What I would change about SACD players (1 Viewer)

[Rachael B]

My 555ES changer shows the song title at the beginning of each track. As far as I know the only way to see it again is to go back to the beginnig. Why isn't there a SCROLL BUTTON like MD so you could call up the song title and artist on command? Come on Sony! Anybody else have any ideas?

 

[BeatCrazy]

There's a "Display" button on the remote (I think that's what its called), that allows you to cycle through track time elapsed, remaining, and disc time remaining, then to permanent title info. This only works for the current disc playing, you'll have to redo display info for every disc.

 

[Rachael B]

Sam, the display button just darks out the display and turns it back on. Doesn't anybody else have an oppinion here? Keith you love SACD threads. Where R U?

 

[AaronD]

Keith might be *listening* to some SACD's instead of posting!
I'm pretty sure the CE775 can be set to display the track titles all the time... I swear I've done it. But of course, if it's a long one the only way to make it scroll again is to toggle through the various display options until you get back to text.
I'll play around with it some more, I assume the ce775's menus and such are similar to the 555es. One day I will get one of those, but like I said before... So many toys to buy so little time (and money)...
-Aaron

 

[Mike Loiterman]

I think there is a "time" button on the remote. If you keep pressing it, it will cylce through various iterations of time display, including the name of the song...I think.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Rachael,

Its the button right below "Display Mode", it says "Time/Text".

 

[AaronD]

..But I think she's asking how to permanently display it. Once you switch discs or power off the machine it goes back to displaying time.

-Aaron

 

[BeatCrazy]

I don't think you can set it to default to the title permantely. However, some of the newest SACD releases seem to default to the track name instead of the time.

 

[JaleelK]

I would change the fact that Sony SACD players do not come with power on/off button on the remote and it doesn't matter how much you spend on a player. Also, I would like to see improved bass management capabilties, because again, not matter how much you spend on Sony SACD players, bass management function all work the same, which is not very good. I want to see what their next generation SACD players will be like, which Sony address some of these consumers complaints by atleast incorporating better bass management features.

 

[AaronD]

JaleelK,

I've got a couple of components with hard power off buttons, and I'll agree that they're very annoying.

As for the bass management, the implementation is better that pretty much every other high rez player as it stands. It's sad, but at least sony gave it a decent effort (read: any effort?) out the door. My DVD-A player has no bass management at all, and from what I understand it's technically easier to implement with DVD-A because the tech (PCM) lends it self more to this kind of processing and PCM has been around for ages.

I'm still waiting for that one little company to come out with a ~$100 5.1 switch box that tons of people would buy. I'd even like to see it have an IR interface for selecting devices. I'm suprised something like this doesn't exist on a mass scale yet.

I'd like the features of some of the more expensive devices, but right now I just want to listen to the darn players w/o spending $1000+ in accessories! An ICBM is on my short list though.

-Aaron

 

[Matthew Anker]

Just what we need, another stand-by power supply to introduce noise into the sound all for the sake of convenience.

 

[Rachael B]

When I started this thread I was having a brain-fart about which button did the time/text X-change. However, my complaint stands. There should be a simple scroll button and the artist's name should be included. What good is just the song title when the changer is in random play or various artists disc's, like soundtracks, are involved? How hard can it be to do this right? We should of had "this" long ago in the form of CD-G-raffics!
The industry has farted around doing this sort of thing right for far too long me thinks. If Minnie Disc can do it, why on earth can't the mighty SACD format get it right????
Jaleel, bass issues are just a given with SACD & DVD-A. Besides, SACD is pretty darn good for stereo. For me, stereo SACD is the happenin' thing. One of these days multi-channel will get better, I'm sure. Agree (!) with you about the silly power buttons!
Aaron, I want a bass-managing switchbox with 3, or more sets, of inputs. I have a Muse converter with discrete 4.1 output in addition to the usual fashion accessories! Where's a totally bitchin' hi-def component video switchbox too? That's another thread....
SACD is gaining steam but it stille needs a bit of polishing. Sony needs to stop putting out single-layer discs, like yesterday! But, that's a software issue, not a player issue. Anybody else got any other ideas for better ergonomics? I'm pretty satisfied beyond the display and bass management issues for 5.1 myself. Que, what, else...?
Sam & Mike thanks for reminding me because I'd had fogotten temporarily, which button, it has that SPACE label too in orange. There's alot of buttons to memorize in this life! Stille, it don't scroll the right thang!

 

[Rob Roth]

I wouldn't scream too loud for the "bass management" feature. I've never heard one yet that didn't impose some amount of fidelity loss. I rarely use mine- only on those very few films with enormous (should I say exaggerated?) bass. Otherwise I run my Sonus Fabers as full range, if low freq. roll off occurs it is along the lines the speaker designer intended.

SACD is supposed to be a sonic improvement, esp. in areas like microdynamics and midrange clarity. Why invest in SACD software and then dick it up with bass management? This is especially the case using BM with multichannel: I don't care how good the sub is, the timing of 5 channels cannot be replicated simultaneously.

I can anticipate that the Jaleels of the world will want it as an option. The problem is that as SACD prices drop there will be increased pressure on mfrs. to cheapen the circuitry. This has two effects; the expense of the bass management has to come out of something else, and the inclusion of the BM will, probably, be done in a way that is difficult to completely attenuate.

I know I'm a bit hypocritical on this issue. I WANT SACD to go downmarket so that it becomes a succesful format. But on this forum we should be discussing how BEST to use this new technology.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Rob, remember, not everybody has full range speakers. And bass management, when included, can be turned off.

 

[Rob Roth]

I'm very aware that many, if not most, have sub-sat systems. This is exactly what the 2ch guys have been saying for years: The money required to set up 5+ channels reduces the amount that could be spent on a good quality 2ch rig. There is the further problem that most limited range multichannel system are designed and set up for film-and not music.

I know that the inherent democracy of the forum will ensure mine is the minority view. But I still make the case that the new technologies, esp. SACD, are not optimally served by HT setups. I'm not the only one making this point; David Chesky and Richard Hardesty have been saying this for some time. Hardesty's special grievance is against the center channel which he believes collapses the soundstage for music.

What has happened is that this industry began with a lo-fi format (movie theater sound?), tried to replicate it using small speakers and achieved only a diminished version of a poor quality experience, and has now imposed the 5.1 format and associated components on music. here's the simple question: If you had a neat new technology like SACD would you have designed it from Day One for the typical HT setup? Of course not.

Now don't get me wrong- I'm not a 2ch fanatic. I have mch SACD and DVDA, 7 full range speakers, 2 subwoofers and 12 channels of amplification. I also have at least 300 discs of various forms of mch music. But all of this, while certainly enjoyable, has served to make me aware of the tradeoffs and compromises that HT has imposed on music.

 

[JaleelK]

I'm very aware that many, if not most, have sub-sat systems. This is exactly what the 2ch guys have been saying for years: The money required to set up 5+ channels reduces the amount that could be spent on a good quality 2ch rig. There is the further problem that most limited range multichannel system are designed and set up for film-and not music.

Multichannel is superior in every way to 2-channel, you have spend a lot of money on a 2-channel rig accomplish what you can with a cheap multichannel systems. Another thing you have to understand, sub sat systems are used by folks who don't have mansions with giant rooms to set five massive full range speakers, so for pratical purposes sub/sat systems are used by many enthusiast.

 

[Rob Roth]

And I would prefer that a Mercedes was in my driveway rather than the Bonneville I know is there. But the point is not limited budgets; I personally chose to forego a new monitor in favor of full range speakers. The point is that the new technologies are being held hostage to the dominant fact of the industry; HT sells. To the extent the new technologies conform to this paradigm they have some chance of market success.

But the compromises are many.

1.) Why a center channel when the whole point of stereo positioning is a believeable (and achievable) holographic image?

2.) Are 5 frequency limited speakers and a booming sub better than 2 quality speakers? Give me what the average HT rig costs for speakers and extra amps and I'll bet I could devise a 2ch system that would do more justice to the new formats.

3.) Why do we have soundstage destroying monitors in the centers of our systems?

4.) Why does one new format (DVDA) practically require that a monitor be used to select a song?

5.) Is the typical HT setup (the ITU arrangement or variations thereof) the best way to replicate an audio event? Does it provide optimal, or even accurate imaging? What about the bipole and dipole and multipole speakers that purposely diffuse sound?

Jaleel, I know from previous posts that bass management is your special bete noire and I more than willing to let you have the last word on this. But surely not even you believe, "Multichannel is superior in every way to @-channel..." If you truly believed that you would spend whatever it takes to replicate mch with the fidelity, tonal balance and imaging now possible with 2ch. And, of course, once you spent the money on full range speakers you would no longer have to worry about bass management. Which was my original point.

 

[Phil A]

I agree with Rob on the bass management issues. It is fine for low to mid priced players, but unless someone is going to it right, it does not do anything for the sound. I'd like to see more players have detachable power cords, for those who insist on 2-channel, a discrete and separate path, DACS, etc. would be nice for the 2-channel inputs. Also, as noted earlier, software that will play on CD players. Clear labeling as to what the SACD consists of (e.g. DSD master, PCM, analog tape) would be nice too.

 

[Rob Roth]

I guess my main concern is that SACD and DVDA are going to be so compromised to serve a mass market (read HT) that the sound will be sacrificed to gimmicks and 'features'. Of course some 'audiophile' units may still be built, but their limited production will ensure high prices and a further distancing of 'the masses' from better sound.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I personally think your concern that these formats will be compromised to serve a mass market is unfounded at best.