 
|
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 |
76.109.24.202
IMO Joe Jackson's "Body and Soul" RBCD album produced in 1984 is arguably as good a pseudo live listening experience as any SACD I've heard. It's on the Digital Domain's CD Honor Roll list for good reason. It's a wonderful example of an impeccably recorded and mixed mucical event possessing marvelous transparency, great dynamic range, and precise imaging. It doesn't hurt that the music is infectious and written and arranged by the brilliant artist himself. Each listening experience leaves me wondering what improvements an SACD translation could bring to bear.
Len
Follow Ups:
IMHO, the Japanese pressed Harvest black label (CDP 7 46001 2) of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is better balanced (with excellent depth and stereo imaging), and a more straight-forward transfer of the original album than either the SACD and MoFi gold CD although the SACD is quite good in it's own rite.Cheers,
AuPh
See URL below for the CD Honor Roll website.I absolutely agree with what many of you chose as the most important aspect of audio reproduction - the recording technique and mixing. IMO the listening room acoustics are the second most important aspect followed by the main speakers. Everything else in the audio chain falls well below these top three.
According to the liner notes this album was recorded in an ancient stone and wood Masonic Lodge normally used by Vanguard Studios for classical recordings in 1984. An entire control room was built and a 3M DMS-81 32-track digital recording system was used to create the master during the 3 week recording session. The vocals and mixing were completed at Atlantic's Studio B on 60th and Broadway during the next two weeks, followed by the creation of the final master tapes.
The album was engineered by Rik Pekkonen and mastered by Bernie Grundman. What a spectacular album it indeed is!
We can only hope many current era audio engineers will employ recording techiques that result in SACD's that sound this great - and even better? I do have some sonically outstanding SACD's in my collection that I also treasure.
Len
I have no dog in this fight, but, yes, there are CDs that are as good as or better sounding than the best SACDs ever made. But all this proves is that the software for the superior medium wasn't as carefully made.
Mike selection and placement and mixing decisions have a lot, perhaps everything, to do with conveying a sense of "thereness"*--which (in addition to the quality of the performances themselves) is why some RBCD's as well as analog-sourced SACD's turn me on far more than some highly-touted DSD-sourced SACD's.(And if you're reading this, Geoff, one example is the live-performance Irving Fine "Symphony 1962" on Phoenix PHCD 106, an AAD reissue of a 1962 performance at Tanglewood.)
* A term I'd qualify with the caveat that the best we theoretically can hope to hear at home is mike feed (which is not what we typically hear at live acoustic music concerts) filtered through the various signal iterations an artist's or ensemble's output goes through from the recording venue to the listener's ears.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
Will seek it out.
Regards,
Geoff
Would not mind seeing some examples.
Regards,
Geoff
I'd have to list most of the Classic Records CDs that Bernie Grundman did -- especially the Bluebacks and a few of the RCAs; then I'd follow that up with SEVERAL (not all by any stretch of the imagination) of the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence reissues.To be fair, the CD player I use would cost at least double the cost of my stock SA-14 (when it was new) if it were one that could be bought by anyone. In truth, it's one of only 3 like it that were built just about from scratch by an audio enthusiast friend just to see if he could do it. The results are -- as he would describe the sound -- about as clear and analog like that's possible at any price. If I didn't have this player, I might be whistling a different tune; but I do, so I won't ;-)
Like Jim Treanor, I too confess to a preference for the sound of analog tapes converted to digital, so there's an enourmous amount of product out there that appeared at the beginning of the digital age that actually does sound superior to anything made today. Even in this very same forum there's a thread running concurrently regarding the Joe Jackson album. All of this is, I'm afraid, a result of careless/clueless manufacturing.
Add to that the preponerance of opinions expressed by many at the Hoffman site, and one begins to understand why there are skeptics like me here and there. BTW, I absolutely love the sound of the Fischer Mahler 2nd, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it sounds like real music. It is spectacular though.
I don't think other than modding that player that it would be cost effective at this point since the asking price for sale is $1k. I don't think I want to get a separate player either for just CD and no telling how much it would cost to beat the XA777ES. Most folks I feel are going to be in a similiar situation (depending on which player they currently have).
if it was recorded on 16/44 then your RBCD could be as good as it gets - but if it was recorded on analog tape - then there could be more to come.But in '84, the best release format was vinyl - by a loooooooooooong way!
Regards, Allen
Notwithstanding that this is one of my favourite CDs, and one that I bought when it was initially released in the late 80s.It was an amazing recording for it's time - the dynamics are jaw dropping, and the sense of space is wonderful.
However, it is a 16-bit recording using 80s era ADCs. Even when compared to more recent well-mastered CDs, it's limitations are apparent.
For example, I would say James Taylor Hourglass on SACD sounds better, even though it was only recorded in 48kHz and a multi-track recording to boot.
By the way, don't update to the "remastered" version of "Body and Soul" - it is significantly more dynamically compressed than the original pressing.
The best sounding CD I have ever heard, I think, was Janis Ian's "Breaking Silence". Right up there with the best recordings I've heard in any format.So, how do I get to the list?
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
low volume? It has excellent sound AND CAN compete with SACDs.
HowdyCD just doesn't have the resolution, detail, decay, ambiance, etc. They just seem a little ghostly compared to most any SACD.
That isn't to say that I'm giving up my CDs, lots of great music out there.
-Ted
Anything on Reference Recordings or ECM Records?I know what you mean about resolution, detail, ambiance, etc. Obviously, just like SACD, some record labels are better than others.
HowdyI have approx 1400 CDs with the expected percentage from Reference Recordings and ECM Records. Some are very well recorded. But as I mention above CDs just don't have as much info as SACDs (let alone MC SACDs) and even the best CDs can't make up for that.
On the other hand good music comes thru on almost any media and I'm happy to listen to CDs when the corresponding SACDs aren't available.
-Ted
In its respective price range?
HowdyWhich one :) I have the same issues with CD vs. SACD on every player I've listened to except a few that convert DSD to PCM, which in my experience threw the baby out with the bath water.
I use my EMM Labs CDSD and DAC6e mostly for listening to CDs and SACDs.
For my taste it's easily the best CD player I've ever heard and I've listened to a lot of other players. (Beating players such as the Linn CD12 and Esoteric X-01D2.) Some listeners at some other A/Bs I've been at have different preferences, but none would say that CD on the Meitner is bad :)
I'll not get into price/performance issues :)
-Ted
I feel most would agree that they would have many that do and can give examples.Now that is entirely a different case I know than comparing the same specific title CD versus SACD, so perhaps that is what you mean when you feel it is the same issues across your players for that. I would tend to agree that most SACDs beat the CD of the same title.
HowdyI'm afraid we might be talking at cross purposes. There are a lot of dimensions to "best" and "beat", etc.
The original question was "Can A RBCD Honor Roll Nominee compete favorably with the best SACD's?" Which I took as "Can the best recorded CDs sound as good or take you there like the best SACDs?" To me the answer is clearly NO WAY: SACDs have such a leg up technically in ways that matter to me, that moderately well recorded SACDs cleanup.
If you are asking "Do badly recorded SACDs have some SACDness that you like better than the best that CDs offer?", then I can say no. I have a few SACDs that are too bright to enjoy at all.
But, at the risk of reopening an old thread where I'm not sure I ever got my point across: for me on average my SACDs (and I have most of the SACDs ever produced) are better recorded/produced than most of my CDs (which are less representative of all CDs.) I think this is because most early SACDs and probably even most of the recent SACDs are cherry picked from the archives and current recordings of the producers. I bring this up only to say that I don't have very many mediocre SACDs.
-Ted
I have some lousy SACD's and some CDs sound better than those SACDs. But I have only one or two CDs that are as good as even my average SACDs. None approach my best SACDs. Not even close.And yes, I continue to buy CDs when necessary. Fortunately however, most of the music I like is old enough to be available on vinyl.
You might be surprised how good it is.
Len
HowdyAt least the first few tracks (and more in the car.)
Boy my wife and I'd swear that we used to hear an instrumental version of track two many years ago.
Anyway, tho fine music with character and reasonably well recorded, it's still got that CD sound: decays missing in action, cymbals lacking detail, etc.
-Ted
Likely if you bought it recently.The original pressing is significantly less dynamically compressed.
It won't recover details in the cymbals and it won't suddenly extend reverb tails below -96dB :-), but I find it's less congested/rigid.
May be hard to find except second hand. Let me know if you have no luck and are interested in hearing the original.
What is the logic? Easier to mp3?
Compress the sound, make it as loud as possible. This is very well documented - there's even a Wiki entry. Look up "Loudness Wars".This is the main reason I seek out original versions of a CD over a remaster. Even when the remastering team has access to the original master tapes, the modern "requirement" to compress the signal and crank up the level means the new version is significantly worse than the original.
I'd rather have a CD made from a second generation tape that's not compressed than a remaster from the original master tape that's limited, scrunched and lacking in dynamic range.
Regards,
Geoff
HowdyIt's interesting but not likely to displace any of my favorite SACDs, so I'll pass on your offer :) Thanks anyway.
-Ted
Hello Sir...
I own a SACD player as well (Pioneer Universal)and also have the Joe Jackson Body and Soul original CD pressing, not the remaster. Granted, most all of my SACD's have superb sound, but this good ole plain jane non-remastered cd is awesome. It prompted me to buy more of his cd's. The bass lines throughout "The Verdict" are killer, and my fave song Heart of Ice has great dynamics. Better than most all of my redbook CD's, and bettering some SACD's. It's in the mastering, noy the format.
HowdyI have many excellent CDs and a lot of SACDs and SACD players :)
I don't doubt for a second that the Joe Jackson album sounds great, but CDs are at a big disadvantage to SACDs and in places I happen to care about (mentioned above.)
I'll look up the Joe Jackson disc this week, good music is good music.
-Ted
nt
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
