Do you REALLY want to move to SACD?

[Snarkridden]

Before you spend your money on up(?)grading to SACD, check out out these pages...

http://www.iar-80.com/page17.html

I've removed the Niels Lofgren (Acoustic LIVE) from share and replaced it with a conventional CD rip at 320k, SACD was CRAP!)

Snark..

[nanook]

okay, snark.
i started reading that article and i don't really understand all of that.
u say it sucked...why? in lament terms.
what did all those demonstrations reveal.....what flaws?
if there are flaws, will they abort?
what do u think, since u understand and have used the SACD?
(besides that they suck)

[Snarkridden]

Hello Nanook,

I'm glad you read the articles, they are rather heavy yes indeed, but I re-draw your attention to the section that allows you to recognise the sound differences by suggesting mouth movements typical in producing these difficult to produce sounds.

Hence the title, SACD can turn the sweet tinitinabulation of the skylark, into the raucus cacophony of a flock of crows..

I other words it removed the finest detail of sounds and replaces it with slushy, muddy squelch.. No ?

Well its difficult to describe, try rubbing your thumb & forefinger
together close to your ear, on a dry day, then wash your hands
and try it again, before they are completely dry, if you have good ears, you will hear the difference. Similar difference exist on fine delicate high frequency sounds between CD and SACD because of the limitations of the sampling.


If you ears are not that good, then chances are you will be wasting your money on even considering SACD, fortunately I only borrowed the gear from a reviewer, as part of the "Bust it and tell me about it" tests for the magazine review.

I agree totally with the report of extra clarity in the sub 8000Hz
region, but like the reviewer, the unwanted artifacts were disturbing to me, and all too familiar in the world of BAD MP3 rips.

Snark..

[Mazer]

There's definitly some good information in that article. Up until now I didn't know exactly what it was. After reading through a few pages I've decided that I'll buy DVD Audio rather than SACD. But they guy who wrote that article is terrible. He took eight paragraphs to compare sound to a winding mountain road, repeating the same sentence over and over. It drove me crazy. Oh well, I failed english lots of times, I can't hold it against them if they know what they're talking about.

It seems to me that SACD does for digital what vacuum tubes do for analog, but with some differences. Both tend to improve low and mid frequency sound without improving high frequencies. They both perform an averaging function on the sound, but while tubes average sounds across frequency SACD averages sounds across time (well that's how I understand it, maybe I'm wrong). Averaging frequency tends not to alter the overall pitch of a high frequency, but averaging samples over time does reduce the pitch of short, transient sounds. Like the author says, SACD makes the 'tinggg' of a triangle sound like a 'dinggg.' Without actually hearing the different mediums I'd say this is the best reason not to go with SACD.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by Snarkridden
fortunately I only borrowed the gear from a reviewer, as part of the "Bust it and tell me about it" tests for the magazine review.

moonlighting again snarkster? don't be coy, let's hear about some more cool gear. dish!

- js.