Should I get off the SACD wagon?

agreeing with Krabbapple

I have to agree with Krabbapple. Some of the arguments being made in favour of analog over CD or SACD are just so absurd that I couldn't stay quite. I understand that some people may prefer the sound of vinyl to digital formats, but that doesn't mean that vinyl is generally superior to CD or SACD.

My personal opinion is that people who still, in the year 2002, advocate the superiority of vinyl are either desperately trying to fool themselves and justify their high priced turntables or are either incapable or just unwilling to change. They have become so acustomed to hearing music reproduced in a certain way that they cannot or will not accept a new format no matter what the benefits may be. I mean, let's get real here folks, vinyl cannot meet the s/n, dynamic range, and frequency response standards of ANY of the digital formats (excluding , of course , lossy formats like MiniDisc, even though even a really good MiniDisc can sometimes be superior to an LP - but that is another discussion).

Yes there are horrible sounding CD's and SACD's and DVD-A's, but so what? Like no one out there ever bough an LP that sounded like crap? If you answer 'no' to that question, I'd have to, er, question your honesty. Just look at some of the debates that take place over the relative quality of a Simply Vinyl or Classic records pressing of the same material. But I don't see people writing off the whole vinyl format because of a few bad purchases. That doesn't even take into account all of the things that can go WRONG with an LP as opposed to a CD. Bad mastering aside (I think we can all agree that a poorly mastered product would destroy ANY format), how about warped LPs? Scratched LP's? Slightly off center pressings? Slighlty off speed pressings? These are things that happen to even high-end pressings.

The reality is, to hear the best reproduction of any source material for the most part requires you listen to it on it's original playback equiptment. Unfortunately, for most of the recordings I see people pining for on these boards, that means reel-to-reel, NOT vinyl. Most recording engineers and musicians that I know, myself included, are appalled at what vinyl does to the sound of the original masters. Mastered well, the difference between CD and the original master in sound is barely noticeable. But their is a difference and the CD will usually not sound as 'good' because it is even still, a more pure playback medium and does inherently expose the limitations of the original format. Remember those labels on the original CD releases? What did you think, that they were BSing? This is even more so with the new Hi-Rez formats. a lot of what people are complaining about with SACD, again, any bad mastering aside, are these very limitations being revealed, only now after 30, 40, maybe even 50 or more years of the master being worn, mishandled or whatever.

The best way to hear SACD is to hear a full DSD recording well mastered , or a transfer of a relatively new analogue recording to DSD. Telarc, BIS, and Delos are putting out some great Hybrid SACD's. Even if you are not a Classical or Jazz fan, give one of THESE recordings a listen before you write off a whole format.

We have all been making a lot of noise, and wanting and waiting for a pure reproduction medium, well guess what folks, they are already hear, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not vinyl.

CD is great. SACD is even better.

P.S. for those of you whou didn't see my post on the other board - Hello Again

 

Re: agreeing with Krabbapple

Goldenboy,

I was just about to agree with you 100% until I got down to this paragraph:

I'm not sure whether you are right about open reel tape being the way to go - unless, of course, you are talking about a 15 IPS 1/2 track recording made directly from the master, and then played back on the same or similar machine. Those weren't a reality, as many of us who owned our Crowns, Revoxes and Tandbergs in the late 60's know. The reality was that (if you were lucky) the recording you wanted came out at 7.5 IPS, and not 3.75. These were generally made on high speed duplicators and had so much tape hiss and dropouts galore that you threw your hands up in frustration and bought the record anyway. There were other problems with open reel tape too that made them a far more perishable format than LPs. Aside from that, the public just didn't want them.

I am not, however, questioning the veracity of the difference between the sound of a master tape and the resultant vinyl that followed. But, to suggest that CD *inherently expose(s) the limitations of the original format* is something akin to the claiming that there are machines that can turn lead into gold (literally, not figuratively). CD or SACD copies of original analog master tapes simply cannot sound any better than the original -- unless, that is, one feels that an alteration to the way the original sounds is an improvement. If that means de-noising, then I suspect that many of the readers here would disagree.

 

Good discussion guys!

You know where MY opinionn lies...with Golden Boy and Krabapple...

 

I'm trying out the HTR-5540. I have a satellite/sub setup, so the bass is set to SFWR and the mains to 'small'. I have ctr and surrounds (small) as well, but mainly I listen in stereo (2 ch). I've verified that the sub Xover still works even in stereo mode, by using a Radio Shack sound level meter and a test record outputting low frequency tones -- with bass set to MAIN or BOTH, there's a lot more low freq output from the satellites than when it's set to SFWR. This is with the receiver set to *analog*, receiving analog input, so somehow the digital Xover must be in effect. Is it re-digitizing the signal then converting it back to analog? 90 Hz is a good crossover pt for my satellites, since their output below 80 Hz drops off rapidly.


There's no tone defeat button on the 5540, but since I always keep the tone controls straight up (0), that's not much of an issue.

 

Re: Re: agreeing with Krabbapple

Amen brother! As Steve has stated over and over again, a "little" no-noise, is ALWAYS a bad thing. It ruins the sound, no question about it. Once again, I shall restate, that I will gladly "stay on the fence" awaiting Steve's first attempt at SACD. I KNOW he will do it right, no matter what type of music it is. Then I will be able to clearly determine if SACD has possibilities. No pressure, Steve!

Until then, I shall enjoy listening to my DISTORTED vinyl, which sounds much better (read more musical and involving) than my CDs, and a HELL of a lot better than what I have heard on SACDs so far... I will not WASTE any more of my hard earned money on SACDs until my "Steve Test" is completed. Ten years after foolishly selling my large collection of vinyl for the DREAM of digital audio, my new vinyl purchases are putting the joy back into audio once again. I will not make the same mistake twice. Of course, now I also have some 2500+ CDs that are OK for listening to in the car, or while working out... And 5 SACDs (because of bad mastering) that I wouldn't want to play for my dog! Thanks for listening.

 

Re: Re: agreeing with Krabbapple

Hey,

What I am talking about is 15 IPS master(or copy thereof) being played back on a 15 IPS machine, not a 7.5 IPS machine. And yes, I know that was and is not a reality, but my point was that THAT would be the best format for that source material, not vinyl.

Also, I never said CD's or SACD's could sound better than the original source, if you read my post again, you would see I said this 'Mastered well, the difference between CD and the original master in sound is barely noticeable. But their is a difference and the CD will usually not sound as "good" because it is even still, a more pure playback medium and does inherently expose the limitations of the original format.'

Yes, I do believe that a CD or SACD could 'expose the limitations of the original format'. They are a higher level of technology, more sensitive and pick up more information than say a reel tape or vinyl LP and you would therefore be able to here ALL of the information, good and bad.

 

I have some live 15 ips mono and stereo masters I produced in the late 60's and still have access to a player. The limited number of produced CD copies I have sound very good to my ears; not perfect perhaps, but close. The reality is that except for some audiophile vinyl recordings I have in my collection, including 12 inch 45's, most if not all of my vinyl is very noisy and not so hot to listen to (OK, some of the productions stuff was great, but that is an exception). Now it is true that today's vinyl sounds very good and is very clean, but that is not what the public was given back when vinyl was the major source of music. Poor quality vinyl combined with lack of attention to quality produced may bad sounding vinyl recordings, including classical music. Most CD's of older material produced from the proper tapes sound a lot better to my ears than the vinyl versions in my collection. The few older recordings now on SACD in my collection sound superb. Blond on Blond on SACD brings tears to my eyes (not really, but if I was the sensitive kind of guy perhaps it would). I don't want to go back to vinyl although some of SUNDAZED mono output is now on my shelf but I would have preferred if they put out SACD or even CD versions as well. With SACD they can even put out older stuff with the mono and stereo mixes (but noooo, they give us tricked up multi-channel instead).

 

Richard,

I understand and agree with you. You have verified some of the points I made in my original post. Even with the audiophile quality LP's that are produced these days, I still would not go back to vinyl as a primary format. As far as those 'tricked up' multichannel mixes go, I kind of like them as an alternative and a different listening experience, but it would be more relevent to current recordings that were begun with the idea that maybe there would be a multi-channel mix, not as an afterthought , going back to old recordings and re-doing them without the original artists even being involved.

 

GoldenBoy, your earlier post makes very valid points, and I am in agreement with you. SACD does have great potential, and it's starting to be realised. The preference for vinyl expressed by some is understandable, as good vinyl has its own qualities. If it is true that SACD doesn't smooth the edges in the way that vinyl pressings might, then so be it - give me the music as it comes of the tapes.

I find it hard to believe that hi-res SACD can result in any digititus (that is inherent to the digitasation) that could be perceived by the human ear - it doesn't make sense. Harshness could be introduced at other points in mastering, but then that could happen with vinyl too. I wonder what we'll be thinking of the format when Mr Hoffmann gets to put some of his work out on SACD. SACD has got to be, at least potentially, miles better than CD - we should be jumping for joy at the prospects for the future. After all, we debate over and over on this board the merits of different CD remasters, with DCC and the like representing the gold standards as far as digital goes. No doubt when hi-res versions become widespread, the debate will still centre around who is doing the best work within the new formats.

 

No, you shouldn't. It's better than HDCD and DVD-A

 

I'm very happy with the DVDA titles that i currently own. I've heard the improvement in sound as has my wife and anyone esle who has come over to the house.
For many its the first time they have ever heard a Hi-Rez recording and they do hear the difference from regular CD's to the improved DVDA's. It usually quite revealing to them. DVDA does work. It is a wonderful advancement in sound. Neil Young is right about this. His DVD's do sound wonderful. I can't wait to hear Harvest on DVDA.

I'm really hoping that SACD also takes off and starts to catch up with DVDA as far as Classic Rock titles go.
I just can't get excited about Micheal Jackson or Toto or Journey at this point.

Sony has been very disappointing with their releases so far. I was at the NY Hi-Fi Show last year (June 2001) and heard the SONY SACD demo's. It sounded great. But a whole year has gone by and we are still waiting for some big titles to come out or hybrid SACD's.

Since that time DVDA has released Rumors, A Night At The Opera, Hotel California, Welcome To My Nightmare, Steely Dan/Two Against Nature, Al Green, Deep Purple/Machine Head, Phillip Glass, The Blue Man Group, Graham Nash, America, The Doors/LA Woman, Metallica/The Black Album etc....

When I go into a BestBuy and hear their SACD demo, its still Billy Joel and Micheal Jackson. That's the big problem, its not the machines (their now cheap), its the software. We need much more SACD software. SACD seems to be geared to the jazz and classical crowd at this point.

I can't wait to talk to the SONY people next month at this years Hi-Fi Show to find out what is going on at SONY.

JohnG

 

Amen to all of that.

 

A couple of points in response to comments made by Paul C and JohnG.

Paul: Although Steve Hoffman has noted elsewhere on this forum that he intends to work on SACD releases, both he and martinimaster have been silent on this issue of late. Scuttlebut had it months ago that there soon would be a Hoffman-mastered SACD of Eva Cassidy's Songbird collection, but this hasn't materialized, and the comments from forum members on this prospect have disappeared. Inasmuch as I have no ties to the record industry, I can only surmise that companies like DCC and MoFi will be facing increasing difficulty in licensing the kinds of things that consumers like us would want to buy. I've read on other web sites that among the issues that contiribute to this are minimum sales requirements of about 10,000 copies. From a world perspective this isn't much, one would think, but with the falling sales of music-only software worldwide one wonders whether there are any SACD titles that have sold this many copies. I seriously doubt it.

So, hinging your expectations on the success or failure of SACD based solely on Hoffman-mastered titles might mean that you'd be as old as Methusela (or me) before you got a chance to hear for yourself what advantages it has over redbook.

JohnG: That's an impressive list of DVD-A releases - if 70's classic rock is your cup of tea - and I wouldn't disagree with you that Sony's choices for rock reissues is pretty weak. I don't think, though, that there are as many of us in a 70's time lock as you'd think. Universal will be releasing a few items next month. Among them will be the Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore and Diana Krall's The Look Of Love. I guess there will be a lot of forum members who'll be picking these up on the very day they're released, but I won't be among them. Since these will boast multi-channel mixes, I can say right now that having heard the Allman Brothers DTS version, I, for one, have no interest in surround sound; Krall as an artist leaves me cold (but maybe not so much as Patricia Barber). The point is that Universal and Virgin records have made clear their intent to release this kind of music (Virgin is supposed to have a King Crimson SACD out some day).

I would rather have seen Cat Stevens' Tea For The Tillerman than either of the two I mentioned above, but I guess that's just personal preference. It's one of the few albums from the 70's I have that I still play.

 

to sgb and JohnG

I agree with a lot of the points both of you made about the problem with SACD releases. The thing is, however, as much as I would like to see more classic releases on SACD, what bothers me is the almost absolute absence of CURRENT releases coming out on the new formats. I just got a Rounder Records release of the Cowboy Junkies' Open on Hybrid SACD. This recording is about a year old now. I don't know how long the SACD release has been around. This is what I would like to see more of. I'm still into new music and new artists and would like to see these people appear on SACD.

 

Actually there are SACD titles that have sold more than 10,000 copies. In fact, one of the Jacintha SACDs had additional copies pressed after reaching that mark.

And more recently, the PentaTone SACD of Music from the Royal Wedding is said to have sold over 100,000 (!) copies.

So there are Hi Rez music fans out there - no doubt.

 

Interesting. I would like to see the actual figures from an official source - especially on the Royal Wedding release. Just a thought: how many of those Royal Wedding SACDs are actually being played in an SACD player (and not a conventional CD player)?

Another point: neither one of these that you've mentioned are reissues licensed by a company like DCC or MoFi specifically for the audiophile market. With all due respect to my fellow audiophiles, the folks at this forum are looking for their favorite titles to come out in a format that will have to potential to satisfy them more than what they already own. That means Metallica and Queen and a host of other titles in this ilk (most importantly, remastered by Mr. Hoffman - see above in this thread for one member's reaction to my mention of the Doug Sax remasters for APO). Check other segments of this forum for the listings of things the folks who come here want. It ain't an SACD of Music from the Royal Wedding... Trust me.

Yes, there are Hi Rez music fans out there, Brian; I'm one of them. But I don't buy just any SACD to support the format. I actually have one of the Jacintha SACDs (probably the one you're referring to, Autumn Leaves) but I'm not that wild about the artist; nor are all but one of my friends who have SACD players.