John Mayer Multi Channel SACD! (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Ron,

Is it a Hybrid SACD? I ask because I will eventually get an SACD player (prolly the new ES changer coming out in a few months) but would like to hear a better redbook track than the overly-loud, overcompressed monstrosity that was the original CD.

If it is a hybrid, can you tell me if the redbook track is better than the one on the standard CD?

Many thanks!

 

[Ron Reda]

Carlo,

Yes, it is a hybrid SACD.

I haven't had a chance to listen to compare the two (I was way too excited to check it out in SACD/DSD), but will do so this weekend and post my impressions here.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Thanks Ron.

I have seen this in a number of places now. I'm going to listen to it this weekend.

Here are some other new releases I saw in my local Borders:

1. Indigo Girls latest
2. Incubus
3. Sheryl Crow The Globe Sessions

 

[RobBenton]

I was horribly dissapointed in this. It claims it is a 5.1 sacd but its basically just stereo. The rears are used for lame reverb at best. They could have done so much with this. If they wanted it to be stereo they should have just released stereo only rather then calling it 5.1. I wouldn't have wasted my money if I thought I was going to get a poor 5.1 mix!

 

[Paul.S]

Ron, I'm happy for you that this has finally been released . . . after this thread was started literally a year ago.

It's a DSD recorded disc . . .

Are you sure about this? I would suspect that it was recorded PCM but mastered DSD . . . ?

-p

 

[Ron Reda]

RobBenton,

I sincerely apologize...in my mini-review, I should have stated that I had only listened to the stereo version of the SACD layer. I have made the appropriate change to my original post. :b

Paul.S,

Are you sure about this? I would suspect that it was recorded PCM but mastered DSD . . . ?

No, I'm not sure and it could be my bad...I did not know that you could record in PCM, but master in DSD.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

No, I'm not sure and it could be my bad...I did not know that you could record in PCM, but master in DSD.

One could probably count 'on one hand' the number of pop/rock SACDs that were recorded in DSD. This is not a criticism of the format, it is just a fact that pop/rock is typically produced on 24 and 48 track studio setups, and that kind of DSD hardware just isn't out there in most studios.

If you buy a pop/rock disc, and the production notes don't specify that it was recorded in DSD, assume it was PCM or analog. You'll be right 99 percent of the time.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

One could probably count 'on one hand' the number of pop/rock SACDs that were recorded in DSD.

Bitch, moan, groan...

There are a large number of DSD recordings out there, many pure DSD now that workstations are in place. One example is the very popular Alison Krauss Live.

In any event, analog tapes sound superb and PCM masters can also sound great.

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

Ok, someone give us a report on the redbook and sacd stereo layers. Is the horrible compression still there on either?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Bitch, moan, groan...

Huh? I'm, not complaining, I'm explaining. Unlike some bigots, I don't judge a disc based on whether it is 'pure' DSD. Analog and high-res PCM are just as good or better than DSD, so there's absolutely no reason to care what the source recording is.

It's all about being well-recorded and well mastered. Caring about 'pure' DSD is just as silly as those idiots who used to only buy CDs with 'DDD' spars codes.

I think you know me far better than that Lee, and are just trying to take me out of context. Shame on you.

And Lee, since you are calling me a liar, I double-dog dare you to name five major-label pop/rock (not folk rock, bluegrass, etc) that were recorded and mixed in DSD. What I said was absolutely correct (but not disparaging in any way).

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Caring about 'pure' DSD is just as silly as those idiots who used to only buy CDs with 'DDD' spars codes.

It's not the same thing. Having a pure DSD recording will result in cleaner sound whereas the Spars code was not a reliable indicator of better sound.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

It's not the same thing. Having a pure DSD recording will result in cleaner sound whereas the Spars code was not a reliable indicator of better sound.

If that was the case, people could pick out PCM sourced SACDs by ear instead of by looking at the label or the notes. Instead, people people seem very surprised when they learn that their SACDs are sourced from PCM or analog.

You really shouldn't go bashing the majority of the pop/rock SACDs out there.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

You really shouldn't go bashing the majority of the pop/rock SACDs out there.

You are always putting words into people's mouths Michael, a sign of a weak arguer. Saying that some discs sonics are better than others has no logical connection to the lesser not being also anjoyable to listen to.

Based on my experience, all DSD recordings sound great and many (but not all) PCM master recordings sound very good or great.

Part of the reason of this is that pure DSD recordings seem to require a bit extra effort and care. Of course the larger sonic improvement comes from not having to go through as many digital conversion steps as PCM recordings go through.

By the way, according to Stephen Best there are in excess of 400 DSD recordings on the market.

 

[Carlo_M]

So......any word on if the redbook layer is better on the SACD vs. the original CD? :b

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

Buellor? Buellor?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

By the way, according to Stephen Best there are in excess of 400 DSD recordings on the market.

Never said there wasn't. I'm always careful to point out that it is major-label pop/rock that isn't produced in DSD, and for some reason it always throws you into a tizzy.

Let's go back to the point that the thread got derailed.

I said:

"One could probably count 'on one hand' the number of pop/rock SACDs that were recorded in DSD. This is not a criticism of the format, it is just a fact that pop/rock is typically produced on 24 and 48 track studio setups, and that kind of DSD hardware just isn't out there in most studios."

Your reply:

:rolleyesBitch, moan, groan...

Instead of some kind of kneejerk trolling response, could you possibly explain what is negative about my statement, which was in direct response to questions from other members? Can you find anything that is negative in what I said, and explain what it is and how?

If you can't, then I guess you are a "weak arguer".

Your non-sequitur response was nothing but pure flamebait, took the thread off topic, and I should have known better than to go along with it.

 

[RobBenton]

From my casual listening the horibble compression is still there.. in songs like "something's missing" it is still harsh to my ears and horribly compressed.

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

Even on the stereo SACD tracks?

Thanks for the reply, Rob.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"One could probably count 'on one hand' the number of pop/rock SACDs that were recorded in DSD. This is not a criticism of the format, it is just a fact that pop/rock is typically produced on 24 and 48 track studio setups, and that kind of DSD hardware just isn't out there in most studios."

Well since Michael was just being informative here, I thought I would share something I found on Audio Asylum that seems to match up more or less with my experience...from Teresa:

*********************

Back to SACDs and most of you could already guessed this my favorite SACDs are the PURE DSD one from Telarc. The PCM Telarcs are still excellent due to their microphone and recording techniques but Telarc PURE DSD is so startling better that I hope all their engineer's get DSD recorders pretty soon! Also all the new BIS recordings are PURE DSD and cheap too around $15.99!

I do have other favorite SACD recordings companies and a lot of sound quality will have to do with how well the producers and engineers do their jobs and the equipment used (Mic's, cables, etc.) But here is my preference for recording and mastering:

Class A+ SACDs - finest lifelike sound quality
1) PURE DSD with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the DSD domain.

Class A SACDs - usually very lifelike sound quality
2) PURE Tube Analog at 15ips or 30ips with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the Analog or DSD domain.
4) PURE Solid State Analog at 15ips or 30ips with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the Analog or DSD domain.

Class B SACDs - excellent sound quality
4) DSD that has been contaminated with PCM through mixing or other reasons
5) Analog that has been contaminated with PCM through mixing or other reasons

Class C SACDs - sound quality so far is very realistic and exciting. Only Telarc and DMP have released any of the historic Soundstream recordings the fact that they sound more real than even the 196kHz PCM recordings is a tribute to Soundstream and the Telarc engineers, the DVD-Audio folks should study how soundstream equipment was designed as they has "SOMETHING" totally missing from today's PCM?
6) The Soundstream 16 Bit 50kHz PCM with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the DSD domain.

Class D SACDs - sound quality varies is usually excellent, almost sounds like the real thing but not quite
7) 24 Bit 192kHz PCM with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the DSD domain.

Class E SACDs - sound quality varies between very good and excellent, no quite real though
8) 24 Bit 96kHz PCM with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the DSD domain.

Class F SACDs - sound quality varies between good and very good, much better than CD
9) 24 Bit 48kHz PCM with NO Mixing or very little mixing in the DSD domain.

This is my take in 2 channel stereo, I'll let someone elso comment on the multi-channel.

*********************

 

[Justin Lane]

Well since Michael was just being informative here, I thought I would share something I found on Audio Asylum that seems to match up more or less with my experience...from Teresa:

Thanks for the info Lee. You still have not named five pop/rock SA-CD that have been recorded in pure DSD. Your silence speaks numbers about SA-CD and the mainstream artists out there.

J