Steely Dan - Countdown to Ecstasy SHM-SACD on 7/30/2014

I agree 1000%! No offense to those doing listening comparisons using computer derived samples. But in my opinion to do an accurate comparison on ones system they need to use the actual SHM-SACD and the RBCD. Maybe my opinion is wrong but when using the actual discs it removes all the possible issues of how the samples were created.

Bill

 

I'm no expert on creating sound samples. From a CD, it should a be straightforward rip. From an SACD, I imagine problems could arise in how one gets the data and then converts it to PCM. Is that true? My issue with samples is what people are listening to them on. I'm sure many of us have better stereo systems than computer audio set-ups.

 

Except accurate level-matching in playback, which may be crucial, IMO...

 

Incase anyone has the ability to playback hi-res files, here is a 24bit/88khz sample from the SACD... the song is "Show Biz Kids".

Code:

http://www26.zippyshare.com/v/70410000/file.html

 

Oh no not another one!

 

You missed what he said. He said the SACD samples posted here.

I will quote: “In this case, the SACD samples posted here clearly sound like a second-generation dub of some sort compared to the original CD master or the '98 remaster. It exhibits the extra grain and fuzziness that you can clearly make out on dubbed material.”

I do not have an argument about whether or not you can downsample an SACD to glean mastering information. I have an issue with that specific sample… specifically. No offense to the person who posted it, I appreciate the effort, but to me it is off, sounds not even audio-quality much less audiophile quality. He must have the SACD to have posted it so I am not sure how he is not hearing this.

Listen, I can be as wrong as the next guy, so would someone please, please, please post a 3 minute wav sample of Boston Rag directly from the shm-CD. In the absence of that please, please, please someone listen to these shm-CD samples at this: link, on the same system as the downsampled sacd samples posted here—and let me know what you hear, please. I doubt a proper shm-cd sample would sound like a “second-generation dub” like the downsampled shm-sacd sample does to me; I will repeat, my direct experience with the shm-sacd on a revealing main rig is it does not sound like a dub, and it is not hi-rez alone that is the difference.

Finally, I fully expect people not to like the mix of the shm-cd, I am not offering any argument about mix preferences; but I suggest you use a shm-cd sample of some sort to make decisions about this mastering simply to double-check the validity of the downsampled sacd sample many people here seem to be using to make shm-sacd decisions.

 

Leaving mix and eq aside, does your shm-cd sound like a second-generation dub copy? When you listen to the downsampled sacd samples posted here how does your shm-cd (same resolution as the samples correct) compare? thanks

 

Were you being sarcastic with this comment? It might be throwing some of us off. thanks

 

Of course one should level match when comparing different versions of a specific title. Wouldn't level matching apply to comparing computer generated samples as well .

Bill

 

Much easier accomplished (& more accurate too) with track ReplayGain engaged during playback (or ABX).

 

Did you do a comparison, and if so which did you prefer?

 

While all you recording engineers scrap over the merits of pure sound I will continue to enjoy my shm sacd of this title.
Seriously this one is certainly an upgrade.

 

What he said...it's that's simple.

 

BTW I just now noticed that you posted this as a hi-rez file, so I would retract my snarky comment if I could. I appreciate you putting this up. Unfortunately I cannot listen to hi-rez computer files, but I am interested in hearing comments on it. thanks again

 

Can the people that state that the SHM-SACD is the best list what other masterings they have compared it to?

 

If you follow the thread, they pretty much have in all cases.

 

I guess you figure most of them will say it is the best of one.

I think we have enough secondary evidence and can move on to the next step. We either get it and listen to it to figure things out on our own, or take a pass on it convinced the sample data tell the story well.

 

I compared it against the MCAD-31156. Overall I find the SHM to be darker sounding than the redbook, smoother and less detailed in the highs.
I'm not saying the SHM is better, just sharing my impressions.

 

Darker? No!
Smoother? Yes!
Less Detailed In The Highs? Definitely No!

 

It's definitely darker, unless your definition is different than mine.
When I say less detailed I mean the original CD sounds brighter to me, the SHM is more laid back.

 

No it doesn't sound like a dub or later generation copy - I'm unable to compare with the down-sampled SACD sample, I would never go by a sample good or bad unless I could be 100 per cent sure of it's origin and treatment. There is also an element of 'life's too short' now that I can easily compare it directly. To be clear, my favourite and therefore reference to date had been my Japan for MCA original CD.

 

Darker to me indicates less transparency; more veiled...which this SHM-SACD is not, in my opinion.

 

I find it amusing that anybody would consider that anything BUT sarcasm.

 

I wouldn't say it's veiled but it does have more bottom end.

 

So, darker in what way? Darker, to me, means duller overall.