Quote:
It has come to my attention that BIS Records, an SACD label, has been recording in high-bit PCM, not DSD, since 2005. They were simply transcoding to SACD for the consumer disc release. This means that any rave review of a BIS recording since '05 was in effect, a rave for high-bit PCM. Was Kal one of those ravers ?

Yup but, then again, I never said that I thought it sonically superior to high resolution PCM and I have repeated that experience with the HD codecs and MPCM on BlueRay. I always considered the various HD options pretty much equivalent and translatable. Where SACD shone was in convenience and in repertoire.

Quote:
BIS now joins Sony, Naxos, DG and Telarc in dumping SACD.

Not so. They continue release SACDs from hi-res PCM sources. (BTW, I am not saying that the SACD business is healthy but, if you think this is a final nail in its coffin, I do not agree.)

Quote:
Things look pretty dark on SACD's sound as well. Anyone familiar with top-flight CD playback (CD ONLY playback, not hybrid machines) will put CD ahead of SACD on sound quality. They might not jump out and say it...but it's true. Meridian's 808.2 CD player is just one of a new wave of players doing it......

Nonesense. First, it ain't so and, second, CD needs to grow a few more channels.

This is a big SO WHAT!?!

Kal (who still wonders at all the ill will expressed about SACD)

Well, you can't hardly say that the future of CDs is exactly too rosy, either! Seems like the current trend among critics & listeners alike is that the music from the server sounds better/more palpable than the music read off discs... With the physical media gradually being phased out of shops, the online downloads are the thing, and I find this a bit sad. Let's at least hope that the hi-rez download grows at an exponential rate, not just among the marginal audiophile crowd.

That said, people said records were dead. And they were for a good while, it seemed, but look how quickly things have turned. Who knows what will happen to CDs and SACDs? I think what the labels need to do is realize that the physical media are indeed for the last of the Mohicans, but they should really CULTIVATE their products toward this crowd. Good packaging and program notes, solid artwork, etc., make those of us who believe in the physical media feel catered to.

One case in point are those Esoteric SACDs, Curzon's Mozart, etc. You may say they're fetish objects. Duh, really? There's fetishistic element to collecting records & CDs? You don't say.

Quote:
And let's not kid ourselves - SACD is not more convenient !!

It is more convenient for playing compared to DVD-A and other video-based systems.

Quote:
It can't be ripped to hard-disk or memory

True but you can rip the RedBook tracks and, apparently, that would be OK for you.

Quote:
- nor is there anything in the way of selection for pop/rock/r&b.

Not a convenience issue. OTOH, I do agree that more offerings in these mass market genres might have made a great difference. But I do wonder if that was the result of poor decision-making or a rational analysis of the market potential. Nonetheless, I must say that, in my own self-interest, I am sorry that these were not offered more widely but I would not have bought them anyway.

Quote:
Finally, sound. Apparently, you haven't spent time with the Meridian 808.2. JA struggled to hear a difference between it and (true) Hi-Rez audio. Trust me, it beats SACD head-to-head - I've already tried it. Sam Tellig has similar views on CD vs. SACD...

Again, nonsense. I have been enjoying the real improvements that the Meridian apodizing filters bring to CD reproduction (thanks to the HD621) but it still does not get to SACD or other high-rez levels nor, as I reiterate, provide the multichannel experience. (Sam's comments are ignored for the time being.)

Kal

Quote:
One case in point are those Esoteric SACDs, Curzon's Mozart, etc. You may say they're fetish objects. Duh, really? There's fetishistic element to collecting records & CDs? You don't say.

It worries me to hear the youth of today speak of fetishism in this way. Surely $60.00 SACD's are the fetishes of old old gray haired audiophiles?

RG

Quote:
A purist would not be happy ripping the Red Book layer of SACD to hard-disk. Another force that will kill the format.

Really? While some philosophical purists say so, others are finding that hard disk and SSD media are more than equal for RedBook storage and playback. In addition, they are capable of higher bitrates and buffering to assure synchronous data clocking.

Quote:
On sound quality, you're making somewhat of a fool of yourself - although I do respect your opinion. Fewer and fewer reviewers are saying that "SACD sounds better" (than CD) these days. You can ignore Sam's comments all you want, but other writers are saying the same thing. Or at least claim that folks "might hear it either way" - like Roy Gregory in one of his Hi-Fi Plus reviews recently.

Do I have to agree with everyone or am I allowed to make up my own mind based on my own experience? Sam has too many hang-ups for me to discern his real preferences but he has not swayed my opinions much. Mine are, admittedly, biased by the inability of CD to support more than 2 channels. You, probably, have the inverse bias as, I know, Sam does.

Quote:
And I know what *I* hear with the great 808.2 - SACD is now second behind CD, sorry.

You are entitled to your opinion based on your experiences.

Quote:
But let's not forget that it's one multi-bit recording format - that decimates and oversamples - against another !! High-bit PCM simply encodes more quantization - making sense that it sounds better.

Hmmm. What are we arguing about? Besides, is there a reason to decimate and oversample a 24/96 bitstream?

Kal

Quote:

Quote:
One case in point are those Esoteric SACDs, Curzon's Mozart, etc. You may say they're fetish objects. Duh, really? There's fetishistic element to collecting records & CDs? You don't say.

It worries me to hear the youth of today speak of fetishism in this way. Surely $60.00 SACD's are the fetishes of old old gray haired audiophiles?

Sure. Just look at the market for reprocessed older "Classic" recordings in all genres. Relive your youth.

Kal

Quote:
SACD people would greatly prefer to hear the format as...SACD...not Red Book, for playback. You're opaque response concerning high-bit rates was puzzling.

My point is that I do not have a preference for SACD over other high resolution formats except for the wide availability of the repertoire I prefer.

Quote:
You keep bringing up "extra channels". Fine. Can you say "Trifield" ? I knew you could. This gives us a big chunk of the "surround" experience. It does help, also, to use an open-baffle speaker as it further enhances the experience. Boxes have their limits and traditional "open-panels" (Maggie, etc.) seem to be limited at projecting a true, deep soundstage. With real depth and a center channel, we won't be yearning for "surround" effects. Except for those rare pipe organ discs......

Yes, I have some experience with Trifield but it simply does not compete with real, discrete multichannel, imho (of course). As for the other matters you raise, they are extraneous.

Quote:
Sam has hang ups ? I guess we all do sometimes. So do neurons - but they have the glials to support them. SACD is losing *its* support and this time there is no back-up.....

And sometimes the glia drive them in strange ways. So, what is driving your fiendish glee in the failure of yet another good music medium? Seems just churlish to me.

Kal

Quote:
SACD is losing *its* support and this time there is no back-up.....

Well I read somewhere Sony had a team of engineers traveling about demonstrating and proclaiming the audible benefits of SACD's with green labels. Those Sony marketing folks are genius!

RG

The reason for my support has been clear from the beginning: SACD has given me many superb recordings and performances. I have about 2000 SACDs now and will continue to enjoy them regardless of what happens in the future. Get over it.

(With this I end my contributions to this pointless exchange. Feel free to play with yourself.)

Kal

Quote:
so much angry that it was created in the first place.

Angry? ANGRY??! You are angry about a music format? Do you not believe in free will? Were you coerced into abandoning your true red book love for some tarted up cheap whore and now you feel shame, like a Republican governor? Have you ever really gotten over 8 track? How about Compact Cassette or DAT? Or Mini Disc? So many issues. Maybe you should try the Web M.D. psych forums. Too much opportunity to be traumatized here by the hi-rez tormentors.

In my experience SACD sounds better. In some cases just barely better than CD. In other cases, way way better. And it IS higher resolution, yes? So - it's better objectively, and subjectively. Too bad it didn't succeed and thrive. Sometimes quality doesn't win. You could say it was defeated by low bit rate MP3. Darn shame.

SACD isnt going anywhere..though I hope this M-CH trash will die.

DSD hasits place in one (1) application: Mastering from analogue. When the recording chain is completely analogue, you can feed the audio from the analogue mastering into a DSD A/D converter and cut that signal straight onto a disc without any further processing. It is in this application that DSD can be viewed as pretty transparent. When you convert the signal twice, however (such as when using a DSD recorder as the tracking medium), the second conversion is no longer transparent, due to the HF noise present in the source signal hitting a second analogue deltasigma modulator.

in the scenario above...the sound will be great, superior to any redbook offering. outside of that scenario though...

stick with DVD-A or redbook..

Quote:
Even here, PCM does the trick. I don't see how DSD is better....

if you do not understand how it is better, I suggest you

1.) start reading books.

2.) learn how to listen.

lets see here..

freq response from DC to > 100,000 Hz, dynamic range of 120db or more... but as I said before THE SOUND is the key..

if you cannot hear the difference in a properly done SACD recording(ie the parameters from Mr. Putzeys), you are deaf.

Quote:
Then why is DSD-sourced SOUND an issue with more than a few folks ? What's wrong with 20-bit PCM ?

hell, more than a few folks love MP3, so try another argument.
I didnt say anything was wrong with 20 bit PCM... I said that, when created correctly(transferring from analogue), SACD is preferred...

Quote:
Scientifically speaking, DSD has more spectrum distortion than high-bit PCM - as shown by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy years ago. Did you read these AES reports ?

There's a subtle distinction here. The Lipshitz and Vanderkooy paper (which can be found here (PDF download), is about obtaining the DSD bitstream using 1-bit delta-sigma conversion. IOW, it's about a specific implementation of DSD (how it was originally created), as opposed to the DSD format, which in theory is independent of the implementation. Since that paper was written, there have been other papers that show how the DSD bitstream can be created in ways superior to the simplest approach of taking the output of a 1-bit delta-sigma converter. It's unclear to me when (or if) these techniques were ever implemented. However, it's clear from the papers at the same AES convention that were written in defense of SACD by Philips and Sony engineers, that both Philips and Sony were caught with their pants down by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy - no doubt about it.

As to sound quality comparisons, in order to evaluate this on a factual basis, a controlled experiment is necessary. I've done similar experiments with DVD-A, but not SACD. In the DVD-A case, I ripped some tracks that were recorded at 24/96 and downsampled them to 16/44.1 (with dither). Then I upsampled the downsampled track back to 24/96 again and used the Audio DiffMaker software to make a file containing the difference between the original track and the downsampled/upsampled one. The difference consised entirely of silence under normal listening conditions and volume with headphones. If I turned up the volume all the way and put my ear up to the speaker's tweeter, I could hear a very slight increase in hiss in the difference file, but that was it. The trick to making this work was to use SoX, and scale the data down until it just stopped giving indications of clipping in the downsampled file. Before I did this, there were faint clicks in the difference file.

Of course, I'm sure that having a high-resolution format for those who need to manipulate the recording before it gets to the customer gives lots more margin for error than 16/44.1 does. But so far at least, I haven't found a case where having the final product be 16/44.1 makes any audible difference at all (based of the Audio DiffMaker results). This is of course subject to change based on any further experiments that I may perform. But since I've ripped all my DVD-A discs, I won't have any opportunity to do any more such evaluations in the near future. Based on what I've done so far, I'm very skeptical of audiophile claims, based on uncontrolled experiments, of the alleged sonic superiority of high-res in the final product.

Quote:

Quote:
Scientifically speaking, DSD has more spectrum distortion than high-bit PCM - as shown by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy years ago. Did you read these AES reports ?

There's a subtle distinction here. The Lipshitz and Vanderkooy paper (which can be found here (PDF download), is about obtaining the DSD bitstream using 1-bit delta-sigma conversion. IOW, it's about a specific implementation of DSD (how it was originally created), as opposed to the DSD format, which in theory is independent of the implementation. Since that paper was written, there have been other papers that show how the DSD bitstream can be created in ways superior to the simplest approach of taking the output of a 1-bit delta-sigma converter. It's unclear to me when (or if) these techniques were ever implemented. However, it's clear from the papers at the same AES convention that were written in defense of SACD by Philips and Sony engineers, that both Philips and Sony were caught with their pants down by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy - no doubt about it.

As to sound quality comparisons, in order to evaluate this on a factual basis, a controlled experiment is necessary. I've done similar experiments with DVD-A, but not SACD. In the DVD-A case, I ripped some tracks that were recorded at 24/96 and downsampled them to 16/44.1 (with dither). Then I upsampled the downsampled track back to 24/96 again and used the Audio DiffMaker software to make a file containing the difference between the original track and the downsampled/upsampled one. The difference consised entirely of silence under normal listening conditions and volume with headphones. If I turned up the volume all the way and put my ear up to the speaker's tweeter, I could hear a very slight increase in hiss in the difference file, but that was it. The trick to making this work was to use SoX, and scale the data down until it just stopped giving indications of clipping in the downsampled file. Before I did this, there were faint clicks in the difference file.

Of course, I'm sure that having a high-resolution format for those who need to manipulate the recording before it gets to the customer gives lots more margin for error than 16/44.1 does. But so far at least, I haven't found a case where having the final product be 16/44.1 makes any audible difference at all (based of the Audio DiffMaker results). This is of course subject to change based on any further experiments that I may perform. But since I've ripped all my DVD-A discs, I won't have any opportunity to do any more such evaluations in the near future. Based on what I've done so far, I'm very skeptical of audiophile claims, based on uncontrolled experiments, of the alleged sonic superiority of high-res in the final product.

right. DSD-Wide is one such implementation..deals with the compromises of the original implement..

Quote:
right. DSD-Wide is one such implementation..deals with the compromises of the original implement..

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to a modified DSD implementation, but an improved A/D technique usable with the original implementation. Here is a post by Ted Smith, who I believe worked for Sony or one of its subsidiaries at the time of the post. This post references an AES article by Hawksford that describes the improved A/D technique. This apparently eliminates the problems with standard 1-bit delta-sigma conversion that Lipshitz and Vanderkooy pointed out in their paper referenced above.

Quote:
I agree that high-bit capture - not the final version, was the breakthrough that Red Book needed. But DSD is still a flawed format if it needs noise filters a lot more (than PCM) in the recording chain. But DSD is mostly noise anyway - how can it be better ?

Yes, DSD does need noise shaping to get the in-band noise down. In theory, PCM does not, but in practice nearly all PCM A/D's and D/A's use multi-bit delta-sigma with oversampling and noise shaping now. The more modern A/D and D/A designs using this technique actually have much better distortion performance than the old-style A/D's and DACs. The old-style parts had a distortion problem much like crossover distortion in the transistor power amplifiers of many years ago - the distortion got bad at low signal levels. The newer ones are much better, even though there's some nostalgia attached to old-style devices like the PCM1704. For an example of a PCM DAC using noise shaping, see the DSD1794A (PDF file here). Have a look at figure 20 in that file. Notice how the noise increases above 20 kHz. That's noise shaping in action in a PCM DAC. You can see the in-band noise in DSD mode is similar, but they don't show it above 20 kHz. Makes one wonder.

I'm not a DSD apologist. In fact, I think it's a pretty dumb idea because of the difficulty for recording engineers to process the data. I have both DVD-A and SACD discs, neither of which I listen to anymore. I hated having to use a monitor to pick what mix I wanted to listen to with a DVD-A. SACD did a much better job of this. I was able to rip all my DVD-A's to my music server though, which is great. The sound quality of the Workingman's Dead DVD-A blows away the LP, CD and HDCD. Unfortunately, I have some SACDs that aren't hybrids that I can't do anything with, like Mingus Ah Um. That sucks.

I just stumbled on this old thread when searching for something that isn't really here. However, it is amusing to see that, after another another 7.5 years have passed, we are still playing SACDs, they are still being released, they can now be ripped to files, one can buy/download DSD files, players are upsampling PCM and DSD for playback and all of the foregoing also applies to multichannel.

Kal Rubinson wrote:

...they can now be ripped to files...

Are you referring to the method that requires a 1st gen PS3 (and up to a certain firmware version), or have I been out of the loop with new methods since?

mtymous1 wrote:

Are you referring to the method that requires a 1st gen PS3 (and up to a certain firmware version), or have I been out of the loop with new methods since?

The latter. One can do it with a few Oppo, Pioneer and Cambridge players.

SACD is alive and well!

I'm 'johnnie225' from 8 years ago. I was stunned that KAL opened an old wound.

A brief update:

-From the late 90s, DSD was a low-bit PCM system -5-8 bit recordings that decimated and over-sampled. But over time, the bit rates went up (with 'DSD wide', etc.)

-Many SACDs were sourced from high-bit PCM.

-SACD does not sound better than CD. It is now impossible to find an audio reviewer who will say so. But Anthony Cordesman went even further (in his review of Burmester's MC151 -TAS, end of 2015). Calling SACD "an expensive fraud", along with hi-rez downloads.

If this format offered good music, that's fine. But it's highly recommended that listeners get the RBCD layer (of SACD) and work with that....

johnny p. wrote:

I'm 'johnnie225' from 8 years ago. I was stunned that KAL opened an old wound.

A brief update:

-From the late 90s, DSD was a low-bit PCM system -5-8 bit recordings that decimated and over-sampled. But over time, the bit rates went up (with 'DSD wide', etc.)

-Many SACDs were sourced from high-bit PCM masters.

-SACD does not sound better than CD. It is now impossible to find an audio reviewer who will say so. But Anthony Cordesman went even further (in his review of Burmester's MC151 -TAS, end of 2015). Calling SACD "an expensive fraud", along with hi-rez downloads.

If this format offered good music, that's fine. But it's highly recommended that listeners get the RBCD layer (of SACD) and work with that....

johnny p. wrote:

I'm 'johnnie225' from 8 years ago. I was stunned that KAL opened an old wound.

It seems to me that your wound is still festering.

My recent post was only to state that there was a new way to rip SACDs. If you do not have any you want to rip, why comment?

...and my comments touched on the lack of pure-DSD recording (still true), many labels dumping SACD (true with more since) and the sound quality of SACD. The last a major problem with the press and audiophiles everywhere.

If you want the words 'SACD' in your collection -that's fine (laughably). But it only *correctly* applies if the titles were recorded in DSD.

You could have started a new thread, on ripping, etc...

Kal Rubinson wrote:

I just stumbled on this old thread when searching for something that isn't really here. However, it is amusing to see that, after another another 7.5 years have passed, we are still playing SACDs, they are still being released, they can now be ripped to files, one can buy/download DSD files, players are upsampling PCM and DSD for playback and all of the foregoing also applies to multichannel.

Hi Kal, I too like SACD ( although I know you would agree it can't make a poor recording sound good) I only wish they didn't have to gouge us on the price.

I started purchasing SACDs two years ago, after installing a dCS Vivaldi Transport/DAC in my rig. My impressions are of course personal, subjective, biased, uninformed, irrelevant etc... But I felt the need to relate them to fellow classical music lovers when I read the Stereophile review of the new Gryphon Ethos CD only-player. I hope not to pour too much oil on this forum's fire by reproducing my comments here:

It is simply a fact that wealthy hobbyists encourage manufacturers to push the envelope. New technologies then trickle down to benefit all hifi enthusiasts. It baffles me why some in the community cannot see the huge merit of this. And it is up to the discerning consumer to decide if he wants to buy into new technologies or not. This is a hobby after all, which keeps a lot of brilliant artisans and superb craftsmen usefully and peacefully employed, provides a income to artists and keeps us, listeners, very happy.
But I would like to comment on the physical media and my own experience with them.
I am in the blessed position to own both a top-end vinyl replay system consisting of a Clearaudio Master Innovation with Statement parallel arm and Ortofon Century, and a 3-piece suite of dCS Vivaldi Transport, DAC and Clock. Amplification Burmester, loudspeakers Audio Exclusiv (full electrostatics). With a great deal of attention given to power supply, cabling and equipment support. With other words, a dream system built over many years and optimized to enjoy the sound reproduction of “non-electronic” instruments (classical, jazz, voice). 80% of my listening is classical. I don’t “do” streaming.
Being completely unbiased, and heavily invested in CD, SACD and vinyl with some of the best equipment to play them on, I can postulate today with confidence that SACD, when well recorded, is the King of Formats. And this notwithstanding the fact that I am obsessed with vinyl. But when I compare the same piece issued both on SACD and vinyl (Channel Records, Pentatone), SACD carries the day by a whisker: a touch airier, a slightly truer tone and yes, an even better “flow” that facilitate following the musical argument. On the other hand, vinyl’s sound stage remains unbeaten, as the ClearAudio parallel arm recreates a truly “holographic” sound stage. And although both media allow unrestricted (subjective) dynamics, SACD is simply a fraction quieter. CD is a VERY distant third (notwithstanding the dCS wizardry to bring it to life).
I find it therefore incomprehensible why Universal Music Group, which owns a.o. DG, Decca and EMI robs its artists of the opportunity to record on SACD. UMG even makes a mess of pressing vinyl. Listen for instance to the popping, cracking, rumbling (!) DG vinyls of Abbado’s Bruckner 9th, his last and deeply moving recording – with the superb Zimerman in Schubert D959 & 960 barely better. I therefore bade farewell to my roster of UMG artists and now exclusively buy SACDs. From labels like Ars, BIS, Challenge Records, Channel Records, Pentatone, RCO Live etc. And guess what: I discovered stellar performances by stellar new artists (or who migrated away from UMG), superbly recorded - by which I mean: “uncannily close to Live”.
I would therefore also caution lovers of classical music and jazz when they audition the Gryphon Ethos. They should compare it with a good SACD player. SACD as a format is so much more enjoyable to listen to than CD, especially in the above genres. Is CD therefore a basket case? Probably. Although a small Dutch label, TRPTK, produces beautifully recorded CDs. Maybe it is on to something. Whilst vinyl remains vinyl: superbly tolerant of mediocre recording, poor power supply, shoddy bases, with the hardware delivering excellent performance even at humblest price points (Dual!). Supremely affordable, lots of fun, and endearing. My 40-year old records still outclass anything on CD sound-wise, the 2nd hand market is awash with great performances sumptuously recorded with mint copies going for under 10 euros, and new productions avoiding the pitfalls of CD – even in jazz, with new labels like Newvelle or new LPs by the venerable, magical Charles Lloyd.

Problem is we can't know if the sound quality is a result of the format (SACD vs CD vs vinyl), or if it's a result of mastering. I believe it's the quality of the recording and mastering and not the format. I think the mastering makes 90% of the quality. The format is probably 10%. Or even less. Bottom line is we're talking about the wrong thing.I have SACD's that sound sh!tty compared to well recorded CD's. How can this be? Even Hi-res audio blu-rays (24/192,far superior to SACD) that don't sound as good as my best CD's. Again, how can this be? I have a hi-res audio bluray of Amy Winehouse "Back to Black". The S.Q. sounds mediocre. I love the songs but the S.Q. is nothing.

Jack Pot (love your moniker), Thank You for the impressions and thoughts on SACD.
I know that you enjoy the dCS stack.

It seems I have come to the end of a long and very pleasant road.
I upgraded my vinyl stack to match the price of the dCS one. I replaced the Nordost VH2 tonearm cable with an Odin2 one, and the excellent Burmester P100 phono-preamp by the by now out of production Clearaudio Statement phono-preamp (both directly feeding a Burmester 911 MkIII power amp). The result is superlative. Vinyl, warts and all, draws the listener into the music in an exciting and visceral way the other formats cannot. Listening to vinyl gives me the goosebumps. I was shocked to rediscover the staggering recording quality of my collection of over 1000 LPs (spanning 30 years of collecting). Like many, I discovered the classical universe through Bach (Leonhard and Harnoncourt) and Mahler (my first cassette: Haitink directing the CGO in the 70's). It is only fitting that I bought Haitink's last recording, cut direct to disc in 2019 (nr 1787). Of course, I will need many years to revisit the collection. What an uplifting prospect!
And of course I will not forget to explore new artists and works on the superlative SACD format. A SACD with 2 pairs of sisters performing a double violin concerto and a double piano concerto by Martinu is an unforgettable experience (Pentatone). Long live SACD!
PS: TRPTK just released its first SACD, also available on vinyl. I ordered both and will try to keep an open mind (ear?).

Dear David,
I can assure you that SACD sounds better than cd by a fair margin (with perhaps the exception of cds produced by TRPTK, which might strengthen yr point). SACD, contrary to vinyl, has one problem: it needs excellent "foundation" to shine (good power supply - cables, conditioner - and good racks/bases to drain away the "glassiness" and reproduce the "flow' and "air"). I suggest you experiment with 2nd hand equipment from 1st class manufacturers available at a fraction of the new price on many sites. Without a good "foundation", SACD will probably not "deliver".

Lacking the ability to argue persuasively solely by virtue of their personality, Jack Pot excluded. I've read Kal for as long as I've been into good sound, even though my income may never support the level of equipment I read about and I don't think I've ever been compelled by anything he's ever said, merits of what he's saying aside. And the other fella, to be angry about DSD? Then don't buy it! I look at these types of people with the same glasses as people who beat up on people like myself (figuratively, of course) because we still enjoy cassettes. "It's completely flawed! Why would you spend so much money on a Nakamichi/TEAC/Sony, etc?! Your'e an idiot!" etc, etc. Technically, however, there's no reason a great player shouldn't be genuine hifi. Up to modern standards? No. Able to produce analog and digital masters in a transparent and compelling manner? Yes. And that's the whole point of my cassette as an example, um, example. If it works and you enjoy it and have a large library, then enjoy it. Some of you have 10's or hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, most of us only several thousand. In any case, those of us at the lower end have spent far more than the average millionaire on our hi-fi. So people think we are crazy anyway. When you guys trade barbs for asshole of the year awards over differences that are clear to us, and clear, but have no meaning to ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD, you just kind of make us all look bad.

Quote:

If it works and you enjoy it and have a large library, then enjoy it.

Amen.

https://audio-advent.ghost.io/sacd-is-not-dead/

mtymous1 wrote:

https://audio-advent.ghost.io/sacd-is-not-dead/

https://www.popcultmag.com/posts/remember-glory-days-sacd-no-well-maybe-not-late/

An even newer article? 2018?

Kal Rubinson wrote:

An even newer article? 2018?

Short of a equipment review (or two would be putting it), US hi-fi press tends to ignore SACD.

After all, US Sony didn't even acknowledge the 20th anniversary of SACD last year.

I don't know what you are expecting. The medium has not evolved but there continue to be new releases on a regular basis. When they are reviewed or mentioned in an equipment review the format is generally commented on.