Parrot Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 The XRCD probably had a goosed up high end and somebody was fooled into preferring it. It is one thing to like the sound of an LP's presentation better than an SACD's, but to say a CD is better than an SACD is simply and utterly ridiculous. It's about on the order of insisting that a cassette sounds better than an open reel tape at 15 ips. The only explanation that springs to mind is that some people hate change and new formats, have a tremendous number of CDs, and want to rationalize not buying an SACD player and discs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 FWIW I don't think medium makes too much difference. The original recording is the most critical aspect, IMO, then the mastering. Format makes some difference, but it can't really make or break a recording. For instance, last night I just got Nirvana's "best of" on 180g vinyl. The difference in the quality of the studio tracks and the MTV Unplugged tracks was stunningly dramatic. The MTV people did an outstanding job with that recording. Kurt's voice was almost too lifelike, every musician was in place, it was like being in the audience (and THAT'S what its all about for me). Excellent job. The studio material was compressed, vocals not nearly as well done, not as much attack as you'd like with a band like Nirvana. I have the original CDs, I'll have to give them a good listen to see how they compare. I've listened to them probably 300 times each, but usually not critically. (Read: banging head + air guitar). Anyhow. I've heard amazingly poor recordings on every format. I've recorded casette tapes to my computer, ran it through a noise reduction program, done a few tweaks, burned to CD and have had really, really fabulous results. I've heard total crap LPs, really excellent CDs, blah, blah.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 ---------------- On 10/23/2003 9:07:20 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 10/23/2003 7:54:40 PM leok wrote: I think whatever was mastered best sounds best. I think mastering is much more important than the medium. ---------------- Certainly Leo, but it means nothing to compare a horribly mastered CD with a wonderfully mastered LP, for example. The question is, given excellent mastering for both, which will win out. And the undeniable fact is that SACD will. SACDs are not supposed to sound like LPs. An LP is not the ultimate thing to compare some other format to. The open reel master tape is. And everyone who works with SACD says it is virtually indistinguishable from the master open reel tape. Obviously some people prefer LPs no matter what. This is probably due to several factors, including liking whatever the cartridge and stylus is doing to color the sound. ---------------- Hello: There is no absolute. It all depends on the quality of the equipment, Engineering and stock the LP, CD, SACD or tape. I have dealt with Open Reel tape with which the oxide was separating - a well known brand used in many recording studios. Open Reel tape can bleed, that is hearing what is just above or below. It is the best medium under all of the correct cicumstances. SACD is closer. but again, that depends on the equipment. The direct to disc was utilized earlier, but Dave has mastered the art and has the equipment. A number of the proponents of vinyl like the warmth, the original mix, which sometimes can be quite different on a CD or an SACD and the RIAA curve. Yes CD and SACD have dynamic levels far beyond LPs, but the bass groove is larger than the high end groove. Some of this thought carried to the CD in the beginning. And now the volume from CD to CD, SACD to SACD does not vary much as they are pushed. People thought compressors would be dead. Not so. There are many schools of thought, but there are no absolutes. Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 You may not be understanding me, dodger. In the studio there is a master open reel tape. You can make a vinyl record using it as a source, or you can make a CD, or you can make an SACD. Now, *absolutely*, the SACD is going to be the truest to that source. That is an absolute. It's not a matter of opinion. The only thing that can be called an opinion is which one you prefer. You may prefer an LP because of being used to the LP sound or because of something going on in your system with the cartridge's frequency response. I am saying, compare the SACD to its source, which is the studio master open reel tape. Do not compare the SACD to the LP, because the LP is not the source. An SACD should not sound like an LP. That's what it wants to get away from. It wants to sound like the studio open reel master. And it does. Now if you're going to take a situation where the SACD engineer is drunk and the LP engineer is in top form, then I'm going to say that a Chevette outperforms a Jaguar, provided the Chevette has just had a tune-up and the Jaguar is parked in the driveway with electrical problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Paul: We may be stating the same thing but differently. In the perfect world using the best equipment, SACD is the closest. To take your analogy of the vehicles, if you have a Chevette of SACD you will get a Chevette. The same with a drunken Engineer mixing the SACD. Now taking a 48, 64 or 72 track Master TAPE, it will sound much different until it is mixed down. Steve Cropper's guitar sounded much different when isolated, as did "Duck" Dunn's Bass. And yes, I do know there are masters for the pressings or burnings. I have not stated any preference, other than the original mixed down tape - without companders, compression, dead time limiters. What I believe we are both saying is that there IS a medium that is closer to the tape. The only differentitation is that one must not believe every SACD player is going to be the same. And digital can leave certain overtones or harmonics out. Thus the preference by some for analog, or they remember the mix on the LP which may be different than on the CD or SACD. We are not far apart save for given the quality of equipment and Engineering. Listening to some of the Beatles CDs are quite disappointing as the mix is different, yet George Martin's name is there. Your analogy proves there are no absolutes, equipment quality proves that. The Microphones, room, baffling, spitguard, windscreen, type of tape, brand of tape, Board, Recorder and heaven knows what else is used in each recording differentiates. The closest recording will ever get to the original, at this point in time is very close. As an Engineer, you hear the actual and you listen to the recording and after that we agree. Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPyro Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I absolutely agree that the mastering processes makes a huge difference and you would expect that recent releases would/could get it right. But just as a case in point, a recent DVD that I rented, "Enigma" (which is about the german enigma code) was mastered in 2000, however, it is THE ABSOLUTE WORST dvd that I have ever seen. The video has about every possible artifact that you could ever seen using mpeg compression all wrapped up in one simple movie. Even the first generation dvds were about 10 times better then this movie. On the audio side, one of the highly recommend performances for Carl Orffs Carmina Burana is so horribly off for tonal balance and exaggerated highs I simply cant listen to it. I have no clue how the reviewers couldnt have heard it, nor mention it in the reviews. I dont remember which preformace right of the top of my head. absolutely insane.... -Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 So will a $150 Phillips SACD player sound better playing a SACD layer, than my $600 NAD C541 HDCD, 24 bit player playing a non-SACD layer? If so, I will be stopping by Circuit City tonight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 ---------------- On 10/24/2003 2:26:09 PM dgb wrote: So will a $150 Phillips SACD player sound better playing a SACD layer, than my $600 NAD C541 HDCD, 24 bit player playing a non-SACD layer? If so, I will be stopping by Circuit City tonight! ---------------- Hello: If you compare it to vinyl, most likely. To comapre it against a high quality SACD player, most likely not, though if some have a preference for the SACD and believe that it should best the CD due to Mastering, hearing curve, advantage to new technology it probably would. I sent you an email earlier regarding a different matter. But to your question and the question first asked, what sounds good to one, they paid for it, they live with it and are satisfied, who are we to criticize or to Pontificate? Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 ---------------- On 10/24/2003 2:26:09 PM dgb wrote: So will a $150 Phillips SACD player sound better playing a SACD layer, than my $600 NAD C541 HDCD, 24 bit player playing a non-SACD layer? If so, I will be stopping by Circuit City tonight!---------------- There's only one way to find out. I think Circuit City allows returns for no reason. If they don't, buy one at Best Buy. Put it in your system and you be the judge. The SACD *should* sound more analog than the CD, but it's all down to which you prefer on your system in your home. If you don't like it, return it to the store for a refund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Great thread. Taking everything into consideration, I prefer listening to SACDs. I have a modest SACD ( es222) and a modest tt (VPI HW-jr w/grado Sonata catridge) setup. I quesss the true test is that if what I want is available on SACD, that's the one I will buy. In fact it is hard for me to buy new redbook cds because I do not want to end up having to duplicate my purchase. I like sound and the romance of records but I think that even the most diehard vinyl fan would have to admit that there are times when they would rather not have to get up and turn the record over! josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 ---------------- On 10/24/2003 3:02:56 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 10/24/2003 2:26:09 PM dgb wrote: So will a $150 Phillips SACD player sound better playing a SACD layer, than my $600 NAD C541 HDCD, 24 bit player playing a non-SACD layer? If so, I will be stopping by Circuit City tonight!---------------- There's only one way to find out. I think Circuit City allows returns for no reason. If they don't, buy one at Best Buy. Put it in your system and you be the judge. The SACD *should* sound more analog than the CD, but it's all down to which you prefer on your system in your home. If you don't like it, return it to the store for a refund. ---------------- Hello: An excellent suggestion. See, I stated we were not that far apart. If the unit is purchased, let us know the particulars and a review. So, now that we have killed this one for now a glass of wine or a Chambord (sp?) to accompany relaxation. Paul it has been very good with learning, I trust you will enjoy a good night. I on the other hand have to go to a hockey game with my wife. Our 21st season as seat holders. I believe I'm not up for this game. But, all enjoy the night. Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I might just pick one up tonight. I won a nice little bundle of cash in my roto baseball league this year, and frankly it's burning a hole in my pocket since it's "free" money. With all of Peter Gabriels CDs being released on SACD only (no regular layer) I've been kind of thinking about it. The original CDs, while not bad for the middle, late 80s, are starting to show their age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Best Buy is the best place to buy SACDs at retail stores right now. Several dollars cheaper per title than Circuit City! Although a couple SACDs that Circuit City just got in are now at cheap prices, they haven't yet reduced the price of their old stock. Enjoy the game, dodger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 <?xml:namespace prefix = o /> Certainly Leo, but it means nothing to compare a horribly mastered CD with a wonderfully mastered LP, for example. The question is, given excellent mastering for both, which will win out. And the undeniable fact is that SACD will. SACDs are not supposed to sound like LPs. An LP is not the ultimate thing to compare some other format to. The open reel master tape is. And everyone who works with SACD says it is virtually indistinguishable from the master open reel tape. Obviously some people prefer LPs no matter what. This is probably due to several factors, including liking whatever the cartridge and stylus is doing to color the sound. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I have been trying to put my finger on this for a bit now that my B&O is up and running. I can't speak for SACD, as I don't have one yet. I know I need to spend a bit of $$$ on it because I did an A/B SACD vs DVD with CD player, the SACD being the cheapest Sony and there was not enough difference in sound for me to keep that Sony, which I returned. I have found vinyl, direct to disc and half speed mastered recordings in particular, to sound much better than redbook CD. I have also found that some recordings, when you A/B the same recording done on vinyl vs on redbook, do suffer from being mastered differently. Others seem mastered the same, or at least close enough, but the differences I perceive are as follows: Most electronic instruments and rock band recordings sound close, I'm still working on this one. Acoustic instruments, vocals, jazz and classical music is where the difference lies. For example, a piano seems to have more harmonics, more of the lower harmonics on vinyl and sounds more shallow on redbook I have Alan Parson's Project on CD and the half speed master. You can definitely hear the vocals and lead guitar are brighter due to mastering (probably the 10-12Khz bump given to CDs early on so the masses would perceive them as clearer sounding). (WTF is up with this software, yikes!) Yet, this baffles me. I have Stravinsky's Firebird on CD and just got a real clean LP. I thought this was a DtD recording, but my memory must have failed me as it's a digital recording. Interesting explanation of "music by numbers" on the jacket, I hope to scan it one day and post it here. But anyway, even the record is actually from a digital process with a sampling rate of 50K samples per second 16 bits put on to digital tape. Later they came out with the redbook version, and having A/Bed these, there is still a difference! Bass is tighter and lower and more "there", vocals have more depth on the vinyl as do all instruments, especially violins, oboes, and so on. My impression is that redbook's limitations cause it not to be able to have enough detail to pick up all harmonic content in music, or maybe not so much pick it up as reproduce it. Now, the caveat here is my DVD player, I don't know how another one would compare. But I am not a vinyl nut. True, there was something nostalgic about handling these relics again and hearing the needle in the groove (the sound of the drop in the B&O is cut off by a relay which makes contact after the needle is safely in the groove), but I must admit- the sound IS better in many cases. The big drawback for me is of course, dust and noise floor of the record. I will be very happy to have a format (SACD, DVDa, whatever) that will eliminate these drawbacks, as well as not be susceptible to dust and handling and play degradation. But reality says, it may be just a bit longer before the hits I have on records are available on the winning format(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorv Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 I picked up the econo SACD pac of Dylan at Costco today. Blows away the 30 year old vinyl that I have been listening to for years. Jim N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 The Dylan SACD/CD hybrids are superb. Much of this improvement came from having the best people in the business doing the mixing and mastering, utilizing the best equipment, and using the best tapes. It was a top quality project all the way around. Any Bob Dylan fan should pick up these titles. I am particularly thrilled with the multi channel mixes: Another Side of Bob Dylan Bringing It All Back Home Blonde On Blonde Blood On The Tracks Slow Train Coming "Love And Theft" If I had to pick one, which I don't, I'd say Bringing It All Back Home is the most amazing improvement of them all. Even in stereo. It is open and rich, you can hear and place all the musicians, and it has the low end punch of the mono LP. The horns, somewhat subdued on the stereo mix of Slow Train Coming, add a lot of listening pleasure in the surround speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssh Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Jim, What did the set cost at Costco ? SSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 ssh, I'm not Jim, but I believe it is just $149.99. That's for 15 SACD/CD titles, one of which is a double. A real steal. Some of these titles are so good that they're worth $150 each! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorv Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 They sure did not design the packaging for Dylan SACD's for us old farts. I have to dig out my stronger glasses to read the things. You would think that they would respect us oldies for our continued support of Dylan. Jim N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.