Kevin Bresnahan Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 BTW, I disagree with you that DSotM is any more of an improvement with some others you panned. Are you saying that you don't think the SACD stereo layer of "Dark Side of the Moon" is a step above the US CD? I think it's much better than that piece of junk. FWIW, I have owned 3 versions of this title on CD, keeping the best-sounding version, Mobile Fidelity's gold CD. When I compared the stereo layer of the SACD to the MoFi CD, I heard a lot more details in some areas, not so much detail in others. All in all, I think it is better-sounding than the MoFi and much better-sounding than the US CD that it replaced in EMI's catalog! That disc sounds terrible! In fact, I actually returned it to the store as "defective". I figured it would sound better than my old Japanese Harvest CD simply due to more modern remastering. Boy, was I wrong. Right off the bat, the heartbeat... it's hardly audible on the US disc. Then, when the mad ranting starts (very soft), you can't even tell what the madman is saying on the US CD! "I've been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands..." "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..." Kinda sounds like a lot of us! As for others I've "panned", that word is too negative. I am not panning them. The term pan is defined as "to criticize severely" (ref. www.m-w.com). The only SACD I would ever consider "panning" is Peter Gabriel's "Shaking the Tree". Every other SACD I have bought is a welcome addition to my collection with all of them representing some improvement over its CD counterpart. It's the degree of improvement where you & I seem to disagree. When it comes to Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue", when I had a friend over and we compared 3 versions blind (US CD remaster, Japanese DSD CD, US MC-SACD), we did not always pick the SACD as "better". In fact, during a couple of parts, the Japanese DSD CD seemed "smoother". This is not saying that the SACD "lost" or anything. We seemed to agree that overall it was best. However, it was not as improved as we thought it was going to be. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 (edited) Greg, you say the differences between SACD and CD can be significant. I don't disagree. When I wrote that the difference can't be that spectacular, I was referring to these statements by mgraham333: Listening to this SACD I felt as if I was finally hearing the music rather than a recording of the music. WOW! Unbelievably life-like. The cymbals sounded like cymbals, very metallic. The horns were also incredible, very crisp. I also listened to The Police: Syncronicity. Again, the music had a whole new feel. There were sounds coming at me that I never knew were there before. No, this is not an improvement that you get from high resolution alone. It sounds more like a comparision with a badly remastered CD or between stereo and multichannel. That's why I'm asking what Matt compared the SACDs to. BTW: I bought a second SACD player today. OK, I will use the Philips DVD 963 mainly for it's DVD capabilities, but it plays SACDs too. Isn't that optimistic? Edited July 31, 2003 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgraham333 Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 I love watching threads like this. People arguing, trying to convince others to change their opinions. I see argument as a tool for one party to have another party UNDERSTAND their position rather than adopt it. And this can usually be accomplished in one MB page or so, and yet threads like this go on and on. It is absolutely entertaining!! And if I'm not careful, I just might learn something. (where's that from....the brain scan pulls up the Fat Albert cartoon, but I'm not sure) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 (edited) High-Rez Reality By Tony Faulkner, August 4, 2003 http://www.stereophile.com/soapbox.shtml http://www.auracle.com/greenroom/ I am sick unto death of all the hype, spin, and advertorial about SACD and DVD-Audio in the audiophile press. It is time someone published balancing commentary to offset the endless propaganda from lackeys telling us that SACD and DVD-Audio are runaway successes, when they are not, and are unlikely ever to be so—which ought to be as obvious as the nose on Tony Blair's face (getting longer each day). As far as high-density digital audio is concerned, no one could fairly accuse me of not having put my money where my mouth is. My company is still one of very few to have bought its own DSD recording equipment (dCS converters, Genex, and racks of SCSI drives), and we have done many 176kHz and 88kHz high-speed PCM recordings. Sadly, in the fullness of time I have learnt that SACD and DVD-Audio as manifest, in listeners' homes, are fundamentally just glorified compact discs "with knobs on," driven by a lot of expectation and [hoo-hah]. If you ask a true, dedicated audiophile about his favorite sound, chances are it will still be vinyl LP. It's like asking a Harley motorcycle owner if he would prefer a Lexus or Ford automobile—he may own a car (as an audiophile probably does a CD player), but the bike will be his true love. SACD and DVD-Audio were certainly originally conceived as bringers of sound quality superior to that of CD, but such a pure concept was highjacked a long time ago by the corporate strategists, for the most part. The cheaper players I have heard are no great shakes with the high-density discs, and I still prefer my Wadia CD transport plus Stax DAC on a good CD. The high-density players offer CD replay compatibility, but more often than not of a quality not worthy of the price point. Let's face it, unless you must have surround, I do not believe that SACD and DVD-Audio—as currently offered—deliver the goods, except in very rare combinations of player, disc, and system. From a record company point of view, we have another set of problems, which I believe will act as a barrier to any big development of SACD and/or DVD-Audio because there will be an ongoing shortage of viable top-quality new recordings. External dollops of cash from corporate funds have primed the pump, but one must wonder what will happen when the funds dry up, which they will have to sooner or later. The high-density digital formats require eccentric studio gear, eccentric editing/mastering, and eccentric pressing facilities. If you are a label retailing CDs at middle or budget price, how do you price the hybrid pressings? Do you do two pressing runs to allow for big-selling CD market requirements? Who pays for the high-density layer which does not get played? How many traditional conservative CD music buyers could give a monkey's about higher resolution, especially if it puts the price up? If you read the small print on the back of some SACDs, you will find out they were 44.1kHz, 48kHz PCM, or, if you are lucky, analog originals, not squeaky clean DSD. The list even includes one of my recordings that Naxos issued on SACD (Japanese Orchestral Favourites recorded 44.1kHz PCM in Tokyo). The SACD catalogue is growing, it is true, but there is too little of real musical and/or technical value to turn many audiophiles' heads, let alone Joe Sixpack's head—nor mine, for that matter. Let us all get back to business, please, and stop wasting energy suspending disbelief. CD is here for the time being as the mass carrier, and we know we can make it sound pretty decent if we take enough trouble. Vinyl LP is alive and kicking, and the proven preference for many audiophiles. I have just bought some Studer analog tape machines and shall be running them in parallel on our projects from September onwards, hopefully so we can release a handful of LPs next year. Edited August 4, 2003 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GregM Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 (edited) I've had several conversations with Tony Faulkner by e-mail over the past 3 years. His piano trios (Ravel/Debusy, Faure) was a great early release and he believes SACD to be a very worthy format. What he's saying here is that the industry is not going about SACD (or DVD-A) in the right way in terms of classical music (which is his focus). He isn't concerned with jazz or popular music, and is extremely afraid that classical sales will decline further. From that perspective, his words resonate very strongly coming from a man whose passion is classical and small labels--a shakey combination--and wants to see record sales slump no further. The Who-Tommy was will soon be out on SACD and will probably sell better in its first 2 months than all of the titles Tony has worked on in the past year. It also must be said that Tony's 1st generation Genex equipment was very difficult to use and to configure with the SCSI drives. However, that equipment is now badly outdated and makes life more difficult than necessary for him when it comes to DSD. There are now much better tools for DSD. On my stereo, there is simply no contest between Tony's work produced on CD and on SACD and I can't justify spending money on CD when there are better choices on SACD. Other classical fans with good systems have noticed this as well and are now backing off on CD purchases. This has really hurt an already beleagured market, and Tony is lamenting. . .that's how I read the article. Edited August 4, 2003 by GregM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 While I may disagree with Greg on many points, I also don't see the point in trying to "debunk" SACD and DVD-A. Greg says he hears a difference on his system, so I have to take that as fact. If others don't, well, that's OK too. Personally I agree that for most titles, SACD and DVD-A releases sound superior on my middleweight system, verified for me by my personal blindfold comparisons on the same player. The difference for me lies manly in the increased dynamic range - resonant, realistic bass and shimmering highs that CD, even 24 bit/96kHz remasterings, just can't touch. Also a more realistic soundstage and separation among instruments. That's all the proof I need that the emperor has clothes. One can enjoy both old and new formats for what they offer - greater volume of releases in the standard CD format, including obscurities, and high-end remastering of more popular favorites (at least for now) one can "upgrade" to (or buy for first time in cases where I've held off on certain titles). Whether SACD or DVD-A or some other new format will "replace" CD is kind of a moot point by my reckoning - first off, there seems to be a market for this higher end format to sustain a stream of releases, and all that I think remains to be seen is what the market share will balance out to be. Even if these formats "overtake" CD, which I doubt, so what - I can live with having 1600+ standard CDs even if they are not all in the "best possible sound" because I find I enjoy hearing as many titles as possible rather than saving up $ to listen to just a few SACDs or DVD-As. I won't feel compelled to "upgrade" them all, that's for darn sure. Others will disagree. But this pointless debate about formats is just odd. Room for both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted August 21, 2003 Report Share Posted August 21, 2003 SACD and DVD-Audio may be getting all the format news these days, but here's an interesting statistic: sales of vinyl so far this year total 661,000 units, trouncing the 234,000 units sold by DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD combined. http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1688 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GregM Posted August 21, 2003 Report Share Posted August 21, 2003 Considering how many titles are available on vinyl compared to SACD, I'm surprised that the sales are even in the same ballpark. One would expect at least an order of magnitude difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmilovan Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 Yesterday, I was thinking about some heretic question: Is this new format put to have safe encryption of material, with no allowance to burn digital copies? Not ONLY for this sake, but it was good moment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 (edited) Advantages of SACD (some also apply to DVD-A): For the consumer: - better sound quality (higher resolution): relevant for "audiophile" music listeners only - possibility of multichannel sound: the biggest innovation over CD, but many discs don't have it, and most music fans still don't use it (stereo setup only) For the industry: - possibility of copy-protection: single layer SACDs cannot be digitally copied (yet). But the CD layer of hybrid SACDs (currently favored by the mrket) can be copied. - new licencing rights: the Sony/Philips CD patents have expired, SACD gives new opportunities for technology licensing income - another possiblitiy of selling the same music again (like LP-->CD transition): but only if consumers are convinced by the advantages of the new format Edited August 22, 2003 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GregM Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 Yesterday, I was thinking about some heretic question: Is this new format put to have safe encryption of material, with no allowance to burn digital copies? Not ONLY for this sake, but it was good moment! You can always burn a CD through the analog signal of the SACD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmilovan Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 Hmm, yep, but with supposed data quality loss? And I think there is protection via optical cables, dont know (I hear that SONY's minidisc has it enabled). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GregM Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 I'd wager that a CD burned from the analog outputs of an SACD player could sound better than a CD burned from the optical output of a CD player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted August 22, 2003 Report Share Posted August 22, 2003 That depends entirely on the quality of the A/D converters on the sound card. Don't even try it with a standard onboard sound chip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GregM Posted August 23, 2003 Report Share Posted August 23, 2003 Go ahead and try it, whether you have a sound card or a stereo CD-recorder component. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
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.