 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.69.137.205
In Reply to: The difference between SACD and really great redbook posted by Sordidman on May 9, 2006 at 11:09:06:
Why is SACD (in one lump) always compared to the "the best vinyl" or "really great redbook"? If you want a high-end CD player to squeeze the best sound possible out of the vast array of available CDs, that makes sense. But it's silly dismiss SACD because it ONLY sounds as good or slightly BETTER that a mega-buck CD player with a cream-of-the-crop recording. Sounds like an unnecessary rationalization of high-priced CD Players and turntables, to me.Averaged over available recordings and various price levels of players, SACD easily outperforms Redbook.
Follow Ups:
Most of us HAVE to compare...Why? There is no music on SACD. So, - one has to choose wisely when they come to a decision regarding SACD. This is especially true because of the lack of software, - if the software was all "good recordings," - whatever that means, - then it would be different.
Take for example the recording of "Jazz at the Pawnshop." There is at the very least, a ton of debate about the fact that the SACD layer is MUCH WORSE, - than the redbook layer. Or, - the Nora Jones SACD, - wherein the SACD layer was made from the Redbook layer...
Having listened to several of the crop of SACD players that in the $1,000 range, - there isn't ONE SACD CD that sounds as good as the same remastered recording in redbook through my APL, Meitner, etc.. AND EVEN the $2.5K Audio Aero Prima. If you take Peter Gabriel's remastered redbook and Peter Gabriel's remastered SACDs, - the redbook recording trounces ANY and all SACD players in the $1K range..
So, it is important to get the right thing....
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
HowdyI have upwards of 3000 SACDs, there's plenty of music there.
Now, I know that people with more limited taste than I have (perhaps more discriminating :) ) might find fewer titles to their liking, but there is a lot of great music available on SACD.
-Ted
the TalkTalk and Goldfrapp... one Herbie Hancock...
very, very, dire...Mostly kidding... As classical goes down in flames, it's ironic that it's the only genre where there is any SACDs....
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I find CD, even megabuck CD to be totally unlistenable for Classical Music. The massed strings are total "murder" on CD!Curious about Peter Gabriel, I have heard him on LP, CD and SACD and his music is very low fidelity. I only bought the LP because it was a 50 cents, the CD was from the library and the SACD I bought because it was an SACD.
Do you listen to any music actually requires realistic portrayal of the original acoustic sound field, such as Classical or Jazz acoustic recordings?
I am totally shocked!
Teresa
Although I recognize that SACD really only has the most value if you like Classical music: which even here, - the majority of people who listen to even High-end systems do not... Consider that the most popular posts are about the Dylan, Stones, Dire Straits, and other misc. jazz and rock titles in SACD.If you are thinking that SACD titles like the TalkTalk, Sting, Herbie Hancock, Steely Dan and Peter Gabriel are bad recordings, - I suggest that you're not listening closely: they are excellent, IMO.
Lastly, if you haven't heard the Audio Aero, Esoteric, Meitner and other top tier players with TUBE OUTPUT stages, - then you have not heard how organic, natural, musical and lifelike both SACD and Redbook reproduction can be. These top tier players, (and I'm not saying that they are high value: that's in the eye of the beholder, {and they are absurdly expensive}, simply bring one closer to their favorite music, whatever it may be).
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
If you're comparing "top tier" RBCD players with tube output stages to $1000 SACD players and finding that they are the equal (or better) of the SACD player in sound quality . . . and you're not using symphonic music in your comparison.I don't think your comparison proves much . . . except that you like the sound of tube output stages.
I also agree with Teresa that massed strings (as in symphonic music) is one of those sounds that RBCD does not reproduce well. The other is brass, especially massed trumpets. Again, something that RBCD does not do well. These are common in classical symphonic music. In both cases, what is problematic are the high-frequency overtones of these instruments which seem to drive the RBCD playback system a little crazy.
That said, I will agree with you that my good RBCD recordings sound close to my SACD recordings, both played on my XA777ES, with the DACS paralleled for RBCD playback and the "filter" setting. However, to my ears there is a substantial quality difference between native DSD recordings and SACD re-releases from analog masters, such as the "Living Stereo" and "Living Presence" re-releases. So, if you're comparing an RBCD re-release and an SACD re-release of some recording from an analog master, the difference may not be so dramatic. (In addition, the re-mastering of one may be better.)
I think rock music is a very poor source to use as a comparison. With the execption of the drum kit and the vocals, all the rest of it is electronic.
Jazz is a better comparator. I think if you listen closely to the sound of the acoustic piano you will hear a difference between RBCD and SACD. To my ears, RBCD reproduction of acoustic piano gives it, in varying degrees, an "electronic" sound that I don't hear on vinyl or on SACD.
Also, my particular loudspeakers are a bit "mellow-balanced" in that they roll off a few DB in the top octave, so they might not be the most revealing of "digital nasties."
"very low fidelity" especially the SACD releases, either isn't really listening or dosent know what they are talking about.They may not be the best recordings available, but they certainly are not "Low Fidelity."
Peter Gabriel's work has often been praised for having quite reasonable fidelity for rock music. You don't like the genre - we know that.I have all his early albums on LP and, particularly from PG3 onwards, they are very well made. I have some of his first CDs, all the remastered CDs from a few years back, and all the SACDs. While the CDs and SACDs are not in the same league as the LPs, they are very satisfying.
Help me out here - which LP do you have for 50 cents? Which SACD did you buy?
Regards,
Geoff
I was not impressed with the sonics or the music. Though I do like the song "Shock the Monkey" from Shaking the Tree which is actually one of the worst sounding with rolled off highs and no bass and no image to speak of. I guess I'm not a fan as if I was I likely could hear around the sonic problems.Teresa
I cannot speak for any LP version nor the Greatest hits package since I have never owned them. The CDs and SACDs from the rest of the catalog are a different story.Your complaints are the opposite of the impression myself and others have of these disks. If anything, the original CD version of "So", is often considered to be a bright sounding disk, hardly not rolled off. The SACD version is much more natural to my ears, but still not rolled off.
As a rule, PG recordings typically feature gobs of low bass, since his style includes a great deal of percussion and synths. The original CD version of Shock the Monkey from "Security" and the "Passion" disk , (which is the soundtrack from "The Last Temptation of Christ") were often used as reference material to judge bass performance. The is sub 50 hz information present and those passages (and many others), will provide a heavy duty workout for my Sunfire sub.
I stand by what I've said. PG works in general should in no way be considered low fidelity. Perhaps you have a bass management problem?
Recordings that have great bass are powerful indeed, they shake the walls. the floors and I can almost feel the bass in the pit of my stomach.The opening of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss is a great example with 16Hz pipe-organ petal tones. Or the 8Hz cannon shots in Telarc's 1812 Overture. Many of the symphonies of Mahler have very powerful low frequencies.
But Peter Gabriel? I don't think so! Maybe more low frequencies than some rock. And yes "So" is a little bright on LP but the bass is still rolled off. "Shock the Monkey" is rolled off at both frequency extremes both bass and treble.
To my ears Peter Gabriel is low fidelity, sorry.
Teresa
This is a standout track.A wonderful duet from two powerful voices - Kate of course is stellar.
Listen to the bass solo and the low notes from the synthesizer. Since the lowest note on a normally-tuned electric bass guitar is E1 at 41.2 Hz, you are not digging into the realms of subsonic - and there's little real music there. 16Hz pipe or 8Hz cannon shots be damned - that's not bass we care about.
If your system doesn't nail the bass guitar solo on this record, don't blame the recording.
16 Golden Greats (CD, SACD) was recognized by most as the poorest recording of the bunch. But you had "So" on SACD. That's a good one.
Still, you are so biased against challenging rock music such as Mr. Gabriel makes that I don't trust your comments on the sonics. The fact that, of all the songs on "Shaking the Tree", you liked "Shock the Monkey" - the most lightweight of all the numbers, says volumes.
Regards,
Geoff
If Teresa thinks PG represents low fidelity, what rock albums does she think sound good? None of them apparently.
Emerson, Lake and Palmer (self titled first album)
The Animals: Love Is (2 LP set on MGM, UK pressing is killer)
Boogie with Canned Heat
Men without Hats: Rhythm of Youth
Donavon: Hurdy Gurdy Man (especially the Indian flavored songs)
The Sheffield Track Album
The Sheffield Drum Album
Crusin' with the Desotos (on Wilson Audiophile LP)
Crosby, Stills and Nash (self titled LP with Suite Judy Blue Eyes)
David Crosby: If I Could only Remember My Name
The Crazy World of Arthur Brown (especially "Spontaneous Apple Creation" and Fire)
The Beach Boys: Pet Sounds (the new Capitol 180 Gram Stereo pressing)
The Beatles (white album)
Paul McCartney: Ram
Cream: Fresh Cream
Just to name 15.Happy listening,
Teresa
Well I can speak to at least a half dozen of these, the rest either aren’t rock or are total trash anyway. I don’t think there is anything there from the last 20 years.Its been quite some time since I've listened to the first ELP and CS&N disks. So I'll withhold comments on those. While the Beatles white album and Maccos Ram are decent sounding, neither is as good as several of those Gabriel disks that started this discussion. In fact, the best sounding Beatles disks should include Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper, (which both won Grammies for best sound in their day). Pet sounds and Cream are also decent choices. McCartney’s Venus and Mars is a better choice than Ram (another Grammy winner for sound if I'm not mistaken).
This is pretty much what I'd expect from Teresa when asked to list best sounding rock disks. A mish-mash of total crap and B-listers, with a liberal amount of audiophile disks tossed in. Nowhere in the list is there anything truly stellar sounding (except possibly Pet Sounds).
Most telling is what is missing from the list. Off the top of my head, here are 15 truly well recorded rock disks you should have included, and I won’t even use any of the PG stuff:Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon
Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here
Supertramp: Crime of the Century
Eagles: Hell Freezes Over
Roger Waters: Amused to Death
Ricky Lee Jones (debut disk)
Joe Jackson: Body and Soul
Beatles: Abbey Road
Steely Dan: Aja
Steely Dan: Two Against Nature
Alan Parsons: Turn of a Friendly Card (and nearly anything else)
Fleetwood Mac: Rumors
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms
Steve Winwood: Back in the High Life
As Stewart: Time PassagesI could easily list you 10 more with decent sonic grades, and many more that would be much less mainstream (try "Ain't Love Grand", by the Suitcase Pimps, for instance). I'll bet Metralla can list 15 more (and I'd love to see his list, I might learn about something new), and I'll bet he agrees with the majority of my choices, and me with his. Good sounding rock recording is a pretty universal thing.
So what is the reason none of these titles are on Teresa’s list? Maybe she hasn't ever heard them? Maybe its because she's biased against Rock music? Maybe she doesn’t take this type of music seriously? Maybe all of the above. It scares me to think of what would be on her worst sounding list!
Unlike the vast majority of classical music audiophiles out there, I can forgive a poor recording if the performance is good enough ("Who's Next" comes to mind, as does the Zeppelin catalog). I don’t limit myself to listening to Sheffield Labs crap and direct-to-disk nonsense, because for me the Sonics never overshadow the performance. Teresa can't say the same. To her the sonics come first, and ALL rock sonics are "very low fidelity" compared to massed strings from 180 gram vinyl playing through a vacuum tube front end.
I don't pretend to know much about classical music. Hence, I would never try to recommend to someone what sounds good and what doesn’t in the classical vein. I don't know, and I could really care less anyway. It’s all pretty boring to me. But I don’t tell others that something is "very low fidelity" when in truth I haven't got a clue. Teresa would do well to follow that philosophy.
but most of Teresa's suggestions were closer to my taste, musically. There are genuinely well recorded albums, and there are albums that just sound good. Then again there are recordings that sound sterilely clean, but come across as being over-produced. Which recordings fall into which category is a matter of taste, and taste in music is an emotional thing....as you've both demonstrated.
There's hundreds of CD recordings at local libraries to explore. I started out slowly and it is now the genre of music I have listened to most in the last year. Jazz will also be my favorite but classical music is another endless pit for which there are great rewards for those who stick with it!BTW, there are lots of great sounding multichannel classical SACDs.
Compare Side Two (the acoustic side) of the Beatles White Album to any Beatles album including Abbey Road and you will see why I chose the White Album as the best sounding.The sonics of Emerson, Lake and Palmer’s first LP, the one with Lucky Man and Just Take a Pebble are far superior to their more popular (in audiophile circles) Trilogy. The best sounding LP they ever did.
What you don't like Donovan, Arthur Brown, Canned Heat or any the others? Check out "On the road again" from Canned Heat their first and best sounding LP, I sounds very real and a great song to boot! And some of the other rock I listed has sound quality that is on par with better Jazz records.
Men Without Hats: Rhythm of Youth which is now 22 years old is the most modern rock music I like and sonically it is killer! This is an LP to show off your stereo system.
I noticed popular music going downhill since the mid 1980's and it has never recovered. Modern rock music is full of "distortion" on purpose; depressing lyrics and singers who sound like they just woke up from a nightmare. I'm sorry I just can't get into any Rock/Pop music written since the mid 1980's.
From your list:
Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon (Not bad but way over-rated, On the Run and Time are good, and there are some neat sound effects but the music just doesn't sound realistic)
Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here (I didn't like this LP at all for sound or music)
Supertramp: Crime of the Century (sound isn't bad on the MFSL LP but the I didn't care for the music, sold it on eBay)
Eagles: Hell Freezes Over (never owned it as I hated their other album Hotel California)
Roger Waters: Amused to Death (would like to hear this one, I do have the Video of In The Flesh Live on DVD 16 Bit 48kHz in 2 channel stereo)
Ricky Lee Jones (debut disk)(didn't like her voice)
Joe Jackson: Body and Soul (Don't like him either)
Beatles: Abbey Road (Great LP, white album better although Here Comes the Sun written by George Harrison is great)
Steely Dan: Aja (Had the MFSL of this one - I hated it sold it on eBay)
Steely Dan: Two Against Nature (Had the DVD-Audio of this because it was raved about, didn't like it either)
Alan Parsons: Turn of a Friendly Card (and nearly anything else) (This one I do like but sonically doesn't compare with the 15 I listed, all the Alan Parsons Project albums are good)
Fleetwood Mac: Rumors (Some really good songs, not best in sound though)
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms (Had the 180 Gram LP and the SACD, very overrated and sound is good but not great)
Steve Winwood: Back in the High Life (Didn't like although I do like most of the Traffic LPs)
As Stewart: Time Passages (Hated the MFSL LP of this one at lot!)I don't pretend to know anything about Rock/Pop music except what I like and what sounds good on my system. Remember you asked me "What Rock I thought sounded good" since on my stereo Peter Gabriel sounds so bad. I was honest and I do have a clue Peter Gabriel doesn't sound good on my system, the ones listed I own and they do.
Happy listening and don't forget to boogie,
Teresa
I can see you are way out of your element with Rock sonics as well.....But enough. I already knew that. I dont want to perpetuate this.
Consider not making reccomendations on rock recordings, whether they be about the sonics or performance. Every time you do you come out looking like a bigger idiot.
I explained my answer and you attacked again.You keep forgetting you are the one who asked my what I thought were good sounding rock recordings.
All of your attacking will not make Peter Gabriel’s recordings sound any less cold or give them any type of sonic realism they do not possess. You cannot bully someone into believing something sounds good when it clearly does not.
You badly need an attitude adjustment.
You do not have to agree with what I think sounds good but you do not have to attack either. Understand?
Teresa
joyzmantoyz,I congratulate you on an excellent post. I hope Teresa reads it. And your choices of good sounding albums is stellar, though "Two Against Nature" doesn't quite make it, in my book (though I like the album). I hope to get some time to think of some of my favs. "The Boatman's Call" by Nick Cave comes immediately to mind.
I can forgive a poor recording if the performance is good enough
Agree in spades!!
I'm a real novice at classical, but have a ton of SACDs. So I listen to what Teresa says in that area (and have all the Vanguards, including the two that she had at the top of her SACD list).
As far as rock goes, Teresa is out of her element.
Regards,
Geoff
I told him and he attacked. I was perfectly honest and I own all the LPs I said sounded best to me.I too can forgive a poor recording if the performance is good enough
But the question was not about performances, it was about sound quality only.
And Peter Gabriel does not sound good on my system either on LP, CD or SACD.
Glad you are enjoying the Vanguard SACDs. Now that is something I can get excited about!
Happy listening,
Teresa
I would have taken Fagen's Nightfly over TAN, but that is a good post any way you split it.peace
You are right, The Nightfly does have killer sound.My experience with Two Against Nature (and with Everything Must Go for that matter) is strictly with the DVD-Audio multi-channel version. Perhaps the standard CD is not as good. I've never heard it.
With respect to Steely Dan, Gaucho also has decent sonics and could have been included. In fact, there are probably dozens of other disks that could have been included. Those were the first 15 I thought of that I felt were most recognisable.
Performance wise, try Walter Beckers solo album "11 tracks of Whack"
Well hell, if you enjoyed the DVD-A of those two then you really need to pickup Nightfly on DVD-A!! But, the cd is very well done. ( A shame Aja hasn't made hi-rez format but thats been talked about.) Would have a hard time getting past Becker's vocals espicially after hearing him do a couple of tracks live some time back. Stayed away from Whack because of that but may now give it a try.Peace
Well hell, if you enjoyed the DVD-A of those two then you really need to pickup Nightfly on DVD-A!! But, the cd is very well done. ( A shame Aja hasn't made hi-rez format but thats been talked about.) Would have a hard time getting past Becker's vocals espicially after hearing him do a couple of tracks live some time back. Stayed away from Whack because of that but may now give it a try.Peace
My impression of the DVD-A is that there is very little difference between it and the standard redbook version (but the Redbook is truly stellar to begin with). That is, until you play the multi channel tracks... then it sets itself apart as something special.I haven't heard "Morf the Cat" yet. But I will get it soon. My music budget is dealing with getting the five Moody Blues SACD releases. Two down, three to go.
And you are not alone wishing for the remainder of the Dan catalog coming on Hirez. Aja and Countdown would be amazing I'm sure.
I can understand being afraid of Beckers vocals. But check out the disk, or try to listen on line at Amazon. It'll surprise you. Fagin is on it as well. Check out "Surf and/or Die" and "Down on the Bottom"
grrr
Regards,
Geoff
I actually enjoy them, even though the four tunes on the Sheffield Track Album are more like Jazz than Rock. It does show how good electric instruments can sound with a little TLC.The question was sonics not the musical content. But hey I do like all 15 I listed.
Teresa
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
