DSOTM: SACD v. red book layers

I don't know if this has been brought up in an earlier thread, but there's an interesting editiorial in the new June issue of STEREOPHILE. John Atkinson did a detailed analysis comparing the SACD layer with the "red book" CD layer of the new DSOTM reissue.article

He was perplexed to find vast differences between the two, even though they were both supposedly mastered straight from the same source. Why should we not be surprised that the redbook CD layer was mastered with the agressively loud, limited dynamics that characterize so many modern recordings. In analyzing the song "Money" alone, Mr. Atkinson found 362 clipped samples!

 

I have read the article... very interesting!

 

Depressing, actually...

 

I read the article and found it very interesting too.
I had a couple of questions though.
1.) Unabe to actually extract the SACD in digital format, they instead fed it into an ADC. How relevant will the comparison be with the redbook cd.
2.) As they could not compare the SACD layer with the Redbook layer digitally, why did they not also sample the CD layer into the same ADC, so as to keep the comparison apples to apples. Jeff
Regardless, it was a good and very interesting bit of work.

 

I've undertaken a vaugely similar analysis of Money from the CD layer and compared it to the 20th Anniversary Edition. This involved importing the two tracks into Peak on my Mac.

A quick visual comparison shows that the new mastering has squashed dynamics compared to the 20th.

[This is all being done for an article I'm late in writing for my AudioEnz site].

 

There was a previous post about this. But:

That is an excellent question. Someone here with time on his/her hands might still do this experiment (hint hint). Of course it still leaves unanswered questions, about the difference in processing the SACD and CD signals (different filters will have different effects on the waveforms); but it might be instructive.

 

AudioEnz, I think you have summed it up neatly. The redbook layer on the current SACD disc has been tweaked in the manner that you and numerous others have reported. It's a source of some despair to those who appreciate decent natural sound that this shoud be undertaken, at a time when more and more people are coming to expect sound that is not overly processed or tampered with. It's particularly distressing to see this occurring on a purported audiophile disc. With all due respects to Doug Sax and his excellent work, of course.

 

And I certainly have the highest respect for Doug Sax, as well. As JA suggested in Stereophile, perhaps it's the studio pushing this (the over-maximization/compression).

Just consider the last version of "DSotM", the 20th Anniversary edition, which was mastered by Guthrie/Sax. I've never seen a wave-form analysis, but I've had my ears assaulted on a number of occasions by that muddy, congested, two-dimensional mess. And their work on the "Ummagumma" remaster also sounds poor to me.

Still, we know that they're capable of great work, and Doug Sax's Analogue Productions masters sound great to me. Again, I have to think the studio is to blame.

 

Hi Rich,

I heard it was the band's request. Maybe they need the kick to compensate for hearing loss.

-Jeffrey

 

Hi,

Call me a rebel, call me what you will, BUT i'm not willing to toss my other versions in place of the new SACD stereo layer. Stereophile frequently pointed out that the redbook layer is "loud" but so is the SACD layer. My enjoyment comes largely from the hypnotic state that DSOTM creates and is well represented on the MoFi and EMI/Harvest import releases. I find both of these forementioned releases to be more laidback than Sax's versions ('92 remaster of the new release). True, the SACD is more revealing BUT at a cost.

Another view,
Jeffrey

 

Just wait for the DSD compression, EQ and limiting tools to hit the street. You too can have a maxed out SACD for your listening enjoyment.

Richard.