Heard SACD for 1st time - comment on my comments (1 Viewer)

[Tommy_N]

I just purchase a Sony DVP-NS755. Hooked up to a Denon 3802 and some Polk RT10's.

My overall thought is that the SACD sounds the way I would imagine a CD on a high-end system. Is this a correct assumption? Or would a SACD on an average system be better than a CD on a good system?

The player came with some sampler SACD and I've compared a couple of tracks to their CD counterparts. I used my 12 year old Teac CD player. It was a little difficult to compare because the volume levels were off and I had to adjust accordingly. I'm curious as to what others think of my comments. I'll start by saying my ears aren't very well trained...yet. I'm in the market for new speakers and I find that a lot all sound the same. Yes, there are subtle differences but I can't necessarily tell which I like better.

Rolling Stones Brown Sugar - Remastered from Hot Rocks

The SACD was much fuller with better stereo separation. It seemed brighter and crisper. Obvious difference.

Miles Davis - So What from Kind of Blue
Very shocking but I could not tell the difference. Actually I think I like the CD version better. I only listened briefly, so maybe I didn't give it enough time. But my first thought was disappointing.

Roger Waters - Perfect Sense from In the Flesh compared to Amused to Death version

The ambience and surround effect was great. Sounded much better. Fuller, better imagining. Deeper and richer voice.

What have you all found? Any thoughts as to why the Miles Davis didn’t sound better? And is this what a CD on a high end system would sound like?


Thanks

Tom

 

[Tom Moran]

Most likely the Miles CD did not sound better for the following reasons:

1) You are used to the way it sounds on CD and have this sound as your only "reference point".

2) The original recording was done so long ago that the original tape format did not have a high enough sound quality to show a big difference on a higher resolution digital master

3. Each mastering engineer interprets the source material they work with differently and it is likely that this newly mastered recording was done in a way that is not to your particular taste or it may have been mastered to sound as much like previous recordings as possible which would make it difficult for most people to tell any difference.

If you continue buying SACDs of recordings you are already familiar with you will probably find that it is not the only recording that sounds the same or even worse on SACD, to your ears that is.

Tom

 

[Mark_E_Smith]

I am one of "those" people that converted to CD from LPs on a fairly decent stereo system. I always thought the CDs sounded like the amp was clipping a little. I kept my turntable in my system until alas you could not buy records conveniently anymore. Advance 16 years latter and I got a SACD, also a DVD-A. Well the CDs dont sound like they are clipping and every thing sounds more like the old virgin vinyl master pressings I used to get. Now you cant compare multi track to the stereo they usually re master for the multi track and some instruments will sound "better" in the multi version. That being said I prefer the DVD-A format, I really like a WELL DONE 5.1 sound and the on screen menus and pictures. I cant really hear the difference between the two formats and for that mater the DTS 5.1s like Stings "Nothing Like the Sun" or the most excellent Eagles "Hell Freezes Over". These will play in any DVD player that supports DTS which is most of them. But they dont have OSM. My favorite DVD-A is America "Homecoming", DTS is "Hell Freezes Over" worst DVD-A is Queen "a Night At The Opera" sounds distorted like it was not made from a master, though I know it was. Thats my 2 cents.

 

[Rick_FL]

if you listen in multi channel mode, no comparison

 

[John Beavers]

I have about 60 SACD's, of which 12 are replacments for redbook CDs. I have yet to hear an SACD that sounded worse, or for that matter the same, as a CD. There is a "signature" sound to redbook material, or should I say a "lack of" part of the sound spectrum with CDs that is readily apparent when you a/b them with SACDs. Admittedly I have a very revealing high end audio system, and I haven't heard SACD played on average electronics, but I imagine it would still have the same "signature" there.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I've got about 25 SACDs, but only 4 of these replaced Red Book CDs (and these include "Kind of Blue"). While I think there's perhaps less difference between the "Kind of Blue" SACD and CD than I've experienced with other upgrades, the difference is nonetheless easily noticeable. Even to my wife.

Unlike John's high-end system, mine is totally mid-fi: Sony C555ES->Outlaw ICBM->Outlaw 1050->Swans Divas.

 

[KeithH]

Tommy, in my experience, SACD on modest systems beats CD on high-end systems. This is not to say that SACD will always win, but CD on most systems cannot compete with SACD. Perhaps very high-end electronics will render CD better than a modest system playing SACD. All of this said, there are some titles where the SACD and corresponding CD are close in sound quality. Kind of Blue is one of them in my experience. The SACD is better than the remastered CD, but the difference is not night and day.

 

[David Young]

3. Each mastering engineer interprets the source material they work with differently and it is likely that this newly mastered recording was done in a way that is not to your particular taste or it may have been mastered to sound as much like previous recordings as possible which would make it difficult for most people to tell any difference.

I must confess that on my somewhat modest system I hear little difference between "Redbook" and stereo SACD. And as for multi-channel I fear that in the main it is, at the moment, appearing to suffer much the same fate as that of stereo when it was introduced.
Many years ago, I recollect engineers playing silly effects games to impress upon one the broadness of the new fangled stereo sound stage. Now they seem hell bent on impressing upon one the fact that multi-channel is multi-channel, i.e. an instrument on every speaker. (Am I the only one to find being placed in the centre of a band a tad disconcerting?) What a shame, particularly so when a more subtle approach can yield such wonderful results. Take, for example, the infamous TELARC 1812.
Disregarding the fact that it first surfaced as a true High Fidelity LP recording (that was almost universally unplayable) I never felt it to be a particularly good musical version. If, however, you've not heard it I do urge you to get a copy and try this simple experiment . . . Play it first in stereo, then in multi-channel. If you're not bowled over by the latter, then I'm a Dutchman.