A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

[emaidel]

Recently, at a number of other audio-based websites, there's been a wealth of posts once again declaring the "lowly" CD as the worst possible sonic travesty ever inflicted on mankind. The adjectives run the gamut from A to Z, and the vitriolic condemnations of such a "dreadful" medium are endless.

Yet, amidst all this, I still like the CD. I not only like it, but prefer it to analog. (Making a statment like that on the other sites is enough to get me shot!) First and foremost, I have to state that there certainly are many truly horrible sounding CD's out there, and that most of them are popular music recordings, as opposed to classical. While the style of music shouldn't necessarily dictate the quality of a recording, it's very apparent that a good deal more care has gone into the engineering of a classical CD than a popular one, and that's truly unfortunate.

I listen to classical music far more than to popular music, though I do have a very extensive collection of popular stuff, including some 800 LP's and a similar number of popular music CD's. I also have a disproportionately large collection of Telarc CD's as compared to any other label in my classical collection, and it is the Telarc label that is primarily responsible for my enthusiastic support of this "horrible" medium.

There are Telarc CD's that were recorded as far back as the late 80's that still knock my socks off when I listen to them. Even an old Telarc recording of Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto positively crucifies the sonics (and the performance) of a far newer Naxos SACD of the same piece. So, my point is this: if some Telarc CD's can sound this good, then there's nothing inherently wrong with the medium, but rather, the engineering.

Telarc has used numerous different digital recording devices and consoles over the years, but has now chosen the DSD medium for recording as "the best availalble out there." CD's mastered from DSD recordings sound much, much better than those mastered on other forms of digital recorders, but it is the SACD that is the only playback medium capable of fully capturing all that the DSD process captures.

And yet, the SACD is in danger of extinction.

To me, should that happen, then that would be the most ignominious chapter in the history of this industry. Again, while all SACD's aren't the "best thing out there," several are, and nothing compares to them. The smooth, effortless and robust sound from a well engineered SACD can send chills up one's spine, as a couple new purchases I recently made do just that (Telarc's latest "PIctures at an Exhibition," and BIS's super-spectacular recording of Beethoven's 9th).

Having worked in this industry for over 30 years, I still fondly recall the excitement we all shared whenever some "new" technology appeared, resulting in better sound. The first "Direct to Disc" recording stunned all of us. So did the first Telarc LP, mastered digitally from the Soundstream Digital Tape Recorder. So did dbx-encoded LP's and cassettes. And so on, and so on.

That the SACD's performance tops all of these by the degree that it does, but sometimes, regrettably, doesn't (for the same reasons some CD's sound so awful), and hasn't received the degree of enthusiasm once reserved for far less incremental improvements in fidelity is a downright shame.

And, that's my thought for the day....

[Feanor]

Recently, at a number of other audio-based websites, there's been a wealth of posts once again declaring the "lowly" CD as the worst possible sonic travesty ever inflicted on mankind. The adjectives run the gamut from A to Z, and the vitriolic condemnations of such a "dreadful" medium are endless.

Yet, amidst all this, I still like the CD. I not only like it, but prefer it to analog. (Making a statment like that on the other sites is enough to get me shot!)
...

That the SACD's performance tops all of these by the degree that it does, but sometimes, regrettably, doesn't (for the same reasons some CD's sound so awful), and hasn't received the degree of enthusiasm once reserved for far less incremental improvements in fidelity is a downright shame.

And, that's my thought for the day....

Well, most of the way.

I have no practical use for LPs. I think any decent CD recording trumps vinyl. (Granted, I'm talking about well-recorded CDs, not the early, direct transcriptions from masters made for LP.) I don't know and will never find out what it will be like to listen to $10,000 vinyl kit like that snot O'Shag's, much less a $40,000 vinyl kit like Bernd's. So "ultimate" vinyl capability is irrelevant to me

As for SACD, it's great. Although personally I think the real advantage is multi-channel. What I really hate is the apparent reality that SACD might fail because vinyl Ludites reject it in a continued, if misplaced, loyalty to the LP.

[02audionoob]

I suppose I could take the initiative to look this up with the power of Google, but does the LP have enough market share in the music business to impact any other format? I've heard it's something like 0.2% of the music market, which seems like just a blip by comparison to downloads and the CD.

[emaidel]

I don't know what the LP's market share is, but I do know that the folks at Telarc are alarmed at the increased popularity of the LP as compared to the ever dwindling popularity of the CD, and the lack of any popularity for the SACD.

[Auricauricle]

I started buying discs in 1983, when I was stationed in Japan as part of my stint in the Navy. I was a corpsman, and attached to the hospital on the base in Yokosuka, and had ample opportunity to take train rides to Tokyo, Yokohama, etc., where I spent hours shopping for electronics and compact discs.The mid '80's were heady days for Telarc and other recording companies who were eager to trot out their wares. While companies like Telarc produced discs that showcased the new medium to the fullest extent, other manufacturers were happy to churn out inferior recordings of even the most arcane and shoddy material. For collectors of "classic" albums, the CD's promise of durability, portability and unblemished reproduction of source material was irresistible.

Telarc's recordings were and are among the best recorded and performed music available. I seem to remember Telarc producing LP's, but CD technology was epitomised by Telarc, who took exacting pains to create sonic masterpeices that won over critics and listeners alike, who bought their albums in great numbers. The folks at Telarc were more than happy to oblige listeners who wanted to explore the limits of the medium. With bombastic recordings, such as Star Tracks, listeners could drive their systems to incredible levels of performance. I was one such listener, and blew up a nice pair of AR bookshelf speakers I had previously loaned from a friend, when a crescendo introducing the Star Wars theme sent a brief, powerful blast through the less than digital-ready membranes.

Other companies produced albums as beautifully rendered, if not more so, than Telarc. Philips was a very aggressive marketer of classical recordings, and their recordings were every bit as pristine and sonically opulent as those made by Telarc. Philips recordings were not as ostentatious as Telarc's, and were viewed by this listener as a more refined cousin of their American cousin.

Deutsche Grammophone also weighed in for the fight. While many of their works were historically and oftentimes sonically significant, their offerings were not always what they were cracked up to be. Karajan was seen on thousands of recordings, but despite his presence, engineering techniques of the late sixties and seventies did not always translate well in their application to '80's technology.

In many respects, the Rock and Roll and contemporary music recordings offered on CD were just as spotty. While musicians like Donald ***an were held up as shining beacons of the format, as in The Nightfly, other musicians did not fare as well. Jethro Tull's Aqualung was nearly universally derided by listeners. While some of the blame was rightly placed at the feet of the musicians and their engineers, most of it was rightly leveled at the companies themselves, who did not always cull the best source material for their products.

It was Michael Jackson's Thriller that brought the fullest expression of the CD medium's impact to light, when that album eclipsed Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon as the highest selling rock album of all time. Pink Floyd fans like myself were wont to buy DSOM with unflagging regularity, as hours of playing the album inevitably created various of the snap, crackle and pops that necessitated buying a new, "virgin" album. With CD's in production, fans of DSOM were delighted to posess an album that was well-nigh indestrucible. While DSOM's reign on the charts held for many, many years, the aftershocks of the CD revolution reversed the tide, and allowed Thriller to knock DSOM out of contention.

There has always been debate as to whether CD's or LP's are the best available medium, and I won't tarry to prate about that, but it is sufficient to note that CD technology is among one of the most important milestones of recorded music history. CD's are capable of exemplifying some of the best qualities of music available. With all good things intact: a talented artist, a keen-eared and technically proficient engineer and excellent recorning equipment and media, the possibility of recording outstanding recordings that withstand the test of time is very real. While all-digital media, or DDD, is seen by many as the best possible format, savvy and canny folks have demonstrated that even analog material remastered digitally can be just as sonically compelling. Suzanne Vega's early CD's, including her debut, are AAD. Those album's clarity and presentation belie the format and would fool nearly any well-eared listener.

I don't foresee CD technology going easily into the abyss as other technologies of recording and production step up to challenge CD format. SACD was poised to usurp CD, but it never really did so, as listeners like me were quite happy with the latter and were unwilling to shell out the extra bucks for the recordings and the players that were developed to play them. The current battles between Blue Ray and DVD only encourage me to remember Y. Berra's "It's deja-vu all over again".

While I am sure that various SACD's are capable of producing works that will be considered exemplars of the format, SACD continues to occupy a niche market that comparativley (to CD's) few consumers are aware of and even fewer have been persuaded to go the distance for. Similarly, Home Theatre and Multichannel interest is a formidable force in the market, but many listeners in the know have opted to less ornate systems of the 2 or 2.1 variety, considering the rest as unnecessary clutter or just plain noise.

In sum, as technological achievements continue to develop and more media and playback sources are made available, the contants of good performance and good recording will always remain. For this reason, Audiophilism will always be an important interest for music consumers and producers alike, who know all too well that Music, while capable of being deconstructed and prized apart by analysis, exposition and essay, will aways be man's closest contact to the unreachable, to the Sublime.

[Mr Peabody]

Is this an SA contest mislabeled :) Let's remember Sheffield Labs. Vinyl or CD it comes down to the source material as stated. Also analog vs CD is a futile argument because no one is comparing apples to oranges. We all have different analog rigs and CD players, so most are going to have a different impression and experience. And sometimes one is not necessarily better than the other but different and it comes down to what one prefers.

[blackraven]

I have not heard $10K turntables but I have heard $2500 set ups an although vinyl sounds nice it still sounds compressed to me. Good CD recordings on good CDP's still sound better to me. Especially with tube or hybrid equipment.

I also own several XRCD's and and I find them to be excellent and they sound almost as good as good 2ch SACD recordings. And much better than std cd's. Especially the xrcd24's. The only problem is that they cost $30-35's. The remastering and production methods used are excellent and truly make a difference.

[emaidel]

. SACD was poised to usurp CD, but it never really did so, as listeners like me were quite happy with the latter and were unwilling to shell out the extra bucks for the recordings and the players that were developed to play them.


While I am sure that various SACD's are capable of producing works that will be considered exemplars of the format, SACD continues to occupy a niche market that comparativley (to CD's) few consumers are aware of and even fewer have been persuaded to go the distance for. .


That was precisely my take on SACD's for years, until I read about the Marantz SA-8001, which was the first player that not only was a first rate redbook CD player, but an SACD player designed exclusively for 2-channel stereo, and not multi-channel. What sealed the deal was an online conversation with Jack Renner (former founder, president and chief recording engineer of Telarc). I asked him if I'd appreciate the sonic benefits of SACD in 2-channel stereo, as I have no intention of adding two extra speakers in my listening room, and he very enthusiastically replied that I would.

The 8001, according to Marantz, takes 200 hours to sufficiently burn in for CD playback, and takes an additional 300 hours to burn in for SACD playback. Since I bought it last spring, it's a fair guess that I've reached those timeframes, and I have to say that the difference between the CD and SACD layers on a hybrid disc is now far more apparent than it was when I first received the unit. I also hear a distinct difference in SACD playback as compared to almost any CD: a greater sense of openness, air around instruments, silkiness to the strings, throaty, deep brass and a power to the bass drum that nothing comes close to.

In conversations with other engineers currently at Telarc, I was told (more than once) that when comparing the CD and SACD layers of a properly engineered disc on a good system, the CD layer "pales by comparison" to the SACD. And, now, I have to agree that it does.

While the multi-channel capability of SACD's is considered an advantage (and, I suppose it is), I feel that's one of the reasons the format hasn't taken hold as it deserves to. You, me, and countless others, simply aren't willing, or able, to convert our sound systems over to a multi-channel system, and have no intentions of ever doing so. So, at least initially, why bother with SACD? The answer is clear: they sound better. And, they sound a lot better.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks for the clue-in emaidel: I am/was completely unaware of 2-channel SACD. Sounds like I have some homework to do....

Mr. P: Sorry about my loquacity; I suppose emaidel's start touched a nerve. You're right to bring up Sheffield and the case for source material. You and blacktraven's arguments are valid, and remind me as emaidel has, that my knowledge is anything but au courant.

[Mr Peabody]

I was just joking because you, Emaidel and Feanor wrote such long and well written posts it reminded me of an essay :) Don't hold back the passion, an outlet for that, with those who may understand is probably why most of us are here.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks. Gotta watch out for the Rant Proclivity Index (RPI), nevertheless....

[emesbee]

While vinyl can certainly sound very good on high quality, expensive equipment, there is one major drawback that it has when compared to CD. SURFACE NOISE!! No matter how good the recording, or how expensive the equipment, there will always be surface noise on vinyl. Personally, I detest the snap, crackle and pop of vinyl, and that one factor alone is enough to destroy my listening pleasure. I had always thought that one of the major aims of high fidelity sound reproduction was to reduce or eliminate extraneous noise. Sure, there is noise on CDs, but only what is in the original recording which has therefore been transferred. There is no surface noise from a CD, and that, for me, is its great advantage.

[emaidel]

It was precisely the lack of surface noise on classical recordings that swayed me to the CD in the first place. I often listened to Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique," but rarely listened to the third movement on any LP of the piece that I owned, as the surface noise almost always marred the very soft, and extremely quiet parts of that movement. Playing a CD of it, and hearing no noise whatsoever was nothing short of a revelation.

I don't have any LP's of Mahler's Third, but the third movement of that monumental work has a "posthorn" solo recorded very, very softly as to be almost ethereal. I can't imagine trying to listen to it on LP, no matter how good the pressing, or the quality of the cartridge/turntable combination playing it, without having some surface noise mar the beauty of the posthorn.

Let us not also forget the nasty phenomenon known as "inner groove distortion" either. As many a symphony has a rousing, and loud finale (but, not all do, of course), there was always a certain amount of such distortion on an LP. Proper tonearm geometry and cartridge alignment does wonders to reduce this form of distortion, but on certain discs it's unavoidable. On a CD, there's just no such thing.

Again, my enthusiasm for CD's is based primarily on the effort put forth by recording engineers on classical recordings. I truly believe that, if popular recordings were made with the care and precision that most Telarc recordings are made with, the ever-increasing vitriol hurled against the CD would never have happened.

[Feanor]

While vinyl can certainly sound very good on high quality, expensive equipment, there is one major drawback that it has when compared to CD. SURFACE NOISE!! ...

For me the biggest factor was the ergonomics of handling LPs; handling the 12" to avoid finger prints; Zerostating them; dusting them with the carbon fibre brush; wiping or blowing of the ridge of dust; cleaning the stylus before and after each play. And of course the installation and balancing of cartridges. Not to mention the constant fear of scratching your record or damaging you stylus.

Some people claim to actually enjoy all these rituals: it is a form of masochism to which I cannot relate.

[Auricauricle]

You're right about the surface noise.....mostly. Yet CD's can be gouged and banged up a bit, and various sonic tattletales of their presence can crop up every now and then. Furthermore, as I said, early pressings of CD's weren't always reflective of the best source material out there. This is one of the reasons there are so many incarnations of Dark Side of the Moon, produced by James Guthrie and others, who took some time to spruce things up a bit in later re-issues. Need I remind anyone how bad Aqualung and some of the Bruno Walter releases were? As far as maintenance goes, I find myself polishing discs from time to time. Maybe it's an exercise akin to the Exorcist rituals described earlier, but I will swear that even with CD's, cleanliness is next to godliness.

[Feanor]

... As far as maintenance goes, I find myself polishing discs from time to time. Maybe it's an exercise akin to the Exorcist rituals described earlier, but I will swear that even with CD's, cleanliness is next to godliness.

I have CDs I've owned for twenty years that have never been clean, nor do they need it now. Occassionally I borrow a CD from the public library to see if I like the music & performance: typically these discs are scratched and filthy.

The fact is that I can even be bothered handling CDs nowadays. 98% of my listening is to computer files.

[Auricauricle]

Well, you probably have much more advanced and sonically appealing gear than I, but I will aver that cleaner discs sound and behave much better with a little elbow grease, now and then. Truth be told, I have found some players more "finicky" than others: my current DVD player can get testy if there are a few wayward smudges, here and there. My first CD player, on the other hand--a Sony 501-ES, was much less so. It was built like a tank and was very forgiving--a better deck in retrospect.

[emaidel]

There was actually a time when some folks stated that spraying CD's with ArmorAll improved their sound. I tried that, and experienced more disc-skipping than ever. I used an Alsop CD cleaner to get all that crap off those discs that I had sprayed, and then they were fine.

Aside from having to clean a CD that mistracked, or more often, a filthy DVD from either Blockbuster or Netflix that either wouldn't play at all, or skipped all over the place, I've rarely ever needed to clean a CD. Like Feanor, I have discs dating back to 1984 that have never been cleaned, and likely, never will be.

When I encounter a really dirty and badly scratched disc, the problems that are audible are not surface noise, but mistracking issues: clicks, skips and the like. I have to admit never having heard surface noise on a CD, no matter its condition. Still, just as I have handled my LP's with care, and never touching the surface with my fingers, I handle CD's in precisely the same manner even though it's not supposed to be necessary. If I drop a record to the floor the results can be catastrophic. If I drop a CD, chances are pretty good nothing will happen.

[Auricauricle]

Maybe I should get my nomenclature down: What you refer to as mistracking issues are what I have glibly referred to as "surface noise". My mistake.

I also have a number of CD's from the mid-eighties, including The Police's Synchronicity, a few Tangerine Dream albums and various classical discs (including Telarc's beloved Star Tracks) etc. To clean them, I have been experimenting with a solution composed of acetone, silver polish, fungicide and simichrome. It is all very liquid, and is applied with a Q-tip. After it dries, it is wiped off with a chamois cloth. Both front and back surfaces are cleaned. A spritz of disc cleaner (Radio Shack or Disc Washer) is applied to remove any residue. Again, this may be all unnecessary. but like the Exorcist posts described, I do discern detectable differences in clarity, imaging, and nuance. (And you wonder why this Aa screen name is so appropos?)

BTW: A little story that refers to my becoming smitten over these round, shiny things: Shortly after I started buying CD's, I became infatuated with the group, Dire Straits. In short fashion, I bought all of their albums. Around this time, a Navy buddy who was hosting a party asked me if he could borrow my Making Movies CD. I gave him the disc, with his promise to care for it.

Later that night, curiosity gripped my soul, and I went to the party. The room (we were living in a barracks), was awash with copious quantities of alcohol and throngs of guys and dolls who were laughing and carousing as though it was their last day on Earth. I found a chair and sat down to sip some beer, when I noticed a coaster to rest my beer upon. Already, the coaster bore a ring from a previously applied drink. Upon closer examination, I realised the coaster was not a coaster, but my CD! Furiously, I withdrew the disc, demanded the cover and stormed out. As soon as I returned into my room, I turned on my player and, after cleaning it off, inserted the disc. Miraculously, the disc played without a hitch. It was at that point that I realised that claims of CD invulnerability and sonic wonder were everything they were cracked up to be.

At the same time, my demise into the Nether World of audiophilism began its course, a disease that continues to haunt my poor soul to this day......

[Feanor]

...

I also have a number of CD's from the mid-eighties, including The Police's Synchronicity, a few Tangerine Dream albums and various classical discs (including Telarc's beloved Star Tracks) etc. To clean them, ... Again, this may be all unnecessary. but like the Exorcist posts described, I do discern detectable differences in clarity, imaging, and nuance. (And you wonder why this Aa screen name is so appropos?)

.... It was at that point that I realised that claims of CD invulnerability and sonic wonder were everything they were cracked up to be.
...

Absolutely: scratched, dirty CDs will cause playback glitches. As mentioned, I often borrow CDs from the public library to try before I buy. Most are more or less scratched or dirty; they work better for a cleaning unless the scratching is the main problem.

On the other hand, like emaidel, I take extremely good care of my own CDs, never touching the playing surface, etc.. Most I've never cleaned because they aren't dirty. Pardon me, but I remain very skeptical of CD treatments that are supposed to make unblemish CDs sound better. On the other hand, I would be interested in devices or treatments that can repair scratched CDs.

[Auricauricle]

Scratch repairation is what I've been experimenting with. Alsop made a solution a few years back that reminded me of nothing more than a repackaging of Brasso. In the same vein I have been playing with applying minute drops of Simichrome to discs that have been injured or for GP, with no ill effect. The jury is still out as far as its usefulness in repairing scratches, but I suspect there is a nominal improvement, nevertheless....

[emaidel]

On a somewhat related note, I've noticed that on all of the Telarc SACD's that I own, there's a statement to NEVER use a liquid-based cleaner on the disc. I have no idea why that should be, but it's definitely there, as plain as can be.

One of my most recent purchases (Beethoven's 9th on the BIS label with the Minnesota Orchestra and Chorale) all but refused to play when I first put it into my Marantz SA-8001. I kept getting a "no disc" display, even though there was a disc in the machine. I examined the disc, but saw no visible imperfections, and then lightly rubbed it with a clean cloth, and put it back into the player. And guess what? It worked just fine, and still does.

[Auricauricle]

I suppose that caveat was made to prevent lamebrains like myself from applying solvents that would destroy the plastic film and muck things up permanently. Folks often don't remember that most plastics are porous....

That Beethoven seems like an awesome one. BIS makes amazing recordings, fer sure!

[E-Stat]

And, that's my thought for the day....
My opinion doesn't vary much from yours. First of all, not all analog is LP based. Master tapes can sound wonderful with none of the challenges of vinyl. The CD medium works fine overall, especially now that most recordings today are mastered (and filtered) at much higher resolution and down converted to 16/44. The top, however is still a touch dry and lifeless vs. analog and hi-rez digital. I still use vinyl for two reasons: I am loathe to buy all of them over again and some are simply not available. Since I don't (yet) have a SACD player, I still enjoy hearing a clean non-bandwidth limited LP. I'm not crazy about the required ministrations for vinyl, but have used a VPI HW-16 RCM since 1983 which addresses a lot of the ticks and pops. I use a straight line tracking arm that does not suffer inner groove distortion.

My next purchase will be a two channel SACD player that does well on Redbook as well. I am leaning towards buying a used EMM Labs CD-SA having heard one at length at a friend's house. It also has one very desirable feature to me: high 4 volt output like my GamuT. No need for line stage. FWIW, Telarc uses EMM Labs stuff themselves for the initial ADC process as well as monitoring.

rw

[Auricauricle]

I agree, and after reading your post will look into 2-channel SACD's with interest....

I keep a turntable for the same reasons you do: some material is unavailable. Unlike you, however, I sometimes mess the "little quirks" of the medium. As a case in point, I refer you to an episode that occurred years ago when I was taping a friend's LP. An earthquake ensued shortly after takeoff, and caused a number of skips and such that I started the project anew when the tremors ended. To this day, I miss that recording...the nostalgia alone would have been worth the effort.....

[emesbee]

I often listened to Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique," but rarely listened to the third movement on any LP of the piece that I owned, as the surface noise almost always marred the very soft, and extremely quiet parts of that movement.

Funnily enough, I also have a vinyl recording of that piece of music, and rarely played the third movement for exactly the same reasons.

Certainly there are bad sounding CDs, just as there are poor sounding LPs, but its usually down to poor mastering. Sometimes the recording engineers just didn't care. The CD medium really does have the potential to sound very good indeed. There are enough well mastered CDs around to atest to that.

[jrhymeammo]

CD sounds consistant from the first track to the last.
I think the problem is that most of cartridges have not been mounted properly,
Tangent/linear tracking arms fixes that, but a proper aligment can eliminate most of this inner groove distortion people talk about.
But not everybody wanna mess around with gears as others.

It's kinda like this:

Analog Lovers like Bernd enjoys taking his time to roll-up his finest kine into a well manicured splif. While Feanor loves shoving his seeded shwag into a resin caked bowl, and taking it straight to the head. Me? I hate drugs.

JRA

[Feanor]

...
Analog Lovers like Bernd enjoys taking his time to roll-up his finest kine into a well manicured splif. While Feanor loves shoving his seeded shwag into a resin caked bowl, and taking it straight to the head. Me? I hate drugs.

JRA

Good grief. :shocked:

But I love metaphors, afterall.

[emaidel]

Analog Lovers like Bernd enjoys taking his time to roll-up his finest kine into a well manicured splif. While Feanor loves shoving his seeded shwag into a resin caked bowl, and taking it straight to the head. Me? I hate drugs.

JRA

????

Aside from the above-quoted bit of strangeness, I wanted to add another item regarding 2-channel SACD.

Telarc's original digital recordings were made via the Soundstream digital tape recorder, that sampled at a rate of 50K/sec. The LP's made from these digital sources were outstanding, but the CD's sounded a bit lame. The reason? The downsampling from the 50K rate to the 44.1K rate simply didn't work very well, offering, to use Telarc's own terms, "sonic artifacts" that were unmusical.

The DSD recording system, and the SACD playback medium has solved that. Telarc has remastered a handful of their "historic" recordings originally done on the Soundstream device, and made them available as some truly outstanding SACD's, since the DSD process, with its 2,8 million/sec sampling rate captures everything the Soundstream recorder did back in the 70's, but has never been realized until now.

I've had a number of discussions with Paul Blakemore of Telarc who is the primary engineer on these remasters. Not all of the older Soundstream tapes are in good enough condition to affect a decent transfer, and there is a tremendous amount of work entailed in the remastering. Add to that the fact that people no longer snap up Telarc discs as they once did, as well as a far more limited audience for the product too.

Still, there are a couple of sonic knockouts: certainly the Mahler 2nd ("Resurrection") with Leonard Slatkin conducting, and with a knockout performance by the inestimable Kathleen Battle (sans any of her shenanigans) Tchaikovsky's 4th, originally released by itself on a CD, is now coupled with Shostakovitch's 5th, and that SACD is another gem.

I don't own all of the Soundstream/SACD's, but all are exclusively 2-channel, as the original source material was 2-channel. If you own any of these older Telarc CD's, you're in for a real treat with the SACD remasters. Even the CD layers on the new discs sound much better, due to the use of the DSD system.

[Feanor]

...
My next purchase will be a two channel SACD player that does well on Redbook as well. I am leaning towards buying a used EMM Labs CD-SA having heard one at length at a friend's house. It also has one very desirable feature to me: high 4 volt output like my GamuT. No need for line stage. FWIW, Telarc uses EMM Labs stuff themselves for the initial ADC process as well as monitoring.

rw

Thanks for supporting Canadian industry.:thumbsup: From what I read, ( but unfortunately have not heard), the Ed Meitner products are among the crème de la crème of digital equipment. Definitely something to appeal to Republican sensibilities :biggrin5:, (not to suggest you're a Republican).

With your high resolution equipment I should think you'd find the hi rez playback a treat or even a revelation.
...

[Feanor]

....

I keep a turntable for the same reasons you do: some material is unavailable. Unlike you, however, I sometimes mess the "little quirks" of the medium. As a case in point, I refer you to an episode that occurred years ago when I was taping a friend's LP. An earthquake ensued shortly after takeoff, and caused a number of skips and such that I started the project anew when the tremors ended. To this day, I miss that recording...the nostalgia alone would have been worth the effort.....

I have LPs and it was my intention at one point to transcribe them to digital format, (say FLAC 24/48), but I haven't got around to it.

Meanwhile I suggested to my wife that I move my LPs to the basement, but she said, 'No', she likes the look of the row of LPs on the lower shelf: it gives a sort of ballist to the appearance.
...

[Ajani]

Like many of the posters here, I'll agree that much of the complaints about CDs is really due to poor recordings and not any inherent limitations of the format itself...

LPs are making a modest comeback, in part due to the fact that some audiophiles love all those PITA rituals required by the Vinyls Gods...

As for CDs & SACDs dying - ummm... well.... to be honest, it wouldn't affect me, I gave up on the CD medium about 2 years ago... I've totally embraced the music server world...

I'm thrilled to see how many major HiFi mags are devoting time, space and awards to Music Servers now... I guess the HiFi community has finally realized that you can have bit perfect hi-fidelity recordings using a Music Server instead of some type of optical disc playback device... Also, the HiFi industry has realized that in addition to producing the highest quality Music Servers at reasonable prices, they can also produce severely overpriced crapola under the title of "High-End Music Servers"...

SACD as a format will die eventually, but its goal of producing a Higher Resolution format than CD will be accomplished in other mediums, such as Music Servers.

If your idea of a Music Server is limited to an ipod loaded with low quality MP3s, then you are in for the shock of a lifetime oneday...

[Auricauricle]

Have you seen the new Tivoli Net Works Radio? Could be a sign of things to come....

http://www.tivoliaudio.com/home.php

[Ajani]

Have you seen the new Tivoli Net Works Radio? Could be a sign of things to come....

http://www.tivoliaudio.com/home.php

For half that price I'd opt for the Squeezebox Boom:

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_boom.html

[emaidel]

I have to confess complete and total ignorance. I don't know what a music server is, nor how it works. I know it's computer-based, but that's about as far as I can go. Just what is it, and how can I utilize it in my audio system, or do I have to buy a new one?

[Auricauricle]

Ah, but AJ, the wood....Makes period instruments so...woody....Juneau?

[blackraven]

Emaidel, in simple terms, a music server is just a big hard drive to store music, (basically a giant IPOD) compressed or uncompressed. It is the future of Audio and Video. My problem with it is what happens when the HD fails. I've had 2 HD's fail in my home computer in the past few years. Then you lose your library of music. Some one will have to develop an online storage site for all your music should your HD fail. Or you will have to have a back up drive with copies of all your music.

There are a lot of benefits of a music server with storage and cataloging your music files.

Me personally, I like being able to flip through my CD's rather than scrolling through a computer menu. Plus my Cd's are portable but with large Jump drives, portable HD's and IPODS you can do the same. I also like to read the lyrics and recording info included in CD's.

http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/536/v/1/sp/

[emaidel]

Thanks, blackraven. What you've described is more or less what I thought a music server was. Still a question: how does the material stored on the HD get played back through one's audio system? Do the computer and audio systems have to be interconnected? If so, that's a pretty major reason I'd have a probleme with one.

[Feanor]

Emaidel, in simple terms, a music server is just a big hard drive to store music, (basically a giant IPOD) compressed or uncompressed. It is the future of Audio and Video. ...

A "music server" is just an over-priced and/or under-powered computer. Any $300 computer plus a large hard drive and, say, a SqueezeBox (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_duet.html), (among many options), is a much better alternative.

[blackraven]

Yes, the computer needs to connect to the stereo. Thats my problem as well. I dont want to have to have a computer next to my audio equipment. (this is where wireless comes in but then you have to have your computer turned on all the time and I'm not so sure about sound quality of wireless). You can always use a small laptop and an external HD or a dedicated music server like that Cambridge Audio 640H which is a CDP as well.

[Ajani]

Emaidel, in simple terms, a music server is just a big hard drive to store music, (basically a giant IPOD) compressed or uncompressed. It is the future of Audio and Video. My problem with it is what happens when the HD fails. I've had 2 HD's fail in my home computer in the past few years. Then you lose your library of music. Some one will have to develop an online storage site for all your music should your HD fail. Or you will have to have a back up drive with copies of all your music.

There are a lot of benefits of a music server with storage and cataloging your music files.

Me personally, I like being able to flip through my CD's rather than scrolling through a computer menu. Plus my Cd's are portable but with large Jump drives, portable HD's and IPODS you can do the same. I also like to read the lyrics and recording info included in CD's.

http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/536/v/1/sp/

What BR said is essentially the gist of a Music Server... instead of having thousands of CDs lying around, you can have all of that music stored on one hard-drive in CD quality... Think of it like a much much much better Sony 400Disc Mega CD Changer...

Now on to BR's complaints about a music server...

Backup is easy, you can buy an extra hard-drive for very little now and simply keep a copy of all your music on that OR you can pay a monthly fee and keep all your music backed up online - YES, sites already do that... OR if you already have all your music on CDs, then you can just keep the CDs in storage as backup...

The reasons to use a Music Server:

1) Extremely Convenient... if you've ever used an iPod or Itunes (Windows Media Player etc..) to play music, then you've experienced a music server... It allows you to access ANY song in your music collection without getting up to change CDs/LPs/Tapes...

2) You can easily create and save playlists of songs... So for example I have Reggae, Rock and Romance Playlists that each contain at least 30 songs that I would like to hear one after the other... So when I go home I just select a playlist, hit play and put down the remote for the next few hours... I even have playlists for my favourite artists...

3) You can easily search through your music collection to find songs by artists you didn't even know/remember that you have... Trust me, I didn't know that I had several songs until I switched to using a Music Server...

[Ajani]

Thanks, blackraven. What you've described is more or less what I thought a music server was. Still a question: how does the material stored on the HD get played back through one's audio system? Do the computer and audio systems have to be interconnected? If so, that's a pretty major reason I'd have a probleme with one.

Yes, you would need to connect the computer/music server to your audio system... you can run cables from a computer to your stereo (which I don't recommend unless they are located in the same room) OR you can use a small streaming device such as the squeezebox Classic or even an Apple Airport Express or AppleTV to wirelessly retrieve the music from your computer... (whether wired or wireless, the sound quality is the same... if you have a really crappy wireless connection then you might have dropouts in the signal though)...

If you already have a computer and a wireless network, then I'd suggest a Squeezebox Classic $300 or Duet $400 as an easy way to setup a Music Server:

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html

[blackraven]

I think music servers will be embraced by the younger generation that has grown up with IPOD's and computers. I'm old school and still miss the feel and look of LP's with the album cover art, lyrics, etc.

I also don't mind getting off my a$$ to change out a CD. I do mind having to down load or copy my music to a server. My time is much more valuable to me. But all the benefits of a music server stated by Ajani are true. But if the CD meduim does go by the wayside, you will have to down load music from the internet which I'm not to keen on. Now my kids love to do that.

[Ajani]

I think music servers will be embraced by the younger generation that has grown up with IPOD's and computers. I'm old school and still miss the feel and look of LP's with the album cover art, lyrics, etc.

I also don't mind getting off my a$$ to change out a CD. I do mind having to down load or copy my music to a server. My time is much more valuable to me. But all the benefits of a music server stated by Ajani are true. But if the CD meduim does go by the wayside, you will have to down load music from the internet which I'm not to keen on. Now my kids love to do that.

Yep, Music Servers tend to appeal immediately to younger generations because they are already used to using them in one form or another (whether an ipod or just running itunes on their computer)...

And sadly part of the reason why music servers catch on so well with younger generations is because of extreme laziness: we don't want to get off our @$$es to change a CD or worse yet a LP... Just as we refuse to go to a library and read a book for research, when we can just type something in google or wikipedia and get immediate results... I'm not sure whether what we gain with this internet age outweighs what we lose..

[Feanor]

Thanks, blackraven. What you've described is more or less what I thought a music server was. Still a question: how does the material stored on the HD get played back through one's audio system? Do the computer and audio systems have to be interconnected? If so, that's a pretty major reason I'd have a probleme with one.

Yes of course, they do have to be interconnected. Ultimately the sound has to come into you preamp as another RCA/XLR input, or into your DAC typically as S/PDIF input -- in that regard it is not different than any other source.

There are numerous and some pretty esoteric options delivering computer output to your pre or DAC, but some of the simplest and most elegant are the Slimdevices options (http://www.slimdevices.com/). You computer can be in a different room from your hifi system.

A recent thread (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=262093#poststop) touched on this subject.

[Feanor]

Yep, Music Servers tend to appeal immediately to younger generations because they are already used to using them in one form or another (whether an ipod or just running itunes on their computer)...

And sadly part of the reason why music servers catch on so well with younger generations is because of extreme laziness: we don't want to get off our @$$es to change a CD or worse yet a LP...

You don't have to be young, come to that. Witness me. :smilewinkgrin:

[blackraven]

LOL, I just got a new catalog from www.onecall.com and it has an add in it for an LG Netflix Streaming Blu-Ray player that reads-

"Your reason to never leave the couch"

The world is heading in the direction depicted in the well done Animated movie - Walle

[E-Stat]

Thanks for supporting Canadian industry.:thumbsup:
As fellow North Americans, that's only right! I also get to travel to Canada with some frequency for both work and pleasure. The wife and I really want to visit the Vancouver area. Been to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta before.


... the Ed Meitner products are among the crème de la crème of digital equipment.
Both units I've heard were excellent. Disk loading can be a bit slow, but I can handle that. As I mentioned, I choose high output decks/DACs so as to obviate the need for a line stage. The EMM units have switchable output levels. While cosmetics is not my primary concern, I especially like the "instrument quality" appearance. Obviously well made, but not gaudy or overly "gee whiz". You can easily read the blue display across the room.


With your high resolution equipment I should think you'd find the hi rez playback a treat or even a revelation.
...
Agreed. I like high resolution when it isn't in your face (like Halcro). It just wafts by...

rw

[Wits]

Heya, Auricauricle! Nice to see a fellow Corpsman in here. :) Though I didn't get to go to Japan or anything cool like that; my duty was all stateside. :sad:

I'm just curious since the conversation is about SACD's and CD's mostly...will a blu-ray player play an SACD? I've been thinking about the Panasonic DMB-PD35 or 55.

Thanks in advance! :cornut:

[emaidel]

Thanks to all who've posted here in response to my question. As it turns out, I wasn't too far from the truth in terms of what a music server actually is. And, like some others, I don't have any use for it (at least, at the moment). I've reached what I consider the current pinnacle of audio quality, and that's the SACD. From what everyone has said, no music server is as good as the best SACD, and is at best, "CD quality."

And, I may be almost 64 years old, but getting up off my a$$ to change a CD (especially a long, classical disc which often is over 60 minutes in duration) is hardly a chore. I do find getting up to flip over an LP a pain, however...

[Ajani]

Thanks to all who've posted here in response to my question. As it turns out, I wasn't too far from the truth in terms of what a music server actually is. And, like some others, I don't have any use for it (at least, at the moment). I've reached what I consider the current pinnacle of audio quality, and that's the SACD. From what everyone has said, no music server is as good as the best SACD, and is at best, "CD quality."

While I agree that there is no reason for you to buy a music server (as you own and enjoy a nice collection of SACDs - which to my knowledge can't be ripped to a hard-drive), I should correct one error... Music Servers are not limited to CD quality.... their capability for high resolution audio is almost endless as many can be upgraded via software... in fact some sites sell high resolution downloads..... and devices such as the SlimDevices Transporter are able to play them... The reason I mentioned CD quality earlier is because most people using a Music Server choose to store their CD collection on it, using quality anywhere from crappy MP3 to lossless and wav files (CD Quality)...

So Music Servers can certainly surpass the quality of SACD, but right now the options for high resolution downloads are pitiful and since you can't store your existing SACDs on the Music Server I'd suggest sticking with the Marantz...

[emesbee]

Whether or not you use a music server, play CDs or LPs, the important point is whether or not you can get the particular music you are looking for, regardless of the medium.

[Mr Peabody]

Here's a SACD noob question. My AV8003 has DSD decoding but I do not have a SACD player, can I play a SACD in a BR or CD player send the digital bitstream to my processor to be decoded? Or, is there something special about a SACD transport?

[blackraven]

No you cant!

[Feanor]

Here's a SACD noob question. My AV8003 has DSD decoding but I do not have a SACD player, can I play a SACD in a BR or CD player send the digital bitstream to my processor to be decoded? Or, is there something special about a SACD transport?

My Oppo DV-980H (http://www.oppodigital.com/dv980h/default.asp) can send a pure DSD single to a receiver/processor via HDMI. Of course the latter needs to be able to handle pure DSD. It is likely that rec/pro will convert the DSD to PCM before doing any DSP; to avoid this conversion you might have to select "Direct" mode or whatever it's call on your unit.

A regular S/PDIF (coax or optical) connection will not carry DSD.

[Ajani]

Whether or not you use a music server, play CDs or LPs, the important point is whether or not you can get the particular music you are looking for, regardless of the medium.

Amen...

No one should have to change their musical tastes to suit a medium...

[Auricauricle]

Yeah, sorta like when the fortune teller I saw told me that I would have to "dress up" for a "close encounter"....I shouldn't have to change my suit to taste a medium! :D

[BRANDONH]

It's kinda like this:

Analog Lovers like Bernd enjoys taking his time to roll-up his finest kine into a well manicured splif. While Feanor loves shoving his seeded shwag into a resin caked bowl, and taking it straight to the head. Me? I hate drugs.

JRA



Good grief. :shocked:

But I love metaphors, afterall.

jrhymeammo seems to know the lingo lol

[jrhymeammo]

Good grief. :shocked:

But I love metaphors, afterall.

I just enjoy nagging on you and your love for analog. :hand:

[jrhymeammo]

jrhymeammo seems to know the lingo lol

Hey Brandon,

We gotta keep this thread clean. This thread is about the unethical conspiracy of cartridge companies and the SA8001.