|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.225.216.247
In Reply to: I think people are just tired of chasing... posted by BJordan on May 14, 2007 at 18:38:41:
since sacds,mostly, are hybrids and can play on any cd player and any sacd player can play Red Book.
Follow Ups:
very few, if any, of the hybrids actually play the Red Book standards. There wasn't enough room on the discs to do both, so although they will play on a cd player designed for Red Book, it's with less data and not up to the stds. Another instance where you have to read the 'fine print' with the recording industry.
According to Philips, holder of the Red Book Intellectual Property, hybrid SACDs are "fully compatible with the 'Red Book' specifications." That quote is straight from the technical pages on their website.
I wouldn't draw the same conclusion you do from this statement, and I've written to labels and they said they don't fully meet the standards. "Compatible" is not a comforting word to me in this context.
"Fully compatible" means exactly that. The specs are identical. Hybrid SACDs even carry the "Compact Disc" logo, which is only allowed on discs that conform 100% to the Red Book.
I don't know whether what you say is true or not, but I do know this: the "redbook" or "CD layer" on all of the hybrids that I've purchased sounds SPLENDID. Maybe it's the DSD, or the remastering job itself, or the brand-new SOTA recording (each of these things "as applicable" to RCA releases, Ondine etc). I don't have SACD -- but, if I want the remaster or the new recording and it's only available as a hybrid, I buy them. I've never been dissappointed with the "redbook layer" on my highly revealing system.
The first ones I bought I took back cause they didn't sound good on my highly revealing system and I checked it out. A friend also brought a top-of-line SACD player over to my house once and I didn't think it sounded better on the whole (musicality), even tho it was a little more detailed, than my modified Njoe Tjoeb playing red book. Each to his own, but I'm not missing SACD at all when it goes down for the count.
I'm not one to say it isn't dependent on one's equipment but these are the ones to try. If not, go no further as they are amongst the best to date on the format!
If you don't enjoy the sound of EITHER the redbook or SACD layer on the RCA's:(1) Digital just isn't for you.
(2) Your system isn't all it could be.
(3) Your more of an analog man at heart.There's nothing wrong with any of the above situations. Since the RCA's are glorious sound sources, however, if they don't sound great to you it's got to be one of the above!;-)
probably Option #3. I do have a cdp, but I got it cause it sounded more like vinyl than any other I heard, even tho it has great detail. I listen through 2A3 SET and large bass reflex speakers w/ horns- great dynamics, lifelike vocals and string instruments sound live. I really don't like what I think of as "etched" sound, which is too detailed and not quite as dynamic that I associate with SACD. I do really like all the old RCA Living Stereo recordings-they were really done well, which is 90% of the battle. I read about these earlier today and it said the "red book" layer was remastered from the original for these, so it should be very good. I'll try a couple and see what I think, cause they were great recordings. On my stereo, anything that was recorded direct to tape in one take with decent mikes sounds best.
The best of the best as far as I'm concerned. Try whichever one for which the music interests you most.I'll be looking forward towards your comments on the RCA Living Stereo SACDs in the future.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: