I have a great external DAC and use a Fisher tube amp, so I think that goes a long way in taming the digital sheen.
I disagree with this entirely as well. You can't tell me you've heard "Winelight" by Grover Washington, Jr. or "Two Against Nature" by Steely Dan (both DVD-Audio discs) and still that nothing is added by the surround approach. Ed
What do you mean "added"? (genuine question). I have a few quad/multi channel mixes and found it more novelty than anything. But it may be that surround speakers are usually not on the same level as regular monitors. I dunno. EDIT: I thought about upgrading surrounds to be equal to my monitors but there aren't enough multi channel releases for me to justify that.
I didn't say nothing is added. There's crap added all over the place. I said stereo is better. Phantom imaging always sounds superior to hard channels. By a mile. I don't use a center channel for home theater either. I don't have anyone far enough off axis for it to matter for dialog intelligibility. And it sounds way better than a matched center channel speaker. This is great. What other two albums of music I don't even like sound great in surround sound? Nah, never mind. Please don't tell me.
That's as much a problem with the format as well as with the availability of surround mixes - there's a real dearth of material. I heard a TACET label demonstration in surround, and while it was certainly interesting, I didn't find it more spatially "convincing" or engaging than a good stereo mix. Besides, who listens to music that way in real life? You don't plop down on the stage in an acoustic concert, and in an amplified live setting, so much of the sound is more monolithic, wall-like, than hitting you from all sides. We're talking preferences for sure here, but I agree, I find multichannel is more novelty than aesthetic success.
I agree with this 100% and I don't even have that nice of a system. Once I get my SACDs, it's DSD all the way (instead of the redbook layer). I do my listening via my Oppo UDP-203 and I also listen to DSD on my digital desktop computer rig (external DAC and Amp). Edit: I meant to apologize as I apparently opened up a can of worms about IR SACDs and surround sound in general.
Interesting last 3-5 pages so I’ll chime in I am a 2 channel guy and probably always will. I respect that multi-channel is great and well liked, but I have never wanted to mess with the setup; or maybe just have some kind of old-school streak where I like the magic of 2 channels working wonders in the room. Well done MONO, maybe like the Stax/Volt Singles box comes to mind, is absolutely fantastic; but I really didn’t have much experience with MONO until hanging around here. I always play the SACD layer but then that is probably because the player defaults to that. I think it has a tiny edge, but whether ripping the redbook for flac playback in the office or mobile, or playing plenty of well mastered redbook on the same rig, I’d be quite happy with the same mastering of an SACD in redbook if that was the only way I could get it; and I like many others I’m sure, I have plenty of cases where a good ol’ redbook of something beats a jacked up SACD of the same. I’m in the camp with no room for vinyl being in a city row home (my maybe 2k CDs and SACDs are in big binders with the jewel cases tossed and the covers alphabetical in shoe boxes). It’s shocking from a collection standpoint, but I simply have to do this or I’d be divorced. I’m already starting to buy downloads instead of bigger say 19 CD boxes and wouldn’t you know it the wife is right there saying what’s with bringing all these CDs into this tiny ship of ours when you can download it. That and I think I’d have to spend a good amount of money to get vinyl setup right to match what I’ve got going now. I grew up through college with a workman’s vinyl rig and still love hearing vinyl, and when I do I completely get why it would outsell SACD with its very active fan base; it sure seems a lot easier to fall in love with as it wraps one with a big warm sweater of a hug, but alas the physical nature of it just won’t work for me. As I build a bigger flac library of things I wonder if the next step is going all the way file playback. My all file office setup certainly brings me tons of enjoyment. It’s of course worrying to hear IR SACDs don’t sell as well as vinyl, and I understand the numbers have to work, so it is nice to hear SACDs are still in the plans.
My turntable is set up fine. I get no inner groove distortion at all, and it also does a good job at tracking hot S sibilants. The klutz part I mentioned is in regards to the handling of the vinyl itself and my worrying about having that oops moment that results in a gouge in a record. (I have no such worries with the comparatively robust SACD disk.) Luckily, over the last ten years that I've been back on the vinyl train I've only screwed up twice.
While everyone is discussing the sacd/vinyl thingy, have you given anymore thought about Pure Prairie League - Bustin' Out. This thing needs some help plus I think it would sell pretty well. Vinyl of course.
I only play the cd layer. I have probably bought a hundred sacds in the last two years, all for the great mastering on the redbook layer. I'll continue to do so, as long as they come out.
I LOVE This! It was a folk tale until you guys confirmed this. I really really appreciate the feedback I get there, again, thanks! This is where it gets nerdy. I have no intentions of switching to just CDs as long as it's easy to get SACDs mastered. In fact, what happens is we go direct from tape to DSD, and then the CD layer is made from the DSD. The sample rates are direct multiples so the math is very easy. They come out really really good.
The is the story of life in the record biz: waitin on paperwork. Once I get it, it will go super fast. Kevin gets the tapes, pulls his mastering notes and boom. These will be direct-to-DSD from tape transfers. Will be brilliant!
Color me interested. You know, with the Burrito Bros and Gene Clark I'm kinda carving out a country rock groove.
One of the things I love about this job: got a good chance over pre-orders lately for Matthew Sweet and Gene Clark on the same orders! Who'd a thunk that's the same audience?
I kinda forget the technical stuff after so much time goes by, but my understanding of the way DSD works, one of the things that happens is that the digital filtering is more correct in the time domain. This is obviously what MQA is focusing on now, and I've gravitated to time-and-phase correct speakers for many many years now. THat's how SACD sounds to me- not higher "resolution" than CD, but just a touch more natural and relaxed. I do like it. If I had to listen to digital- and every reason you name here is valid- that's what I"d do as often as I could.
Shane, this is probably outside the scope of the kind of music you want to release via Intervention, but I still need to give it a plug as this is a wonderful album. I think Kevin Gray could really work some magic with the sound, and there was a popular single in Holdin On To Yesterday. I pulled this version from the Anthology as it sounds the best via youtube. Ambrosia/Ambrosia (1975) Engineered by Alan Parsons.
Funny story about this band, regarding a friend of mine who had a cassette of one of their albums he absolutely loved. Left the tape in his cutoffs and got thrown in the water. Buh bye tape!
Same here, only listened to redbook periodically on my Denon before I replaced the laser. Other than that it’s been SACD all the way. And thought I appreciate having multi channel on some of those SACDs I very, very rarely listen to the M/C. End result: thrilled that Shane’s making the effort for us
