Guy Landau Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Read what David Manley has to say. http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue12/jsmanley.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whadyasay Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Well, from what I've noticed, there's a lot more attention devoted to mixing and mastering quality on SACD's, and that alone is worth it. Can one tell the difference between the two resolutions in a blind test? Maybe not on the hybrid releases, but what I've heard from some classic re-releases on SACD (especially jazz albums), I couldn't hope to get on regular CDs. It's worth it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 sounds like someone who doesn't want to invest in some new mastering equipment.... "You're aware that it's a frightening expense to master in 6-channel," i would suggest that he listen to anything in the telarc SACD line-up..... like every other format.... there are bad recordings and there are excellent recordings.... much better than your average cd.... IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 that is hwta I am trying to determine from the latest Stereophile whan I asked about Sam Howards article, New Media Metrics is rich cheesecake (page 51). Somebody please explain, in poor mans English, what he learned from his SACD and DVD-A graphic comparisons. http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=47513&sessionID={1A6D6484-8861-4BF6-838A-6C9E90E9B470} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 5:06:12 PM minn_male42 wrote: much better than your average cd.... IMHO ---------------- You're missing his point, and it's the same point I've been raising about the format: Sure, it's better than 16/44.1 CD, with all the associated issues with brickwall FIR filters and phase-ripple filter slopes penetrating the high frequency ranges, not to mention the dickwad dime-shop mastering houses catering to the big 5 label demands for "LOUDER, LOUDER, LOUDER!!!!" However, it is not, in any way shape form or manner superior to DVD-A, with its lossless codec compression algo and 24/96x2 + 24/48x3 surround output, which pushes those filter issues right out of the audible frequency ranges and extends the dynamic range to well below the best amplifier's noise floor. Not to mention the people mastering DVD-A are the same people who master movie soundtracks, so dynamic range is ingrained into their thought processes, as opposed to the aforementioned dime-store outfits that crush every last dB of dynamics out of the disc in an effort to ensure that it's the loudest effing thing in your multi-changer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Amusing rant, thanks. I especially liked when he said you can't convince the general public to embrace multichannel because they'd have to buy 5 speakers at $20,000 each plus a subwoofer. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Some are great, some are not so good. From a rock perspective, Steely Dan-Gaucho, Aersomith-Toys in the Attic, Blue Oyster Cult-Agents of Fortune, Santana-Abraxas, and Joe Satriani-Stange Beautiful Music all come to mind as a really great sounding SACD's. On the other side of things, The Police-Every Breath You Take: The Classics, and Aerosmith-O'Yeah Ultimate Hits were a bit disappointing to me. Both are not very well recorded in my opinion. And Alice in Chains-Greatest Hits is downright horrible. If you want a suggestion for an awesome sounding Hybrid-SACD, buy CCR-Willy and the Poor Boys. You will not be sorry, it is phenomenal. JMHO Maybe the ones mentioned above will sound less harsh after I get my 222ES back from SACDmods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euell Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 6:04:45 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- On 3/22/2004 5:06:12 PM minn_male42 wrote: much better than your average cd.... IMHO ---------------- You're missing his point, and it's the same point I've been raising about the format: Sure, it's better than 16/44.1 CD, with all the associated issues with brickwall FIR filters and phase-ripple filter slopes penetrating the high frequency ranges, not to mention the dickwad dime-shop mastering houses catering to the big 5 label demands for "LOUDER, LOUDER, LOUDER!!!!" However, it is not, in any way shape form or manner superior to DVD-A, with its lossless codec compression algo and 24/96x2 + 24/48x3 surround output, which pushes those filter issues right out of the audible frequency ranges and extends the dynamic range to well below the best amplifier's noise floor. Not to mention the people mastering DVD-A are the same people who master movie soundtracks, so dynamic range is ingrained into their thought processes, as opposed to the aforementioned dime-store outfits that crush every last dB of dynamics out of the disc in an effort to ensure that it's the loudest effing thing in your multi-changer. ---------------- I have to agree with Griff - Although I am not in his league in terms of audio knowledge - all I can compare is what I hear. What I hear on good DVD-A or DTS recordings is sound that is so natural that you'd believe the performance in taking place in your listening space. The SACD's, however, don't seem to provide that full "live" sound - they merely sound to me like someone seperated the channels and the sound is very localized, not "full" range. Granted - as stated before, there seems to be a lot more emphasis on the mixing and mastering of these recordings, and that makes them superior to standard CD's, but I don't think they hold a candle to the DVD-A format. I also like the fact that most of us already have the means to play these discs without having to buy another piece of hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I better start listening to my Philips 963SA more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 7:05:15 PM Euell wrote: ---------------- On 3/22/2004 6:04:45 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- On 3/22/2004 5:06:12 PM minn_male42 wrote: much better than your average cd.... IMHO ---------------- You're missing his point, and it's the same point I've been raising about the format: Sure, it's better than 16/44.1 CD, with all the associated issues with brickwall FIR filters and phase-ripple filter slopes penetrating the high frequency ranges, not to mention the dickwad dime-shop mastering houses catering to the big 5 label demands for "LOUDER, LOUDER, LOUDER!!!!" However, it is not , in any way shape form or manner superior to DVD-A, with its lossless codec compression algo and 24/96x2 + 24/48x3 surround output, which pushes those filter issues right out of the audible frequency ranges and extends the dynamic range to well below the best amplifier's noise floor. Not to mention the people mastering DVD-A are the same people who master movie soundtracks, so dynamic range is ingrained into their thought processes, as opposed to the aforementioned dime-store outfits that crush every last dB of dynamics out of the disc in an effort to ensure that it's the loudest effing thing in your multi-changer. ---------------- I have to agree with Griff - Although I am not in his league in terms of audio knowledge - all I can compare is what I hear. What I hear on good DVD-A or DTS recordings is sound that is so natural that you'd believe the performance in taking place in your listening space. The SACD's, however, don't seem to provide that full "live" sound - they merely sound to me like someone seperated the channels and the sound is very localized, not "full" range. Granted - as stated before, there seems to be a lot more emphasis on the mixing and mastering of these recordings, and that makes them superior to standard CD's, but I don't think they hold a candle to the DVD-A format. I also like the fact that most of us already have the means to play these discs without having to buy another piece of hardware. ---------------- guys...take a listen to almost anything in the telarc SACD catalog and then tell me how SACD doesn't sound good.... the 1812 overture not only has the high volumes of the cannon shots but has some very soft passages with zero noise... the other disc which i feel is incredible is the telarc Carmina Burana recorded by the Atlanta Sym Orch and Chorus..... awesome dynamics with a non-existent noise floor.... very full sound all around..... DVD-audio sounds great... but then so do these telarc discs.... they are two of the best orchestra recordings that i have ever heard.... in any format! i never said that SACD was better than DVD-audio...just IMHO that it was better than regular CD's.... but i agree that just remastering some old master tapes and releasing them on SACD does not offer any improvements... again the source is the crucial part of this whole process.... i agree that many SACD's do not offer any improvement in sound over a CD.... the same can be said for DVD-audio.... a poor master recording is going to sound lousy no matter what the format...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 6:39:58 PM Piranha wrote: On the other side of things the Police-Every Breath You Take: The Classics, and Aerosmith-O'Yeah Ultimate Hits were a bit disappointing to me. Both are not very well recorded in my opinion. ---------------- That's it in a nutshell. SACD can't make anything sound better than the original recording. Your disappointment is likely because of you not liking the original engineering, or the decisions made during the new mastering (mixing, eq). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 7:39:40 PM paulparrot wrote: That's it in a nutshell. SACD can't make anything sound better than the original recording. Your disappointment is likely because of you not liking the original engineering, or the decisions made during the new mastering (mixing, eq). ---------------- Actually, the master recordings of the old Police material are excellent analog recordings - they were using 24-track tape at the very height of that technology. Source is no excuse in that situation. I bought a copy of Zenyatta Mondatta on SACD and was pretty underwhelmed. Joe Satriani's Engines of Creation, which was actually recorded to DSD, was pretty disappointing as well, after repeated listens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 7:54:08 PM Griffinator wrote: Actually, the master recordings of the old Police material are excellent analog recordings - they were using 24-track tape at the very height of that technology. Source is no excuse in that situation. I bought a copy of Zenyatta Mondatta on SACD and was pretty underwhelmed. Joe Satriani's Engines of Creation, which was actually recorded to DSD, was pretty disappointing as well, after repeated listens. ---------------- but the question is.... how did they sound compared to the original recordings?... and secondly.... if the originals were done very well, then should the SACD sound better? i bought the carole king "tapestry" recording that was released on SACD.... very disappointing..... but then again, it sounded almost exactly like the CD version.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mopar dave Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 i agree, some sacd are good and some not so good. not real impressed with the goodby yellow brick road i just bought. i have santana's abraxas on sacd and it's real good. dire straits-dire straits and neal young-freedom on redbook excellent, as good or better than some of my sacd's including goody yellow brick road played on the richard kern modded 333es. dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Since, with every improvement to amplifiers and speakers I discover a few additional CDs, SACDs, (and records) that used to sound like ground glass are now more extended approximations of the original acoustic performance, that the limitation is my delivery system (cd/sacd/phono player, amp, speaker) not the format. I can hear some improvement with SACD, but most likely, the limitations of my equipment prevents me from getting close to hearing any real differences between the technologies. I do enjoy the Philips 963SA's upsampled CD over my older Sonic Frontiers TransDac, and the SACD is reliably excellent. The Philips may not be the last word in fidelity, but until I learn to prevent the rest of my system from trashing what it does right I am focusing on amplifier and speaker distortion. Leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 7:54:08 PM Griffinator wrote: Actually, the master recordings of the old Police material are excellent analog recordings - they were using 24-track tape at the very height of that technology. Source is no excuse in that situation. I bought a copy of Zenyatta Mondatta on SACD and was pretty underwhelmed. Joe Satriani's Engines of Creation, which was actually recorded to DSD, was pretty disappointing as well, after repeated listens. ---------------- Oh, so you've heard the Police masters? How did you manage that exactly? Whether I, you, or the man on the moon likes the way some particular SACD sounds has nothing to do with the merits of the technology. There can be a hundred and one factors more important, not the least of which are the way the original recording sounds, the way the remastering engineer decided to make the final product sound, and listener personal preference as to what constitutes pleasing sound. You like DVD-A. If you hear a DVD-A disc you don't like, if you can imagine that, would you say the whole format sucks? I'm not sure where that leaves anyone. I've heard bad reel to reel recordings, bad LPs, and bad CDs too. I guess we can only listen live. No, wait! I've heard bad live sound. What a pickle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whadyasay Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 For general argument's sake, I'll lump DVD-A and SACD together and ask...what's out there that is better, and available to the regular consumer? Sure, the format is still young, and the availability of components is still not as wide as regular CD-players and even turntables...but how many new releases are available on vinyl? I totally agree that some recordings/mastering for SACD's (and some DVD-A's that I've listened to) seem arbitrarily spread out or remixed for the multi-channel 'wow-factor', but the ones that are done well are a major step-up from regular CD's, and considering that the discs cost relatively the same as CD's, and that there are more reasonably-priced universal players sprouting up, I definitely think that this is a format worth developing even further. It seems to me (and I'm no self-proclaimed 'audiophile' by any sense, although I do edit films and sound for a living) that the whole DVD-A/SACD thing teeters in a sort of grey area between the real intense and finicky (in a good way) audio enthusiast or audiophile, and the general consumer who is just as happy listening to a CD on a stock car audio system. The latter would be hard-pressed to devote as much time and money into an audio system as the former...a system that would probably get much more out of these new formats than what the latter party would be satisfied with. Yet to completely ignore the larger, less-discriminating consumer bracket would pretty much negate the sort of efforts put into the intended wide distribution of the format...and its apparent mission to 'replace CD's'. This ambiguity could be the achilles heel, but I hope not. There's always going to be an elitist group of enthusiasts who are quick to downplay what many 'more normal' enthusiasts applaud as an advancement in whatever field, but basically, I do think it's worth pursuing a better-sounding format whose implementation is very familiar to the general public (compact digital discs). The development of the CD led to the DVD...and was that a step up from VHS? That's an extreme example, but maybe the trend will continue on the audio side of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Read what Ed Ed Meitner has to say... a bit different. http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/meitnerinterview.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 8:30:26 PM paulparrot wrote: Oh, so you've heard the Police masters? How did you manage that exactly? ---------------- No, but I've spoken to people who have, and people who actually worked on the projects, and their opinion is that the SACD fails to capture the essence of the recording. ---------------- Whether I, you, or the man on the moon likes the way some particular SACD sounds has nothing to do with the merits of the technology. There can be a hundred and one factors more important, not the least of which are the way the original recording sounds, the way the remastering engineer decided to make the final product sound, and listener personal preference as to what constitutes pleasing sound. ---------------- Precisely my point. The technology is a sham. You've just read an interview with a well-respected engineer who makes that point. There are plenty of other well-respected engineers who share his view. ---------------- You like DVD-A. If you hear a DVD-A disc you don't like, if you can imagine that, would you say the whole format sucks? ---------------- Not the point. The point is tht the DSD technology is flawed. 1 bit, regardless of the samplerate, is insufficient to capture the full potential of the dynamic range. It is a non-linear format, subject to high-frequency noise, and of questionable long-term stability as an archive. The SNR of even the mighty Sony SCD-XA9000ES player is a mere 108dB, which is eclipsed by even the lowly ($117 list) Panasonic DVD-S55S at 115dB. ---------------- I'm not sure where that leaves anyone. I've heard bad reel to reel recordings, bad LPs, and bad CDs too. I guess we can only listen live. No, wait! I've heard bad live sound. What a pickle. ---------------- It's not about bad recordings, it's about bad format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Lots of people were unhappy with the Police remasters, and lots of people liked them. Same with the Elton John. What's that prove? SACD has immense dynamic range capability, more than could ever be needed. Please show me a recording that has a greater dynamic range than it is capable of playing. There's nothing sham about the technology. It'd be a sham technology if it made a bad recording sound good. SACD is not a magic format that makes everything on it sound perfect. Nothing can make up for a bad recording. Your understanding of the format is flawed, not the format itself. The high frequency noise business is a crock, repeated over and over by DVD-A people so many times that they actually believe it. And there are a *lot* of DVD-A people who are defensive and hostile about SACD. 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.