![]() In theory record companies could distribute music files online in DSD format which should sound very close to a real SACD, provided your computer has got a good sound card or a suitable digital output into a good DA converter. The technology behind it, DSD, is also available for computeruse. SACD is based on a format that is not limited to the disk itself. Instead, now it seems that SACD and CD both aren’t in for a very bright future.Īll is not lost though. I only wish that all realeases were true DSD recordings and not resampled PCM sources and I also wish that the format really had replaced the CD. Only the rare DSD recordings made from an analog recording, or those recorded direct to DSD without any post-processing, can be considered to be pure DSD.ĭon’t get me wrong – I have nothing against the SACD format. This is because there is currently no way to edit, mix, and master DSD files. The trouble is that there are almost no pure DSD recordings available to consumers. In other cases the master could be recorded in 24/96 which really is a lot better than CD’s standard 16/44 but still a long way from native DSD64, which is estimated to be equal to something like 24 bit 192kHz, even if the format’s multi-megaherz figures might lead you to believe otherwise. But in the worst case you could have in your hand an upsampled copy of a DAT master, which is 16/48 and this is only very slightly better than CD, quite inaudibly better actually. In the best case it is a remaster from the original analog tapes, or copies thereof, which could sound very good indeed. This is something to keep in mind when you’re ready to buy that remastered SACD. Sure, it should still sound better than the CD because studios often master at higher bitrates and samplerates than CD’s allow but still. But in many cases it is actually upsampled PCM. Ideally, the disk should contain native SACD. I suspect that once I hear SACD at its best that I will be mightily impressed.īut still there is a caveat that everybody should be aware of: the software. I have yet to hear the top class Accuphases, the SACD-capable DCS and the latest Wadias in SACD mode. So, you see, my experience with SACD is not so much limited per se, but not profound enough to be able to pronounce it a clear winner over CD. If you ask me, when playing an SACD, it sounded like a CD. Its sound is thin and gray and lacking power. But I mention it anyway, because the Audio Aero disappointed me heavily. Now I know that all this doesn’t neccesarily mean anything because it is the implementation that matters. The DAC is from Anagram which is good but not great and the power supply is a little on the small side. Inside is a very flimsy transport that uses standard associated circuitry. The Audio Aero looks like a tank but is in fact lightweight. This was really no ordinairy player, in fact it was quite expensive, but if you ask me for this particular player at least, this is more market-driven than anything else. The best SACD player that I heard to date, was the Audio Aero Prestige. To really get to the bottom of what the SACD format is capable of, I’d have to obtain an SACD player in the same reference league as my CD equipment. Sure, SACD’s trademark airy highs and more relaxed nature comes across most of the time, but what I usually miss is body, colour/timbral believability and dynamic expression. The affordable SACD players I tried, like a Denon DVD2910 universal player and the more upscale but still sort of affordable Linn Unidisk, were no match for many aspects of the sound that my older reference players and DACs were capable of. These players were state of the art in many ways in which the cheaper SACD machines are simply lacking. For example, I am used to listening to Mark Levinsons, Wadias and dCS equipment in combination with CD sources. Of course the player has a large influence on the format’s success. SACD sound is in many ways better than CD, theoretically at least. And as the small niche that we form, we are simply not a significant enough market for the SACD manufacturers. After all, mp3 had become the defacto standard for many, and it was only the audiophiles that had a craving for more. Maybe the audience wasn’t looking for a CD replacement at all. The format was simply not known, in spite of Sony’s efforts. Strangely enough, nobody I asked a few years ago, knew what SACD was. The SACD catalogue is nowhere near as comprehensive as the CD catalogue but I don’t think this is the only reason why the format failed. ![]() Do note that I start out sceptical, but offer perspective near the bottom of this article, as I keep adding updates. Alas it did not, but the DSD format is still around. ![]() It was hoped that SACD would replace CD and revitalize the music market. SACD promised even more perfect sound forever
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |