I have bought many SACDs recently with some the SQ is disappointing with others it is very good. The 2CH SACDs that are outstanding IMO are the ones I have from Patricia Barber. But I have never compared the CD layer of the SACD just to the RBCDs which I feel are very well recorded. For MCH SACDs the standards are Roxy Music's Avalon and Beck's Sea Change. This is where the SACD format really shines IMO . Bill
Different Strokes Interesting article. Two things I'll throw in—Speakers really are more important than sources in determining sound quality. Feel free to disagree. I felt until quite recently that the source is most important, but now I feel that the power amp/loudspeaker side of the system has a greater role to play in overall sound quality than any other element. A great source going through so-so speaker/amp combos will sound less good than a so-so source through a great amp/speaker combo. The other is that we all hear differently. The actual differences in frequency response between one listener and another can make all the difference in the world as regards the "Sound Quality" of any given gear/recording combo. My observation is that Redbook recording/playback is improving. I'm sure someone with a highly resolving system can easily detect differences in the formats, but I doubt that such a "Highly Resolving System" sounds anything like live, acoustic, unamplified music. By way of example, Stax Electrostatic headphones. Lots of detail? You bet! More than in "Real life"? You bet! And the point continues to be made—mastering is really important. Many, many CDs are poorly mastered. And as the author of the article rightfully points out, one can make a bad sounding Hi-Rez silver disc just as easily as a bad sounding Redbook standard disc.
When we say compare we need to say which layer we are talking about for a SACD. For me it's always the Hi-Res layer. I don't buy SACDs for the cd layer.
Well, there is a wine thread here somewhere, and yes, I do agree, Barefoot wines are great. They make the music sound better too!
Funny, I noticed that also. I have everything the Pixies have put out to mass market. And you nailed it on the MFSL Hybrids.
Actually, I have a funny story about wine. I love good wine, but don't know all that much about it. About 15 years ago, I was working for one of my extremely wealthy clients, and it was about Christmas time. Before I left, they gave me a bottle of wine. I'm sure they had not planned on giving me a gift, but since I was there, they did. This was a bottle of Louis Jadot and I believe it was a Beaujolais though I can't remember for sure at the moment. It was the best tasting wine I ever tasted. I mentioned this to a wine buff friend of mine and he laughed, telling me that this was a very inexpensive wine. I assumed it was expensive since my client was so wealthy. The bottom line is that is was the smoothest wine I ever tasted. It was like butter. He acknowledged that, but said it was a very simple one dimensional wine. He said that with great wines, there are many different things going on at the same time, hence they are much more complex. Of course he was right, but still I've never tasted a smoother wine in my life. It turns out that it cost less than $10 for the bottle.
I think it's all in the mastering, IMO. Just as you can come across a shoddy blu-ray transfer, you can find some not so great SACDs. Hi-rez doesn't guarantee great sound in my experience. But when SACD/DVD-A are done right, yes, there can be a big difference.
When you say "SACD" you are automatically referring to the hi-rez layer. The CD layer (if there is one) is just redbook CD and not really SACD.
I like Doug Scar's wine analogy. Also LeeS's point about original quality, mastering quality, and playback quality all figuring in. I also like drinking copious amounts of cheap wine then listening to well-recorded, well-mastered CD's and SACD's on the piece-of-medium-quality crap system I've assembled in my less-than-optimum listening room. Even in surround. Even in Dolby PLII for stereo CD's. Fact is, even when it CAN get better than this...it doesn't get any better than this. Now playing on Ariel Stream: A Fine Frenzy - You Picked Me
Probably a type called Beaujolais Nouveau. It is a wine made to be drunk very "young". Because it is fermented for only a few weeks and then botttled and sold immediately it does not have much of the tannin in it from the grape skins. Tannins create some of the bitterness (as well as complexity) so lack of them is one of the things that makes Nouveau so smooth. Kind of like, with a low-end system you can get music, but you miss much of the complexity, depth and detail that really enhances the listening experience. I've been traveling a lot lately and relegated to listening to my iPod system (not exactly a slouch, but still), or CDs in a car. When I got back home and fired up the big rig (which has SACD capability), I could feel myself relaxing into the music. A much richer experience. John K.
I have Becks Sea of Change UDCD MFSL. And it might be one of the nicest sounding CD’s I own. It’s hard to fathom how much more the UDSACD would sound in comparison to the UDCD. But I know the SACD goes for big bucks---so I’m guessing it’s a holy grail for MoFi.
I have only the version I downloaded from HD-Tracks. Once again, my guess is that the Hi-Res file will have a deeper soundstage, more room around instruments, a more delicate extended high end, tighter more focused and deeper bass, and more pronounced reverbs and ambience. However, if people don't notice these distinctions, for whatever reason, then the difference between hi-res and standard CD pales. In fact, other distinctions, such as tonality, which may be much easier for the average listener to discern, become the deciding factors. In other words, if you don't notice the benefits from hi-res, then they essentially don't exist for you. What's left is the difference in mastering, and that may lead one to prefer a CD to a SACD. That does not mean the the distinctions don't exist, but that some listeners just don't recognize them.
Was there a MOFI SACD? I know there was one from Geffen(?) that I have. I also have the MFSL CD. Both have their proponents, but the mixes are a bit different I think, so hard to compare. I can say that the SACD just sounds better to me for a number of reasons, for example it is more open and with better instrumental timbres. P.S. It's Sea Change
Sorry, my bad. It’s been released on SACD and DVD-A. Through Geffen, I believe. I’ve never heard either Hi-Rez disc. My UDCD sounds so good and I can’t imagine any other version sounding better—“Imagine”. And yes, Sea Change. Not sure why but I even verbalize it with the "of". Habit.
Funny, but I'm usually the guy full of analogies, but my post about the simplicity vs the complexity of wine was not meant as an analogy, but as a comment to the other wine posts in this thread. It turns out that it may be one of my better analogies, as you and Dillydapper pointed out. It's surely fine to enjoy a simple playback of music and think it sounds great, without being aware of the potential for richer complexities to exist. As our listening experiences, and our sense of wine appreciation, expand, we may somdeay rethink our positions. This is a good thing all the way around. It means that there are all types of people and all types of systems, and we are all able to get lots of enjoyment, regardless of whether we know that we could possibly do better somewhere down the road. If I like that inexpensive wine, it doesn't really matter if others tell me how much better other wines can be. That said, hearing of the potential for betterment may spur some of us on to get closer to that holy grail some of us are still searching for. In the meanwhile, enjoy what you have the best you can. IMO, the only worthy goal in this hobby is to try to smile as often as possible. Lately, just about every time I sit down to listen to my system I do just that, and it's mainly while listening to hi-res files. YMMV.
I think we need to see more objective analysis of SACD & CD tracks ala: www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=264672 to be able to draw conclusions
I was born in Napa...and have many relatives and friends in the industry. And my good friend compares the Hi-Fi industry to the Wine industry a lot. And he's a few generations in the wine business--before Napa was on the map. I love Two Buck Chuck Chard...but I can tell the difference with a nice bottle of Cake Bread cellars Chardonnay.
That's what led me to looking and the OP. In the end I think there's too many variables for a solid yes or no answer. It's subjective to a degree, but adding in mastering, reference gear vs. C and D gear, and hearing experience it's impossible to make a clear conclusion. Anyway...I love the packaging of SHM SACD's...and seriously, that's a marketing tool that works for me.
Sorry if my wine retort stirred up the thread here. All I was saying is that sometimes when people start arguing over statistically insignificant minutae which happens often here ($500 power cables, cable breakin, tape on electrical prongs, anyone?) that they seem to be missing the point of why they enjoy listening to music in the first place. Wine is a good analogy to audio systems, because aside from price, there is such little difference between the normal stuff and the high end stuff that you'd be better off not arguing about it and simply enjoying it. It's a diminishing returns or forest/trees situation, yet people argue it harder than religion and it's quite funny to watch. Oh, and I quite prefer Barefoot, because I'm sensible enough to realize that similar to stereo gear, it's not necessary to be suckered into mortgaging the farm in order to chase benefits that amount to phantoms and placebo effects.
Could be the settings in your set-up menu. I have that disc and the bass on the SACD layer FAR outweighs the bass on the redbook layer. To be fair, I listen to all of my stereo discs, SACD or redbook CD, with just two tower speakers, no sub-woofer engaged.
Fascinating how we can predict exactly what the hi-rez source will impart. It's almost as if we're expecting a difference!
Well it's pretty easy to do. I've got well over 300 Hi-Res albums on my server and most of them have these similar qualities in spades. There are a few that don't, but that's not the fault of the media, but poor recording or mastering IMO. Btw, records also have these qualities when they're made well and in good shape. They are a natural occurance that most well made recording possess, though you need a good phono playback system to realize many of them. It's not like SACD's are adding things to these recordings. IMO, it's that CD's are not passing these attributes to the listener. Once again, I attribute most of this to the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit topologies.
The degree of unwanted background noise, whether in the system itself and/or source material. The lower the level of this noise, the lower the noise floor is said to be. Sometimes, people will say the music has a "black background", referring to the fact that there is no discernible noise, a "nothingness" if you will. I run my main system on balanced power, which removes virtually all audible traces of system noise. With the volume control turned all the way up and nothing playing, or during silent music passages, it is as if the system is turned off -- there is dead silence. I say my system has a very low noise floor.
