markl
Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 9,130
- Likes
- 49
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:
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:
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.
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?
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.