Is it my ears, stereo or the CDs?

Okay, this is driving me nuts. I purchased the CCR Cosmo's Factory SACD from Analogue Productions. A friend of mine gave me a CDR (don't turn me in) of the 20-bit remaster from Fantasy. I don't have an SACD player. I will one day. So I have only been comparing the redbook version of the CD. The 20-bit is louder, that's for sure, and when I convert songs from each to MP3 without any bit loss, the 20-bit has more information. There are minute differences, but over all, it seems like the 20-bit is winning out on the redbook comparison. Is it because hybrid SACD is really geared towards SACD players? Help me!

 

So you are playing the redbook cd version on the SACD, right? If that's the case, then yes, sometimes they do blow.....Dark Side of the Moon's cd portion is ****e. If you can play the SACD layer, you would see the difference.

 

Well, that's comforting, at least.

 

Stop allowing the computer world to tell you what's best and start to rely on your listening devices more. If I wasn't clear I meant your ears.

Wouldn't boosted signals give more info on a computer program?

More isn't always better. If you don't hear any differences might I suggest it's time for some equipment up-grades.

As far as I'm concerned the Fantasy pressings don't even measure up to the old DCC's that Steve did nevermind the new AP SACD's.

PS. I'm only speaking of the red-book layer BTW.

 

Well, Dave, you're definitely right on the equipment upgrade. Have you heard the SACD's redbook version? I'm just wondering if the redbook suffers because of the attention given to the SACD. On hybrids, is the redbook version just an afterthought? Don't get me wrong, I am very appreciative of the redbook layer, and I'm sure it's nice to have the disc in your car. I think it's the way to go to ease the public into SACD, but if that layer isn't very good...

 

Yes, redbook layer comparisons only. Steve would never compromise a recording by putting an inferior mastering in any of his work. Let me put it like this for you...

Best sound in descending order: The AP hybrid SACD's: untouchable IMHO, DCC gold CD: fantastic and only bettered by the AP's because of a more revealing top end, Fantasy CD's and SACD's: can't hold a candle to either of the previous 2.

Perhaps your opinion will be changed from "but that layer isn't any good" to "Oh my God! I can't believe I actually said that." with some serious equipment up-grades. I know mine sure did!

 

Dave, thank you for the info. I can not wait to upgrade. BTW, what does IMHO mean?

P.S. Have you heard the JVC Japanese versions? What do you think?

 

"In my humble opinion".

You're most welcome, glad to be of help.

One of our other long-time members has and has stated that they aren't good at all compared to Steve's work.

 

Trust your ears. Period. Never load anything into a computer to try and measure it. There's no gaurantee you're measuring the right things, and you can't listen to a graph.

 

And yet we do it here all the time in our comparisons of boasted and/or maxed out CDs. It's easy to understand how a newbie could get the wrong impression from reading certain threads...

 

This Newbie had no idea. I was just wondering why the 20bit had more bit info than the SACD. I kinda figured it had nothing to do with the sound quality, but wasn't sure. I don't have equipment any where near any of you, but someday hope to. Thanks.

 

Sorry, I meant bytes .

 

But, if you DO hear something amiss, you could load the track into a computer and see if there is an explaination. Viewing a wave in an editor will many times bear out what you hear.

But, in the end, if what you hear sounds good to you, then stick with it no matter what.

 

This is impossible. mp3 is a lossy format however you cut it.

 

Re: Re: Is it my ears, stereo or the CDs?

That's true. I don't know anything about "viewing waves" and stuff like that. I don't even have a decent stereo. My headphones are alright. I just couldn't tell, I usually can tell some sort of difference, but these discs threw me off.