Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003

    Just 'cause it's an SACD doesn't mean it's gonna be better!

    While I maintain that the SACD medium is far and away the best out there, a disc that's an SACD isn't any guarantee that it's going to be the best simply because it's an SACD. If the recording engineer(s) don't properly utilize good mikes, and place them carefully, the result is still going to be fair to mediocre, regardless of the vast potential of the recording medium, no matter which one is used.

    One of the very first CD's I purchased (in 1984) was Tchaikovsky's 1st and 3rd piano concertos played by Victoria Postnikova along with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra conducted by her husband Gennadi Rozhdestvensky on London. Everything about the disc is first rate, despite its being an early CD, many of which were characterized by excessive midrange glare, steely sounding strings, and little or no depth. Unfortunately, the finale of the 3rd concerto is marred by annoying ticks, and skipping. No CD player I've ever owned has been able to play this piece without trouble (including my newest, the Marantz SA-8001). The disc is no longer available anywhere (believe me, I checked !), so I had to try another tactic.

    I looked up SACD's of the 3rd concerto, and found one on Naxos, featuring an entirely Russian ensemble and ordered it. As soon as it started playing, I was disappointed - very disappointed. While the performers are all uniformly excellent, I can only wonder what the recording engineers were thinking when they placed the orchestra seemingly behind, and only to the left of the piano - just about nothing comes out of the right speaker! There are little dynamics, and the orchestra is never loud enough. The result would have earned the recording engineer a solid "F" if rated by his peers.

    While I can finally hear the 3rd concerto to its conclusion, without any skipping, the sound of this recording, and the truly odd and genuinely lousy imaging makes it a less than wholly pleasant experience. When I took the 24 year-old CD and put it in my player, it was as if everything suddenly became alive, putting the Naxos SACD to shame - hardly an enthusiastic endorsement for a Naxos SACD.

    One can only wonder how much better this SACD could have sounded had one, or several, of Telarc's highly respected engineers done the engineering for Naxos. Since that didn't happen, one can only guess.

  2. #2
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Agree.

    I think the quality of the recording maybe the biggest determining factor for SQ not the gear it is being played on. This seems like common sense but I think there are a lot people out there that might be chasing the next upgrade w/o really looking at the engineering quality of their material. How often do we go out and buy new CD's when we upgrade our gear?

    When I first got my DAC and my SACD player I just grabbed a couple of random discs based on the music genre nothing else. As I played some of these recordings I was disappointed in my purchases. However I put in a few other discs and voila, better SQ!!

    I think what higher end gear does is highlight when the recording is poor. I think with poor recordings you are almost better off playing it on low end gear because that tends to mask the engineer's mistakes.
    Last edited by thekid; 06-08-2008 at 10:42 AM.

  3. #3
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    And I'm one of 'em

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Agree.

    I think the quality of the recording maybe the biggest determining factor for SQ not the gear it is being played on. This seems like common sense but I think there are a lot people out there that might be chasing the next upgrade w/o really looking at the engineering quality of their material. How often to we go out and buy new CD's when we upgrade our gear?
    ...
    I think what higher end gear does is highlight when the recording is poor. I think with poor recordings you are almost better off playing it on low end gear because that tends to mask the engineer's mistakes.
    Regarding your first paragraph, I'm one who believes that sound quality is 90% recording and mixing, not equipment and not the distribution medium. I've hear 128kbps MP3s that sound great. I say this having listened to 128kbps versus WAV both ripped from the same CD: the native bit rate files sound far better in terms of air and transparency. Even so, good recording comes through and is recognizable for what it is.

    Regarding you second paragraph, I suspect that it's not only low-end equipment that hides recordings shortcomings, but also tube equipment (for example; and I say this as a tube preamp user). And as for media, I'd be easily convinced that much of the virtue of vinyl is that it hides defects digital reveals.

  4. #4
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Vinyl often captures more of the material especially in hall ambiance that digital truncates - assuming you use a good vinyl replay system and not just a Rega P3 type of thing.

    Few people have heard truly outstanding example of vinyl replay - there is more than Rega and Linn.

    SACD versus good CD replay http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue12/sacd.htm

    I do agree though that the recording is 90% of the battle here - plenty of CD sounds better than Vinyl - but the absolute best of any source that I have heard is vinyl and it's not terribly close. But you have to pay a LOT for that kind of vinyl rig more than a mid size car for example. So it should be that good.

  5. #5
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    I have to disgree somewhat. When comparing a CD or SACD player to a turntable/cartridge combo, and each is of commensurate performance and price, vinyl doesn't always win out, as you and others suggest. A turntable setup that costs as much as a car needs to be compared to a CD/SACD setup that also costs that much for that comparison to be truly fair.

    I have to go along with what several respected and knowledgeable recording engineers have told me, and that is that the DSD/SACD recording system/playback medium is the "best thing out there." I am not a recording engineer, nor am I an accomplished musician as some fof these engineers whom I know are, but the previous sentence states their beliefs, so I would guess they know what they're talking about than I, and others here at AR do.

    While the following scenario would likely never be carried out, let's assume for a moment that a difficult-to-record piece were being recorded - Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" for example - which utlizes a large orchestra, one or two grand pianos, large chorus, a children's chorus, a huge array of percussion instruments and three soloists. It is an extremely demanding piece with a huge dynamic range, and a tremendous assortment of orchestral sounds, especially when the entire orchestra, chorus and percussionists are all belting it out at a fortissimo.

    Using the same microphones for all three systems, simultaneously record this ensemble via a direct--to-disc method (for the best vinyl playback), a top-notch, multi-bit (likely 24) PCM digital system for redbook CD playback, and a DSD recorder for SACD playback. Assuming the signal fed into each of the three recording systems is identical, then whichever of the three subsequent playback devices sounds best would certainly speak volumes about which medium is the best. My guess is that the DSD/SACD version would be the winner, and I base this, not only on my own listening experience (which, for SACD is still quite limited), but on the enthusiastic support it has received from the several recording engineers (of different labels) I've spoken to. And not a one of them is a fan of vinyl, which I found quite interesting.

    I still enjoy listening to my records, and how much better they sound now on my latest turntable (Dual CS-5000, as I've posted a few million times already). Still, not at one sounds as good as some of the better CD's I own, and some of the new SACD's I've recently purchased sound best of all.

    So, while the recording and engineering play a vital role, so too does the recording/playback medium. And my vote goes for the DSC/SACD combo.

  6. #6
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Won't be buying a $10k TT

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    I have to disgree somewhat. When comparing a CD or SACD player to a turntable/cartridge combo, and each is of commensurate performance and price, vinyl doesn't always win out, as you and others suggest. A turntable setup that costs as much as a car needs to be compared to a CD/SACD setup that also costs that much for that comparison to be truly fair.

    ....
    I won't be buying a $10k+ analog setup any time soon for the usual reason if not the other. (The other being that music I want isn't on LP anyway.)

    Various tales lead me to suspect that vinyl is a euphonic filter, not a more technically accurate medium. (I'm not saying it's wrong to use a filter.)
    • Just before and early in the CD era, many recordings were digitally recorded and master by early digital system and then distributed on LP; there wasn't a great chorus of complaints that these sound digital.
    • An member here a few years ago, rl122(?), a vinyl lover himself, copied many LPs to CD-R, and insisted the vinyl character he enjoyed was preseved on the CD-Rs.
    • A couple of years ago, The Absolute Sound, had a sort of symposium of their pundits. One of these, who actually had disc cutting equipment -- I don't remember who -- said he sometime would copy the CD to LP and that the result sound like vinyl.
    • In a recent Stereophile there is a review of the Cabasse La Shere speaker system. This system includes 24/96 ADC and susequent digital four-way crossover and equaliztion. Th author, Mike Fremer, insists that there is no sign of "digititis" and that LPs still sound like vinyl.
    • Although the purists are appalled by them, varous systems, (Tact, Lyndorf, Rives, DEQ), that use ADC followed by crossover and equalization, followed by DAC, are highly regarded by their users -- an example being our member, Florian -- who don't complain of "digititis" nor that vinyl doesn't sound like vinyl.
    At the very least digital recording & mastering don't look like the culprit when it comes to the supposed "digititis". Secondly CD itself isn't necessarily the culprit either. If LPs sound better, it is an artifact of the recording and playback chain, not because it is more accurate.

    I have numerous crappy sounding CDs; I have a similar number of great sounding CDs. With my selection of recordings, present equipment, and at the lowish listening levels I'm used to, I'm not convinced that SACD is noticably better CD though I can understand that it ought to be.
    Last edited by Feanor; 06-09-2008 at 09:18 AM.

  7. #7
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I'm not convinced that SACD is noticably better CD though I can understand that it ought to be.
    May I respectfully suggest the following: if you own any of the original, redbook Telarc CD's which were recorded via the Soundstream digital tape recorder, buy one or more recently remastered SACD's of it/them. Then, play first the redbook CD, next the CD layer of the SACD, and then finally, the SACD layer. I think you'll be amazed.

    The DSD process used in remastering these "historic" recordings (as Telarc refers to them) in and of itself is a huge improvement over the redbook CD, and the SACD layer improves the sound that much further. It's kind of like listening to the Mobile Fidelity pressings of popular recordings as compared to their originals, only several quantum steps beyond that.

  8. #8
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    I'd like to do that

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    May I respectfully suggest the following: if you own any of the original, redbook Telarc CD's which were recorded via the Soundstream digital tape recorder, buy one or more recently remastered SACD's of it/them. Then, play first the redbook CD, next the CD layer of the SACD, and then finally, the SACD layer. I think you'll be amazed.

    ...
    I fact I think I have a least a couple of old Telarc CDs that sound good in their own right:
    So maybe I'll go ahead and get the SACD versions. When I do, I'report back. Unfortunately I suspect my older Sony SCD-CE775 player will be a bit of a limitation in the comparison. Of interest to some maybe, I'll compare ripped versions of the CD/CD layers as well as the SACD layer played on the Sony.
    Last edited by Feanor; 06-09-2008 at 12:36 PM.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular filecat13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    good recording comes through and is recognizable for what it is.

    ,I suspect that it's not only low-end equipment that hides recordings shortcomings, but also tube equipment (for example; and I say this as a tube preamp user). And as for media, I'd be easily convinced that much of the virtue of vinyl is that it hides defects digital reveals.
    A clean summary, with which I completely agree.
    I like sulung tang.

  10. #10
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I fact I think I have a least a bouple of old Telarcs CD and they sound good:
    Both of those have been remastered as SACD's, and the Copland disc adds the bonus of Hindemith's "Symphonic Metamorphosis," which had previously been released by Telarc only as a two LP set. There are other combinations as well that were put together on the newer remastered discs, but it'll be a while before more are released, given the fact it's very time consuming to perform the process. The next disc in the works is the Robert Shaw rendition of Brahms' "Ein Deutsches Requiem," scheduled to be worked on over the summer.

  11. #11
    Forum Regular filecat13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA

    Few people have heard truly outstanding example of vinyl replay - there is more than Rega and Linn.

    I do agree though that the recording is 90% of the battle here - plenty of CD sounds better than Vinyl - but the absolute best of any source that I have heard is vinyl and it's not terribly close. But you have to pay a LOT for that kind of vinyl rig more than a mid size car for example. So it should be that good.
    This may be true (based on your experience), but I'll probably never know because I don't believe it to be true (based on my experience). I hesitate to buy into the blind argument that I don't know how good something can be because I just haven't spent enough money yet. That has an elitist ring to it, and I don't know anyone who will float that kind of money who doesn't believe that he has the best whether it's true or not.

    In the cases where I've listened to $20k to $150k+ turntables (seven times to be exact*), I had to keep from laughing that the owners spent that much to play a freaking vinyl disc. They were mightily impressed though and heard all kinds of things that I couldn't. (Of course there were many other factors that varied from home to home.)

    Then of course comes the "I have excellent hearing; it's been measured at..." or "I'm a very trained listener and I hear things the ordinary person..." statements, at which point I want to fart and ask, "Did you hear that?"

    So, acknowledging my pedestrian tastes and vulgar habits, there's no point in me flushing the price of a car down the drain for something that makes no audible difference to me. I'll be content with the money already invested in my whole system and spend the additional $110k on several seasons of the symphony, the Cerritios Center, and live concerts. Plus I'll buy all access passes to the World Figure Skating Championships, and my girlfriend will give me more heavenly music and pleasure than any turntable and LP could ever hope to.


    * Teac VP1 HR-X (twice); Prrosecenium Black Diamond; Continuum Caliburn (the entry level $90k model); Basis work of Art (twice); Clear Audio Master Reference
    I like sulung tang.

  12. #12
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by filecat13
    at which point I want to fart and ask, "Did you hear that?"
    Priceless. Absolutely priceless. (And the rest of your post was spot-on too.)

  13. #13
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Just to interject a quick noob question about recording types (for lack of a better term).
    While brousing through the Classical music section I saw several discs that said they were recorded in Sony DSD. I am guessing this is not true SACD but is is a step up from regular CD recording quality?

  14. #14
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    What an hilarious post Filecat. Nice work, I applaud your pedestrian sensibilities...за ваше здоровье.

    Any who would argue that SACD is de facto a better medium need only listen to some of the earliest Sony releases. Horrible.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular filecat13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    492
    In deference to RGA, there's a growing interest in vinyl, even at retail. They may just outsell SACD soon.

    http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D916SJU8D.html
    I like sulung tang.

  16. #16
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Just to interject a quick noob question about recording types (for lack of a better term).
    While brousing through the Classical music section I saw several discs that said they were recorded in Sony DSD. I am guessing this is not true SACD but is is a step up from regular CD recording quality?
    Unless the disc says "SACD" and has the associated logo, it's not an SACD. The DSD recording process was used prior to the release of SACD's as an improved method of digital recording. Several Telarc discs used the DSD recording system, but were never released as SACD's, and I assume that's true for other labels as well.

  17. #17
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    Unless the disc says "SACD" and has the associated logo, it's not an SACD. The DSD recording process was used prior to the release of SACD's as an improved method of digital recording. Several Telarc discs used the DSD recording system, but were never released as SACD's, and I assume that's true for other labels as well.
    E

    Thanks, it actually may have been a couple of Telarc discs that I saw this on. I figured it was not SACD but they seemed to make a big deal about the fact it was recorded in DSD. I guess a DSD recording would be better than your average redbook cd so I will keep a look out for them.

  18. #18
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    E

    I guess a DSD recording would be better than your average redbook cd
    For the most part, at least on Telarc, that's very definitely the case. The best sounding CD's I own are DSD masters on Telarc, and the redbook CD version of a Telarc DSD master is identical to the CD layer of that same Telarc hybrid SACD.

  19. #19
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Now I'm confused

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    Both of those have been remastered as SACD's, and the Copland disc adds the bonus of Hindemith's "Symphonic Metamorphosis," which had previously been released by Telarc only as a two LP set. There are other combinations as well that were put together on the newer remastered discs, but it'll be a while before more are released, given the fact it's very time consuming to perform the process. The next disc in the works is the Robert Shaw rendition of Brahms' "Ein Deutsches Requiem," scheduled to be worked on over the summer.
    emaidel, maybe you can shed some light. I was going to buy these two SACDs but I notice that both are refered to as "Soundstream Recording" and "50kHz Master Transfers to DSD"
    I realized that they were recorded using Sounstream system, (one of the early digital recording systems, predating CD), but there is nothing to indicate remastering in DSD, only transfers. So on the face of it, it would seem that that any CD -to- CD layer comparision is depreciated, though not necessarily the CD -to- SACD comparison. To you have any knowledge on this aspect from your Telarc buddies?

    Telarc does make the point, "To produce the original compact disc, the Soundstream signal had to be converted from 50kHz to 44.1kHz, a process that inherently causes a loss of quality—not only by lowering the frequency response, but also by the complex mathematical process needed to derive 44.1kHz from 50kHz. Until recently, no digital system has had the capability to capture the full quality the Soundstream process had to offer. The advent of Direct Stream Digital™ (DSD) technology and its frequency response of over 100kHz allows the Soundstream tapes to be remastered to DSD ...". Thus Telarc argues that the SACD layer ought to sound better than the original CDs, but doesn't suggest any reason why the CD layer on the SACD might sound better than the original CD.
    Last edited by Feanor; 06-10-2008 at 08:42 AM.

  20. #20
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Paul Blakemore of Telarc, the individual responsible for the Soundstream remasters, informed me that in making a redbook CD from the Soundstream digital tape recorder, a number of sonic anomalies occurred due to the digital downsampling process and mathmatical issues - most way beyond my comprehension. The results weren't necessarily audible distortion, but "unmusical" sounds, and a lack of a wide and deep soundstage.

    All remastered Soundstream discs were upconverted via the DSD process first, and then made into SACD's. As the DSD recording process, with its sampling rate of 2.8 milllion times per second is beyond that of the Soundstream recorder, all the information originally stored on those Soundstream tapes (which have never been fully realized) can now be heard in all their sonic glory. This is the reason why the CD layer alone on such hybrid discs sounds so much better than the redbook CD of the original works.

    If you have any further questions, feel free to write to Paul at Telarc (pblakemore@telarc,com). He gave me the impression he would welcome any further inquiries and "set the record straight" regarding the capabilties of the DSD/SACD media, as "there's so much wrong information out there."

    Hope this was useful. And, why are you waiting to buy those discs? You have no idea what you're in store for!

  21. #21
    Forum Regular filecat13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    492
    I've enjoyed every Telarc disc I've ever owned, even if I didn't like the music. On good quality equipment, the sound is discernibly better than most everything else, and the SACDs are uniformly impressive.

    I also mentioned somewhere else that AIX Records makes some amazingly well-recorded DVD-A discs that are just as impressive.
    I like sulung tang.

  22. #22
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Right on, thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    ....

    All remastered Soundstream discs were upconverted via the DSD process first, and then made into SACD's. As the DSD recording process, with its sampling rate of 2.8 milllion times per second is beyond that of the Soundstream recorder, all the information originally stored on those Soundstream tapes (which have never been fully realized) can now be heard in all their sonic glory. This is the reason why the CD layer alone on such hybrid discs sounds so much better than the redbook CD of the original works.
    ...
    Yep, this is exactly the info I wanted to understand. It clarifies that the CD layers on SACDs are not identical to the old, original CDs in that the down-conversion for the former is from DSD whereas for the latter it was directly from the Soundstream. That is,
    • Original CD: Sounstream 16/50 => PCM 16/44.1
    • CD Layer: Soundstream 16/50 => DSD 1/2.3 => PCM 16/44.1
    The benefit comes from the "higher common denominator" that DSD provides.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •