A Different Take on Stones' Super Audio Labeling (1 Viewer)

[Mike Broadman]

If bass management is so important, why not get an ICBM?

 

[Brian L]

If bass management is so important, why not get an ICBM?

Good question, but for me its an additional cost that I do not feel I should not have to bear (IMHO, the player should be doing this, and doing it properly) and my rack is pretty much out space of space at the moment.

Of course, the other school of thought is that the reciever or pre/pro should handle all bass management, and the player will connect via a digital connection, but there are no recievers or outboard pre/pro's that can decode DVD-A or SACD, are there? Copy protection issues are killing that possibility, are they not?

It was bone headed when DVD-A and SACD players had NO bass management, and equally boneheaded to have it at a fixed 120 Hz (which I think the Sony I mentioned earler is set for), IMHO.

Perhaps some day I will have full range speakers at all positions, but for the foreseable future, thats not a possibility.

That said, I do think that the ICBM is great product, and actually was on the pre-order list but opted out.

BL

 

[Mike Broadman]

Of course, the other school of thought is that the reciever or pre/pro should handle all bass management, and the player will connect via a digital connection,

Usually the signal gets down-converted when you do this.

 

[John Tillman]

If bass management is so important, why not get an ICBM?

I found the way to hi-rez music through experiencing multi-channel DD & DTS DVD's. The RP-91 & 555ES allowed me to move on, but with no bass management speakers can be driven to distortion which ruins the hi-rez thing going on. (edit: just trying to say that if you're not going to get B/M then don't go hi-rez at this time).

I'm not educated enough to know if the time alignment issue is equally detrimental, but my ears are happy with the clean, warm and full sound I'm getting.

To address the original topic of this thread, everyone who has ears either consciously or unconsciously forms an opinion of what they hear. This causes the music industry to have difficulty making changes because everyone has an opinion. Whoever decided to market the R/S discs as just CD's did everyone a favor. For the people who would object to having a hi-rez format forced on them, they can remain deaf & dumb. For those of us who want to move on, we can and did. Hope it continues this way.

 

[Greg Br]

Lee,

This was my take on the same subject two days ago,

My take on Hot Rocks

I have said many times on this forum that I am the average joe when it comes to audiophiles, while I listen to SACD and DVD Audio it is not the be all end all.

My first impression about these disks is how hard it was to know if I was even getting a SACD. The Best Buy employees knew nothing of new Stones SACD disks but they said that thy just got in new remasters of many Stones albums. This was to much of a coincedence(to not be the sacd's). I went with the employee to the cd section for the Stones and sure enough brand new albums with the 2002 ABKCO label. I was sure these are them but no one could tell me for sure, as the labels say nothing about SACD. Even the SKW in the computer says cd. Thats when it hit me that they are marketing these as cd's to the general public and SACD for those who really know what is going on. Its actually brilliant cause many people are going to by this as a cd yet they can show the sales of this SACD as a huge sucess. Its just doing a disservice to those looking for SACD's as they have no idea if they are getting one, Best Buy should at least have copeies in the SACD section.

As far as the quality. The album fidelity is first rate and improves on the Hot Rocks cd. As a owner of every Stone cd though, I can not justify bying my entire collection over again for a stereo only mix. If it had a multi channel mix then I would give them all a try.

The way this is marketed as a cd first, SACD second, these albums will be a great sucess but I am not sure that these releases are moving SACD foreward as much as we would all like them to.

 

[Brian L]

Usually the signal gets down-converted when you do this.

Fair enough. I expect you would advocate having it handled in the player?
My rig consists of an older Marantz SR-96. In its day, this THX ProLogic receiver was one of the better recievers out there, made even better by the fact that it has a 6 CH input (that was a major selling point for me). That allowed me to be an early adopter of DVD with my Sony 3000 and external DD processor. Bass management for DD sources was (and is) handled in the processor.
I was about to buy a Outlaw 950, so I could step up to DTS, but the never ending delays overlapped with needed repairs on my car (its an older 911, so you can guess they weren't cheap!). Oh well....no Outlaw for me. If they had just released the damn thing on time, I would now have a great pre/pro, but would be doing a lot of walking!
But I digress.
The Sony 755 looked like a great cheap way to step up DTS and SACD in one fell swoop. I could retire my existing DD processor AND my current DVD player, but a 120Hz crossover just won't cut it.
In any event, I personally feel that bass management, distance compensation, etc., belongs in the player. Of course that viewpoint is 100% selfish, since it allows me to keep my receiver indefinitely
When the DVD-A SACD bass management issue came to light, David Ranada wrote a piece in S&V opining that all this stuff should be in the pre/pro. For obvious, narrow minded reasons, I disagree!
I just wish that the manufacturers would get it right.
We will now return to our regularly scheduled thread!
BL

 

[Rich Malloy]

While I applaud Outlaw for stepping up and addressing this bass management problem (right now, the no. 1 reason why I haven't purchased an SACD player), I'm also perturbed by the fact that I have to purchase an additional piece of hardware to run my signal through.
And this goes back to my general rant about how most affordable receivers lack sufficient bass management capabilities themselves (the Outlaw 1050 is an exception, with a large variety of selectable crossover frequencies, but even it won't allow me to set different crossovers frequencies for different speakers - for example, I'd prefer to crossover my center at 80hz and my rears at 60hz, etc.).
But if all they're gonna allow us is a single, fixed crossover on the SACD players, why oh why didn't they set it at something more reasonable (like 80hz)? I mean, if this really is a product aimed more towards audiophiles, why set it up for the "home theater in a box" crowd? After all, you gotta have some mighty weak speakers to be incapable of going below 120hz. And I've experimented with my own setup, and I hear bass directionality at 100hz, much less 120hz.
Either give me a good explanation or produce the engineer responsible for an immediate spanking!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I have seen people refrain from purchasing THX certified discs because they did not own THX certified gear at home. I am not all that surprised that ABKCO did not label the outsides of the discs as SACD at this point in the format's history. Everyone who purchases it gets an SACD primer when they open the package. It is a mass market catalog remaster, and audiophiles get a free cookie with no price premium. I'm not about to start complaining about that.
As for bass management, I will take on-board SACD bass management with 120Hz cut-off over the on-board bass management alternatives that most low-mid-priced DVD-Audio players offer (i.e. none). I use a Polk Satellite and sub system with my fronts wired through the SW and set to large and my sub set to none, so all I really lose vs. a perfectly tweaked bass management system with my hardware is some slight bass directionality in my rear speakers. If I were assembling a super-bithcin' audio system, I would have five full range speakers and a sub dedicated to LFE, anyway.
Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

But if all they're gonna allow us is a single, fixed crossover on the SACD players, why oh why didn't they set it at something more reasonable (like 80hz)? I mean, if this really is a product aimed more towards audiophiles, why set it up for the "home theater in a box" crowd?

Actually Rich, most audiophiles are happy with two channel sound so bass management is not a real important issue. In my experience there are two groups with some overlap: (1) HT fans with multi-channel systems and (2) hardcore two channel audiophiles.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

A question for members:

Doesn't the bass management limit of 120hz refer to the center and surrounds only?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Doesn't the bass management limit of 120hz refer to the center and surrounds only?

The crossover is for whatever speakers you set as "small". For example. if your fronts do not extend below 40-50 Hz, you would normally want to set them to "small" and send the very low bass to your subwoofer. Unless you have an external source doing your bass management, you are forced to send everything below 120Hz to your subwoofer (in mono) even though your fronts could have handled most of it (in stereo).

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The crossover is for whatever speakers you set as "small".

Okay, so why is this a big issue? You still have full range in primary Left and Right speakers so there may be plenty of bass, even without the desired subwoofer.

This just seem like a minor issue to me. That's all.

 

[Brian L]

This is an interesting comment, because most of us feel that the master tape represents the closest you can get to the actual studio session(s). That is definitely what I want to hear whether I have my music fan hat on or my engineer hat on.

I am definitely enjoying this thread.
I guess my comment flows back my curiosity about why the SACD layer on the RS releases sound better.....is it a direct dub from the master tape with NO CHANGE whatsoever (which would suggest its the CODEC), or was it tweaked in some way to sweeten the sound.
How many of us have NOT listened to a recording and thought, geesh, the bass is a bit anemic, or the treble a bit tipped up.
I usually leave my tone controls straight up, but I will cop to occasionally turning the treble up a notch or two, or raising/lowering the sub level one or two dB to suit me.
If it sounds better, I always want to know why. I am not of the camp that vilified the Red Book CD. I have recordings that sound great (Telarc and GRP stuff, even the English import Black Sabbath albums), and some that sound horrible (most all the rest of my rock CDs, which really blows because I am a rock kinda guy ).
Anyway, I have a feeling that the stuff that sounds horrible will always sound horrible.....you can polish a turd (in this case with a better codec), but in the end its just a shiny turd.
Back to my comments about the 96/24 PCM mix of A Night at the Opera. I would not consider it a reference recording. It sounds OK, but nothing the leaves one's jaw on the floor. That's not to say its not a very good representation of what was on the master tape (in fact, it may be the best possible version of that recording), but on my rig in my room with my ears, it could use a bit of EQ (blasphemy, I know!).
BL

 

[John Tillman]

Doesn't the bass management limit of 120hz refer to the center and surrounds only?

Lee, my mains are set (through the ICBM) at 80 and sound tighter after that adjustment. Rears are 120 and the center is 100.

Not sure if that answers your question, I assume the mains sound cleaner because my source(s) were previously requesting them to produce bass at a lower frequency, driving them into distortion.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Okay, so why is this a big issue? You still have full range in primary Left and Right speakers so there may be plenty of bass, even without the desired subwoofer.

I think you missed one of my points.

1st - In an earlier post, I said it was not a big deal for me because my subwoofer does the bass management for my fronts and they are designed to work together anyway.

2nd - It could be a big deal for those who do not use external bass management such as an ICBM for all channels or, in my case, my subwoofer for two channels. Whatever bass you send to the subwoofer is mixed to mono. If your fronts can go down to, say 60Hz, but you need to use the sub below that, you cannot tune the bass management to take advantage of it. If you set your fronts to "small", you get mono bass from 60-120Hz that could have been stereo. If you set your fronts to "large", you get stereo bass from 60-120Hz, but no bass at all below 60Hz.

Regards,

 

[Rachael B]

Brian, I think that you are proably too young to have ever experienced what a brand new vinyl record sounded like on the first few plays? It was good, real good. They did wear and deprove with age but they didn't call it "hot wax" for nothing! Best wishes!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I usually leave my tone controls straight up, but I will cop to occasionally turning the treble up a notch or two, or raising/lowering the sub level one or two dB to suit me.

I applaud your efforts here, but unfortunately the mere existence of tone controls indicates extra circuits in the playback system that always degrade the sound somewhat. That's why separates usually have none. There are expensive exceptions like Cello and Tact, but these also alter the signal to some degree.
I believe ICE magazine has some nice writeups on the web on the technical specifics of the mastering process.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Lee, overall, my impression with the Stones discs is that they are a lot more interested in selling the Stones than SACD. There is nothing wrong with that at all, but it may be the reason why some of us are saying, "They're not marketing SACD the right way" when, IMO, they're not really marketing it in this case, or at least as nothing more than an little "feature."

On principle, I prefer a product to come with as much information about it as it can. I'm not upset at all and wouldn't even be talking or thinking about it if you guys hadn't brought it up. It is a minor little nerd thing to argue about.

If you have ever heard Jon Astley or Peter Mews NoNoise solution in effect, you know what I am talking about. Yeck!!!

I don't know exactly what they used, but they did something similar to Dizzy Gillespie's early recordings for RCA/Victor. It is, to me, the grossest example of great music ruined by this sort of finagling. Those early single were a blast- but that "no noise" crap really kills it sometimes.


NP: Spock's Beard, Snow

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I don't know exactly what they used, but they did something similar to Dizzy Gillespie's early recordings for RCA/Victor. It is, to me, the grossest example of great music ruined by this sort of finagling.

Agreed. I just want to hear what's on the master tape, warts and all.

 

[Brian L]

Brian, I think that you are probably too young to have ever experienced what a brand new vinyl record sounded like on the first few plays?

Definitely not too young (I wish!), I have a closet full of vinyl from the early 70's (almost exclusively rock) up to the point where I started buying CD's. Most were only played once, while I dubbed them to tape.
Unfortunately, what I do not have, nor ever had, was a truly great turntable. I have had various Technics tables, and currently have a B&O belt drive (haven't used it in a while, but its still sitting in studio rack). I don't know that any of those qualify as even 1/2 way decent.
Back to some of my earlier comments about what exactly makes a re-master sound better (even when we are still talking red book).
I will site an example of some music that I really know and enjoy; Rush - Moving Pictures (those that hate Rush or rock in general, please stop reading now.
First bought it on vinyl, thought it sounded great. Even the cassette dub (I did have a very good quality 3 head machine at the time) sounded great. A coupe years ago, I bought the CD.....not what I remember. Weak bass a (fatal flaw in a Rush recording), harsh highs....a bit of a disappointment.
Recently, the catalog was re-released and re-mastered. Based on some very positive comments here, I bought it again.....Ahhh, now that what I remember. Solid bass/drums, very crisp highs. Dare I say, very analog sounding?????
Now, what the hell was done differently? I can't believe that this was not EQ'd differently from the original CD. In any event, it really sounds great.
I will check out the article mentioned previously regarding the mastering process.
Back to the main purpose of the thread, the RS SACD releases. I think in this, and other threads, it was said that the red book layer, while somewhat better then the previous re-issues, was no great leap forward, however, the SACD layer was a quantum leap forward. I look forward to hearing the difference for myself.
Lacking SACD capability at the moment, I guess I will have to stand down on any impending purchase of the RS catalog, but await the day when there is a moderately priced player with the bass management issues sorted out.
I am going to shut up now, before Lee decides this thread has gone WAY, FAR AWAY from his original topic!
BL