As a previous owner of a Denon DVD-2900 I can understand your statement. I've long since upgraded to a "real" SACD player. That Denon does a better job playing redbooks.
I've only heard the original CD (other than the original LP), and have always thought it was an awesome recording!
I have both the Quad and the original 5.1 SACD. I prefer the SACD. It's all great but Welcome To The Machine is one of the most beautifully menacing intense songs ever written.
I don’t know how else to describe it but I could never quite get to feeling really “connected” to the album on the AP SACD. I don’t have anything bad to say about it but the Doug Sax CD is the version that grabs me in a better connected way. It truly is a feeling in my bones more than anything cerebral.
You just answered your own question in your second sentence More specifically for me it's because my headphone DAC is PCM only since it's a ladder DAC (my speaker system has a native DSD DAC). I don't listen to headphones much these days and the next best sounding DAC I've heard based on FPGA (which will play DSD) is too expensive. Just a couple of days ago I got the quote for full Equi=Tech balanced power, dedicated line, and grounding and that was more than enough of a wallet punch. I'm still going to listen to the 35DP-4 more but I like the presentation on the DSD enough for me to like it a lot.
I do NOT own WYWH on CD. Is this release(reissue) worth getting for a Redbook version? I've read through this thread and get some split opinions/POV(no surprise here)
If you want just a red book layer I suggest saving your money and buy either the Sax or Guthrie remaster -both are good.
Thanks for the response guys. I have a quite a few Hybrid SACDs it appears(the goal -ONE day, I will own an SACD player,one day) so, I don't mind dropping the money (Amazon $31 Free shipping BTWhttps://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07KH17MHF/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1) for this .
It could work out to be an "investment". When the original WYWH APO SACD went OOP the prices shot up quite a bit. So maybe that'll happen again .
If you never plan to have a SACD player, I'd probably recommend one of the more common CD pressings. But definitely get the SACD if you plan on getting a player for it.
Hi i'm Marco from Roma a simple question: sorry for my bad english under the audio point of view what are the differences between the 35DP4, the CK 33453 WITH and WITHOUT writing: "Now Made In USA" on the back of the case? thank you all
Ok, i'll do it … the SACD arrived lately. I've gone through it a few times now, comparing it with the 1992 remaster (1994 CD reissue in Europe), the 2001 2CD Echoes version (most of WYWH is presented) and the 2011 Discovery Edition CD. No surround units, stereo only, everything ripped to disc including the SACD DSD ISO (~4GB including both stereo and 5.1 mix). My very personal conclusion is the SACD red book version is disappointing, i'll never play it again the DSD stereo version is far better but it also suffers from the 2011 remastering which i do prefer for my "small" devices only (mobile, car) or at a very modest volume level at home, but not at live concert volume (and i doubt to buy the 2011 Immersion box for its 24/92 stereo version => 2011 remaster, too) My God, i wish there would be a hi res version of a pre 2000 base… So, depending on your focus on listening, go for the 199x or 2011 remaster (or simply buy both of them, still much cheaper than the SACD). BTW. To judge the basic qualities of 199x and 2011 remasters, i suggest listening to Animals. BTW2. I even prefer the early American/Japan CD versions over the 1992 European remaster. Unmatched up to date imho
I am confused. I have the 2011 WYWH Special Limited Edition SACD. Is there any difference between the 2011 release (CD, SACD or SACD 5.1) and the current (2019?) release or is it a pure re-release with no difference in the mastering on any of the formats. IMHO, the SACD stereo on the 2011 is awesome.
The AP SACD stereo program is so bad that I can’t listen to it. It is soft, soft, soft and lack transients. Sounds wrong to me. Doug Sax CD is not the ultimate, but way better. Michael Fremer said that the master is in bad shape. Wish they could use a dub tape and released it as a flat transfer.
If you take those two post that I quoted they seem to be saying that they may have tweaked the 5.1 mastering on the latest release. Why generate all new catalog numbers and change the package labeling if they are the same. It maybe that they are identical, but can that be confirmed?
They probably changed the catalog # to differentiate the 2018 licensed product from the earlier product. I don’t know where you’re getting from those two posts that they may have tweaked the 5.1 mastering on the latest release. I can’t confirm they are exactly the same. But I would be very, very surprised if the same team from Pink Floyd revisited them again just for this limited release or they allowed Analogue Productions to tweak their masters (with or without acknowledgment) for this release.
This is my feeling too in comparing it to the Sony Mastersound. The SACD in stereo just doesn't have that punch that the Mastersound has.
The punch that you refer to may be the slight compression applied to the Mastersound (see dynamic range database for details) or it might be the slight smiley eq applied. Nevertheless it did well in the blind listening test that you'll find somewhere on this forum.
Compression or not, I have heard pretty much all the CD masterings and that Sony Mastersound is the one I kept along with the 2011 Experience Edition for the bonus tracks.
I have the Doug Sax, and the new AP SACD reissue. The first time I listened to the stereo SACD layer I was greatly diasppointed. I also listened to the CD layer of the AP and enjoyed it more than the SACD layer strangely enough. The Doug Sax is OK to me but I dont find it great either. The AP hybrid SACD redbook layer may be my favorite of what I have.
