|
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
|
|
|
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
|
In Reply to: Re: The Clear Superiority of SACD in the Digital Class posted by Bertie_Livingston on August 14, 2006 at 15:20:35:
'If you believe this you are probably not comparing apples to apples'.But thats just it Bertie, I'm not comparing apples to apples. The sound quality is so noticable that one doesn't have to sit and strain ones ears or worry about this or that cable. In fact if you brought over your expensive CD player and best possible cables to my house and I had my $1,600 SACD player on budget cables I'd bet the SACD would still sound much superior. Its like watching a 480i picture from a player built to a very high standard but without progressive scan capability - say the Denon DVD5000. Then looking at 480p from a budget Sony. Sadly that one minor technological difference renders the beautifully built Denon DVD5000 obsolete. But then, an even more appropriate comparison would be to 1080i because SACD is very noticably better at delivering an accurate rendition of the original performance. So you see apples to apples comparison is just not necessary.
The same thing can be said of 96/24 DVD-audio or HDCD for that matter, where Redbook CD is just not able to deliver the same level of performance to either of these PCM based formats. No matter how much one manipulates the base technology - better power supplies, caps, wiring, isolation etc. - the higher resolution SACD technology is inherently superior from the outset for the simple reason that it can read and rationalize digital information at the far higher sampling rate of 2,822,400 samples per second. CD frequency response extends to 20KHz whereas DSD theoretically goes as high as 100MHz. CD has a dynamic range of 96DB or thereabouts however DSD recording can acheive 120db across the entire audible range.
The problem of sofware availability is true, but then this misses the point. It doesn't change the fact that SACD is a superior technology. I think people who refuse to accept this are deluding themselves. Perhaps its because a budget SACD player for $1,600 can eclipse an $6000 CD player in performance without any fussing about. Yes the the CD player may use the very best components and yes it may sound less edgy and more agreeable to some tastes but it won't sound as REAL.
As far as the big picture goes, I have been building and tweaking my audio system for more that 25 years. I've owned and listened to some very fine components, and I've heard many different types of systems. I also read industry periodicals and peruse forums quite regularly. With all due respect, I think I do see the big picture - all too well...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: The Clear Superiority of SACD in the Digital Class - O'Shag 16:57:34 08/14/06 (5)
- Re: The Clear Superiority of SACD in the Digital Class - Bertie_Livingston 01:05:11 08/15/06 (0)
- Technically wrong on dynamic range - vettracer 17:29:44 08/14/06 (3)
- Wrong - Ted Smith 18:34:47 08/14/06 (1)
- OK, I stand corrected - vettracer 20:48:51 08/14/06 (0)
- Re: Technically wrong on dynamic range - O'Shag 18:02:45 08/14/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
