Stereo SACDs: Viable Undertaking?

[3db]

The allure is that it can be well done with excellent results. It also isn't live in most cases, but EVERY concert I've been to, especially in indoor venues, the music is coming from everywhere from reflections and multiple speakers, not just the stage. So technically, you are in the middle of the music, at least at the shows I go to. I don't go to see a lot of classical.

I'll give you one perfect example of where multichannel does the recording justice: Dave Brubeck - Concord on a Midsummer Night The reflections from the venue are perfectly placed in the rear channels and it literally sounds like you are there.

True but that reflected sound from the venues I've been in were more detremental to the sound becuase of bad reflections.

It would be an interesting comparison ..DSP mode for a stereo recording and the Brubeck recording you mention. I suspect the Brubeck recording would beat the DSP mode hands down but still I am curious.

 

[TLS Guy]

So, these play back as four-channel recordings?

Yes, but the speaker set up has to be four corners, so mains and rear backs.

The old LP quadraphonic matrix standards were not successful, but sound good on discrete four channel SACD. Pentatone have issued the greater part of the old Philips quadraphonic catalog on SACD.

Also of not the three channel Mercury Living Presence recordings have been issued on SACD. These were made on either three channel optical recorders or three channel Ampex reel to reel recorders. The mics were omni Telefunken. These were the forerunners of Neumann mics. These recordings are a revelation.

I do think the greatest advantage of SACD and BD audio is the multi channel capability.

However, the dynamic range of CD is not quite great enough for some classical recordings.

I was listening to the Brahms German Requiem last night. This is a work with huge dynamic range, from the softest hush to loud fortissimo.

The softest passages did get into the noise floor and resolution of the CD medium, and I wished it had been SACD or BD.

I do think it time to retire the CD. The Norwegians have the right idea producing hybrid SACD and BD on the same disc. There is a big push for this in an editorial of the current issue of Gramophone magazine.

On my rig at least I do think SACD and especially BD sound superior to CD. The strings are lusher and the sound just that bit smoother all round.

Unfortunately we are in the era of good enough.

 

[j_garcia]

True but that reflected sound from the venues I've been in were more detremental to the sound becuase of bad reflections.

Depends on the venue and the engineer. Obviously, the best sounding place will most likely be at the engineer's booth, but I've definitely been to shows that sounded bad due to reflections because of where I was standing. I will move around (unless I am up front) to find a better sounding spot; that spot is different for every venue.

SACDs are the same way - some are well done and sound good in 5.1. I own a few that have awful 5.1 mixes, and on those I tend to listen to the stereo tracks.

It would be an interesting comparison ..DSP mode for a stereo recording and the Brubeck recording you mention. I suspect the Brubeck recording would beat the DSP mode hands down but still I am curious.

Even the stereo tracks are very impressive sounding, with a lot of ambiance preserved, but I haven't tried the CD tracks with DSP yet. I basically never use any DSP on stereo tracks.

 

[3db]

The allure is that it can be well done with excellent results. It also isn't live in most cases, but EVERY concert I've been to, especially in indoor venues, the music is coming from everywhere from reflections and multiple speakers, not just the stage. So technically, you are in the middle of the music, at least at the shows I go to. I don't go to see a lot of classical.

I'll give you one perfect example of where multichannel does the recording justice: Dave Brubeck - Concord on a Midsummer Night The reflections from the venue are perfectly placed in the rear channels and it literally sounds like you are there.

j_garcia.. I totally agree with you for live recordings but that arguement doesn't fair well for studio albums which is the majority of my recordings. That was the basis of my remark even though I pointed out in error, concerts . Thanks for pointing out live recordings.

 

[j_garcia]

j_garcia.. I totally agree with you for live recordings but that arguement doesn't fair well for studio albums which is the majority of my recordings. That was the basis of my remark even though I pointed out in error, concerts . Thanks for pointing out live recordings.

All I am saying is that sometimes the results can be pretty good. Dark Side of the Moon ends up sounding pretty good, but that is because it was done by an engineer who understands how to do it correctly. It is just a different way to experience the music, and I like it. Some albums, like that one, do lend well to this sort of mix also. That doesn't mean I feel every album should have a 5.1 mix, nor was I ever not happy with the stereo mix of DSotM

 

[Pyrrho]

...

However, the dynamic range of CD is not quite great enough for some classical recordings.

I was listening to the Brahms German Requiem last night. This is a work with huge dynamic range, from the softest hush to loud fortissimo.

The softest passages did get into the noise floor and resolution of the CD medium, and I wished it had been SACD or BD.

...

Most likely, the noise floor was not a result of the CD medium, but of the recording equipment or ambient noise in the room where the recording was made. It is virtually certain that the noise floor was not a result of the CD format. To which specific recording were you listening?

A pretty quiet room can have 30dB of noise, so if one were playing a CD in such a room and wanted the softest possible recorded bit to be heard above that, the peak volume in the room would be 126dB, if the full dynamic range possible of the CD were used. And if that peak were maintained for very long at all, it would damage your hearing quite quickly.

See:

http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/

Basically, if you went to a symphony concert, there would be ambient noise in the room drowning out the very softest sounds on stage. If they went a full 96dB above the ambient noise for long at all, you would suffer hearing loss from it.

In other words, the dynamic range of the CD format is good enough for all practical purposes.

 

[TLS Guy]

Most likely, the noise floor was not a result of the CD medium, but of the recording equipment or ambient noise in the room where the recording was made. It is virtually certain that the noise floor was not a result of the CD format. To which specific recording were you listening?

A pretty quiet room can have 30dB of noise, so if one were playing a CD in such a room and wanted the softest possible recorded bit to be heard above that, the peak volume in the room would be 126dB, if the full dynamic range possible of the CD were used. And if that peak were maintained for very long at all, it would damage your hearing quite quickly.

See:

http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/

Basically, if you went to a symphony concert, there would be ambient noise in the room drowning out the very softest sounds on stage. If they went a full 96dB above the ambient noise for long at all, you would suffer hearing loss from it.

In other words, the dynamic range of the CD format is good enough for all practical purposes.

Yes, but the dirty secret of CD is that distortion rises as you descend to the noise floor even with buffering. In LP and tape distortion increases with volume, which is not so noticeable. CD does the reverse and with a good rig, the hushed passages loose definition. This is definitely noticeable.

This problem is reason enough to retire the CD. Although I agree for most performances its spec is adequate, but I would maintain not all.

I was listening to the Elliot Gardner performance on Phillips by the way.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

So, fellas, what's the concensus here...should I look into SACD (stereo implementation) via a new changer from perhaps Sony, or does it not make sense at this point?

My main concern is the lack of interesting titles (to me and my tastes) and the difference, if any, I will hear between a well-mastered redbook disc and an SACD...there is the concern based on input from lots of people here like Mr. Garcia that many of the non-remastered SACD titles simply won't knock my socks off, sonics wise, as compared to their CD counterparts...

Should I just forget about a new changer that supports SACD at this point? As it stands, I believe only Sony makes one anyway, and that doesn't really tempt me (although John said he'd sell me his, and I am grateful for that offer).

 

[j_garcia]

IMHO, if you don't have an existing SACD collection to support and you don't intend to drop money into discs, then no it isn't worth it.

Yes, there are SACDs that aren't mastered well, but a larger percentage of them are still superior to the corresponding CD. Yes, the limitation of available titles is a huge factor as well. Even at the peak, SACD had limited titles.

On the same note, while there are CDs that are nearly as good as SACD, that would NOT be the norm. You will still have to do some digging to find great sounding CDs, but they are likely to be less expensive and easier to acquire.

I'd say focus on enjoying the music and don't worry about the format too much.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

IMHO, if you don't have an existing SACD collection to support and you don't intend to drop money into discs, then no it isn't worth it.

Yes, there are SACDs that aren't mastered well, but a larger percentage of them are still superior to the corresponding CD. Yes, the limitation of available titles is a huge factor as well. Even at the peak, SACD had limited titles.

On the same note, while there are CDs that are nearly as good as SACD, that would NOT be the norm. You will still have to do some digging to find great sounding CDs, but they are likely to be less expensive and easier to acquire.

I'd say focus on enjoying the music and don't worry about the format too much.

Thanks, John.

Something else to consider here -- a majority of my listening/CD recording preferences come from hard to find and sometimes rare CD singles which I put into my changer to make mixed compilation CD-Rs (into my CD recorder) and so it definitely wouldn't make sense to get into SACD because there are no SACD singles and if there were they probably wouldn't be anything I'd be interested in...

Your thoughts?

 

[sterling shoote]

Consider the OPPO BD95. It plays the past, present and future on legacy multi-channel interconnects, as well as HDMI. With it, you can play your existing collection of CD's, Stereo and multi-channel SACD's, and multi-channel BD's, which may offer the best music reproduction yet.

 

[j_garcia]

Consider the OPPO BD95. It plays the past, present and future on legacy multi-channel interconnects, as well as HDMI. With it, you can play your existing collection of CD's, Stereo and multi-channel SACD's, and multi-channel BD's, which may offer the best music reproduction yet.

You didn't read the thread. He is looking for a changer. He also already has a BDP83.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Indeed; thanks J...

I would consider an Oppo player if I wanted a single-disc solution plus needed video support in the same room/system...however, as J pointed out, I am looking for a multi-disc changer (carousel; five or six disc) dedicated to just audio playback (CD/SACD), which has made the search even more harrowing and difficult...

Thanks for the suggestion though.