[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Since I'll soon be getting the SACD-capable Esoteric K-01 I'm very much interested in getting some of the best classical in the format, so I thought I'd start this thread for everyone to provide opinions on some of the best sounding performances they've heard of composers/works on SACD. I've already bought several of the RCA Living Stereo SACDs, a good chunk of Linn's output, and the Karajan/Beethoven Symphonies, and can't wait to hear them.

Here's a specific question: what are some good Mahler and Wagner recs on SACD? None of the Mahler SACDs seem to have consistently good reviews (though I know Mahlerphiles are a finicky bunch), and I was curious if anyone has compared the Zinman, Gergiev, Tilson-Thomas, Haitink, et al. Likewise, I think there's only two Rings on SACD: Fisch and Haenschen. I can't find a lot of reviews/info on either. Anyone tried them, or any of the recent Pentatone Wagner SACDs?

 

[bigshot]

I'd suggest avoiding SACDs that aren't multichannel. There is no advantage to them. For instance the new Living Stereo box of CDs sounds exactly like the SACDs. No need to spend more. Focus on multichannel stuff recorded specifically for the format, like Pentatone.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

^ Surely that can't be right; stereo SACDs should still play in a higher native resolution than rb. Even in the few SACDs I've tested on my Oppo, the SACD layer always sounded better than the rb.

In fact, what convinced me to buy the K-01 was that I accidentally chanced onto a hybrid SACD amongst my collection several months ago. It was the Linn produced, John Butt conducted version of Handel's Messiah. I had bought it not even realizing it was an SACD, stuck it in my Oppo, and I was astonished by the sound, and when I checked out the back of the disc I noticed it was an SACD. I immediately ejected it and put it into my non-SACD capable NAD player (same amp, same headphones) and there was a definite drop in resolution. I don't think you can chalk that up to the difference between the Oppo and the NAD, because I've always found the NAD to sound better than the Oppo for spinning discs (I usually just use the Oppo for my movie watching).

EDIT: Ah, I was reading some of your older posts on this topic; very interesting stuff. I've long suspected that the "better sound" of SACDs could be due to mastering, but even if that's so I can't help but say: "so what?" Better sound is better sound, and whether that's due to mastering or the format, I want the better sound. Though it is strange that even classical companies would engineer the CD layer to sound worse than the SACD layer.

 

[bigshot]

The main difference between high bitrate sound like DSD and redbook is resolution at very low volume levels. At normal listening volumes, the sound is identical. SACDs have a wider dynamic range and a lower noise floor, but it's beyond the range anyone would ever turn up their volume to. You would eed to incur hearing damage to be able to hear the difference.
 
The differences you hear in your informal comparisons are due to mastering. Frequently the redbook layer on hybrid SACDs is deliberately hobbled to create an artificial improvement. As long as the two layers are at the same volume and have the same mastering, they will sound identical. The new Living Stereo CD box set uses the SACD masters, and sounds just as good as the SACDs.
 
I did a direct A/B line level matched comparison between the redbook layer and SACD layer of a Pentatone hybrid using the stereo output. A professional sound mixer allowed me to use his system to do the test. Neither of us could detect any difference. Pentatone is the only label I know of that consistently uses the same master for both layers, although the redbook layer isn't quite as loud.
 
The only advantage of SACDs over redbook is the multichannel capabilities.

 

[bigshot]

I sure am glad I didn't buy all the Living Stereo SACDs. I was able to get the exact same sound at two bucks a disk with the CD box set. Better sound is better sound, but I'd rather pay a lot less and get it in a format that is likely to last a little longer. I learned my lesson with laserdiscs. I spent thousands of dollars on shiney disks I can't get a player to play any more.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

I can't (and won't) argue with anything you said above, except to ask this fairly simple question: if it's true that a lot of SACDs are engineered to sound better, whether that's because they intentionally decrease the quality of the redbook layer or simply because they put more time/care into mastering SACDs, then isn't that argument enough to buy SACDs over RBs? Speaking in Bayesian terms, if we know that SOME SACDs and RBs use the same mastering, yet in many cases the SACDs are mastered better, then by choosing SACD every time we will always maximize the probability of getting the best possible sound. You even say yourself that Pentatone is the only label that consistently uses the same masters, so why not just always go with the SACD by default?

It is interesting to know about the Living Stereo CD box is the same as the SACDs. The box set is cheap enough that I may just buy it and compare with some of the SACDs I already bought.

 

[bigshot]

I haven't found that the mastering on SACDs is better than on CDs... only different. I stopped buying them when I ended up with some that sounded better and some that sounded worse. Why invest in another format? I'll just wait for the good remasters to be repurposed for CD release, like the Living Stereo ones.
 
If SACD players had optical out so I could take advantage of the multichannel sound, I might feel differently.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

So you chalk most of the people reporting SACDs sounding better to Placebo effect?

 

[bigshot]

I think it's because of the cheats built into the format. The redbook layer is usually quieter which ears interpret as not sounding as good, there is a huge pause when you change layers making direct comparion impossible, and the redbook layer is usually noisier and more compressed because of different mastering. The format makes it so difficult to do a fair comparison, people just assume it sounds better because it's supposed to sound better.
 
The problem is the success of CDs. Once you've bought Dark Side of the Moon, the only way record labels can convince you to buy it again is to slap "new and improved" on it. That means either remastering or a new format. The fact is, CD sound is perfect. You can't make it better if it's done properly. You can only make it different.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

^ Wait, so if the redbook layer is "usually noisier and more compressed," then aren't we back to the SACD layer sounding better regardless?

BTW, would ripping the CD layer of a disc (to FLAC or other Lossless), and burning it to a CD-R make for a fair comparison to the SACD layer, assuming one turned them to the same volume? If so then I could do this test, as a friend of mine owns the same Oppo player I do. It would just be a simple matter of (I'd think) swapping the HDMI cable between them during listening.

 

[bigshot]

The redbook layer on many SACDs doesn't even sound as good as the regular CD release. I don't know where they get the version on the redbook layer, but I think they deliberately hobble it. The exception is Pentatone, who only releases hybrid SACDs. None of their recordings are available on CD. . I think they realize that a good portion of their market is made up by people who don't even own SACD players and who only use the redbook layer. They have no motivation to hobble the CD layer.
 
Yes, ripping the CD layer and burning it to a disk for line level matched comparison is perfect. Just make sure you use a disk like Pentatone that isn't hobbled. Don't swap cables though. If a difference exists, it is very subtle and the time between samples should be as short as possible. Auditory memory is very short. Set up a preamp as a switcher and a second preamp on the CD to raise the line level to match. You can even have a friend switch the line in around to give you a blind test. The differences between players is not really an issue in most cases, but if you can get two of the same model, that's ideal.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

I will try the ripping test myself. Should be interesting, and I'll make sure to get several samples across different labels. I'll be able to make the entire setup identical.

But I continue to be confused... if, indeed, the CD and SACD layers on Pentatone are identical, and most of their market is made up of people who don't own SACD players, then what's the impetus of even making a hybrid SACD? I mean, I can see the reason for the RCA Living Stereo, because the SACDs cost about 5x more than the RBs in the box set, so those who own SACD thinking there's a difference may be willing to shell out the extra money. But for companies like Pentatone and Linn there seems to be no reason for them only releasing hybrid SACDs.

EDIT: I assume if you don't think the SACD format is a sonic improvement over RB, you feel the same way about 24bit 96/192 over 16/44, correct? Because I could actually A/B test the latter much easier.

 

[pigmode]

The best solution is the plan to do your own comparisons. I thought the Pentatone Julia Fischer/Brahms lacked in SQ irregardless of format (despite the great performance). These might be worth a try.
 
 
 
 
- "Brahms/Stravinsky Violin Concertos"   Marriner; Hahn
 
- "Vivaldi: The Four Seasons"   Ozawa; Silverstein; Boston Symphony Orchestra
- "Mahler Symphony No. 5"   Zander; Philharmonia Orchestra
 
 
 

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

This thread did get humorously OT fast! I guess I should've just titled it "best classical albums in terms of audio!"

 

[pigmode]

Actually the three titles I listed are available in SACD or SACD Hybrid, and Redbook. 
 
In terms of SQ, the Mahler and Vivaldi are highly gratifying--again in spite of the format.