Doesn't anyone else think DSD sounds phony?

Yeah, sorry, but that's how it sounds to me,
based on my trusty stock Sony 775,
after listening for a few weeks.

Actually, I really do enjoy the 775 as a CD player.
Sure, I wish that it had stiffer audio outputs,
and yes, the low end sounds a little too light -
but otherwise I am amazed by its neutral texture.
I'm really enjoying it!


But as for listening to SACDs on the 775,
all the ones I have sound like computer-generated sound.
It doesn't sound 'like analog'.
What a disappointment!


---

That's really all I wanted to ask,
whether anyone else finds the 'new' sound of DSD/SACD peculiar.

Naturally, I am hoping that Steve's upcoming SACDs sound a little more 'in control' than the ones I have heard already.
This is just the kind of thing that he typically takes notice of and corrects, ain't it???
I hope so!

 

I'll have to say, it's all in the person mastering it. I've heard some CDs that beat some SACDs sonically. It depends on so much. Do I think DSD is phony (sounding)? No, not in general. It woulnd't be fair to say to anyway.

 

Hey Fabfour, or Sckott, can you name some titles that sound bad? Just so I can avoid some of the bad ones and save some money.


-Wes

 

DVD-A sounds more phony than both SACD and CD. And I have Hotel Cali, Metallica, and Rumors

 

Just about every disc that Sony SACD released as Greatest Hits compilation like The Byrds, but also stay clear of Aerosmith's "Oh Yeah" (the original Cds sound MILES better). Toto IV sounds horrible, but it's not that important. I thought that the Lady In Satin SACD sounded almost no different to the CD. That's just off the top of my head. Boston (s/t) is good, possibly the best I'tll ever sound....

 

The first time I heard a DSD recording was when Telarc's engineer, Michael Bishop, came to a local AES meeting. He played us a DSD recording he'd done of the Cincinnati Pops and then played the 16 bit CD made from the same DSD master. The entire timbre of the recording changed. Trumpets now sounded very harsh and I really understood for the first time what I was missing with conventional CDs.

I have many SACDs and their redbook counterparts. I think some of the differences you're hearing is the various approaches to the mastering process of an SACD versus a regular CD. I have an Alison Krauss SACD of her album 'Forget About It.' It's a dual layer disc so you can compare the two different versions. The 16 bit layer is much louder and has been hyped with eq. the DSD layer is far more natural and generally sounds less tampered with. Both were mastered by Doug Sax but obviously he did it twice. There is no denying that.

I also compared the Billy Joel SACDs with the newly remastered CDs both mastered by Ted Jenson. The sound on the SACD is wider and smoother with less peak limiting and less eq. The remastered CDs are a lot brighter and louder.

I just think they know the audience and are catering for their ears. The audiophiles don't want the hyped sound of modern mastering techniques and this 'less is more' approach may not sound as good to certain people.

 

What is it you don't like about the SACD version? I have every release of this album which I think is a total of seven. I don't know which one I like the best. Just bought the "NEW" SACD version for the 5.1 mixes only five months after I bought the first SACD. I hate when they do that to me. I got burned on Brubeck's Time Out and Carol King's 'Tapestry' albums.

 

I think what's going to happen is that people are going to hear exactly how some master tapes really sound. They aren't gonna like it...

 

What SACDs are you using to come to your conclusion? I find that unless it's older masters that don't have much room for improvement or, some poorly remastered stuff where SACD can highlight the deficiencies, SACD sound is far superior to CD. I find well recorded/mastered SACD more natural and if anything, more analogue like. Oh well, I guess you are lucky in one respect, you can save you're money by not having to buy any high priced SACDs and you can stay with CD, 'specially if you like your player as a regular CD player.

 

I've avoided the Brubeck as I get the impression that the SACD doesn't offer that much of an improvement. I can't say the same for 'Tapestry' though. IMHO its much better in the SACD format. I have the multi version but only use 2 channel. Are you judging the Carole King by 2 channel or multi playback?

PS, I'll probably end up buying the Brubeck anyway but, I'll just wait to get it at a decent price.

 

Well, I haven't heard those, but that sounds more like a problem with the CD mastering itself, rather than the CD medium.

Steve mentioned awhile back that he didn't like the sound of the CD layer on hybrid SACDs. I'd *assume* that issue has been worked around, although I haven't heard anything from him about it. Steve?

 

Well, if you take a DSD recording and convert it to redbook PCM, of course the redbook version is going to sound much worse than DSD. Granted, a proper DSD recording is going to beat even the best redbook, but the difference between the two will be much less exagerated if you listen to a redbook CD that has been PROPERLY mastered explicitly for redbook. DSD converted to redbook is NOT the proper way to produce a redbook CD.

I had the opportunity to talk at great length, in person, with the owner of a highly regarded audiophile label that produces (among other things) SACD discs. When a recording is submitted to Sony for mastering/authoring, they simply want the DSD recording. If you give them separate DSD and redbook recordings, they will reject the redbook recording and tell you that they don't need it. Conversion of the DSD recording to redbook is a standard part of the SACD authoring process and is GENERALLY not optional.

Sony's contention is that DSD conversion to redbook will produce THE BEST sounding rebook layer on an SACD. The individual with whom I spoke disagreed vehemently, to the point where he sat down a Sony executive and played him two redbook versions of the same recording: one from DSD source and one mastered exclusively for redbook. Luckily, the Sony executive had the professional courtesy to admit he was wrong. This eventually led to a situation where this record label is one of the only (if not THE only) label that Sony has allowed to submit their own redbook layer for SACD authoring.

Since Steve now has experience in this area, I would be curious to hear if the situation with the CCR SACD's was similar. Specifically, Steve, did you produce two separate recordings for authoring (redbook and DSD) or is the redbook layer of these discs going to be Sony's standard DSD conversion?

I'm sorry, I cannot reveal the name of the person I spoke with or the label he owns. There are obvious political issues here that could damage his relationship with Sony if this were revealed. For what its worth, this individual also prefers high resolution PCM over DSD.

 

Unless you have the Japanese issue that IS DSD mastered, Brubeck's Time Out on SACD is king. I'll repeat: Get Dave Brubeck's Time Out on SACD. There isn't much improvement from the Japanese LP-replica issue that boasts DSD mastering as Redbook. If you own any other issue, you're going to hear more-than-minor differences in the soundstage and seperation of the instuments.

Dittos for the 2Ch of Tapestry. Yes, warts and all, but the beauty of the original sound and power of the master shines right through. Please don't change a thing!! Jaw Dropping.

Some people have PM'ed me about my review of some SACDs over others. I"m glad that people are curious, but don't forget to use your own opinions too

 

I haven't heard many SACDs yet, but I have heard "52nd Street" by Billy Joel and it sounds more open and natural with lots of air around the instruments. "The Stranger", on the other hand, sounds flatter, meaning there is less dimension. This is where I say it sounds a bit phony on "Scenes From An Italian Resturaunt". I could live with the red-book remaster on that title.

 

I'm sure that their comparison was instructive...

Speaking as one of the rabble, if I might,
it seems probable that Telarc was surely muddying the waters by inadvertently demonstrating
some curious new problems introduced when converting DSD to 44100/16,
whether they admit to them to not.

Ordinarily, you would expect a Telarc CD to sound very fine, right?
Likewise, you'd expect that the CD layer of a Telarc SACD would be superb sounding, wouldn't you?
But using the Telarc SACD Badly Performed Beatles Music in Multi-Channel Hi-Fi (I can't remember the exact name, with the Kings Singers etc.) as an example,
the hybrid CD layer sounds like a bad joke.
In this instance, at least, the CD layer doesn't sound anything like a 'good' CD...

Ha, probably Telarc thinks that it sounds better than ever!

 

I have the John Pizzarelli - Kisses In The Rain CD from Telarc which is an all DSD recording thats almost 2 years old. I think its one of the best sounding modern recordings I have, but I haven't compared it to the SACD. Plenty of mid-range magic, but doesn't sound maximized, minimized, scrunched, clipped, trimmed or otherwise tampered with. I also have Mahler #6 from Telarc which is a DSD recording and can't say I've found any glaring flaws, but really haven't listened to that one with a critical ear.

The other one I have to compare is not a Telarc disc. I haven't heard Allison Krauss & Union Station on SACD or the CD compatible layer on that disc, but I have the regular CD and inside it says its an all DSD recording and it's so good a recording IMHO that it transcends genres, if you know what I mean.

 

I have to jump in here and say that I also have quite a few DSD mastered Redbook CD's that I had before I even owned an SACD player. In most instances, they were pretty terrific sounding recordings IMHO. One fine example of this would be Yo-Yo Ma Solo on Sony Classical. Stellar, IMHO. I don't really hear any glaring flaws. To me, it sounded better and more natural than many of Sony's SBM mastered CD's.

 

I agree that DSD redbook CD's can and do sound stunning. It's just that they are not as good as they could be. I'm just relating the opinion of my source. I have no opinion on the matter, although I do respect highly the opinion of my source.

 

I find no problem with the Byrds SACD...
It sounds quite dynamic on my player...
I have problems with the inherent distortion on "Tapestry".
Also "Stardust" (Willie Nelson) sounds a bit bright!

 

I never heard that complaint about Stardust before. To me, it sounds great on my player, reference quality even.

 

I can't understand the problems that you are having with these discs. The King disc is really great musically and maybe a bit "raw" but, I find it a great window on the session and I get a "you are there" sense with it. As far a the Nelson goes aside from the voice being a bit stage front and forward a find it quite "laid back" and a totally relaxing disc to listen to. I guess there are a lot of different factors at work here but these are two of the better discs that are not derived from up to the minute "state of the art" recording technology. I can understand a wide variance in musical opinion but we are dealing with objective traits here such as the actual sound quality of these SACDs and therefore I can't quite grasp the wide disparity in stated opinions. How can we be hearing such differences?

 

Boy do I agree with that. When I first got the Wille Nelson SACD, I would often put it on to relax, unwind. Often, I would find myself in a very deep and relaxing sleep. Not that the music was boring or unenjoyable, quite the contrary. It was just that relaxing.

 

Well, there's nothing objective about sound quality. There are probably too many variables to keep track of, though two people MAY agree about the sound of a recording on ONE sound system. Having read many posts and reviews about the sound of recorded music, I'd say finding consensus on what anything sounds like is nearly impossible. Fun, but . . .