Must have SACD's.....

[PeruvianSkies]

Usually we make a list of must-haves, but I don't recall seeing one specifically for SACD's. For me, they are often times hit or miss. I have heard awesome recordings just as much as poor ones on the SACD format, so maybe this can be a thread to really generate a nice master list of some truly great SACD's worth finding before they disappear forever. Here are my choices:

Beck SEA CHANGE - a very different album for Beck and this particular SACD sounds great and really gives some nice surround texture to an already complex album. I would stay clear of the DVD-A, which doesn't have near the fidelity or overall 'umph' of this SACD. Songs like Lost Cause really come to life and the 2-channel also has a great blend of instrumentation.

Billy Joel THE STRANGER - just pumpin' like crazy. A really awesome display of Joel's lyrical talents and this 5.1 SACD really lets the tunes rip!

Elton John CAPTAIN FANTASTIC - probably my favorite and certainly most recommended SACD to get. Although the other albums of Elton's are quite nice, this one really gets it right all the way through. This is also one of my favorite Elton albums, so that helps too, but the mix is outstanding and outshines the other titles in his SACD catalog. Runner up might be GOODBYE YELLOW BRICK ROAD.

Sarah Brightman LA LUNA (import) - this one might be harder to get your hands on, but is a superb 5.1 mix and really allows Brightman's vocals to shine. You don't really have to be a fan of her to really enjoy this particular SACD either.

Depeche Mode VIOLATOR (import) - released in the UK the DM catalog comes as a deluxe set that was also released in the US, but without the SACD, just a CD and the other bonus is that the package also comes with a DVD-Video with DTS mixes for the album. The SACD outshines in the overall fidelity though and has some truly great surround activity, esp on tracks like Blue Dress.

Mike Marshall GATOR STRUT (MoFi) - I came across this little gem from the Mobile Fidelity catalog and is probably my favorite 2-channel SACD that I own. A really terrific and tight mix with a stunning amount of clarity and tonality. The highlight track here is the cover of one of my favorite Beatles songs - Because.

These are the only titles that I own that really get 5/5 stars in terms of performance, while others might be fairly solid, these ones stand out above the rest.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I'll second the Captain Fantastic, this was the very first SACD I bought. A close second for me would be Bill Wyman & The Rhythm Kings - Struttin Our Stuff, a couple of tracks of note are covers of the Stones -Melody and JJ Cales'- Anyway The Wind Blows. featuring Gary Brooker and Albert Lee.

[nightflier]

'cmon, people, why isn't DSOTM on the list?

I'm more on the classical music side of the fence, so I won't bore everybody with my choices, but Pink Floyd should be the cornerstone of any SACD collection, no matter what one's preference is.

[PeruvianSkies]

'cmon, people, why isn't DSOTM on the list?

I'm more on the classical music side of the fence, so I won't bore everybody with my choices, but Pink Floyd should be the cornerstone of any SACD collection, no matter what one's preference is.

2 Things:

1. Please list any SACD's you feel are worthy, even classical. I have a bunch of classical SACD's, but none of them really met my expectations with maybe a few exceptions and those were the ones released by Mobile Fidelity, like Ravel and Ivan The Terrible.

2. DSOTM is not a mix I really care for in SACD terms. It was one of the earlier SACD's that I bought and I thought it was awesome at the time, but since then have become bored with it and it also has some lackluster moments. It doesn't have the 'punch' that it could have. If I hadn't heard how good an older recording like some of the Elton John's are, then I wouldn't be that optimistic that it's even possible with something like DSOTM, but now my expectations are higher. Hopefully that disc gets a new mix down the line.

[Lance B]

Deep Purple's "Machine Head" is a ripper on SACD.

The Moody Blues "A question of Balance" also benefits from the SACD treatment.

Both these on SACD have really had the breathe of life put into them.

Roxy Music's "Avalon" is another great SCAD, but then it sounded excellent on HDCD too.

I haven't had the chance to listen to any recordings that use the 2.8mHz sampling in the actual recording process yet, but I would love to hear a good version of such a disc whatever the genre of music.

[musicman1999]

Pink Floyd--DSOTM-The b ands ultimate vision for their masterpiece.
Glenn Gould-Bach The Goldberg Variations 1955 performance--the zenph re-performance
Rolling Stones -Get Yer Yaa Yaa's out-Great late 60's live album
Olivier Latry--Midnight at Notre-Dame-Large scale organ transcriptions from Notre dame cathedrial.
Bob Dylan--Blond on Blond
Bob Dylan Highway 61
John Hiatt -Master of Disaster--direct to DSD recording.Produced by Jim Dickinson
LSO--Beethoven 9th Symphony-very nice performance
Karajan--Beethoven 3rd and 4th
any of the Living Stereo releases,i have 6 or 7 and they all sound great.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

Pink Floyd--DSOTM-The b ands ultimate vision for their masterpiece.
Glenn Gould-Bach The Goldberg Variations 1955 performance--the zenph re-performance
Rolling Stones -Get Yer Yaa Yaa's out-Great late 60's live album
Olivier Latry--Midnight at Notre-Dame-Large scale organ transcriptions from Notre dame cathedrial.
Bob Dylan--Blond on Blond
Bob Dylan Highway 61
John Hiatt -Master of Disaster--direct to DSD recording.Produced by Jim Dickinson
LSO--Beethoven 9th Symphony-very nice performance
Karajan--Beethoven 3rd and 4th
any of the Living Stereo releases,i have 6 or 7 and they all sound great.

bill

I was disappointed with the Dylan SACD's as well as the STONES and DSOTM has some issues as well.

[musicman1999]

What issues did you have with DSOTM and the Dylan's?

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

What issues did you have with DSOTM and the Dylan's?

bill

The Dylan and also the Rolling Stones SACD's, both DSD stereo releases were just a bit too dull in my opinion. They didn't have the fidelity to them that I recall hearing in the past on some vinyl setups that people have, especially BLONDE ON BLONDE and LET IT BLEED, but still had improvements over the CD layer and even the basic Redbook of those releases. I was 'hoping' for more from these, so maybe it was my expectation, but after hearing some of the other SACD's released around this era, like the self-titled Elton John and such, I can gain a better sense that there is more that could be done with both the Dylan's and the Stones SACD's, even listening to the Elton in 2-channel for a more proper comparison.

There are some highlights to the DSOTM mix, but again I was disappointed once I heard some material that was better, again from the same era. The highlights are some of the creative mixing like the swirling effect on US AND THEM or the movement of the mix on MONEY with the opening sequence. All of these sound good, but the mix doesn't have guts to it, not like the DD 5.1 on the PULSE DVD or even the Wall live SACD from Roger Waters at times OR better yet, the DTS mix on the import THE WALL Berlin Concert.

There seems to be a lack of 'thickness' in the overall mix and at times it also feels like much of the instrumentation is competing against one another instead of working together to compliment the mix. I think I prefer the 2-channel mix on DSOTM SACD.

[musicman1999]

To each his own.

bill

[DPM]

As far as my collection goes, I recommend the following surround titles:

1) Helmet Of Gnats/Helmet Of Gnats--This fusion disk was recorded on analog equipment, and the sound quality is very good. Both the stereo and surround mixes are warm yet clear.

2) Steely Dan/Gaucho

3) Roxy Music/Avalon

4) Elton John/Capt. Fantastic, Yellow Brick Rd., Honky Chateau, Madman Across The Water, Tumbleweed Connection, Elton John--I like them all, but the newer titles do sound a bit better than the older ones. My suggestion? By them in reverse order.

5) Al DiMeola/Flesh On Flesh

6) Pink Floyd/Dark Side Of The Moon

DPM

[Slosh]

I'm too lazy to type this out again but use the search function here and ye shall find.

[PeruvianSkies]

I decided (after this discussion came about) to go back and give another listen to the DSD 2.0 mix on DSOTM tonight.

I can honestly say that I am even more disappointed with this SACD after my listen tonight than I recall being before. This is the first time that I really took an in-depth listen to the SACD layer in 2-channel mode, the 5.1 is a bit better, but still lacking in so many ways it's not even funny...I am surprised so many people enjoy this mix.

Right off the bat the opening track heartbeat is lacking in it's umph and I don't seem to hear as much low end as on the CD layer. I compared this to the DD 5.1 mix and DD 2.0 mix on the PULSE DVD, which features the entire DSOTM album and WOW what a difference. I'll take the PULSE mix anyday, even with the 'live' feel, it sounds thicker, punchier, and more dynamic all around. The mix feels more 3-D and the soundstage feels enormous on the PULSE disc, whereas the SACD just doesn't give that impression to me. Some tracks are better than others though, the opening of TIME is pretty decent for example. When comparing this to Elton John's CAPTAIN FANTASTIC...it's unbelievable just how rich and deep the Elton SACD is, there are a few tracks in particular that just cut right through you and the drums feel huge, deep, and powerful. The vocal mix is also nice (esp. in 5.1 as most of Elton's vocals are the ONLY thing coming through the center channel).

[musicman1999]

Well i did the same pulled out my copy this morning as i had not listened in a while.I do not have the Pulse dvd but i don't consider that a valid comparison anyway,you need to compare apples to apples,you can't compare live to studio,too many variables.I wonder if you have a defective disc cause mine sounded great,my system is not set up for multi channel so i listened in stereo.I used track one for my comparison and of course no subs were used.I used the sony first,then matched the levels and put the disc in my Moon and played the same track then went back and forth several times.The results were clear the SACD was better,more detailed with a greter sense of air and a deeper soundstage.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

Well i did the same pulled out my copy this morning as i had not listened in a while.I do not have the Pulse dvd but i don't consider that a valid comparison anyway,you need to compare apples to apples,you can't compare live to studio,too many variables.I wonder if you have a defective disc cause mine sounded great,my system is not set up for multi channel so i listened in stereo.I used track one for my comparison and of course no subs were used.I used the sony first,then matched the levels and put the disc in my Moon and played the same track then went back and forth several times.The results were clear the SACD was better,more detailed with a greter sense of air and a deeper soundstage.

bill

I definitely agree that the CD is not as good as the SACD, but I still am not impressed with the SACD, and I do compare things even if it means the DVD of PULSE, they are not that unrelated as you are trying to make it seem. If anything the studio should blow the doors off the live performance, not the other way around.

[musicman1999]

Different format,different recording,it can.t be much more different.

bill

[DPM]

Right off the bat the opening track heartbeat is lacking in it's umph and I don't seem to hear as much low end as on the CD layer..

That's because the CD layer of that disk has had its dynamic range compressed, but the SACD layers (both stereo and surround) contain the full dynamic range of the master tape. In other words, the SACD layer is very representative of the master tape while the CD layer isn't.

So, a purist is going to like the SACD layer while someone who prefers that old recordings get modernized a bit will prefer the CD layer. There's no right or wrong here--just two points of view in the mastering process.

DPM

[Slosh]

There's no right or wrong here--just two points of view in the mastering process.

I couldn't disagree more. If you're (not you specifically) one who prefers the latter, go and see some live music for jah's sake already!

NP: (SACD)

[DPM]

I couldn't disagree more. If you're (not you specifically) one who prefers the latter, go and see some live music for jah's sake already!

NP: (SACD)

Maybe I should clarify my position.

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a mastering engineer applying TASTEFUL equalization and MAYBE a small bit of compression/limiting to address shortcomings in the master tape. Many rock recordings in the sixties and seventies (and even today) were mixed on substandard (as in, inaccurate) monitors. Jethro Tull's Aqualung is a perfect example of one of these sonic travesties. Yes's Fragile also comes to mind. The master mixes of these albums are horrendous.

Now, having said the above, there IS something definitely wrong with taking a well-recorded title--such as, Dark Side Of The Moon--and compressing it to the point where it starts to sound like a bass heavy rap recording. And I also don't appreciate the use of heavy EQing on older titles. Too many times this has resulted in my experiencing ear bleed at anything approaching a loud volume.

So, in my case, I MUCH prefer the SACD layer of the Pink Floyd SACD.

DPM

[PeruvianSkies]

Maybe I should clarify my position.

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a mastering engineer applying TASTEFUL equalization and MAYBE a small bit of compression/limiting to address shortcomings in the master tape. Many rock recordings in the sixties and seventies (and even today) were mixed on substandard (as in, inaccurate) monitors. Jethro Tull's Aqualung is a perfect example of one of these sonic travesties. Yes's Fragile also comes to mind. The master mixes of these albums are horrendous.

Now, having said the above, there IS something definitely wrong with taking a well-recorded title--such as, Dark Side Of The Moon--and compressing it to the point where it starts to sound like a bass heavy rap recording. And I also don't appreciate the use of heavy EQing on older titles. Too many times this has resulted in my experiencing ear bleed at anything approaching a loud volume.

So, in my case, I MUCH prefer the SACD layer of the Pink Floyd SACD.

DPM

I prefer the SACD layer over the CD layer or even the standalone Redbook disc, but my whole thing is that I feel the SACD is just average, nothing overly special as in the case of some other exceptional SACD's, even the ones just as old as that album.