[digitaldave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg ...An additional purpose is to sell recordings in a format that can't be copied...

Personally, I'm not too bothered by this from the illegal copying point of view. However, I think I will be sticking with hybrid SACDs, as I want to be able to get the CD layer on to my iPod.

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg But, the problem is that these old recordings, that are reissued as SACD's and DVD-Audio, are often handicapped by the original recording process that was used long ago when they were first recorded. By this I mean that the sound quality of these reissued 1950's and 1960's recordings is often really poor.

I'd have to say, except for a little hiss, Jazz recordings from the 60's and 70's, are some of the best recording that I own, both on reissued Vinyl and SACD.

 

[mikeg]

I bought several Living Stereo (and also some recent Mercury) SACD recordings, and I was very disappointed in the sound quality of some of them. IMO, many currently produced Redbook CD's sound better then some of these reissued recordings as SACDs. Although I agree that these early performances are outstanding, IMO their sound quality is most often lacking when compared with today's newly recorded performances. Also IMO, these Living Stereo and Mercury recordings are being hyped as having superb sound, which is not true, and is done mainly to promote sales. My conclusion is that these reissued recordings should be purchased by music lovers who are mainly interested in great performances, but they shouldn't be fooled into thinking that these recordings provide superb SACD sound. As for my player, I have an Examplar modded Denon 2900 Universal player, which outputs to a SinglePower SDS amp, and a Sony R10 headphone. Since this is great equipment, I prefer SACDs having great sound.


Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 That's often not as much of a handicap as you'd think. BMG released 10 of the old RCA Living Stereo series last year, most of that was recorded in the '50s using a three-channel recording process. The original mastering engineers used the three channels to construct more life-like stereo releases, but now with SACD you can hear all three channels for the first time. I'm not familiar with the sound of the original "Shaded Dogs" but some people are saying the SACD compares favorably. Or take Kind of Blue for example...you can hear more of what's on the original master tape than any release thus far (with the possible exception of vinyl), there's more subtlety and nuance in Mr. PC's bass than I ever dreamed was on a 1959 recording. A lot of tape hiss too, which had been removed using some ham-fisted noise reduction "technique" on the first CD release, along with a lot of the air around the cymbals and the harmonic overtones in the piano and horns. Indeed, SACD releases are not too plentiful in general. That's the beauty of a universal player...it still works for DVDs and redbook. If all you find are 5-10 SACDs that you really enjoy, you haven't really lost out.

 

[PATB]

Are any of these reasonably priced (>$200) Sony SACD players warm sounding? I am thinking of getting one for the office.

I don't care too much about details, but I hate bright players.

 

[soundboy]

Have 3 under $200.00 Sony SACD players (DVP-NS500V, DVP-NS755V, and SCD-CE595) and they all sound fine to my ears on SACD. With CDs, the DVP models have filters (sharp/slow) that can modify the sound.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATB Are any of these reasonably priced (>$200) Sony SACD players warm sounding? I am thinking of getting one for the office. I don't care too much about details, but I hate bright players.

I don't know if I'd call my player bright, but I definitely wouldn't call it warm. Probably should have pointed this out earlier, but I much prefer it with speakers than in my headphone set up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg As for my player, I have an Examplar modded Denon 2900 Universal player, which outputs to a SinglePower SDS amp, and a Sony R10 headphone.

I can understand why you wouldn't like older recordings with that system...I heard the Kind of Blue SACD with R10s hooked to a Gilmore Balanced Reference and an Accuphase DP-85...the hiss was unbelievable. However, there's more to a recording (old or new) than the sonic artifacts (ask any vinylphile).

Have you heard the MTT/SF Symphony Mahler cycle? Absolutely outstanding sonics (the SACD mastering/licensing made possible by a donation from Sony). The performances are well-regarded also, but I'm no Mahler expert.

 

[mikeg]

I've gotten Mahler's 3rd and 9th, in SACD, and conducted by Riccardo Chailly. The sound is good, and I've listened to them over and over, but I've not yet succeeded in getting myself to enjoy Mahler symphonies. But, I'll keep on trying.


Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 Have you heard the MTT/SF Symphony Mahler cycle? Absolutely outstanding sonics (the SACD mastering/licensing made possible by a donation from Sony). The performances are well-regarded also, but I'm no Mahler expert.

 

[chesebert]

how is SACD compare to HDCD? sonically ofcourse

 

[immtbiker]

HDCD is a 20 bit digital technology, while SACD is a 1 bit DSD technology. They are not comparable. HDCD has a sampling rate of 44.1 khtz, while SACD has a sampling rate of 2.1 Mhtz, which is 50 times more info.
SACD wins hands down.

 

[soundboy]

When implemented properly, HDCD makes a minor, but noticeable, improvement. On a well-mastered SACD, everything opens up.....taking the sound quality to another level. On top of that, SACD allows full surround sound capability.

 

[chesebert]

with all rave review on shanling and eastsound units. I don't know if the eastsound E5 plays SACD but Shanling S300 is a SACD machine. How does that unit compares to likes of sony and phillips

 

[Sperlsco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 Have you heard the MTT/SF Symphony Mahler cycle? Absolutely outstanding sonics (the SACD mastering/licensing made possible by a donation from Sony). The performances are well-regarded also, but I'm no Mahler expert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg I've gotten Mahler's 3rd and 9th, in SACD, and conducted by Riccardo Chailly. The sound is good, and I've listened to them over and over, but I've not yet succeeded in getting myself to enjoy Mahler symphonies. But, I'll keep on trying.

I am a pretty big fan of Mahler (300+ performances of his 11 symphonies on CD, SACD, DVD-A, and DVD-V) and would highly recommend either of the above Chailly peformances and most of the MTT ones (M1, M2, M4, M9). However, if you are not already a Mahler fan, the 3rd and 9th symphonies are not the ones with which I would begin my exploration into Mahler. Mahler's 1st and 4th symphonies are far more accessible and more instantly likeable. MTT has exceptional SACD's of each. In fact, for me the 3rd and 9th symphonies were the last ones for which I fell.

I'll also add that surround sound adds a dimension of space to classical music that I cannot get from 2-ch stereo. I listen to surround music whenever possible.