[markl]

When you are mastering a recording, you can manipulate exactly two factors: volume level and EQ. There is no "soundstage" knob you can turn to magically increase instrument separation, improve 3D placement of individual instruments, increase body and air, bring out the "sound" of the room, etc.

All those things can be enhanced, however, by greater overall resolution whether that comes from upgrading your headphones, adding an amp instead of relying on your CD player's 25 cent jack, upgrading to better cabling, etc. All those things are increasing resolution and will greatly improve your sense of soundstage. If you have a source recording that has higher resolution, why would anyone be surprised to find it too, also increases your sense of soundstage?

Quote:

But, is it possible that the SACD format yields a soundstage/image that is more airy (i.e., specious) than that of Redbook? And, is it possible that the sound of the SACD format is somewhat warmer (i.e., less digital sounding) than that produced by Redbook?

I agree 100% with these observations. These are two of the key areas that differentiate the sound the SACD and Redbook. But again, there's no "analogue-izer" button that mastering engineers can press to simulate that, and no "digititis" knob you can crank to make the Redbook layer sound more fake. I think you are hearing the "sound" of the format when you make those observations.

Quote:

Perhaps these properties (i.e., spaciousness and warmth) are enhanced/emphasized/exaggerated by sound engineers in the production of SACDs, in order to distinguish this format more clearly from Redbook.

So what about the 25 years worth of Redbook CDs that came out before the new Hi-Rez format? Were the engineers back then "adding" digital nasties and delibertaely shrinking soundstages in anticipation that decades down the road there would be some new format that some unknown future corporate overlord somewhere might want to make sound falsely better than Redbook?

30 years on, we know what Redbook sounds like. It has a character that is identifiable, just like a vinyl does. SACD has yet another "flavor", your ears do not deceive you!

I'm sorry but to me, this whole conspiracy theory that mastering engineers are deliberately hobbling their mastering of Redbook CDs to make SACD sound better is ridiculous to me. Most of the hybrid SACDs are sold en masse as plain old CDs that happen to have SACD attached for people who care. Do you think artists, labels, producers, engineers would allow the CD layer of their hard work that will heard by 99.9% of people buying that album be ruined for the sake of the .1% of people who might have an SACD player? Sounds ridiculous when you think about it.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you are mastering a recording, you can manipulate exactly two factors: volume level and EQ.

Tell that to the engineers that "remastered" the Rolling Stones for SACD... They totally remixed the tracks, adding digital reverb, changing equalization on vocals and altering the balance of the various elements in the mix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you think artists, labels, producers, engineers would allow the CD layer of their hard work that will heard by 99.9% of people buying that album be ruined for the sake of the .1% of people who might have an SACD player?

As someone who works in the entertainment business, I can tell you that hard work is routinely ruined for 100% of the audience. The people who make these sorts of decisions aren't the same people that created the work in the first place. They're usually executives with media corporations, which means that they aren't capable of productive work.

Formats don't have "flavors". They have unique ways of adding noise to the signal. Digital recording has eliminated 99.9% of error. When it does artifact, you can hear it plain as day as a click or digital buzz or gurgle. Digital artifacting is not a subtle thing. The difference between a well made CD and the same recording on a well made SACD is inaudible. All of the error is in the mixing and mastering, not the format itself.

See ya
Steve

 

[markl]

Well, that's the difference between "re-mixing" and "remastering" isn't it. And you still labor under the mis-apprehension that the entire Stones catalog was remixed. It wasn't, only a few tracks when the original master tape was hopelessly shredded, they went back to the original multi-tracks and re-mixed to make it sound the original master. Those tapes are flaking and fading away, it's sad that they aren't permanent and forever, but they aren't. Masters get played back so many times to make each new LP release, CD, SACD etc., and analog tape is hardly a bulletproof technology. I'm afraid we are going to have to learn to live with a lot of re-mixes of old material when the master tape is useless. At least if we have the original multis and they aren't in equally bad shape, you can try to recreate the original mix.

I think re-mixed Stones is better than nothing.

 

[bigshot]

They remix for 5:1 sound on SACD often. "...and since we did all that work, why don't we export a two channel version of our new mix to replace that nasty old original mix... We can pay the original artist to say that it was created under his supervision."

I would rather hear a good CD transfer of an original LP than a remix cobbled together by a bunch of tin-eared engineers. We don't have to accept remixes at all.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

For newly recorded classical orchestral programs (as opposed to old recordings that are reissued as SACDs), does it pay to buy SACDs, rather than Redbook CDs, when listening to 2-channel stereo only?

 

[bigshot]

I did an A/B comparison of the redbook playback and the SACD layer of a Pentatone hybrid SACD in 2 channel, and there was no difference whatsoever. My rule of thumb for 2 channel and SACD hybrids is, don't spend any more than you would on the CD.

See ya
Steve

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry but to me, this whole conspiracy theory that mastering engineers are deliberately hobbling their mastering of Redbook CDs to make SACD sound better is ridiculous to me. Most of the hybrid SACDs are sold en masse as plain old CDs that happen to have SACD attached for people who care. Do you think artists, labels, producers, engineers would allow the CD layer of their hard work that will heard by 99.9% of people buying that album be ruined for the sake of the .1% of people who might have an SACD player? Sounds ridiculous when you think about it.

ha ha you said what I was thinking reading these silly arguments. I think it boils down to people wishing they weren't missing something but knowing they really are. YES there is a better format out there that won't go away. But enjoy your CDs anyway. I still do

I just enjoy well recorded SACDs more, and vinyl more than that.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did an A/B comparison of the redbook playback and the SACD layer of a Pentatone hybrid SACD in 2 channel, and there was no difference whatsoever. My rule of thumb for 2 channel and SACD hybrids is, don't spend any more than you would on the CD. See ya Steve

Sorry, but I hear the difference between the sacd and the redbook layer in many recordings. I have to admit that there are some recordings where there is little or no difference between the SACD stereo and the redbook. I don't know why this happens, but it does. I think that comparing redbook and sacd is a lot like comparing digital images made with the same lens. You get more information with 6 megapixels than with 3, and if the difference isn't readily discernable when you are looking at a snapshot, it is discernable when you look at a blowup of the image. Same thing goes with music. when it's on my ipod, it all sounds the same. When I play an SACD on my 5 big speakers, or even on the 2 big front side speakers, there is a difference between the sacd and redbook layers. I don't know how they are producing it, but it sounds improved enough so that I'm making the investment in the SACD recordings. I only wish there were more recordings offered in the dvd-a format, because that sounds even better than the sacd 5 channels (and to hell with the visuals which are usually unimportant except for an opera).

 

[bigshot]

Every time I detected a difference between SACD and Redbook, I could point to a mastering difference or a line level difference between the two. When all things are equal and the levels are balanced, there is no difference between formats. Both are capable of reproducing the full spectrum of human hearing.

I also did tests using a 24 bit ProTools workstation. The added bandwidth gave more flexibility in mixing, but for normal listening 16 bit was identical.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

I think that it's important to remember that differences between the SACD and Redbook layers could be due to the effectiveness of players to reproduce these layers. For example, my Esoteric SA-10 reproduces SACD much better than Redbook, while SACD and Redbook layers sound nearly the same on my eXemplar modded Denon 2900. Therefore, conclusions regarding the sound quality of SACD versus Redbook, when based on evaluations using a single (or even several) multiple-format players, may be due mostly to player performance quality for each format, rather than the true format quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, but I hear the difference between the sacd and the redbook layer in many recordings. I have to admit that there are some recordings where there is little or no difference between the SACD stereo and the redbook. I don't know why this happens, but it does. I think that comparing redbook and sacd is a lot like comparing digital images made with the same lens. You get more information with 6 megapixels than with 3, and if the difference isn't readily discernable when you are looking at a snapshot, it is discernable when you look at a blowup of the image. Same thing goes with music. when it's on my ipod, it all sounds the same. When I play an SACD on my 5 big speakers, or even on the 2 big front side speakers, there is a difference between the sacd and redbook layers. I don't know how they are producing it, but it sounds improved enough so that I'm making the investment in the SACD recordings. I only wish there were more recordings offered in the dvd-a format, because that sounds even better than the sacd 5 channels (and to hell with the visuals which are usually unimportant except for an opera).

 

[TheOnlyOne]

Volume level, volume level, volume level, it is so important to get the volume levels the same, more so when the differences are small.

TheOnlyOne

 

[randerson3024]

Like any medium, there are various levels in quality depending on the original recording itself. No one can be considered the best. Some of the best playback I have heard recently are standard Redbook CD's upsampled at 176.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[RogerB]

I'll leave the science/technology of it all to you guys to debate.

To my ears, a well done sacd is much better than it's Redbook counterpart. I've A/B'd the layers of the Stones Abkco reissues and the sacd layer just sounds better. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue in sacd blows away it's Redbook latest.

The only reason sacd and the dvd-a formats didn't "take off" has nothing to do with their improved sound or the prices. Is had everything to do with the times. Very few people today enjoy or take the time to listen to music the way those of us on these forums do. Most of the music buying public today is downloading their music and listening to it on ipods.

Unfortunately, quality isn't near as important as convenience in today's world.

 

[TheOnlyOne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerB /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll leave the science/technology of it all to you guys to debate. To my ears, a well done sacd is much better than it's Redbook counterpart. I've A/B'd the layers of the Stones Abkco reissues and the sacd layer just sounds better. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue in sacd blows away it's Redbook latest. The only reason sacd and the dvd-a formats didn't "take off" has nothing to do with their improved sound or the prices. Is had everything to do with the times. Very few people today enjoy or take the time to listen to music the way those of us on these forums do. Most of the music buying public today is downloading their music and listening to it on ipods. Unfortunately, quality isn't near as important as convenience in today's world.

Sorry, but if you didn't double blind, it means little, also I have double blind with my son who heards LCDs making noise and does not heard any different between the two in a double blind test. If you know what it is when you listen you can hear what you want.

TheOnlyOne

 

[TheOnlyOne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unfortunately, quality isn't near as important as convenience in today's world.

And on this, do you think that quality was ever important to 99% of people to begin with.

TheOnlyOne