points of agreement, actually. Unfortunately, regarding my remarks, above, you have put 2 + 2 together and got 6.

For the record, I didn't say your system is "patheic at best". In fact it is a pretty good system; I would especially like to hear the Quad 22L's. What I did say was that it was not a basis for your saying that high-end equipment is invariably better than low cost equipment. (Of course I concede that there is a correlation.)

Likewise, I never praised Sony at all. Yes, I do own one, but I made no comment about it; it's merely your active imagination that constured that I'm a Sony advocate or bias towards them. As a matter of fact I'm not. (But at least their current $150 SACD offering, the SCD-CE595, is a dedicated audio, non-universal player. It has the one advantage that doesn't have to do DVD or PCM 24/96, and can concentrate on doing SACD & CD.)

As for your dealer, he might be a great guy. But in my 35 years hifi experience, dealers are generally biased towards, (a) the products they deal, and especially those they stock, and (b) more expensive products over cheaper ones. Gosh?! I wonder why that would be. My dealer, (i.e. the only real hifi dealer in my small city), also has 25 years experience selling the stuff but nevertheless is an opinionated, dogmatic jackass. You get better advice around here from the combined likes of Woochifer, Geoffcin, E-Stat, Joe SP9, Mr. Peabody, Kexodusc, MikeAnderson, and plenty of others, :thumbsup:, than you will get from any dealer.

[shokhead]

Oh no way. A dealer will tell me whats best,even if he doesnt carry it,now stop that kind of talk. CC always tells me to go to BB for better stuff.{they both told me DualDisc would be going 7.1.

[Woochifer]

I just spent some time in the high end A/V shop that I buy all my electronics from as I was looking for a plasma and I bounced a couple of pertinent questions off of the owner that are relative to this discussion.He has owned this shop for 25 years and probably knows more about this stuff than almost anyone here.He is not a Sony dealer but is a Marantz dealer and sells a lot of their universal SACD players.His answer regarding SACD CDP's was very short and to the point.Better CD manufacturers have come to the conclusion that they can't make a CDP that does both SACD and Redbook playback while doing both well.The fact that almost no high end CDP's have both formats is proof enough for me.He sells them and said he owns one as well so I can't imagine he would need to mislead me on this subject.He also said that he owns many multi-channel SACD's and there's only a couple of them that he actually thinks sound good enough to get excited over.He has spent his entire adult life in this field and yes I do consider him an expert.

Right, so that explains why Bel Canto, Classe, Theta, Linn, Shanling, Krell, Musical Fidelity, and Parasound, among others, have made their own SACD/universal players. I guess none of those companies count as "better CD manufacturers" just because some local dealer says so.

In the years that I've gone around to high end audio stores, a lot of the sales reps I've talked to are ignorant of what else is on the market outside of what they sell, and way behind the times on how the technology's evolving with high resolution and multichannel audio. It's like they only recently discovered the CD after years of slamming the format as an inadequate pretender to the LP throne.

And among the high end stores I've visited in my area the last few years, only two of them had their multichannel speaker setups aligned correctly. This indicates to me that a lot of these dealers have no clue on how to properly demonstrate multichannel audio.


Woochifer never actually stated that he owns any of this high end equipment so I'm not sure what his "involvement" with these manufacturers has to do with anything unless you're willing to actually buy their products.They don't let you take them home unless you pay for them.

Ever heard of "borrowing"? Most of the dealers in my area will gladly loan out their demo units with a refundable deposit. I've done this for speaker evaluations, and will do it again next time I get around to upgrading my system.

Why you persist in speculation and inneuendo about what I own is beyond me. JUST CLICK THE LINK in my signature, and there you will have the answers to all of these philosophical riddles that you've been impugning at length.


If he does own them and just hasn't said that then I stand corrected.I get the feeling that is not the case.If being patient means never actually upgrading your equipment than I'm definitely impatient as I can't enjoy what I don't own.

You seem to be equating someone's knowledge with what they own. Big mistake, given that I've known plenty of people over the years who buy and upgrade like there's no tomorrow, and they still don't have a clue on what they're doing or trying to accomplish.


As far as the run-on paragraphs go I really didn't think it was necessary to break my paragraphs down by subject so you could keep up as this isn't grammar school.The content of the post is far more important as lets stick to audio issues and leave the grammar corrections for the school teachers.Your broken up little paragraphs don't exactly qualify you as an English scholar.

Well, cramming everything into these marathon paragraphs don't exactly make your posts an object lesson in readability either.


As far as the connections to the Sony CDP go what do you think the odds are that the Monster cable RCA cables connecting the cd player to my Sherwood reciever are defective or improperly connected.I think I can figure out that the CD player gets connected to the CD player inputs on the reciever and they're even color coded just in case someone should get confused.Another ridiculous suggestion as to why my crummy Sony CDP sounds awful.

Why would it be ridiculous? Bad connections happen all the time, parts get loose, switches short out, etc. Your contention that an XM tuner "blows away" a CD player is highly questionable given that others on this board have a very different opinion of how XM's feed compares to an original CD source (I've done my own A/B comparisons when some songs that I have on CD get aired on XM, and the XM feed audibly processes and degrades the signal). We're simply suggesting that you look at the other variables in your system before drawing a conclusion that's highly questionable at face value. Yet, you seem disinterested in any kind of systematic evaluation that considers other factors -- i.e., the receiver, the speakers, the connections, etc. This isn't even an "I trust my ears" argument, since you haven't made the first effort to differentiate between how your own components compare to one another (i.e., how the Sony compares to the Arcam when plugged into the same system, or how the XM tuner sounds when plugged into your main system).


I would think I should be allowed to say that a piece of equipment I own isn't any good so defend your own stuff but mind your own business in regard to my criticism of my own stuff as admitting something you own isn't very good shouldn't be of huge concern to others.

You can remain ignorant for all we care, since it's your system and your money. But, on this board people are going to question things that don't make logical sense. You're getting defensive over some simple questions, and responding by letting the accusations and personal insults fly. If you don't want people to respond to things that you post, then don't post them. It's that simple. Telling people to mind their own business is a rather silly posture to assume. I mean, you're the one who's been badgering people to talk about the components they own, since you seem ill-prepared to discuss anything outside of that limited rhelm.


I notice virtually no 2-channel purists with good redbook players adding anything to this thread other than myself so all I can figure is since this thread has the SACD heading they don't realise where it ended up going.I know I'm not the only guy on this site who feels this way about equipment but I don't mind dealing with this issue as I'm obviously not overwhelmed by the negative reactions to my feelings on this subject.

That's because none of the other two-channel purists are making the same questionable assumptions that you are, and treating a lack of curiosity as some badge of honor. Most of them would have drawn their conclusions about the quality of an entry level CD player by directly comparing the unit to a high end player plugged into the SAME system. Even the most devoted subjectivist would tell you that your observations are not based on apples to apples comparisons.

[BillyB]

We have many points of agreement, actually. Unfortunately, regarding my remarks, above, you have put 2 + 2 together and got 6.

For the record, I didn't say your system is "patheic at best". In fact it is a pretty good system; I would especially like to hear the Quad 22L's. What I did say was that it was not a basis for your saying that high-end equipment is invariably better than low cost equipment. (Of course I concede that there is a correlation.)

Likewise, I never praised Sony at all. Yes, I do own one, but I made no comment about it; it's merely your active imagination that constured that I'm a Sony advocate or bias towards them. As a matter of fact I'm not. (But at least their current $150 SACD offering, the SCD-CE595, is a dedicated audio, non-universal player. It has the one advantage that doesn't have to do DVD or PCM 24/96, and can concentrate on doing SACD & CD.)

As for your dealer, he might be a great guy. But in my 35 years hifi experience, dealers are generally biased towards, (a) the products they deal, and especially those they stock, and (b) more expensive products over cheaper ones. Gosh?! I wonder why that would be. My dealer, (i.e. the only real hifi dealer in my small city), also has 25 years experience selling the stuff but nevertheless is an opinionated, dogmatic jackass. You get better advice around here from the combined likes of Woochifer, Geoffcin, E-Stat, Joe SP9, Mr. Peabody, Kexodusc, MikeAnderson, and plenty of others, :thumbsup:, than you will get from any dealer.

The audio shop that I have used for the last 10 years is owned and operated by the same person and he has literally dedicated his life to electronics and is not just in it for the money.His shop is very high end and I would consider myself one of his least financially well off customers.We have actually developed a friendship over the years and he doesn't need my money bad enough to have to steer me towards equipment he stocks or that is more expensive.He is a walking encyclopedia regarding audio equipment and believe me when I tell you he knows more about this stuff than even the most enthusiastic Audiophile.As with most of us including even you and woochifer I don't know all there is to know about audio so over the years when I wanted to learn something I would go to his shop and ask questions.He actually knows exactly why equipment works the way it does and could explain it to you in a way that would be so technically correct it would be hard to even debate.I have learned a great deal from him over the years and he was very integral in designing my system for me.The only mistake I made was not his suggestion but rather my own undoing.I bought the B&W 703's immediately after they were introduced and I should have simply spent more time listening to them.When he realized how desperately unhappy I was with them he suggested the Quad 22L's because he said that at $1600 they simply couldn't be beat and he took back my B&W's(of course I took a big loss)even though they were 3 years old and he doesn't even usually get involved with equipment exchanges of that nature.The Quads are everything he told me they would be and more as my system has finally become what I had hoped for before making the 703 blunder.I have been in his very high end sound room just for fun and even though I can't really afford anything in there I listen to the stuff and while some things in there truly do sound great I know when you spend 20K on a stereo it generally doesn't sound 4 times as good as a 6K system like mine.Point simply being that spending that kind of money could easily be considered over-kill or un-necessary to get good results and I'd be one of the people to agree with you.If you were to have this same discussion we've been having with my audio dealer he would politely tell you why the more expensive equipment sounds better(usually) and then back it up in a technically correct way that would be based on a professional opinion and years of audio experience at the high end level.He travels the country going to audio shows and audio conventions to stay abreast of every product that is available and stay cutting edge in todays audio world.He owns massive amounts of his own audio products for obvious reasons and is always the first to tell me when he tries something out and doesn't like it and he literally demos his own products at home to stay sharp regarding their strengths and weaknesses.The discussion I had with him about buying an SACD player was interesting as he didn't recommend I buy one from him because he is of the professional opinion that I would not be that impressed with a universal player compared to my Arcam.He considers SACD CDP's universal players as obviously they are also designed to play standard CD's too, as opposed to what you are referring to as universal which is DVD,SACD,CD all in one.I thought that was a non self-serving answer as I certainly would have considered buying a Marantz(he wouldn't even consider carrying the standard Sony line as I'm sorry Woochifer but he is of the opinion that it doesn't deserve his shelf space) from him if he had highly recommended it for my second system.If you read this thread from the begining you will notice that the only thing I told the person who was CDP shopping was to be aware of the compromise's made with an SACD player in regard to Redbook playback and I then congradgulated him on the purchase of his Marantz player saying it was a great choice for his needs and price point.That is when Woochifer jumped all over me telling me how great the $150 Sony SACD players are and how I had no business making general comments about SACD players not being great for Redbook playback as well as SACD as if I had told him that the Sony he owns was completely worthless.Only then did this thread become nasty as I'm simply not going to let someone tell me that an entry level SACD player is going to be as good for Redbook playback as an Arcam192T and I would have said this even if I didn't own the Arcam.This specific point is not just some opinion I loosely threw out there but rather a matter of common sense.Arcam makes excellent CDP's as that has always been one of their strengths as these players aren't even in the same league and frankly I'm still stunned this even became a debate in the first place.
I learned most of what I know about audio from more experienced audiophiles who believed that 2 channel audio is how music is originally recorded and thats how it should be played back.The goal being to play back the music in a way that makes it sound just the way it was recorded even if that isn't exactly the way you think it should sound including dealing with less than perfect recordings.Someone just asked what an audio purist even is and that is the best way I know how to explain it.I don't believe in equalizers,sound processors, or anything else that alters sound in an artificial way as that is not how the record producer(sound engineer,Sound mixer,etc.) originally intended to make the piece of music sound even if we don't think it's bright enough or has great imaging or wasn't mastered well when it was converted to digital format.Better pre-amps don't even have tone controls as the manufacturer leaves them out on purpose so you have to play the music at a flat setting and this allows them to avoid using an un-needed bunch of circuitry.This is another example of the less is more approach to sound.Of course this approach is not for everyone and that is not a problem for me.My approach is I would rather spend more money on better components or speakers than to buy lesser components and then have to start the process of tweaking the sound with other equipment to compensate for the equipments weaknesses.Again this is just my opinion Woochifer so try your best to leave this one alone.Improving room acoustics is always a great idea and the one variable that is almost as important as the quality of your system.Unfortunately it's not always practical in real use because not many of us married guys have rooms that are dedicated as a listening room so we have to put our system in the best place possible and other than moving the speakers around to improve imaging we have to deal with any acoustical issues the room inherently has.Debating room acoustics is pointless as virtually no 2 people will ever have the exact same listening area.You simply deal with your room acoustics the best you can.I don't think my wife would tolerate me putting sound absorbing material at the high point of the vaulted ceiling in our den.I'm sure you get my point.One thing I still never got a straight answer on is what type of set-up are we talking about when someone like Woochifer says you can get these amazing results without spending a fair amount of money.Let's just say that I presume you're starting point is this Sony $150 SACD player that is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread.In this inexpensive system I'd love to know what you're using to power the system,speaker choice,and of course some sound processing equipment as that seams to be what Woochifer keeps saying makes his stuff sound so good and why he doesn't have to spend a lot of money on his system.Please limit this to 2 channel audio as a reference because I have a hard time believing you can achieve this great sound with HT multi-channel cheaply while buying all the extra pieces multi-channel requires.Mention a reciever brand(not Amp and Pre-amp as that of course could get expensive),some speaker choices,and what this sound processing stuff costs.I know you guys don't believe in expensive cables so we can leave cables out of the mix.If you could do this for me and just ballpark what the final cost of this set-up would be at least I could figure out what we're comparing and determine just how much money is being saved this way to make an accurate appraisal of this approach to audio playback.Believe it or not I am officially done with this thread and I guarantee I won't take any jabs at your explanation.I just want to know exactly what you're talking about when you imply you have gotten magical results with inexpensive equipment.I feel there must be some folks out there that must have at least partially agreed with my audio approach or theories but as I didn't get much support I can only assume the audio portion of this site isn't for me as I actually believe I have made some very valid points.One of you mentioned that there's room for everyone here but this thread has been a huge disappointment to me and I will be reluctant to give my advice or share my opinions here going forward as I don't have that much in common with the members here.No offense implied by that as I just have such a completely different approach to audio that my opinions will only spark debates like this one going forward and none of us need the stress.I know the younger guys especially like stuff like multi-channel SACD's and I think they should enjoy them regardless of whether or not I think they are the right way to listen to music.I'm cool with being out on a ledge on this stuff and the lack of members who share my opinion on these audio issues is a logical way for me to conclude I'm out of place here.There are probably other Audio specific sites(or clubs) that would be better suited for me as I'm actually not a nasty guy until someone tells me I basically wasted my money on the system I put so much effort into building. .I am in the market for a plasma and have gotten some great input from the video guys which is of great help to me as Displays are something I know very little about.I'll focus on that and give the audio stuff a break as defending my system which is pretty good is not my idea of fun.I'm going to go listen to my overpriced system and Woochifer can continue to boor me with his ideas on cheap equipment and how good he is at making it sound better than it really is.Your comment Woochifer about borrowing the equipment from your dealer to demo it is not news worthy as of course most dealers will do that.I just wonder how they feel when you never actually buy any of the stuff you borrow.That must get old.You again showed that you do not pay attention to the posts you're reading.For the third time my XM tuner is connected to the same reciever as my $100 Sony CDP and the XM tuner sounds much better.Of course a satellite transmission shouldn't sound better than a hard wired CD player and the comparison can't get any more apples to apples than that if all you're doing is hitting the input selector switch for the 2 different sources.Give it up on the connection being bad theory as I actually have had more than one pair of interconnects connected to this player and it still sounds like the best buy special piece of junk that it is.Focus on the content of the posts even if they aren't being written in a way that you don't find easy to follow.A technical wizard like yourself should be able to follow along so my writing style is something you'll have to get over.You just can't help yourself with this Sony player can you as this must be the fourth time you've said I really need to switch back and forth between the Arcam 192T and the Sony garbage to do a fair A/B test.I would almost bet my life that you don't own any of those higher end SACD players that you mentioned because if they play both formats well they are very expensive and as you've said it's not necessary to buy expensive equipment.Your Sony is probably better than them anyway as it is as good as my $1600 Arcam.Again all talk, no substance.Since members here obviously never really get to hear each others system's we have to go on what equipment they own and their general audio knowledge to try and understand what level of enthusiast they are.Since you don't believe in high end(or even semi-high end) equipment nor do you own any I am convinced your reputation on this site as an extremely knowledgable audio source is directly relative to your ability to talk a good one.I'm not so easily impressed as the newbies though and desperately want to hear your description of what you would consider the peak of value for a system.I already know it wouldn't cost much but I'd still like to hear what you would recommend to someone if they asked you for advice(other than Sony as you're killing me with that player) on purchasing a really good system but like you didn't want to overspend.Please stop making yourself look so foolish as it's painful to listen to such utter nonsense from someone who obviously has everybody here thinking you are some sort of audio magician who doesn't have to part with his cash to get a good system.Pathetic.While we obviously don't agree on much Feanor I do apologize for addressing Woochifer's issues with me through your post but you guys are obviously very familiar with each other and on the same page on all or most of these issues so it's one less post to deal with as my run-on paragraphs are really tough on you guys..At this point I would ask the site moderator to throw me off of this site and put me out of my misery.Not sure who that is but I'm not kidding.

[Feanor]

Billy, I'm sure you're right that I'm making myself look foolish by pursuing this any further, however I'm just can help a few closing remarks.

First, if you're completely content with 2-channel, I earnestly recommend you stick with your Arcam. On the basis of probability, IMO ...

It sounds better than your Sony in either of yours systems;
It will sound better playing CDs than an inexpensive universal player;
You will hear no improvement playing 2-ch SACD on such a univeral player over CD on your Arcam;
An expensive SACD player will sound no better playing CDs than your Arcam;
The improvement from an expensive SACD player playing 2-ch SACD over your Arcam playing CD would be negligible.OK? Happy with that? These are my earnest guesses about the way I would hear it and, also, the way you would hear it. Nevertheless these things are conjecture. The point of principle from Woochifer, with which I fully agree, is that you cannot be sure unless you put them to the test, preferably a blind listening test. Die-hard audiophiles often say, "Trust your ears". In your case you haven't even put things to the ear test, rather you rely on the opinion of your dealer and other hearsay you choose to believe.

[shokhead]

The audio shop that I have used for the last 10 years is owned and operated by the same person and he has literally dedicated his life to electronics and is not just in it for the money.His shop is very high end and I would consider myself one of his least financially well off customers.We have actually developed a friendship over the years and he doesn't need my money bad enough to have to steer me towards equipment he stocks or that is more expensive.He is a walking encyclopedia regarding audio equipment and believe me when I tell you he knows more about this stuff than even the most enthusiastic Audiophile.As with most of us including even you and woochifer I don't know all there is to know about audio so over the years when I wanted to learn something I would go to his shop and ask questions.He actually knows exactly why equipment works the way it does and could explain it to you in a way that would be so technically correct it would be hard to even debate.I have learned a great deal from him over the years and he was very integral in designing my system for me.The only mistake I made was not his suggestion but rather my own undoing.I bought the B&W 703's immediately after they were introduced and I should have simply spent more time listening to them.When he realized how desperately unhappy I was with them he suggested the Quad 22L's because he said that at $1600 they simply couldn't be beat and he took back my B&W's(of course I took a big loss)even though they were 3 years old and he doesn't even usually get involved with equipment exchanges of that nature.The Quads are everything he told me they would be and more as my system has finally become what I had hoped for before making the 703 blunder.I have been in his very high end sound room just for fun and even though I can't really afford anything in there I listen to the stuff and while some things in there truly do sound great I know when you spend 20K on a stereo it generally doesn't sound 4 times as good as a 6K system like mine.Point simply being that spending that kind of money could easily be considered over-kill or un-necessary to get good results and I'd be one of the people to agree with you.If you were to have this same discussion we've been having with my audio dealer he would politely tell you why the more expensive equipment sounds better(usually) and then back it up in a technically correct way that would be based on a professional opinion and years of audio experience at the high end level.He travels the country going to audio shows and audio conventions to stay abreast of every product that is available and stay cutting edge in todays audio world.He owns massive amounts of his own audio products for obvious reasons and is always the first to tell me when he tries something out and doesn't like it and he literally demos his own products at home to stay sharp regarding their strengths and weaknesses.The discussion I had with him about buying an SACD player was interesting as he didn't recommend I buy one from him because he is of the professional opinion that I would not be that impressed with a universal player compared to my Arcam.He considers SACD CDP's universal players as obviously they are also designed to play standard CD's too, as opposed to what you are referring to as universal which is DVD,SACD,CD all in one.I thought that was a non self-serving answer as I certainly would have considered buying a Marantz(he wouldn't even consider carrying the standard Sony line as I'm sorry Woochifer but he is of the opinion that it doesn't deserve his shelf space) from him if he had highly recommended it for my second system.If you read this thread from the begining you will notice that the only thing I told the person who was CDP shopping was to be aware of the compromise's made with an SACD player in regard to Redbook playback and I then congradgulated him on the purchase of his Marantz player saying it was a great choice for his needs and price point.That is when Woochifer jumped all over me telling me how great the $150 Sony SACD players are and how I had no business making general comments about SACD players not being great for Redbook playback as well as SACD as if I had told him that the Sony he owns was completely worthless.Only then did this thread become nasty as I'm simply not going to let someone tell me that an entry level SACD player is going to be as good for Redbook playback as an Arcam192T and I would have said this even if I didn't own the Arcam.This specific point is not just some opinion I loosely threw out there but rather a matter of common sense.Arcam makes excellent CDP's as that has always been one of their strengths as these players aren't even in the same league and frankly I'm still stunned this even became a debate in the first place.
I learned most of what I know about audio from more experienced audiophiles who believed that 2 channel audio is how music is originally recorded and thats how it should be played back.The goal being to play back the music in a way that makes it sound just the way it was recorded even if that isn't exactly the way you think it should sound including dealing with less than perfect recordings.Someone just asked what an audio purist even is and that is the best way I know how to explain it.I don't believe in equalizers,sound processors, or anything else that alters sound in an artificial way as that is not how the record producer(sound engineer,Sound mixer,etc.) originally intended to make the piece of music sound even if we don't think it's bright enough or has great imaging or wasn't mastered well when it was converted to digital format.Better pre-amps don't even have tone controls as the manufacturer leaves them out on purpose so you have to play the music at a flat setting and this allows them to avoid using an un-needed bunch of circuitry.This is another example of the less is more approach to sound.Of course this approach is not for everyone and that is not a problem for me.My approach is I would rather spend more money on better components or speakers than to buy lesser components and then have to start the process of tweaking the sound with other equipment to compensate for the equipments weaknesses.Again this is just my opinion Woochifer so try your best to leave this one alone.Improving room acoustics is always a great idea and the one variable that is almost as important as the quality of your system.Unfortunately it's not always practical in real use because not many of us married guys have rooms that are dedicated as a listening room so we have to put our system in the best place possible and other than moving the speakers around to improve imaging we have to deal with any acoustical issues the room inherently has.Debating room acoustics is pointless as virtually no 2 people will ever have the exact same listening area.You simply deal with your room acoustics the best you can.I don't think my wife would tolerate me putting sound absorbing material at the high point of the vaulted ceiling in our den.I'm sure you get my point.One thing I still never got a straight answer on is what type of set-up are we talking about when someone like Woochifer says you can get these amazing results without spending a fair amount of money.Let's just say that I presume you're starting point is this Sony $150 SACD player that is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread.In this inexpensive system I'd love to know what you're using to power the system,speaker choice,and of course some sound processing equipment as that seams to be what Woochifer keeps saying makes his stuff sound so good and why he doesn't have to spend a lot of money on his system.Please limit this to 2 channel audio as a reference because I have a hard time believing you can achieve this great sound with HT multi-channel cheaply while buying all the extra pieces multi-channel requires.Mention a reciever brand(not Amp and Pre-amp as that of course could get expensive),some speaker choices,and what this sound processing stuff costs.I know you guys don't believe in expensive cables so we can leave cables out of the mix.If you could do this for me and just ballpark what the final cost of this set-up would be at least I could figure out what we're comparing and determine just how much money is being saved this way to make an accurate appraisal of this approach to audio playback.Believe it or not I am officially done with this thread and I guarantee I won't take any jabs at your explanation.I just want to know exactly what you're talking about when you imply you have gotten magical results with inexpensive equipment.I feel there must be some folks out there that must have at least partially agreed with my audio approach or theories but as I didn't get much support I can only assume the audio portion of this site isn't for me as I actually believe I have made some very valid points.One of you mentioned that there's room for everyone here but this thread has been a huge disappointment to me and I will be reluctant to give my advice or share my opinions here going forward as I don't have that much in common with the members here.No offense implied by that as I just have such a completely different approach to audio that my opinions will only spark debates like this one going forward and none of us need the stress.I know the younger guys especially like stuff like multi-channel SACD's and I think they should enjoy them regardless of whether or not I think they are the right way to listen to music.I'm cool with being out on a ledge on this stuff and the lack of members who share my opinion on these audio issues is a logical way for me to conclude I'm out of place here.There are probably other Audio specific sites(or clubs) that would be better suited for me as I'm actually not a nasty guy until someone tells me I basically wasted my money on the system I put so much effort into building. .I am in the market for a plasma and have gotten some great input from the video guys which is of great help to me as Displays are something I know very little about.I'll focus on that and give the audio stuff a break as defending my system which is pretty good is not my idea of fun.I'm going to go listen to my overpriced system and Woochifer can continue to boor me with his ideas on cheap equipment and how good he is at making it sound better than it really is.Your comment Woochifer about borrowing the equipment from your dealer to demo it is not news worthy as of course most dealers will do that.I just wonder how they feel when you never actually buy any of the stuff you borrow.That must get old.You again showed that you do not pay attention to the posts you're reading.For the third time my XM tuner is connected to the same reciever as my $100 Sony CDP and the XM tuner sounds much better.Of course a satellite transmission shouldn't sound better than a hard wired CD player and the comparison can't get any more apples to apples than that if all you're doing is hitting the input selector switch for the 2 different sources.Give it up on the connection being bad theory as I actually have had more than one pair of interconnects connected to this player and it still sounds like the best buy special piece of junk that it is.Focus on the content of the posts even if they aren't being written in a way that you don't find easy to follow.A technical wizard like yourself should be able to follow along so my writing style is something you'll have to get over.You just can't help yourself with this Sony player can you as this must be the fourth time you've said I really need to switch back and forth between the Arcam 192T and the Sony garbage to do a fair A/B test.I would almost bet my life that you don't own any of those higher end SACD players that you mentioned because if they play both formats well they are very expensive and as you've said it's not necessary to buy expensive equipment.Your Sony is probably better than them anyway as it is as good as my $1600 Arcam.Again all talk, no substance.Since members here obviously never really get to hear each others system's we have to go on what equipment they own and their general audio knowledge to try and understand what level of enthusiast they are.Since you don't believe in high end(or even semi-high end) equipment nor do you own any I am convinced your reputation on this site as an extremely knowledgable audio source is directly relative to your ability to talk a good one.I'm not so easily impressed as the newbies though and desperately want to hear your description of what you would consider the peak of value for a system.I already know it wouldn't cost much but I'd still like to hear what you would recommend to someone if they asked you for advice(other than Sony as you're killing me with that player) on purchasing a really good system but like you didn't want to overspend.Please stop making yourself look so foolish as it's painful to listen to such utter nonsense from someone who obviously has everybody here thinking you are some sort of audio magician who doesn't have to part with his cash to get a good system.Pathetic.While we obviously don't agree on much Feanor I do apologize for addressing Woochifer's issues with me through your post but you guys are obviously very familiar with each other and on the same page on all or most of these issues so it's one less post to deal with as my run-on paragraphs are really tough on you guys..At this point I would ask the site moderator to throw me off of this site and put me out of my misery.Not sure who that is but I'm not kidding.


Dont get a sacd player. We are laying. Do just what the owner says and from your posts you will be a happy man.{or maybe not} BTW,how did you choose all the equipment that you now have?

[BillyB]

Billy, I'm sure you're right that I'm making myself look foolish by pursuing this any further, however I'm just can help a few closing remarks.

First, if you're completely content with 2-channel, I earnestly recommend you stick with your Arcam. On the basis of probability, IMO ...

It sounds better than your Sony in either of yours systems;
It will sound better playing CDs than an inexpensive universal player;
You will hear no improvement playing 2-ch SACD on such a univeral player over CD on your Arcam;
An expensive SACD player will sound no better playing CDs than your Arcam;
The improvement from an expensive SACD player playing 2-ch SACD over your Arcam playing CD would be negligible.OK? Happy with that? These are my earnest guesses about the way I would hear it and, also, the way you would hear it. Nevertheless these things are conjecture. The point of principle from Woochifer, with which I fully agree, is that you cannot be sure unless you put them to the test, preferably a blind listening test. Die-hard audiophiles often say, "Trust your ears". In your case you haven't even put things to the ear test, rather you rely on the opinion of your dealer and other hearsay you choose to believe.

Said I was done but you have asked me to try out my $100 Sony 5 disk carousel player in place of my Arcam 192T so I can make an educated decision about how they compare.I will actually do that because it will only take me about 10 minutes to make the switch.I must remind you that as I have stated about 5 times my Sony(that I hate) is a non-SACD unit and not the SACD unit you guys keep raving about.That was my whole point about being able to say I don't like a piece of equipment that I own without being jumped on.I never specifically said the Sony SACD unit was terrible only that it shouldn't hold a candle to my Arcam for Redbook playback.You also have to already know where this is heading.If after this experiment I still say that I don't like the Sony Woochifer is going to jump all over me saying it's not apples to apples and I have to try out his Sony SACD unit because that is the one that rocks.I may never buy one so unfortunately we'll be right back where we started.I'm still on the fence on the SACD purchase because I have a massive collection of Redbook CD's and have heard very conflicting information about the Format becoming mainstream enough to justify the outlay on the player as I wouldn't buy a cheap one.If I did get one I would probably buy a Marantz from my previously mentioned dealer as he has never steered me wrong before.Multichannel SACD's don't appeal to me as I have heard them on decent HT systems and the sound is just too busy for me.I hope I'm entitled to that opinion.I'll try that A/B CDP test today and obviously I will use the same CD and make it one that I play all the time so I'm extra familiar with how it normally sounds on my Arcam.I will tell you this though.If after giving it a lengthy try I decide the Arcam is far superior I am going to be all over you two about it as you both have hammered me about the attributes of entry level Sony CDP's and you'll have it coming as I will no longer want to hear any more nonsense about giving the Sony a fair shot..My years of being in this hobby have taught me that people with inexpensive entry level equipment will go to amazing lengths to convince themselves and anybody willing to listen that their system sounds as good as much more expensive systems because there so experienced they know how to perform magic with audio.It's human nature as the alternative would be to admit they have a limited audio budget or worse yet are too tight to buy more expensive equipment.Neither of these 2 scenarios are things people like to admit.Of course those of us with higher end systems are guilty of doing the same thing but at least we can stake the claim that we were willing to part with our hard earned cash to achieve the desired result.If I'm pleasantly surprised by the Sony I will also admit it as that would only be fair.My dealers opinion is one I highly respect because when I'm unsure about a piece(our ears are the most important judge but audio purchases are still very subjective and nerve wracking especially when you buy expensive equipment) I know I can trust him to steer me in an unbiased way towards good stuff as his business is a gold mine and he really doesn't need my business that bad..Sorry I posted after saying I wouldn't but you asked me to try something and I'm confirming that I will.The only post after this will be my results and that will be it as I'm finding this whole debate to be excruciating at this point.You'll have to trust me when I reply as I am very honest about addressing the quality of my own equipment.I had no problem admitting I made a big mistake on the expensive B&W's but at least I worked on correcting it.If I didn't have a critical ear would I have traded in 3K speakers at a significant loss to achieve a sound I could be happy with.I'm now going out to my garage(literally)to disconnect my Sony CDP from my Sherwood reciever and plug it into my Rotel pre-amp.I know if my Rotel could talk it would be screaming at me to please stop and re-connect the Arcam as I never thought I'd live to see this day.Here goes nothing.

[anamorphic96]

Do you plan on using a blind fold in this test ?

[BillyB]

Do you plan on using a blind fold in this test ?

No, I might trip when going to change the CD from one player to the other.

[BillyB]

Well I spent 2 hours this afternoon listening to the Sony and my Arcam 192T using CD's that I know like the back of my hand.The Arcam was superior to the Sony in every way possible as I had my wife switch the input switch without telling me which player was being used.I was able to guess which player was on everytime and I couldn't figure out a fairer way to test the 2 players.I know Woochifer would tell me if I knew what player I put the CD in I would automatically tell myself the Arcam was better if I knew it was playing.They couldn't have sounded any more different as the upsampling Arcam 192T made short work of the Sony especially when playing back less than perfect recordings.The Sony actually made my whole system sound horrible as the Quads I have grown to love really didn't mate well at all with the Sony as they are very refined speakers that are very sensitive to equipment changes.The sound was harsh and listener fatigue set in very quick with the Sony as the louder I played it the more painful it became.I like my music loud so when I don't like what I'm hearing it only becomes worse at the volume I enjoy my music at.This test was actually kind of rewarding as it erased any doubts this thread may have put in my head about my Arcam being worth it's expensive price tag.At $1600 is it 16 times better than the $100 Sony.I would say not but it was so much smoother in my system that I am depressed I have to re-install the Sony back into my secondary system as I'm now sure that my Sherwood reciever would definitely sound better if I ditched the Sony.I may give it to my son and buy a different player for my garage system as I get to play that system more than my good system as it doesn't annoy the family as much out there.Systems are all about properly matched components which is why I thought this suggestion was so absurd in the first place.Your CD player and your speakers are even more important than what's providing the power so why would this cheap player sound good when mated to an otherwise very solid system.It became the weak link and while you guys will certainly still feel the need to debate this the Sony I own is junk.I guess the next thing Woochifer will suggest is that my Sony CDP might be defective just like my interconnects were defective or improperly hooked up causing this fine player to not sound as good as it should.I'd like to think by now you guys have figured out I actually know what I'm doing so I'm not going to blast away at you with I told you so's.Pick on a Newbie Woochifer as that would make for a debate you could come out of looking like this audio guru you make yourself out to be with all your technical talk about many years of experience making crummy equipment sound mint with sound processing equipment.That's it guys so blast away as I'm not some rookie who is overwhelmed by techno-babble and I can take being the only guy in this thread defending higher end equipment and the results it can bring if you're willing to take a chance here and there with equipment purchases.I'm confident my system would hold it's own with any system in the 5K range and definitely out-perform cheaper systems regardless of who's tweaking them or what they're tweaking them with. It's been a good day.

[musicman1999]

Well that was entertaining,just stop those long paragraphs,hard to read.
Billyb
In my system I have your Arcams little brother the cd73t and I also have a Sony cd player(SACD actually,but a cheap older one).I have compared the 2 players extensively and of course the Arcam is better in every way when compared to the Sony playing back cds that is.SACD is of course a different story as that format will better the cd format.SACD's,like cds are not all created equal,some sound great some do not,depends on how well they are recorded.If you love classical music,SACD is the way to go,lots of new releases.

bill

[anamorphic96]

Since your wife was switching the sources why not use the blind fold and eliminate all bias.

No disrespect intended but without the blind fold, the test is questionable. Not trying to start a big fight. Why didn't you use one.:)

[Carl Reid]

Since your wife was switching the sources why not use the blind fold and eliminate all bias.

No disrespect intended but without the blind fold, the test is questionable. Not trying to start a big fight. Why didn't you use one.:)

I think he was joking about the whole blindfold thing... since he talked about tripping over the CD player... I'm sure he at least closed his eyes or wasn't looking at which CD player was playing...

[Feanor]

Well I spent 2 hours this afternoon listening to the Sony and my Arcam 192T using CD's that I know like the back of my hand.The Arcam was superior to the Sony in every way possible as I had my wife switch the input switch without telling me which player was being used.I was able to guess which player was on everytime and I couldn't figure out a fairer way to test the 2 players.I know Woochifer would tell me if I knew what player I put the CD in I would automatically tell myself the Arcam was better if I knew it was playing.They couldn't have sounded any more different as the upsampling Arcam 192T made short work of the Sony especially when playing back less than perfect recordings.
...
Your CD player and your speakers are even more important than what's providing the power so why would this cheap player sound good when mated to an otherwise very solid system.
...
Pick on a Newbie Woochifer as that would make for a debate you could come out of looking like this audio guru you make yourself out to be with all your technical talk about many years of experience making crummy equipment sound mint with sound processing equipment
...
and I can take being the only guy in this thread defending higher end equipment and the results it can bring if you're willing to take a chance here and there with equipment purchases.
... It's been a good day.

And although the results don't surprised either your or me, the principle remains that blind testing is the only objective way to judge the relative merits of equipment. (Nor will I quibble over your testing method; I'll assume there was not way for your wife to inadvertantly indicate which unit was playing, and that you had no clues such as different mechnical sounds that might have suggest one or the other.)

It remains invalid, however, to extrapolate you Sony vs. Arcam findings to all inexpensive vs. higher-cost equipment. Squander $150 on an Oppo; squander $25 on a good, DSD-mastered SACD recording, (I could name a few if you like classical music), and conduct a test like the above. 2-ch SACD on the Oppo versus CD on the Arcam; might as well do the CD on the Oppo too. You might be surprised.

Personally I have found amplifiers typically have a greater impact on the overall sound than digital sources, though I will concede this isn't always the case. You apparently do have a good ear, (given you can reliably tell the difference between CD plays), so I recommend looking at amplifiers upgrades next. To be honest, I think this will yield more result than going 2-ch SACD. Of course, for a worthwile amp upgrade your are definitely talking equipment more expensive than the Rotel. I'm sure you find that reassuring -- oh yeah, there a plenty of people around here who believe more expensive produces better sound most of the time.

With apology, since you are still have trouble with paragraph breaks, I have edit in a few in my quote, above. :D

[BillyB]

Well that was entertaining,just stop those long paragraphs,hard to read.
Billyb
In my system I have your Arcams little brother the cd73t and I also have a Sony cd player(SACD actually,but a cheap older one).I have compared the 2 players extensively and of course the Arcam is better in every way when compared to the Sony playing back cds that is.SACD is of course a different story as that format will better the cd format.SACD's,like cds are not all created equal,some sound great some do not,depends on how well they are recorded.If you love classical music,SACD is the way to go,lots of new releases.

bill

You're right about the paragraphs as when I reread the thread for reference purposes I find I have to re-read my own posts to catch everything.You're the first guy that mentioned this in a polite way instead of telling me I have bad grammar.I'm no dummy. I just have that bad habit of writing style as I don't have the patience to figure out where the subject has changed enough to warrant a new paragraph and I type slow enough to begin with..Enjoy your Arcam and yes after all this I will still consider an SACD player as I love researching,buying, and using audio equipment as it's the only true hobby I have.I'm self-employed and work insane hours.It would go in my second system though as I'm out of shelf space in my main system and it's certainly not replacing my Arcam in that system.Classical music is the one type of music that I truly don't listen to as I've heard just what you said about the selection issues based on music style.My stance in this thread was really never about SACD's not being any good, but rather Redbook CD's sounding better on conventional high quality CD players.The thread didn't become evil until Woochifer jumped on me and that is why I'm giving it back to him with both barrels.Take care.

[BillyB]

And although the results don't surprised either your or me, the principle remains that blind testing is the only objective way to judge the relative merits of equipment. (Nor will I quibble over your testing method; I'll assume there was not way for your wife to inadvertantly indicate which unit was playing, and that you had no clues such as different mechnical sounds that might have suggest one or the other.)

It remains invalid, however, to extrapolate you Sony vs. Arcam findings to all inexpensive vs. higher-cost equipment. Squander $150 on an Oppo; squander $25 on a good, DSD-mastered SACD recording, (I could name a few if you like classical music), and conduct a test like the above. 2-ch SACD on the Oppo versus CD on the Arcam; might as well do the CD on the Oppo too. You might be surprised.

Personally I have found amplifiers typically have a greater impact on the overall sound than digital sources, though I will concede this isn't always the case. You apparently do have a good ear, (given you can reliably tell the difference between CD plays), so I recommend looking at amplifiers upgrades next. To be honest, I think this will yield more result than going 2-ch SACD. Of course, for a worthwile amp upgrade your are definitely talking equipment more expensive than the Rotel. I'm sure you find that reassuring -- oh yeah, there a plenty of people around here who believe more expensive produces better sound most of the time.

With apology, since you are still have trouble with paragraph breaks, I have edit in a few in my quote, above. :D

I guess my writing style is really throwing you off.Please re-read this thread.My reciever is in my second system which is literally in my garage.I bought the Sherwood reciever knowing it would be adequate for a garage and backyard stereo source.I don't like recievers in principle as they dedicate an entire function to a tuner that I'll never use(unless it's an XM tuner)which I consider a waste of circuitry..My main system as I have made clear has reached a point where I love it.Why in Gods name would I mess with success and play with replacing my amp.Rotel makes good amps and my RB-980BX happens to have a reputation for being a sweet piece.It's 14 years old and still is in demand in the used audio market.Amps are probably the slowest changing technology in audio products so being outdated is not a problem.They can last indefinitely and shouldn't be replaced unless a major upgrade is in order.My system already cost me about 6K and now you're flip-flopping and telling me I need to consider a more expensive amp.Doesn't that contradict the you can do more with less money theme you and Woochifer have been drilling into me.I'm not familiar with Oppo products but if you're telling me they make a good player(SACD) for that price I'm intrigued.I figured if I went this route I would end up with Marantz and end up spending at least $300 which may not be necessary.You already made your point once about my writing style. I have no problem with you taking shots at my audio opinions as I can more than hold my own in that dept.Going forward I'll work on breaking up the subject changes into separate paragraphs.In the mean time just pay closer attention to what I"m saying..Read my posts very slowly and you might even learn something from me if you focus more on the content not the grammar style.

[shokhead]

Well I spent 2 hours this afternoon listening to the Sony and my Arcam 192T using CD's that I know like the back of my hand.The Arcam was superior to the Sony in every way possible as I had my wife switch the input switch without telling me which player was being used.I was able to guess which player was on everytime and I couldn't figure out a fairer way to test the 2 players.I know Woochifer would tell me if I knew what player I put the CD in I would automatically tell myself the Arcam was better if I knew it was playing.They couldn't have sounded any more different as the upsampling Arcam 192T made short work of the Sony especially when playing back less than perfect recordings.The Sony actually made my whole system sound horrible as the Quads I have grown to love really didn't mate well at all with the Sony as they are very refined speakers that are very sensitive to equipment changes.The sound was harsh and listener fatigue set in very quick with the Sony as the louder I played it the more painful it became.I like my music loud so when I don't like what I'm hearing it only becomes worse at the volume I enjoy my music at.This test was actually kind of rewarding as it erased any doubts this thread may have put in my head about my Arcam being worth it's expensive price tag.At $1600 is it 16 times better than the $100 Sony.I would say not but it was so much smoother in my system that I am depressed I have to re-install the Sony back into my secondary system as I'm now sure that my Sherwood reciever would definitely sound better if I ditched the Sony.I may give it to my son and buy a different player for my garage system as I get to play that system more than my good system as it doesn't annoy the family as much out there.Systems are all about properly matched components which is why I thought this suggestion was so absurd in the first place.Your CD player and your speakers are even more important than what's providing the power so why would this cheap player sound good when mated to an otherwise very solid system.It became the weak link and while you guys will certainly still feel the need to debate this the Sony I own is junk.I guess the next thing Woochifer will suggest is that my Sony CDP might be defective just like my interconnects were defective or improperly hooked up causing this fine player to not sound as good as it should.I'd like to think by now you guys have figured out I actually know what I'm doing so I'm not going to blast away at you with I told you so's.Pick on a Newbie Woochifer as that would make for a debate you could come out of looking like this audio guru you make yourself out to be with all your technical talk about many years of experience making crummy equipment sound mint with sound processing equipment.That's it guys so blast away as I'm not some rookie who is overwhelmed by techno-babble and I can take being the only guy in this thread defending higher end equipment and the results it can bring if you're willing to take a chance here and there with equipment purchases.I'm confident my system would hold it's own with any system in the 5K range and definitely out-perform cheaper systems regardless of who's tweaking them or what they're tweaking them with. It's been a good day.


Hope you were not using the dig connection.

[Rock789]

...First, if you're completely content with 2-channel, I earnestly recommend you stick with your Arcam. On the basis of probability, IMO ...

...
You will hear no improvement playing 2-ch SACD on such a univeral player over CD on your Arcam;
An expensive SACD player will sound no better playing CDs than your Arcam;
The improvement from an expensive SACD player playing 2-ch SACD over your Arcam playing CD would be negligible....
a ~$500 sacd player "should" provide a noticable improvement when playing an sacd when compared to a cd in a "good" cd player... ("good" cd player being ones I have auditoned around and less than $1000)
at least this is from my experience.

Well I spent 2 hours this afternoon listening to the Sony and my Arcam 192T using CD's that I know like the back of my hand.
did you have fun or was it more of a nuisance?
although the results I get from doing such tests don't always come out the way I had planned, I ususally always have a good time... just sometimes kick myself for spending a lot of money on something...lol

[Rock789]

wever, to extrapolate you Sony vs. Arcam findings to all inexpensive vs. higher-cost equipment. Squander $150 on an Oppo; squander $25 on a good, DSD-mastered SACD recording, (I could name a few if you like classical music), and conduct a test like the above. 2-ch SACD on the Oppo versus CD on the Arcam; might as well do the CD on the Oppo too. You might be surprised.


I was looking at the new oppo upconverting to 1080p dvd player and did see it plays sacd...
how does this actually sound?
I would guess it is a large step below my marantz, but I have not found and reviews regarding sacd playback, only found reviews for dvd upconversion...
thanks,
Mike

[BillyB]

a ~$500 sacd player "should" provide a noticable improvement when playing an sacd when compared to a cd in a "good" cd player... ("good" cd player being ones I have auditoned around and less than $1000)
at least this is from my experience.

did you have fun or was it more of a nuisance?
although the results I get from doing such tests don't always come out the way I had planned, I ususally always have a good time... just sometimes kick myself for spending a lot of money on something...lol

It actually was more like work.Listening to music of course is supposed to be enjoyable.When the audition stuff starts you really have to focus on the quality of the piece instead of the music that you love.I was very thorough when I did it as I wanted to be sure my reply to this challenge was fair and accurate.The enjoyable part was at the end when I realised how much better my Arcam was.No kicking myself in this particular situation.The Arcam192T is a $1600 upsampling player with the key word being upsampling player.It uses 4 wolfson 7840 DAC's and the upsampling theory is mainly based on it's ability to tone down the older harsh CD recordings while also improving overall sound.I listen to mostly older Progressive rock and those masters can be pretty brutal.That is what I based my decision to buy the 192T on as contrary to what these guys are trying to imply I don't believe in wasting my money on overpriced audio components.Arcam is not just charging you for nothing based on their name alone.There is some serious hardware inside that chasis.You really can't get a reputable upsampling player in the under $1000 range you mentioned.Of course if you don't believe in the theories behind upsampling that is a different story.Lets leave the upsampling debate for a different day as I don't have the energy to get involved with whether or not upsampling players are actually better.I can already see that one coming.

[shokhead]

So it makes badly mastered cds sound better?

[BillyB]

So it makes badly mastered cds sound better?

Compared to lesser players definitely.

[BillyB]

Just wanted to let you know Feanor on a less combative note I bought that $150 OPPO 970HD universal DVD player today.I had to buy it sight unseen as it is direct purchase only.I will a new DVD player for the plasma I'm buying and after checking into this unit it became a no-brainer

The professional reviews on this player for DVD playback are astounding at it's price point.It's feature laden with upconversion using HDMI with supplied HDMI cable and plays virtually every DVD format you can think of.Very slim and nice looking unit as the model above this one recieved one of the highest ratings ever recieved for DVD playback at only $50 more.

I picked this one because even though it's $50 less than the next model it has more format compatibility.It will play HDCD's as well as SACD's(even sounded like it could play multi-channel SACD's but I'm not positive on that one)They allow you to turn off the video functions on this unit to create a disrete audio circuit which is a very nice feature.Audio playback apparantly is better than one would expect considering it's strength is DVD playback.

I will be using it primarily for DVD formats but I'll get to try SACD's now without buying another player.This player was a perfect fit for me right now and I want to thank you for mentioning it to me.I've never bought a digital product without trying it out but at this price if it's half as good as they say it is it will be a great purchase.Believe it or not I do like a bargain when I can find one I think is for real.Some very real sources think this product might be the best value in electronics on the market right now.US company that's made in China.Nothing unusual about that.

Anyway just wanted to let others know you can buy this unit directly from OPPO's website for $150 plus about $13 shipping.I bought it from Amazon for the same price with free shipping.They don't currently have it in stock but I'm in no rush for it and have had great luck with Amazon's service.They seem to always get things to me earlier than their projected lead time.

[bobsticks]

Hey Billy B,

Thanks for the hook-up. Never thought about going to Oppo directly.

I've been thinking about one for a secondary system. I'll be interested to read your impressions.

[Feanor]

Just wanted to let you know Feanor on a less combative note I bought that $150 OPPO 970HD universal DVD player today.I had to buy it sight unseen as it is direct purchase only.I will a new DVD player for the plasma I'm buying and after checking into this unit it became a no-brainer.
...

This is a shrewd move given that you ought to get good use of it out of it as a DVD player at least. But by all means try it as both a CD and SACD player. For my part, I'm pretty sure that you will prefer your Arcam over the Oppo. However it might be pretty close with the Oppo playing 2-ch SACD vs. the Arcaom playing CD

To reiterate an earlier suggestion for the SACD comparison, choose a recent, DSD-recorded and mastered production, or maybe a DSD-remaster from analog tape.. Certainly avoid non-DSC, digitally recorded and/or mastered recordings -- some PCM-masters are very good, but why muddy the waters?

[Woochifer]

Well I spent 2 hours this afternoon listening to the Sony and my Arcam 192T using CD's that I know like the back of my hand.The Arcam was superior to the Sony in every way possible as I had my wife switch the input switch without telling me which player was being used.I was able to guess which player was on everytime and I couldn't figure out a fairer way to test the 2 players.I know Woochifer would tell me if I knew what player I put the CD in I would automatically tell myself the Arcam was better if I knew it was playing.

Congratulations, you're actually learning something (even if you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the process). If you'd actually indicated that you were willing to try a more valid test for yourself rather than persist in lashing out at people's systems, you might have actually managed to keep the tone of the discussion at a more civil level. My contention was never about your conclusions that the Arcam was "better" than your Sony, it was your method of arriving at that conclusion without having ever directly compared them. Now you have, and you have your answer. So long as you investigate your contentions for yourself, I don't take issue with the conclusions.


Your CD player and your speakers are even more important than what's providing the power so why would this cheap player sound good when mated to an otherwise very solid system.It became the weak link and while you guys will certainly still feel the need to debate this the Sony I own is junk.I guess the next thing Woochifer will suggest is that my Sony CDP might be defective just like my interconnects were defective or improperly hooked up causing this fine player to not sound as good as it should.I'd like to think by now you guys have figured out I actually know what I'm doing so I'm not going to blast away at you with I told you so's.

Why would you feel this need to prove that you "actually know what [you're] doing" when you were simply doing the comparison that others had suggested that you do all along? The fact that you were making all of these assertions without actually doing a valid comparison indicates to me that you in fact DID NOT know what you were doing when you made these assertions. Now that you've actually done the comparison, you know more than you did before.


Pick on a Newbie Woochifer as that would make for a debate you could come out of looking like this audio guru you make yourself out to be with all your technical talk about many years of experience making crummy equipment sound mint with sound processing equipment.That's it guys so blast away as I'm not some rookie who is overwhelmed by techno-babble and I can take being the only guy in this thread defending higher end equipment and the results it can bring if you're willing to take a chance here and there with equipment purchases.I'm confident my system would hold it's own with any system in the 5K range and definitely out-perform cheaper systems regardless of who's tweaking them or what they're tweaking them with. It's been a good day.

Let's not get too ahead of ourselves here. As Feanor already pointed out, you did a valid test on two components that you own, and how far you can generalize this to include all other entry level components is quite limited. Plus, you still haven't answered for a lot of other highly questionable assertions and generalizations on your posts in this thread (e.g., your points about that XM tuner and the magnitude of differences between turntables being no different than with CD players). Just because you successfully performed one listening test that we can agree on does not suddenly make all of your claims the final authority.


My stance in this thread was really never about SACD's not being any good, but rather Redbook CD's sounding better on conventional high quality CD players.The thread didn't become evil until Woochifer jumped on me and that is why I'm giving it back to him with both barrels.Take care.

Whatever. If you check the thread, all that I did was simply ask you some questions about how you arrived at your conclusions, and for whatever reason that's when all of your defensive whining and accusations started.

If you think that doing a listening test between your CD players is "giving it back to [me] with both barrels" that's a rather cute description since you were doing what I (and others) had suggested that you do in the first place! :6: And even there, that listening test says absolutely nothing about how a SACD player would perform with CDs.

Oh, and keep in mind that stating an opinion about audio and asking someone to provide clarification/substantiation for questionable statements is not "evil." It's not like this "evil" thread is stealing from you or doing bodily harm to members of your family.


Just wanted to let you know Feanor on a less combative note I bought that $150 OPPO 970HD universal DVD player today.I had to buy it sight unseen as it is direct purchase only.I will a new DVD player for the plasma I'm buying and after checking into this unit it became a no-brainer

Friend of mine has that Oppo 971. Very solid DVD player all the way around, although with the 970, the SACD performance might not measure up to other units because I believe that player transcodes the DSD stream into PCM before the audio signal gets output (i.e., the SACD is not decoded in its native format). Even so, you'll still benefit from any improvements to the quality of the transfer/mastering with individual SACD titles. Plus, you have the option of playing DVD-A (several Yes titles are available, and at least a couple from ELP) on that player.

[BillyB]

Congratulations, you're actually learning something (even if you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the process). If you'd actually indicated that you were willing to try a more valid test for yourself rather than persist in lashing out at people's systems, you might have actually managed to keep the tone of the discussion at a more civil level. My contention was never about your conclusions that the Arcam was "better" than your Sony, it was your method of arriving at that conclusion without having ever directly compared them. Now you have, and you have your answer. So long as you investigate your contentions for yourself, I don't take issue with the conclusions.



Why would you feel this need to prove that you "actually know what [you're] doing" when you were simply doing the comparison that others had suggested that you do all along? The fact that you were making all of these assertions without actually doing a valid comparison indicates to me that you in fact DID NOT know what you were doing when you made these assertions. Now that you've actually done the comparison, you know more than you did before.



Let's not get too ahead of ourselves here. As Feanor already pointed out, you did a valid test on two components that you own, and how far you can generalize this to include all other entry level components is quite limited. Plus, you still haven't answered for a lot of other highly questionable assertions and generalizations on your posts in this thread (e.g., your points about that XM tuner and the magnitude of differences between turntables being no different than with CD players). Just because you successfully performed one listening test that we can agree on does not suddenly make all of your claims the final authority.



Whatever. If you check the thread, all that I did was simply ask you some questions about how you arrived at your conclusions, and for whatever reason that's when all of your defensive whining and accusations started.

If you think that doing a listening test between your CD players is "giving it back to [me] with both barrels" that's a rather cute description since you were doing what I (and others) had suggested that you do in the first place! :6: And even there, that listening test says absolutely nothing about how a SACD player would perform with CDs.

Oh, and keep in mind that stating an opinion about audio and asking someone to provide clarification/substantiation for questionable statements is not "evil." It's not like this "evil" thread is stealing from you or doing bodily harm to members of your family.



Friend of mine has that Oppo 971. Very solid DVD player all the way around, although with the 970, the SACD performance might not measure up to other units because I believe that player transcodes the DSD stream into PCM before the audio signal gets output (i.e., the SACD is not decoded in its native format). Even so, you'll still benefit from any improvements to the quality of the transfer/mastering with individual SACD titles. Plus, you have the option of playing DVD-A (several Yes titles are available, and at least a couple from ELP) on that player.

I did get the impression when researching this unit there was some sort of compromise regarding the SACD playback.Just wasn't sure what it was since I'm not up to speed on the SACD format in a technical way.It seemed like an awfully reasonable way to get the feet wet in that dept.

My biggest problem is it was work getting the plasma purchase past my better half so I'll have to wait a while before I can connect it to a good A/V set-up to give the Oppo a fair chance in the audio dept.My upstairs HT is real bare bones as the Denon reciever is OK but I have HT in a box infinity speakers that are the weak spot.Not the right system to give SACD(especially multi-channel) a fair shot.

The plasma is going in a playroom in a finished basement that has much better acoustics for home theatre.When I put this set-up together I really want to nail it as the Panasonic 50" plasma will be just the start of the HT goal.I want to get a real good A/V reciever and complement it with some real good speakers as opposed to the speakers in a box set-up I bought for upstairs.

Not sure if I understood your explanation about the SACD playback on the Oppo unit.Do you know if it plays back multi-channel SACD's properly or was your point simply that it doesn't or at least not properly.I did pay close attention to it's features and specs but they didn't seem to specifically distinguish this feature.

I think we can safely say this thread is back in a place where it is productive for all of us..As far as me learning something I can only say that no-one is above learning things in this hobby.As soon as any of us think we know all there is to know that is when we ourselves become unable to learn anything going forward.You have something to offer to other members here just as I can certainly can be of help to others epecially regarding straight-up 2 channel audio.I did learn things about SACD regardless of whether or not It ever becomes something I get heavily involved with.I will have a more open mind regarding this format going forward. I'd like to think you also realise that 2 channel audio purists like myself also have something worthy to offer here.It's not even about spending 5 to 10K either as it's more about a more traditional approach to music playback. I am open to learning as I hope you are as well regardless of your reputation here as being more knowledgable that most of the other members.No-one knows it all.I'm an experienced home remodeler with 20 years experience and there are still days when I stumble upon a better way to do something that I thought I already had nailed down.You told me to try the Sony in the same system as the Arcam and I did and formed an educated opinion.I don't know what you mean by saying there are still variables I didn't consider.The rest of the system stayed the exact same and was played in the same room with the same acoustics.Don't want to spar anymore just not sure what else I could have done to make the test any more straight up.I can't imagine the point of me telling myself my system is better than it is just to impress you guys.Point being some humility is required to keep the learning process alive and that applies to us all.

[BillyB]

Hey Billy B,

Thanks for the hook-up. Never thought about going to Oppo directly.

I've been thinking about one for a secondary system. I'll be interested to read your impressions.

Looks like a very nice player for the money.It also has a card reader built into it which is just gravy.As best I could find out you simply can't buy this unit in the stores so you either feel it's worth taking a chance on or not.According to Amazon I may not have this thing for at least a month, but as I said they've told me this many times before on other items and usually pleasantly surprise me with a quicker delivery date.If you want it quicker I thought oppo's shipping rates were very reasonable.You have the same exact situation as me.I have a the Sony upconversion DVD player(unsure what model off hand but it retails for $125)connected to my Sony wega and it's not bad.I just wanted something totally different for the plasma.Absolutely on the posting impressions once I get to use it.Interesting note on this unit is that some reviewers were saying that the $1000 blue-ray which delivers true 1080P didn't always out-perform this unit for picture quality.I found that very interesting.Take care.

[Rock789]

I may have to take a look at some "up converting" cd players as I have not done so yet...

let us know how you like the oppo!
I may be getting the 1080p version here soon ;o)

depends whether I go for a 1080p monitor...

[Woochifer]

Not sure if I understood your explanation about the SACD playback on the Oppo unit.Do you know if it plays back multi-channel SACD's properly or was your point simply that it doesn't or at least not properly.I did pay close attention to it's features and specs but they didn't seem to specifically distinguish this feature.

I believe that Oppo uses Cirrus Logic DACs in their player, which I know can only process PCM signals (the digital format used by CD and DVD-A). Without a separate DSD decoder on board or a combo DAC that can natively process both DSD (the digital format used by SACD) and PCM signals like the Burr-Brown 1791, the SACD's DSD bitstream gets converted into PCM before the audio decoding. Some have argued that you don't get the full potential of SACD if it's converted first, while others have said that it doesn't make a big difference because the signal still gets decoded using very high resolution.

Either way, the Oppo has gotten some good reviews for its SACD playback, and you have the added benefit of being able to play DVD-A discs, which use as high a resolution as SACD and tend to have a larger library of pop and rock albums. The supposed advantage of SACD is that it uses a 1-bit datastream, and that better approximates an analog waveform -- hence, the common contention that it sounds more like good analog playback than a digital format. But, whether the disc is SACD or DVD-A, both are a huge step up in resolution over the CD format (with both formats capable of transcribing a digital master tape bit-for-bit with no downsampling or dithering, depending on if it was originally recorded in PCM or DSD), and provide new avenues to revisit old recordings that might have had poorly done CD transfers the first and even second time around.


I am open to learning as I hope you are as well regardless of your reputation here as being more knowledgable that most of the other members.No-one knows it all.I'm an experienced home remodeler with 20 years experience and there are still days when I stumble upon a better way to do something that I thought I already had nailed down.You told me to try the Sony in the same system as the Arcam and I did and formed an educated opinion.I don't know what you mean by saying there are still variables I didn't consider.The rest of the system stayed the exact same and was played in the same room with the same acoustics.Don't want to spar anymore just not sure what else I could have done to make the test any more straight up.I can't imagine the point of me telling myself my system is better than it is just to impress you guys.Point being some humility is required to keep the learning process alive and that applies to us all.

I'm always learning, and much of what I've already learned resulted from getting taken to the wood shed by some of the other members on this board. If I had nothing to answer for, I had no choice but to defer or find the answers for myself. It's through that process of seeking out answers that I wound up up with greater knowledge AND greater listening enjoyment in the end. Without a lot of help from others on this board, for example I would have given up on trying to use a subwoofer with my system a long time ago. With their input, I now can't imagine my system without one. You sought your own answer to a question, and now you have it. Nothing wrong with knowing more about what you own, especially if it confirms the wisdom of your purchase for yourself.

The only other control that I would add to how you conducted your comparison listening is a simple level matching with a SPL meter -- make sure that both components are evaluated at the same levels. Generally, people will gravitate to the louder component in a listening test, and the analog line levels for audio components can audibly vary.

[Dusty Chalk]

Hey, woochifer, which players use the Burr-Brown 1791?

[bobsticks]

Hey, woochifer, which players use the Burr-Brown 1791?


http:/www.unitedhomeproducts.com/id73htm

[Woochifer]

Hey, woochifer, which players use the Burr-Brown 1791?

I believe that most of Sony's SACD players except their top of the line models now use the Burr Browns (their top-of-the-line models and some other flagship universal players still use dedicated Sony DSD chips with a completely separate decoding section to handle PCM). It's also used on all of Denon's universal players, and on the universal players from Toshiba and Pioneer (although I read that Toshiba and Pioneer's newer entry level universal players no longer use the Burr-Brown combo DACs and have gone back to transcoding the SACD DSD signals to PCM). Arcam used that DAC on their CD72 (which has been replaced by the CD73, which uses a Wolfson DAC), and Burr-Browns have been used on several other high end CD players, but I'm not sure about the model numbers.

That combo DAC is also used on several midlevel and flagship receivers. I suspect that these chips might grow in popularity as more multichannel (and even two-channel) components start using HDMI connections and get around the copy protection restrictions built into the DVD-A and SACD formats. HDMI will allow high end external DACs to be used with DVD-A and SACD.

[Rock789]

OPPO SACD Review (http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=2327)

[Dusty Chalk]

http:/www.unitedhomeproducts.com/id73htmI get "Page Not Found".

[Rock789]

me too

[Dusty Chalk]

Okay, so doing a little bit of research, the following universals use that chip:

Pioneer 563
Denon DVD-2200
2910

...can't seem to find what chip the Oppos use. And while looking around for that, discovered this thing called the Helios H4000...argh! I'm going to start my own thread...

[shokhead]

The Yamaha C950 might use BB.

[Woochifer]

Okay, so doing a little bit of research, the following universals use that chip:

Pioneer 563
Denon DVD-2200
2910

...can't seem to find what chip the Oppos use. And while looking around for that, discovered this thing called the Helios H4000...argh! I'm going to start my own thread...

The Oppos use Cirrus Logic chips which are 192/24 PCM-based DACs. As far as I can tell, they don't have native support for DSD. The Burr-Brown is also a 192/24 PCM DAC, but it can natively decode the 1-bit DSD signal on the same chip.

[Dusty Chalk]

The Burr-Brown is also a 192/24 PCM DAC, but it can natively decode the 1-bit DSD signal on the same chip.Which is exactly what I'm looking for. My entry level Sony player (SCD-CE775) decodes natively, and I think I prefer that sound, so I'm going to use that criteria to pare down my choices. (See other thread.)

[Feanor]

Which is exactly what I'm looking for. My entry level Sony player (SCD-CE775) decodes natively, and I think I prefer that sound, so I'm going to use that criteria to pare down my choices. (See other thread.)

If so, good to know. :)

Dusty, I too have the SCD-CE775. Have you had any mods do on yours? I considered it but was too cheap to spring the cost.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, mine is factory. And on SACD, I am quite pleased with the sound.

[bobsticks]

Sorry fellas, that was supposed to be a link to the Denon 5910.