Should I buy an SACD player?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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! 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.

[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

[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]

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?