View Single Post
Old 05-18-2008   #36
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Posted by fitzcaraldo215:


Well, I am sorry that you have had so many problems with SACD. I am positively delighted by it. There may have been many equipment choice and recording choice issues that could account for your negative experience. I have only been a multichannel SACD guy for 6 months, and my experience was instantly and overwhelmingly positive and has remained so with many different recordings on different labels.

I understand that there may be some 600 watt behemoths that do not sound all that terrific. Maybe there is a 14 watt SET somewhere that sounds really great too, but I have not heard it. I have quite a few audiophile friends who have been enamored with SET's, and every time I have heard then demo one that they thought sounded terrific, I have had to shrug my shoulders in non-enthusiasm. The noise, distortion and lack of dynamic range are always too obvious for me to overlook even through the best of efficient horns.

Certainly, there is a romance in vinyl, SET's, etc. I go back about 50 years as an audiophile and I have pretty much gone through it all. It's kind of like seeing a black/white photograph or movie. The performances can be utterly unmatchable for and can sound deeply affecting, nostalgic, etc., but to my ears give me hi-rez multichannel any day for closeness to the sound and musical experience of the original.

This will be my last post in the cable forum on the analog/SACD/digital debate...promise.

Well, I guess the 10+ years I spent in high end retail taught me nothing.

Fitzcaraldo215 reminds me alot of the consumers I dealt with as basically their minds are made up before they walk in the door. I had so many people come in with snappy quotes from days gone past about old technologies being surpassed by new ones with no thought really of how the fidelity is affected and how it came to be. Does SACD and future digital have the ability to surpass good analog? Well sure it does...not yet. Just like all of the older technologies fitzcaraldo215 had mentioned like analog lines...mikes...etc...etc...etc...sure, these new technologies had surpassed the old ones OVER TIME. SACD?... not yet. Maybe Blu Ray will?? I don't know but what I've heard so far...they have a lot of work to do.

We used to do experiments in the store when someone would persist that the latest and greatest modern technologies were better. We'd sit them down with certain recordings in CD, SACD/DVD-A stereo or multichannel and the same repressings done on vinyl whether classical or whatever genre the customer wanted. I would have to say that close to 8/10 times they chose the vinyl every time. Why is that? Are they wrong? That, to me anyway, says quite a bit. No, they didn't run out and spend $8000 on a new analog rig, they just acknowledged that fact that the fidelity was better and more lifelike. I could barely believe it myself until I started spending more time with it. And like I said in one of my previous posts, some of those multichannel systems approached and were well over $200,000.

The only "problem" I have with SACD is that it was not as good as I thought it was going to be. I thought..."we're finally here" but to no avail. Now that the classical labels are leaning towards Blu Ray, SACD should go the way of the dodo where it belongs. Now that it is a corporate toy for the classical labels to exploit in the advent of Blu Ray audio recordings, there is no need to support SACD in any way, shape or form.

I'm not too sure what you are hearing on those mutltichannel recordings that 8/10 missed in the store. But then again, when someone has themselves convinced that something is better, they will find a way to make it so...even if it isn't. But again, different ears for different folks...that's what makes this hobby wacky...

Maybe look a little deeper and just maybe, the resurgance of vinyl and tube products is about SOUND...and FIDELITY. Not so much about nostalgia. And remember, one could spend $3000 on a decent analog rig today that would have cost $8000 15 years ago. I went back to tubes because they provided me with greater fidelity. I went back to analog for the same reasons. And I had a damn decent SACD setup. I still listen to CD/SACD in stereo only but again, vinyl puts me in that hall. Doesn't it stand to think that maybe some of these people are doing it for the same reasons? Taking the nostalgia route is a cop-out I think. Maybe your vinyl rig was never as good in comparision to what you spent on digital? Hard to say but your quote on redbook really said it all to me on your approach to fidelity...

"It was a toss up between redbook and analog" Wow...I mean, WOW. What exactly are you hearing that the rest of us aren't? I recently did a demo for a guy comparing the AC/DC digipack remasters and the new vinyl reissues on 180g audiophile press. Bear in mind that these "redbook" cd's are top-quality remasters with current studio technology. He was so dumbfounded at how much better the vinyl sounded I believe he was actually ****ed off. What does that say about the 26 years of "redbook" advancement?

I really am happy that you have found solace with the SACD bandwagon but MANY North American manufacturers have dismissed it as a marketing ploy and have acknowledged the fact that the fidelity isn't where it should be. Even the ones that produce VERY expensive SACD'd be shocked really but they understand how money is made and can still be made off of dead formats. And SACD is dead in the advent of BLU-RAY.

Back to cables:

But, you have somehow convinced yourself that $200 "bettercables" are the good fit for your $50,000 stereo setup. I just don't know what else to say.

'Nuff said.
nedrudrelyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links