|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: Brothers in Arms SACD/cd/XRCD comparison posted by Croc on May 31, 2005 at 02:43:31:
my SACD arrived via amazon.uk yesterday and i took some time to listen to the SACD and based on the previous discussions decided i had to listen for myself to see if i could clearly hear the differences between the different formats and masterings.*[* Aside: i damaged my hearing somewhat a couple of years ago and i sometimes wonder how acute my hearing still is]
Well, i think the differences between the formats were quite evident. Ranked from best to worst: [rough scale of 10 score]
1. SACD [9]: great instrument and voice separation with excellent dynamics and ambience in the sound. my only critique is that the drums still sound synthesized...but i'm sure they were, so there is not much that could be done about that. it basically has all the positive attributes of the LP without the surface noise and even better microdynamics.
2. LP [8]: it suffers from some surface noise (heck, i only paid $1 for this record, so i can't complain since its nearly perfect] and some smearing of the some of the delicate delineation of individual notes. but it sounds more organic than the CD versions.
3. CD layer of SACD [7.5]: it's posted below that this is the same as the master from 1996. i don't have that version, but i can vouche that it is an HDCD encoded layer as it activates the decoder on my Arcam Alpha 9. it seems cleaner and has more resolution than the LP, but it lacks some of the organic ease and naturalness that i like in the LP and SACD. i definitely prefer this over the original CD.
4. CD release (1985) [6.5]: i differ from the previous poster. i think the redbook layer on the SACD sounds better than this version. this version is my least favorite and had been shelved in favor of the LP for my home listening pleasure. this CD sounds congested and overly etched/brittle in comparison to the other three versions. it doesn't appear to have the easy musical flow that the other three versions have.
To be fair, perhaps my rankings of 3 and 4 are partially due to the HDCD decoder on my Arcam; nevertheless, i stand by the assertion that the original CD release doesn't hold a candle to the LP or SACD. if i have time, i should try and play the new redbook layer on my SACD player and compare it with the original release.
What shocks me about this mini-shootout (if one could call a half hour comparison of "Walk of Life" that) is how the same apparent 16/44.1k master (?) could get such a different (and better) treatment via DSD. i certainly have believed in the camp of "pure DSD" or analog->DSD was preferable than a PCM source. nevertheless, this has taught me that anything is possible in the world of remastering (well, not _anything_), and also, fortunately, i can still perceive differences in recordings quite well in spite of my degraded hearing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Brief comparison: LP vs. 85 CD vs. SACD (both hirez and RB layers) - dfong 08:21:33 06/01/05 (2)
- Nice review - navman 09:34:06 06/01/05 (1)
- you are absolutely right... - dfong 15:23:29 06/01/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
