Why haven't audiophiles enthusiastically endorsed the SACD?

[emaidel]

For my needs the Benchmark DAC1 is worth its weight in gold, while the Marantz is not even worth the $900 asking price...

My comment that, when using the Marantz SA-8001 as a transport with the Benchmark DAC, the folks at Stereophile were unable to hear a difference between that setup and the 8001 alone was meant as an indication of the value of the 8001 - not a disparagement of the Benchmark unit.

Regardless of the other, peripheral uses of the Benchmark, the combination of it, and any CD player is going to be much, much more expensive than the 8001 (or the 8003) on its own. The fact that the 8001 plays SACD's is a major point of my initial thread, and the Benchmark unit is of no use whatsoever for that purpose. That you feel the Marantz "is not even worth the $900 asking price" is a bit arrogant on your part, don't you think?. It received a "Class-A Recommendation" from Stereophile, and is a mere fraction of the price tag of most components to receive such an accolade. Its CD performance is outstanding, and its SACD performance is even better.

I find the whole "experience" of playing LP's, just as Feanor does, a pain in the a$$. SACD's were NOT designed soley for the sake of convenience over LP's, but as a superior sound source. Apparently, you disagree, but I'll more readily accept the beliefs of established, experienced, and award-winning engineers over your, or anyone else's opinion. Sorry 'bout that.

[Ajani]

My comment that, when using the Marantz SA-8001 as a transport with the Benchmark DAC, the folks at Stereophile were unable to hear a difference between that setup and the 8001 alone was meant as an indication of the value of the 8001 - not a disparagement of the Benchmark unit.



Regardless of the other, peripheral uses of the Benchmark, the combination of it, and any CD player is going to be much, much more expensive than the 8001 (or the 8003) on its own.

As I said: "Depending on your particular system needs, one or the other would be a much better value for you."

For YOU and other SACD lovers, the Marantz is a much better value than the Benchmark... but for ME and other non-SACD/CD users, the Benchmark is a much better value...

The reason I did a feature comparison was to point out that the Benchmark is not really a $1K DAC, if you remove the headphone amp and preamp outputs then it would likely be cheaper than the Marantz.... So it's not quite as big a deal that the Marantz sounds as good as the Benchmark... The Class A rating of both products is a big deal however... and IF I had wanted to buy an SACD/CD player, I would have bought the Marantz without a second thought...

The fact that the 8001 plays SACD's is a major point of my initial thread, and the Benchmark unit is of no use whatsoever for that purpose. That you feel the Marantz "is not even worth the $900 asking price" is a bit arrogant on your part, don't you think?. It received a "Class-A Recommendation" from Stereophile, and is a mere fraction of the price tag of most components to receive such an accolade. Its CD performance is outstanding, and its SACD performance is even better.

NO, it is not even remotely arrogant. It is a fact... I don't listen to CDs or SACDs so the Marantz is of NO use to me... Just as a $10K, Class A Rated Turntable is of no use to me, since I don't play or own any Vinyl...

I find the whole "experience" of playing LP's, just as Feanor does, a pain in the a$$. SACD's were NOT designed soley for the sake of convenience over LP's, but as a superior sound source. Apparently, you disagree, but I'll more readily accept the beliefs of established, experienced, and award-winning engineers over your, or anyone else's opinion. Sorry 'bout that.

I don't disagree... I have no opinion on whether SACD sounds better than Vinyl or vice versa, since I listen to neither... I merely pointed out the reason Vinyl lovers will not switch...

Also, it's fine that you agree with the opinion of award winning engineers... but you also quote Stereophile as a source for the quality of the Marantz... Keep in mind how many writers in Stereophile LOVE Vinyl and refuse to let go of it... these guys have heard and reviewed SACD products... so why didn't they all convert? Clearly they either: A) Didn't agree with you and your favorite engineers about the superiority of SACD or B) Still preferred Vinyl for other reasons...

I am not disputing your claim that SACD is superior to Vinyl... I'm just pointing out reasons why Vinyl Lovers won't convert...

[elapsed]

I find the whole "experience" of playing LP's, just as Feanor does, a pain in the a$$. SACD's were NOT designed soley for the sake of convenience over LP's, but as a superior sound source. Apparently, you disagree, but I'll more readily accept the beliefs of established, experienced, and award-winning engineers over your, or anyone else's opinion. Sorry 'bout that.

Or better yet, trust your ears and listen for yourself. My turntable more than holds its own against my CD player (which cost 4x the price), and both blow away my SACD player which at $400 is no slouch. I'm not willing to pay $3,500 for an SACD player that can match my present system, with such a limited catalog of SACD titles available.

You can argue all you like that SACD is superior on paper, but my ears disagree while listening to my own system

cheers,
elapsed

[emaidel]

Well, I asked a question, and got answers - and attitude. Strange thing about those of us who post threads on audio-based websites: everyone has his own opinion, and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. All too often one issue creeps in and is ignored, and that's the price of the equipment in question.

In elapsed's instance, he's got a $3,000 CD player that outperforms his $400 SACD player. Duh! Of course it does, and it surely better. That's not a reason to claim that SACD's aren't even as good as CD's, but merely a comparison of two hugely disparate (pricewise, at least) items.

BR uses a van Alstine DAC that sells for a "mere" $1,700. Adding that to a decent trasnport brings the price of the CD player to well over $2,000 - a huge increase over the price of either the Marantz SA-8001 or 8003. I'm sure the combination sounds wonderful, but it still doesn't play SACD's.

Ajani (from what I can ascertain) listens to digital downloads through headphones. Period. How can elements such as image and soundstaging as well as thunderous bass response that one feels rather than hears even enter such a picture? I have never enjoyed listening through headphones, as the music comes from both the back of, and the center of my head, which is a decidedly un-lifelike experience.

In my unceasing praise for the 8001/8003 Marantz units, I don't ever state that they're the best players in the entire universe, but rather, two of the best values for equipment ever since this industry began.

I know vinyl advocates will never accept anything other than vinyl as their preferred source. Still, there are many here who disagree with such a stance, but still categorically reject the SACD as a "better" medium, and do so by comparing apples and prunes: the only really fair comparison is to compare equipment of commensurate prices, not CD players costing five times as much as their SACD players.

Not too well concealed is a somewhat contemptuous disregard for the opinions and statements from those "in the know:" the recording engineers who make the recordings we listen to.

Well, it's been fun and I guess at this point it's best that I, and my adversaries, simply agree to disagree.

[audio amateur]

Well, I asked a question, and got answers - and attitude. Strange thing about those of us who post threads on audio-based websites: everyone has his own opinion, and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. All too often one issue creeps in and is ignored, and that's the price of the equipment in question.

...

Well, it's been fun and I guess at this point it's best that I, and my adversaries, simply agree to disagree.

I think you're being a little harsh on everyone. Everyone, (including you) will defend his/her equipment naturally.
I don't think elapsed Ajani etc have tried to be negative, IMO they've pointed out very valid points.

When Elapsed claims the sound is better on his Naim CDP than his 400 buck SACDP, you'd think maybe (if SACD is such a better format) the sound quality would compare? obviously that is quite a huge price gap so perhaps not.
I don't believe anyone is saying that SACD is not technically better than CD (and perhaps even vinyl, if you exclude vinyl freaks).
Vinyl is an experience in itself, and most people are so drawn up in the process that they're willing to give up a little SQ (crackle & pop, S/N ratio etc) for the experience. And, after all, vinyl is ANALOGUE (not trying to do a pixie here ). No sampling here is there? So in this respect, you could argue it will always be superior to digital media.
If SACD was more common (more titles available) and a little cheaper, my guess is it would be more popular. Only it was born in a relatively bad time, and has never really evolved beyond classical releases.
Okay, I think that's all I have to say. Good day everyone

Oh, and don't get too wound up about this. After all, it's the music that counts

[Ajani]

Well, I asked a question, and got answers - and attitude. Strange thing about those of us who post threads on audio-based websites: everyone has his own opinion, and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. All too often one issue creeps in and is ignored, and that's the price of the equipment in question.

In elapsed's instance, he's got a $3,000 CD player that outperforms his $400 SACD player. Duh! Of course it does, and it surely better. That's not a reason to claim that SACD's aren't even as good as CD's, but merely a comparison of two hugely disparate (pricewise, at least) items.

BR uses a van Alstine DAC that sells for a "mere" $1,700. Adding that to a decent trasnport brings the price of the CD player to well over $2,000 - a huge increase over the price of either the Marantz SA-8001 or 8003. I'm sure the combination sounds wonderful, but it still doesn't play SACD's.

Ajani (from what I can ascertain) listens to digital downloads through headphones. Period. How can elements such as image and soundstaging as well as thunderous bass response that one feels rather than hears even enter such a picture? I have never enjoyed listening through headphones, as the music comes from both the back of, and the center of my head, which is a decidedly un-lifelike experience.

In my unceasing praise for the 8001/8003 Marantz units, I don't ever state that they're the best players in the entire universe, but rather, two of the best values for equipment ever since this industry began.

I know vinyl advocates will never accept anything other than vinyl as their preferred source. Still, there are many here who disagree with such a stance, but still categorically reject the SACD as a "better" medium, and do so by comparing apples and prunes: the only really fair comparison is to compare equipment of commensurate prices, not CD players costing five times as much as their SACD players.

Not too well concealed is a somewhat contemptuous disregard for the opinions and statements from those "in the know:" the recording engineers who make the recordings we listen to.

Well, it's been fun and I guess at this point it's best that I, and my adversaries, simply agree to disagree.

Don't take forum posts to heart... Keep in mind that you can't always really tell the emotion/attitude being given (or not given) in writing...

As for headphones:

1) I don't listen to digital downloads (well not many anyway)... 99% of my music is ripped from my original CDs in Apple Lossless format...

2) I don't like feeling thunderous bass rattling the windows and the furniture (apart from explosions in a movie) since I find that it just distracts from the music in a most unappealing way... It's why I'd never buy a Bookshelf/Sub combo...

3) Soundstage is the only real issue with headphones for me... and even that is a trade off... I can hear detail with a $500 pair of headphones that a $5K pair of Towers can't match....

4) Soundstage is more of an issue depending on the type of music you listen to... only a small percentage of my music is recorded live or recorded with a single mic to give a realistic soundstage... So for the majority of my music collection, the soundstage of headphones is not an issue...

5) What you could take from these debates (please don't feel that we are attacking you... I've read and enjoyed way too many of your threads to want to attack you over having a different perspective).... is that while the Marantz is an EXCELLENT SACD/CD player and SACD is likely a superior format to both CD and Vinyl, not everyone has the same musical goals as you.... Simulating the live experience seems to be your ultimate goal, but it's not everyone's... and even if their goal is the live experience, SACD is most relevant to Classical Musical lovers so it may still not be the right choice for them...

[elapsed]

Well, I asked a question, and got answers - and attitude. Strange thing about those of us who post threads on audio-based websites: everyone has his own opinion, and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. All too often one issue creeps in and is ignored, and that's the price of the equipment in question.

In elapsed's instance, he's got a $3,000 CD player that outperforms his $400 SACD player. Duh! Of course it does, and it surely better. That's not a reason to claim that SACD's aren't even as good as CD's, but merely a comparison of two hugely disparate (pricewise, at least) items.

Hi emaidel, I apologize if you felt I was coming across with attitude, my point was that many advocates of SACD state that higher resolution equates higher sound quality, when this is anything but the case. As a consumer I would have expected to hear more detail in an SACD experience, but this was simply not the case when comparing against a capable CD player.

Also I think as audiophiles we've become wary of being told every few years that so-and-so is markably better than what we currently have, when this is very far from the truth. The point I was making is that SACD is not markably better than CD or vinyl, and for an audiophile who has already invested considerable money into his or her system, they would need to spend signficant money to match their present CD player or turntable in order to hear an improvement.

No attitude, I promise. Music is to be enjoyed on any medium you prefer, I only give my opinion on a topic that you posted

cheers,
elapsed

[Feanor]

Hi emaidel, I apologize if you felt I was coming across with attitude, my point was that many advocates of SACD state that higher resolution equates higher sound quality, when this is anything but the case. As a consumer I would have expected to hear more detail in an SACD experience, but this was simply not the case when comparing against a capable CD player.
...
cheers,
elapsed

elapsed, I don't think your remarks have been haughty or dismissive; you have argued reasonably although certainly from a different point of view than emaidel.

It so happens that I agree that SACD is not significantly better than CD based on what I've heard with my own ears. (This applies to stereo, not multi-channel, obviously). emaidel believes that SACD is better and he is not alone in this opinion. The difference might the equipment we are using, but I think many have come to the same opinion as you and me and it has quite probably affected SACD sales.

[emaidel]

I have posted often that I am a lover of classical music. I'm not a foe of popular stuff, and have hundreds of both LP's and CD's of it, but it's the classics that I listen to most often, and that, as others have pointed out, is where I believe SACD's shine. On any of the hybrid discs I own, whenever I make a comparison to the CD and SACD layers of the discs, the SACD layer always sounds better, but doesn't necesssarily blow away the CD layer.

I find myself at a loss to find the proper words to describe the difference. While "liquid" and "velvety timbral acoustics" may sound oh so marvelous, those aren't the words that come to mind. "Lush," "Robust," and "lifelike" are those that do, and, again as has been pointed out, as I'm seeking the best representation of a live performance, this aspect of SACD's impresses the snot out of me. I sing in several choirs, and have performed concerts with those choirs and large orchestras, so I know what "live" music sounds like, and if anything in my system makes it sound more like that, then all the better.

The future may, as some have pointed out, totally eliminate both CD's and SACD's, and to me, that's unfortunate. Still, I can't change momentum, no matter how fervently I may feel about a particular medium, or piece of equipment.

Here's an interesting thought: when this whole business started in the late 50's, "Hi-Fi" systems (all monaural) were purchased all but exclusively by hobbyists. And the music played on them? Almost 100% classical. Then, as stereophonic sound came about, it was still classical music that was the primary source of demonstration material. In the Lafayette store in NY in which I first was promoted to the position of audio salesman, it was all but forbidden for me to play rock music. EVER.

Then, as rock, and lovers of it, exploded, so too did the audio marketplace. The 70's was the heyday of the industry, with stereo shops on every street corner. Then, as the market became somewhat saturated, and people owned systems that seemed to last forever (perhaps manufacturers should have built less reliable products!), sales tapered off.

"New" media came about, and the public snapped it up. The CD was all but an overnight sensation, but after many years of market dominance, began to lose favor in the eyes and ears of audiophiles.

The SACD, as has been pointed out by myself and others, had to battle it out with DVD-A. While it does sound better than "ordinary" CD's, it's not "night and day" better, and many were turned off by that aspect. Quite probably too, if one's system wasn't of a sufficiently high calibre to begin with, the difference was likely unnoticeable.

Now, its digital downloads (or whatever other term is used - this is hardly my area of expertise), and SACD's don't allow for being ripped, or whatever other term is appropriate. So, the mass market looks elsewhere.

But fans of classical music (those who supported this industry for over 50 years), like myself, love the medium. Hopefully, SACD's will stick around (much like vinyl has) to a "niche" market: specifically, those of us who love the classics and want our audio systems to sound as close as possible to a live performace. We don't number in the hundreds of millions, but perhaps there's enough of us to keep the medium going. At least for a few more years, I hope!

Lastly, I've got three more BIS SACD's on their way to me, all of which are highly rated recordings by the Minnesota Orchestra, under the baton of Otmo Vanska, conducting a numer of different Beethoven symphonies. I've already posted how his version of the 9th is the definitive version, both musically and sonically, so I have great expectations for these three new discs. I'll review them all here on AR for anyone who'se interested.