Classical Music Forum banner

Solti's Ring on SACD -- the ULTIMATE?!

41K views 158 replies 20 participants last post by  regnaDkciN 
#1 ·
Hi, I've read how Solti's Ring, even despite Decca's James Lock's 1997 remaster, still doesn't sound like it should; is too compressed. I've enjoyed the set, but I can totally see what they're saying; there's potential for a much larger soundscape, something to really blow your lid off.

Jack Lawson from Music Web hails the new CD/SACD hybrid remaster from the Japanese label: Esoteric. http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Feb10/Wagner_Ring_ESSD90021-34.htm
It makes my mouth water! :eek: I would LOVE to have this. But it costs $800. Also I'd have to invest in an SACD player to really get the most out of it. If only I was a millionaire! :rolleyes:

Has anyone here heard this set? Is it true BLISS?
 
#2 ·
no, i haven't, but i had the set on lp back when, and the cds don't even come close.
but 800 is ludicrous.
 
#4 ·


As it turns out, I own a copy of this SACD. I also have it on vinyl and the later release. I made this post on another forum some time last year when I received my set:

--

Yesterday, my copy of Wagner's Ring cycle, remastered by Esoteric on SACD arrived. Many thanks to David.M for giving me a heads-up that these were still available on Elusive Disc. I ordered the set at the end of November and paid $60 for express delivery via USPS. It arrived nearly 7 weeks later! I was in contact with Jason from Elusive Disc, who offered to ship me another copy, gratis, if the first one did not arrive. Top marks to Jason for outstanding customer support.

In any case, I am talking about the legendary recording of the Wagner Ring cycle, conducted by Georg Solti with the Vienna Philharmonic, and recorded by John Culshaw between 1958-1964. It was praised for its outstanding sound quality, and for a while even outsold popular albums by Elvis. Wagner nerds might debate which is the best performance - Knappertsbusch, Keilberth, and Furtwangler are also highly regarded - but there is no question that every Wagner afficionado must have a copy of this particular performance.

In any case, I now have three copies of the same performance - on vinyl, RBCD, and SACD. This is not necessarily a comparison of the formats, although it does showcase what can be achieved by each format. This is because the mastering is different - the vinyl was taken from the original analogue master tape; the RBCD is a 1990's remaster from the analogue master tape; and the SACD is a 2009 remaster, taken from the original analogue tape, but this time in DSD format.

My boxed set on vinyl is a rare release from the 1970's with a brass relief etching on a substantial cardboard box. The thing weighs a tonne - probably about 10kg! The discs inside are pristine and unscratched, and totally silent. You get a beautiful booklet and a lovely libretto.

On digital, there have been two remasters. The first was done in 1985 and was universally acknowledged to sound horrible. The one I have was remastered in 1997. The reviews at the time said that it was a substantial step up from the original digital remaster from the 80's. It does not sound bad by any means, but it is nowhere near as good as modern classical recordings on digital.

When the set was released, it was very expensive - about $350 for 14 discs. In 1997 money. As you can see from the picture, the production copy was not very impressive. The CD's are held in paper sleeves within cardboard boxes, which are packed into another cardboard box. The libretto is printed in small type - very difficult to read in a darkened room.

The Esoteric remaster was made in 2009. The Japanese engineers obtained the original master tapes from Decca and remastered it on DSD using their own equipment. There is a series of Esoteric SACD's, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of classic recordings of classical music - the best performances, with the best sound quality, remastered on the latest and best technology. Sort of the Criterion Collection, but for classical music. This set comes with all the operas, an accompanying documentary on DVD on the making of the 1958-1964 recording, a book called "The Ring Resounding" by John Culshaw, and the Libretto printed on two books on beautiful paper.

Besides the cost ($1299 from Elusive Disc!!) there is one serious downside. Everything is printed in Japanese.

So what do they sound like? Well: vinyl is best, SACD second best, RBCD is dead last.

The quality of the sound on vinyl was a real eye-opener. Dynamic, rich, layered, clear, and extraordinarily expressive. It is hard to believe this was recorded in the late 50's, because it is better than most modern recordings on digital.

The SACD follows quite closely behind, however for some reason it sounds more sterile even though you can hear as much detail as you can with the vinyl. The dynamics of the attack are still there, but the leading edge lacks aggressiveness and sounds much smoother. This could be distortion on the vinyl, or the Esoteric engineers missed something in translation, or that my playback equipment isn't good enough. Or maybe digital still has a way to go. I am not sure what is responsible, but SACD still isn't as good as vinyl.

That the RBCD finished last was no real surprise. I have known for years that this CD, despite sounding thin and having a brittle top end, still manages to sound muffled in the midrange. However, this is a sad indictment of the modern classical industry that it still sounds better than many modern recordings - for example, nearly every Deutsche Grammofon digital recording from the 1980's right up to the early 2000's, which was when they got their act together. Modern DGG sounds great, but not close to the quality of the SACD of this recording.

So there you have it :)
 
#5 · (Edited)
Amfibius, thank you for that very detailed follow-up! (BTW, did you ever try out the remasters at Pristine Classical?)

Does anyone know if Decca's got plans to re-re-master the set anytime soon?

It's been 15 years now since the last one and technology has gotten much better since. I don't know why they don't. Seems like an easy way to rake in some cash (and even make a PROFIT!). You know collectors would be flocking like mad to buy it. Decca recently put out a CD omnibus called: "Decca Sound" -- http://www.amazon.com/Decca-Sound-V...UTF8&coliid=I3I5G5I8J8TSPJ&colid=GXMGKMQXBBBG You'd think if they're going to that much trouble they'd at least consider doing the same for their best selling album of all time! :rolleyes:
 
#6 · (Edited)
SACDs are a complete waste of money. Any advantage in sound is so far below normal listening level, you'd never hear it unless you turn the volume up to deafening levels. I did a controlled comparison between the redbook and SACD layers od a DSD Pentatone hybrid SACD. After level matching, there was absolutely no difference. All of the differences I found between CDs and SACDs were differences in mixing and mastering. The format is no better than CD.

SACDs are a boondoggle designed to get you to buy recordings you already own a second time.
 
#129 · (Edited)
What are you basing this opinion on? SACD is a superior format. Even DVD audio is better, because of the higher resolution, as the numbers show. Are you against these other formats as well? Does Blu-Ray produce a reaction in you?

Font Pattern Number Parallel Handwriting
 
#7 · (Edited)
By the way. The main difference between the original release and the remaster of Solti's Ring was that the original was a straight transfer off the master tapes. The remaster had a little bit of hiss removal. Other than that, they are identical. The CDs sound much better than the vinyl, particularly the LPs produced during the 80s with Ring Resounding included in the box.
 
#8 ·
GrosseFugue, I haven't heard any of the remasters on Pristine Classical. I had to google it after you mentioned it ... sounds intriguing! The only problem is that I have no way to play downloaded music on my system. I would have to order the CD ;)

Oh, and there are cranks who say that SACD's don't sound any different to CD's. There are also cranks who think that there are no discernible differences between MP3 and CD. All I say is: if you can't hear a difference then don't buy it. To each their own.
 
#9 · (Edited)
I am not a crank. I work in the entertainment business and I've recorded, edited sound and supervised sound mixes. I know what the difference is between high bitrate sound and redbook. An engineer freind and I spent a month putting together what we needed to do a controlled A/B comparison. I'm not just talking about my "impressions". I've done the legwork to know for sure what the difference is.

If you know about digital audio, you know that the increased resolution of high bitrate audio extends downward in the dynamic range. At normal listening volumes, the sound is exactly the same. The reason music is recorded at a higher rate is to allow room to boost the level of elements in the mix without running into the noise floor. If you are just listening to music on headphones, you would have to raise the level to the volume of a woodchipper at close range to hear a difference. If you did that, it wouldn't matter because you would incur hearing damage.

Audiophiles regularly point to numbers on a page when they talk about good sound quality. But they usually have no clue what those numbers mean. The difference between a well mastered CD and the same recording on SACD is completely indistinguishable. If you think you hear a difference, it's something other than the bitrate that you're hearing.

By the way, Pristine Audio adds "sweetening" in the form of synthetic stereo digital reverbs to their transfers. If you like that, they're great. I prefer less intrusive techniques.

I know of at least three LP versions of Solti's Ring. The first came in a box with a die cut window in it and had the graphics in the booklet of the CD remaster. The next version included the Disks that identified the leitmotifs. The last version included a hardback of Ring Resounding. The best sounding LP was the second set with the leitmotif disks. The earlier set is usually damaged by early stereo stylii, and the later version had more noisy surfaces. The set you have there appears to be the UK version of the third release. That would date to the late 70s/early 80s. I had the US version of that same release and I gave it away after comparing it to the first CD release. The noise floor was much better on the CD and the LP tended to have more distortion in the inner grooves.
 
#67 ·
I am not a crank.
...
The difference between a well mastered CD and the same recording on SACD is completely indistinguishable. If you think you hear a difference, it's something other than the bitrate that you're hearing.
If a recording starts off life as a proper hi-rez recording (DSD or 24bit 96kHz), just to get it to fit onto the old CD format requires that the engineers have to throw out about 3/4 of the recorded data: all that can be fit onto a standard CD is less than 1/4 of the original recorded data content. If you can't tell the difference, so what? Nothing to get cranky about. Let those who can enjoy it. Hi-rez is obv not for you.
 
#10 ·
Bigshot, you say even the first CD-release is better than the LP's?! WOW. :eek: And I've always heard everyone praise LP's to the sky. But wasn't the first CD-release really bad and brittle sounding?

And SACD's are really no better? Again -- WOW. :eek: And yet so many people (even renowned musicians and critics) swear by it and there is a whole sub-industry selling SACD players, etc. Are these people really just imagining an improvement? If it's truly a con-job it sounds like the ultimate con. How is that possible?

You sound like you really know your stuff, have the background, etc, so I'd appreciate your insights about these issues. :)

Also, as a soundman yourself wouldn't you agree though that a new remaster of The Ring is warranted considering all the advances in technology? Certainly, there is room for improvement, yes?

PS -- you mentioned you didn't care for Pristine Classical's methods. What do you think of Eduardo's at Furtwangler Sound? http://furtwanglersound.com/
 
#11 · (Edited)
I haven't heard anything by Furtwangler Sound.

Check out Solti's Ring at your local public library. It sounds fine. The only thing you can do to improve it is to remove the tape hiss from the master, but that doesn't really bother me. That's why I didn't buy the remastered set after comparing a friend's copy to my set and finding only a minor difference in noise reduction.

SACDs aren't for sound engineers. They're for audiophiles who trust what stereo equipment salespeople tell them. Double blind testing doesn't lie. CDs are all you need for normal listening.

Test showing SACDs sound exactly like CDs except at greatly increased volume levels beyond the limit of comfortable listening...
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Remastered does not always mean better. The new stereo Beatles box is slightly compressed compared to the original release. That is the main audible difference. It pays to have a pair of CD players and two preamps to do direct line level matched A/B comparisons. The results might surprise you.
 
G
#14 ·
You might be a nice guy, but such pronouncements make you sound like a total a$$hole.

Anyway, I used to do professional recording, too, so I know a thing or two about sound. I have bought a few SACD versions of older RBCD recordings, such as Heifetz' Brahms and Sibelius Violin Concertos on RCA. The SACD version sounds as if a veil has been lifted: I hear far more orchestral detail, more hall ambiance, and greater stereo imaging, particularly through my Stax headphones. I rarely buy RBCDs anymore unless the music simply isn't available or it contains a particularly illuminating performance. I don't care what tests "prove": to my ears, SACDs offer superior sound. If you don't hear it, then that's fine, too.
 
#15 · (Edited)
When you did professional recording, did you record in bitrates above 16/44.1? Do you know what the difference is between redbook and high bitrate? At normal volumes the resolution between both is identical. (Google Nyquist Curve). The difference between CD sound and DSD is almost entirely at volumes at or below the noise floor of your listening room. It isn't audible with headphones unless you turn the volume up to ear splitting levels. This isn't arrogance, it's a fact.

The difference you heard between formats on your Heifetz SACD is all due to mastering. If you bounced the SACD down to 16/44.1 and burned it on a CD, it would sound exactly the same.

The only advantage of the SACD format over CDs is its multichannel features. But even those are poorly implemented because they hobbled the format with analogue outputs. It's impossible to buy an amp with analogue multichannel inputs for under $1000. Everything uses optical or coax digital. For stereo, SACD is a total waste of time. No one can hear the difference between identically mastered CDs and SACDs. That has been proven in double blind tests, as the paper I linked to from the AES shows.
 
G
#16 · (Edited)
That was during the pre-digital era! I used analog gear--Studer, Revox, and Tandberg reel-to-reel decks. Around 1988-90 I bought a Sony PCM converter that used a video recorder as the storage device. It sounded a bit cold and clinical to my ears.
 
#17 · (Edited)
I used analog gear--Studer reel-to-reel decks.
When I started out, I worked with Nagras and magstripe in the film business. Digital is quite different. There aren't subtle shades of difference between decks and there's no generation loss. When you lay something down to digital, it is what it is.

It's good that you have experience because I can give you some specs that will make it clearer to you what is going on.

The big point to understand with digital audio is that high bitrates don't increase resolution. CD sound is already 20hZ to 20kHz stone flat with no distortion. Sound can't get better than perfect. High bitrates lower the noise floor, so instead of having 90dB of available range, you get 120dB or more. The thing is, most recorded music doesn't exceed 40dB, and even the most wide ranging music has about 60 dB. The average living room has an ambient noise floor that doesn't allow more than 40dB, and in order to clearly hear the entire range the CD format is capable of with headphones, you would need to turn the volume up to a level that would cause hearing damage.

What use is high bitrate sound then? Well, it's invaluable in a mix to be able to boost the level of a small sound like a flute cleanly without bringing up the noise floor along with it. I'm sure back in the analogue era, you ran into situations where boosting something made the tape hiss rise and fall along with your signal. Recording in high bitrate extends the range you can boost, making mixing easier.

Also, CD quality sound has a curve where resolution falls off. This falloff occurs at the very bottom of the dynamic range in the quietest of sounds- things that are not audible without a huge volume boost. In normal listening because this falloff occurs far below the level where human hearing loses its sensitivity. But in a mix, you might want to bring up a sound that far down, and you want it to be clear, not distorted.

High bitrate audio is useful for mixing where a super wide dynamic range is necessary. But once the mix is finalized and it is bounced down to redbook, there is no audible difference. At listening volumes, even loud ones, you don't get close to exceeding the specifications of CD quality sound.

So if there is no difference, why do SACDs sound different than the same album on CD? The reason is that they don't use the same master to make them. Sometimes it's as simple as just pulling a first generation master tape instead of a submaster. But SACDs are almost always remastered, and often they are even remixed. They replace analogue reverbs with digital ones. They apply noise reduction to eliminate tape hiss. They reequalize the sound to make it brighter sounding, or add a bass harmonizer to extend the bass response an octave lower. All of this monkeying around with the sound either makes it sound better, or it just makes it sound different. Then they lay a totally different old master onto the hybrid redbook layer and lower the overall volume so a casual comparison between the redbook and SACD layers seems to indicate that the SACD layer sounds "better".

All of this is at its core deceptive, because you aren't hearing an improvement because of the format. You're hearing it because of the remastering. Wait a few years and they'll pull the SACD master off the shelf and use it to produce a newly remastered CD. And it will sound *exactly* like the SACD. Paying more to get a non-standard disk with proper mastering doesn't encourage record labels to improve the mastering of CDs. It just encourages them to create new "whiz bang" non-standard, non-compatible formats so they can convince you to buy Pink Floyd's Dark Side of te Moon for the umptenth time.

As for your Kreisler SACD... When that was released on SACD, it was a huge improvement over the mastering on previous releases. Until the SACD series, the Living Stereo recordings had been given the budget line short shrift when it came to mastering. But RCA recently released a box set of Living Stereo CDs and used the SACD masters to produce it. With the exception of the center channel on some of the Living Stereo SACDs (because some were recorded in three track stereo) the $2 a CD box set sounds *exactly* like the SACDs. i know this for a fact because I have a pile of the RCA SACDs and the Living Stereo box an I've compared them.

Now that I've gone through my longwinded explanation, go back and read my previous comments. I'm not being an a$$hole. I'm simply stating the facts.
 
#18 ·
I agree that better mastering can make a huge difference on how old analogue recordings sound on cd, but I question the statement that redbook digital is perfect from 20 to 20k. By its nature it can only be an approximation. Perhaps you meant to the limit of the ear to tell the difference, but I've yet to hear any cd match live sound (or even quality RTR on a high end system).
 
#22 · (Edited)
I question the statement that redbook digital is perfect from 20 to 20k. By its nature it can only be an approximation.
Here is the longer, more technical explanation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem

The short answer is that 16/44.1 is enough to completely and accurately reproduce from 20hZ to 20kHz at any human listening level. All of digital audio is based on this theory. Higher bitrates just give you more resolution at lower volume levels.

You can't believe what you read in stereo magazines any more. It's all designed to sell you something you don't need. I've been a hifi nut for a long time, and I remember the scientific and technical efforts that were taken to squeeze the last bit of sound out of analogue components. I was suspicious of the "perfect sound" motto too at first. But I read up on the science behind it and did my own A/B tests and came to the conclusions I've reached.

Since redbook audio is perfect, and a WalMart CD player puts out 20-20 clean at with more dynamic range than you would ever need, equipment salesmen have had to resort to outright deception to get people to spend more money. They do this by juggling numbers and creating false analogies. For instance, I'm sure you've heard about "jitter". It sounds logical. That little silver disk is spinning around really fast, maybe the sound could be jittering...

Well, the Audio Engineering Society published a study on jitter based on hundreds of listening tests conducted by audio engineers, musicians, golden ear audiophiles and just plain folk. They listened to a huge variety of equipment, from the highest high end systems to normal ones... even their own systems. The study concluded that the threshold of audibility for digital jitter was 100 times the range jitter is found in even the cheapest CD player at Costco. They couldn't hear jitter until it was magnified 100 times. Jitter is complete hoodoo.

Another argument is that even though redbook perfectly reproduces the audible range of sounds, frequencies beyond what humans can hear are important. (I've had stereo salesmen try to use this one on me to sell me a SACD player.) But the AES also conducted a test on that, and they found that although many people can perceive sound pressure of ultra high frequencies, these super sonic frequencies do not have any impact on sound quality at all. In fact, they induce headaches and listening fatigue. Another study found that you can filter off all frequencies above 10kHz (that's the top octave in the audible range) and the vast majority of listeners will say that it sounds just as good as a recording that goes all the way up to 20kHz.

The reason I call them Audiophools is because they don't do their homework. They trust equipment manufacturer's advertising, magazine advertorials and the hot air of audio equipment salesmen... and they pay through the nose for snake oil.

I agree with you that open reel tapes sound the best. The reason for that is that the manufacturing process on open reel tapes doesn't require remastering. You just plug a deck into a player playing the master and you hit the red button. Open reel tapes are more likely to be straight transfers off the master with no "sweetening" or compensation for technical issues, like the RIAA curve on LPs. But if you take the best sounding open reel tape in the world and capture it to 16/44.1, it will sound exactly the same. The difference between the master and the CD quality copy will be imperceptible. I know because I've done this test with both open reel tapes and half speed mastered Sheffield Lab LPs. I've also done direct comparisons between high bitrate music recorded and played back on a high end ProTools workstation and a redbook bouncedown of the same recording. No difference.

CD sound is all you need.
 
#20 ·
My understanding from what Bigshot has posted (and forgive my lack of technical knowledge) is that if the music sounds better that's because it's been RE-MASTERED and has nothing to do with the format (SACD).

So I think we can all at least agree that music does sound BETTER on SACD. Just not for reasons people can agree on. ;) (Though I wouldn't be surprised if the music industry was indeed duping people into buying a format they don't need. That kind of stuff has been going on forever. From the VHS/Beta wars to constant computer upgrades that only wreak havoc.)

Further, I'm sure we can all agree that Solti's Ring could use a new and improved RE-MASTER. Whether Decca decides to call this SACD-hybrid or what have you; the point being it WILL sound BETTER. :D

So why don't they just RE-MASTER it and make some money? :rolleyes:
 
#21 · (Edited)
I haven't found any correlation between remastering and better sound. Some sound a little better, some sound worse. A good case in point is the recent remasters of the Beatles catalog. The primary difference between the new CDs and the original CD issue is that the new ones are a little compressed. I much prefer the originals.

Generally, I look skeptically on remasters, because the original engineers and artists signed off on a specific sound. Having an engineer go in thirty years later with completely different equipment and rejigger everything may result in a different sound, but it's not as likely to result in something more faithful to the masters as a straight transfer off the masters themselves. The vast majority of remasters don't sound better or worse, they just sound different. An example of that is Let It Be (Naked). Phil Spector's Let It Be sounds nothing like what the Beatles intended their Get Back album to sound, but neither does Let It Be (Naked). They are both completely different than the Peter Sellers acetate of the way the Beatles left Get Back. Which one is better sounding? The new one of course, but I'll take the Sellers acetate warts and all over the modern digital mush version any day of the week.

When it comes to Solti's Ring, John Culshaw put everything he had into that recording and the CD releases have been faithful to the masters. I don't know why anyone would want anything different than that. Decca had excellent engineering at that time and the masters are four tracks with stereo on the orchestra and stereo on the stage with the singers. Culshaw carefully positioned the singers in front of the mikes to get a clearly defined soundstage. Why would you want to go in and monkey with that? Leave it alone. It is what it is.
 
#40 · (Edited)
Generally, I look skeptically on remasters, because the original engineers and artists signed off on a specific sound. Having an engineer go in thirty years later with completely different equipment and rejigger everything may result in a different sound, but it's not as likely to result in something more faithful to the masters as a straight transfer off the masters themselves. The vast majority of remasters don't sound better or worse, they just sound different. An example of that is Let It Be (Naked). Phil Spector's Let It Be sounds nothing like what the Beatles intended their Get Back album to sound, but neither does Let It Be (Naked). They are both completely different than the Peter Sellers acetate of the way the Beatles left Get Back. Which one is better sounding? The new one of course, but I'll take the Sellers acetate warts and all over the modern digital mush version any day of the week.

When it comes to Solti's Ring, John Culshaw put everything he had into that recording and the CD releases have been faithful to the masters. I don't know why anyone would want anything different than that. Decca had excellent engineering at that time and the masters are four tracks with stereo on the orchestra and stereo on the stage with the singers. Culshaw carefully positioned the singers in front of the mikes to get a clearly defined soundstage. Why would you want to go in and monkey with that? Leave it alone. It is what it is.
I will grant the excellence of Culshaw's original work; but you must be the only person I know of who considers the CDs "faithful" to the masters. Virtually every review I've read of the CD releases have held that the 1984 is garbage, while the 1997 is garbage muffled by extra Cedar2 processing, neither of which come close to the sound of the original LP releases. And holding up the supposed sanctity of the original doesn't really cut it in this case -- by the time the first CD remaster was done, Culshaw had been dead for four years, so any CD release was done without his imprimateur. Like it or not, any CD (or SACD) release has been "rejiggered" from what Culshaw signed-off on; the only difference is whether it was rejiggered for good or ill. And your final lines about "monkeying" with the four-tracks make me wonder if you understand the difference between "remastering" and "remixing." Surely a sound engineer must know that, right?
 
#25 · (Edited)
The reason you call them "audiophools" is because you have no respect.

People like you are banned from audio forums around the world simply because your preconceptions about something being theoretically perfect inhibit you from actually hearing any differences, and you go around calling people names when they don't agree with you. That is why I think you are a crank.
 
#26 · (Edited)
The reason you call them "audiophools" is because you have no respect. People like you are banned from audio forums around the world simply because your preconceptions about something being theoretically perfect inhibit you from actually hearing any differences, and you go around calling people names when they don't agree with you. That is why I think you are a crank.
I'm the one offering explanations and supporting evidence to back up my opinions, while you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry if your feelings have been hurt, but I'm not the one acting like a crank here.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Bigshot, interesting article, although it does not support your contention of perfect sound. The formula is based on sampling for an infinite time. For time limited sampling (i.e., the real world) it is a good approximation. It has been a long time since I worked in the area so my math skills are rusty, but it is a question of discrete versus continuous. As the number of sample points (discrete) increase the closer you get to continuous, but you need an infinite number (c) to actually reach continuity.

As I mentioned before, somewhere short of an infinite number will sound the same as the real waves to the human ear. Based on past experience with live music and various analogue sources, I don't believe RBCD is at that level. While it doesn't address the issue directly, Daniel Levitin's book--This is Your Brain on Music--deals in part with the brain's tendency to fill in gaps. I suspect this process lies to some extent behind digital's less than perfect sound (of course bad mastering doesn't help/those early cds using the standard LP rolloffs were unlistenable) and aural fatigue. Anyway the book is worth reading.

I do believe a better recording medium will be discovered eventually (I thought the experiment of adding barely audible white noise to playback was promising, at least for the aural fatigue issue). As to SACD, I'm on the fence. First at my age my hearing acuity has taken the expected hit and I haven't purchased either a dedicated SACD player or a DAC. I use my DVD player for SACD and the output from my Rotel CD player is excellent. I never did quad LPS and I don't do 5 channel. Still most of my serious listening is through BeyerDynamic T1s and I find most of the SACDs (of the 50 or so that I've heard) do sound better than the cd layer. But not all. That may be due to more careful production rather than a superior process but hey I'll take the improvement.

Thanks for the tips on the RCAs. I ordered a few of the Heifitz today.
 
#30 · (Edited)
That's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Audio equipment salesmen would love for everyone to think that way... Just keep splitting the difference over and over forever. Keep moving that decimal point further to the left. Good is never good enough.

You can believe that you're hearing numbers on a chart, but the truth is, if you do a blind A/B level matched comparison between a 16/44.1 recording and a DSD SACD, you won't be able to tell the difference. I know because I did it myself and so have engineers at the AES. That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with SACDs. It means CD sound is that good. More samples and bigger file sizes doesn't mean better sound.

Resolution isn't the area that can stand improvement in sound reproduction. We've mastered that. Frequncy response and directionality are the big roadblocks to great sound today. Speaker design, EQ and room treatment along with well mixed multichannel sound are the keys to solving those problems. A new format or a magic electronic box aren't going to work. It's going to take money for high quality speakers, calibration and adjusting one's living space to suit the sound.
 
G
#31 ·
You can believe that you're hearing numbers on a chart, but the truth is, if you do a blind A/B level matched comparison between a 16/44.1 recording and a DSD SACD, you won't be able to tell the difference. I know because I did it myself and so have engineers at the AES.
Just because you and your rarefied audio buddies couldn't hear it doesn't mean that no one can. That's just faulty logic.
 
#32 ·
No point arguing with him, Kontrapunktus. I have come across his type before. These audio messiahs come out and make grand pronouncements about how some things can not possibly make a difference, and when you disagree, you are told that you are imagining things. And then they call you an "audiophool".
 
#34 ·
These audio messiahs come out and make grand pronouncements about how some things can not possibly make a difference, and when you disagree, you are told that you are imagining things.
I am not telling you you're imagining things. I'm telling you that the whole SACD format is *designed* to make it extremely difficult to compare fairly. It isn't your imagination that the redbook layer of hybrid disks is hobbled and presented at a lower volume level, nor is it imagination that it takes so long to switch layers no human could do a fair comparison. The manufacturers don't want you to know that the emperor has no clothes. That isn't your fault. It's the high end audio establishment that is complicit with the manufacturers to help pick your pockets.
 
#33 · (Edited)
At least I've made the effort to find out for myself and try to nail down exactly what kind of difference exists. I'm not just making up fancy diaphenous words to describe my purely subjective feelings like most "reviewers" on the internet.

I own tens of thousands of records and as many CDs. In my time I've been down the format merry go round many times. I've had reel to reel, 8 track, cassette, 78s, LPs, CDs, laserdiscs, VHS, Betamax and digital files. Adding a new format is more than just buying a player. It's an investment in software. I spent $500 on my laserdisc player, but I spent tens of thousands on disks to play in it. Today, I can go to WalMart and get a $30 DVD player that outperforms it and get DVDs for under $10 that I spent $50 to buy on laserdisc. Laserdiscs were a terrible investment. I should have just bought a player and rented disks to watch.

When the SACD format came out, I was attracted by the promise of better sound and multichannel audio. None of my friends had one, so I figured out a highly regarded player and bought it. When I went to set it up, I quickly discovered that I wouldn't be getting multichannel sound because of the assinine non- standard outputs the format is saddled with. I tried to do a direct A/B comparison between layers and discovered that switching layers took so long comparison was impossible. One day I accidentally listened to the CD layer of a hybrid disk and didn't notice. That's when I figured I needed to do the legwork to figure out what was going on.

It took me the better part of a month to work out all the bugs. I bought a dozen SACDs looking for one that had the same mastering on both layers. Finally someone pointed me to Pentatone and I made a test on my own system- no difference. So I made an appointment to take the test over to a sound engineer's place to try the test on his pro equipment- no difference.

You can feel free to say both of us are deaf and crazy. But I have done a controlled comparison and you haven't. I KNOW that SACDs are a bad investment. You just THInK they sound better. It's awfully nice of me to share this with other people on the internet. If I didn't, other people would invest thousands of dollars in $18 non standard disks that are no better than $7.99 CDs.

You're welcome!
 
G
#35 ·
You can feel free to say both of us are deaf and crazy. But I have done a controlled comparison and you haven't. I KNOW that SACDs are a bad investment. You just THInK they sound better. It's awfully nice of me to share this with other people on the internet. If I didn't, other people would invest thousands of dollars in $18 non standard disks that are no better than $7.99 CDs.

You're welcome!
Wow. I think we have a contender for the Most Pompous Post of the Year award. You also must have amazing powers of discernment, in addition to infallible golden years, to know what I think I hear. Anyway, this thread is now dead to me.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top