Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all 'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the equivalent
CDs?

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

They don't, if the same master is used.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A,
or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format



Nooooo.....

I'm talking about disks where there are both CD and SACD versions of the
same music. What about DSOTM - does that have differently mastered versions
on it then?



- either
addressing deficiencies in earlier CD masters, or simply to be
sufficiently "different" that consumers don't start questioning the
£££ they've spent on a new player, or the ££ they've spent on
purchasing yet another version of a release they've probably acquired
in several other formats.


Yes, bit like picture discs and coloured vinyl, I suppose....



Really, Keith, you must try and keep up ....


I know - I've finally got my MP3s sorted but I've now got 3,000+ LPs still
need cleaning......

;-)

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

They don't, if the same master is used.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A,
or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format



Nooooo.....

I'm talking about disks where there are both CD and SACD versions of the
same music. What about DSOTM - does that have differently mastered versions
on it then?

I believe so ... the blurb says that " The other layer includes
high-resolution stereo and a 5.1 surround version of the recording
that works on SACD-compatible DVD players and home theatre systems. "
The 5:1 is not just a remaster, its a remix (and would therefore sound
as different from the standard CD as the Quad vinyl did from the
original LP). Even if "standard" mastering techniques had been used
to create the "high-resolution stereo" version, there's every reason
to suppose that the mastering engineer took decisions based on the
target hardware and wouldn't have sought to recreate every nuance of
the 16/44.1 redbook version.

I can't confirm, but I bet that the standard CD version is taken from
the same master as used for the 25th anniversary edition (which, in
turn, sounds very different from early CD releases, presumably because
they went back to something close to the original studio master).

I've only heard the 5:1 version once (and wasn't hugely impressed) -
can anyone who owns the 30th anniversary release comment on
differences between the three versions on that disc and the 25th
anniversary version?

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, Keith G wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....


I am yet to hear a SACD, but the reason they supposedly sound better is a
higher sample frequency, bringing the digital waveform closer to the
analogue ideal. Its similar in some ways to having an raster image use more
pixels. There is also a simpler method of encoding, although what effect
this has on the sound I'm not sure.

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between analogue
accuracy and digital precision. On my current system I prefer cd, but then
my tt is nothing special.

--
Jim H

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:47:33 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

They don't, if the same master is used.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks
out
like a chapel hatpeg....

As has been pointed out numerous times, (almost) all SACD (or DVD-A,
or whatever) releases have been remastered for that format



Nooooo.....

I'm talking about disks where there are both CD and SACD versions of the
same music. What about DSOTM - does that have differently mastered
versions
on it then?

I believe so ... the blurb says that " The other layer includes
high-resolution stereo and a 5.1 surround version of the recording
that works on SACD-compatible DVD players and home theatre systems. "
The 5:1 is not just a remaster, its a remix (and would therefore sound
as different from the standard CD as the Quad vinyl did from the
original LP). Even if "standard" mastering techniques had been used
to create the "high-resolution stereo" version, there's every reason
to suppose that the mastering engineer took decisions based on the
target hardware and wouldn't have sought to recreate every nuance of
the 16/44.1 redbook version.

I can't confirm, but I bet that the standard CD version is taken from
the same master as used for the 25th anniversary edition (which, in
turn, sounds very different from early CD releases, presumably because
they went back to something close to the original studio master).

I've only heard the 5:1 version once (and wasn't hugely impressed) -
can anyone who owns the 30th anniversary release comment on
differences between the three versions on that disc and the 25th
anniversary version?



Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the
'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are
remixes/remasters, as you say.

OK, that's DSOTM sorted - still leaves my original question which I will
word in a less troll-like way thus:

If even I, a self-styled 'vinyphile', who is not in the least bit discerning
when it comes to 'digital' music and for whom MP3/128 will do perfectly well
for those occasions when it is sufficient to only use digital music, can
easily tell the difference on a couple of CD/SACD stereo hybrid disks (and
thereby deem it safe to presume that everyone else can) therefore ask what
it is that makes the difference so obvious?

No good saying there is 'no' difference - a blind man could see it at
midnight, on a foggy day. (To maintain 'no audible difference' would be to
demonstrate 'denial' on the level of some severe form of pathological
neurosis.......)

Hmmm?


(How's that then? - Managed to ask a 'digital' question without using the
word '****e' once...!! :-)

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:49:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

snip

If even I, a self-styled 'vinyphile', who is not in the least bit discerning
when it comes to 'digital' music and for whom MP3/128 will do perfectly well
for those occasions when it is sufficient to only use digital music, can
easily tell the difference on a couple of CD/SACD stereo hybrid disks (and
thereby deem it safe to presume that everyone else can) therefore ask what
it is that makes the difference so obvious?

No good saying there is 'no' difference - a blind man could see it at
midnight, on a foggy day. (To maintain 'no audible difference' would be to
demonstrate 'denial' on the level of some severe form of pathological
neurosis.......)

If there is an obvious audio difference, the overwhelming probability
is that the CD and SACD versions have (at least) been mastered
differently. I've yet to hear of any dual-format release where the
only difference is definitely known to be in the number of bits and
the sampling frequency used ...

Hmmm?

(How's that then? - Managed to ask a 'digital' question without using the
word '****e' once...!! :-)

Yes, but you used "mp3" which means the same thing :-)

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

I'm curious to know at what point music becomes "crap" if it is
digitized. You have a preference for vinyl but many of the classical LPs
that I have are "original digital recordings" - are they then "crap"?

Personally I find all the recording analogue and digital formats that
I've heard are "crap" in comparison with real live music.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks
out
like a chapel hatpeg....
Are you related to DABSWTFM by any chance?



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:

DSOTM

Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the
'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are
remixes/remasters, as you say.

The PCM layer is evidently a new mastering:

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?852

Don't throw away the original lps...

Stephen

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

In article , Keith G wrote:
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all 'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the equivalent
CDs?

Well, even having never heard a SACD, I would dare to say that one element
is that digital audio production in itself is still getting better (IMHO,
I guess I should add - I'm sure there are those who will disagree but
I will give just some examples for why I suggest this).

First, many of the DDD CDs I have from the 80s (but not all) are very
flat in sound quality, regardless of performance quality.

However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards
with modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous.
Full of life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).

Another specific example: I have a 1985 CD of a rather splendid 1975
performance conducted by Carlos Kleiber of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. It
sounds flat. I also have the 1995 re-mastered CD. Even after correcting
for the higher level of the newer CD, it has bags more ambience. In many
ways it's much more like the 1970s LP I have of the same performance.

Actually I will listen to and enjoy that recording on any reasonable
medium - the performance is superb and the medium does not detract from
that. I also have CDs of superb performances back to the late 1920s
(e.g. Bix Beiderbecke and Pablo Casals) which a digital purist would
probably consider unlistenable.

In my own experience, generalizations about CDs being better than vinyl
are as just as false as generalizations that vinyl is better than CD.
I dare to suggest the same today about the generalization of SACD
versus CD. I am fairly sure digital production has a long way to go yet.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

Myself, I would have kept up the former dignity. Tsk!

--
John Phillips

Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
 

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:

DSOTM

Since posting I've been told the CD version on the new hybrid is the
'traditional' CD version and the 5.1.stereo SACD versions are
remixes/remasters, as you say.

The PCM layer is evidently a new mastering:

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?852


Yup, this para explains all:

"This hybrid disc has everything the format can offer: two-channel stereo CD
and SACD layers, as well as a 5.1-channel surround mix. The stereo mixes are
remastered from the original 1973 two-track master. The multichannel track,
an entirely new mix made from the original multitrack elements and kept in
the analog domain until converted to DSD, was begun by James Guthrie in late
2002 and finished in February 2003. With a thick, full-color booklet and an
imaginative new cover, this is one of the best reissue values I've seen. "


Don't throw away the original lps...




No chance of that happening....... ;-)