Stereo-only SACD Players. What's The Point?

[mtrycrafts]

I am tired of people telling what I should or should not do. Bye

It's not an order but suggestions and opinions here. You seem to be very sensitive.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So the only point is that damn rich people do it because they feel like it and because they can, and we're jealous

"A Few Dollars More" would be nice.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Ahhhhhhh and accompanied with a fine 21 year old whisky, simply superb !

Why not a 25 year old?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What's the point of stereo-only SACD players,especially astronomically priced ones? Take,for example Marantz's SACD 10 player,price approximately $15,000.. For that price,you could nearly buy FIVE Magnetar UDP-900 player(Price $3200).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Free country? I pay a good bit of taxes each year.

Yeah, I pay over $50K on property taxes each year. And nobody told me it was free?

 

[lovinthehd]

I am tired of people telling what I should or should not do. Bye

That's the doc's bedside manner at work ? Do what you want, doesn't mean others agree with what you do, tho.

 

[lovinthehd]

Yeah, I pay over $50K on property taxes each year. And nobody told me it was free?

Wow

 

[Mikado463]

Why not a 25 year old?

if you're buying, then why not !!

 

[Auditor55]

Yeah, I pay over $50K on property taxes each year. And nobody told me it was free?

You must live in one of those mansions and drive a Bugatti.

 

[mtrycrafts]

if you're buying, then why not !!

Not a whiskey man.

 

[Mikado463]

Not a whiskey man.

that's ok, you buy and I'll drink it ......

 

[lovinthehd]

Then again some whiskeys are great at 10, some 12, some more, some less....hopefully if one is doing a 20 plus year version, it's a batch that's well worth it.

 

[Mikado463]

Then again some whiskeys are great at 10

My fav of the 10 year olds............

Laphroaig 10 Year Single Malt Scotch

Islay, Scotland- An all-malt Scotch whisky, malted barley is dried over a peat fire for a unique full, rich flavor. Aroma and flavors are of blue peat smoke, the sweet nuttiness of the barley, the delicate heathery perfume of Islay's streams.

www.totalwine.com

 

[lovinthehd]

My fav of the 10 year olds............

https://www.totalwine.com/scotch/single-malt/laphroaig-10-year-single-malt-scotch-750ml/p/3697750-1?glia=true&cid=plia:Shopping+US+None+ENG+SPART:::google&s=102&gclsrc=aw.ds&&pid=cpc:performance+Max+US+DELA+STANDARD+PRIORITY::google::&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=18590067496&gclid=CjwKCAiAmePKBhAfEiwAU3Ko3ODILx3Toj8nQGA7Im4SRoNg8gAVRW18O1JrGgm5oTCSjv3bPfNCCBoCLoIQAvD_BwE

LOL was thinking of that particularly and a Bowmore I used to get....

 

[Mikado463]

Another 'tasty ten' ..........Ardbeg

 

[Alex2507]

That's the doc's bedside manner at work ?

Didn't you just get done being man-spanked for something?

 

[noob0804]

The only advantage of SACD was that it was an early multichannel format. In terms of two channel performance it has zero advantages over CD.

Editing in DSD is so complicated and costly it is next to impossible. So fairly shortly everyone including one of the principle proponents BIS, converted to PCM and then back to DSD. As I think many of you know that DSD, and by extension, SACD was a totally bogus construct of audiophool mania, and based on totally bogus science, with zero advantage over PCM, in fact had significant shortcomings. It was a totally unnecessary development that actually set back the adoption of multichannel PCM. It did set back multichannel audio. If it had not happened there would have been multichannel audio only PCM discs aplenty.

I agree. I personally cannot tell the difference between CD and SACD layers in the disc, but (big but) I notice that albums released in SACD (referring to classical music only) tend to get the royal treatment in terms of recording and mastering, therefore in general, sound glorious. I particularly love the huge dynamic range. I have CDs that sound just as good, and some that sound like crap, but both layers of all my SACDs sound fantastic. My personal listening preference is stereo for music and multichannel for movies. My SACD (an old Oppo that was one of the best purchases I've made in my life) player is connected to my stereo receiver so even when playing the SACD layer I get it downmixed to 2 channels. I don't exclusively buy SACDs, but I see why someone with money to burn wouldn't mind not getting the stereo only player. If $16,000 means as little to someone like a couple of hundred to me... It's all relative.

 

[j_garcia]

There were many stereo only SACDs released early on in the format's life. Stereo players were released along side most multichannel units because they weren't sure if stereo purists would adopt it. None of the SACD players I've owned (7 or 8 of them) were stereo only.

 

[TLS Guy]

There were many stereo only SACDs released early on in the format's life. Stereo players were released along side most multichannel units because they weren't sure if stereo purists would adopt it. None of the SACD players I've owned (7 or 8 of them) were stereo only.

Unless you have some very old 2 channel SACD discs mixed without converting to PCM then there is absolutely no point in a 2 channel SACD player, and frankly I don't think anyone could distinguish a program mixed in DSM for one mixed in PCM. That is because the whole rationale for DSD is BOGUS.

 

[j_garcia]

SACD and DVD-A are all but dead at this point anyway. MLP also sounded really good. I agree that uncompressed PCM sounds indistinguishable from DSD. So there is likely some other reason in the back end that someone was trying to start another format war. A war that was moot since people really didn't go for either of them.