Should I buy an SACD player?

[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.

[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?? 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.

[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. 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?!

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?? 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.

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, , 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, , 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 ?