I recently bought a DVD player that is also an SACD player. Denon 1930CI. It has some nice features, including one called Direct digital. It basically turns off everything not needed, display etc. I ordered a 2 channel single layer SACD. Boston's first album. I compared it to the normal CD you would buy at any walmart. I can hear a difference, but its very little difference. First thing that came to mind is my system isn't really an "audiophile" system: The Denon mentioned above, Anthem TLP-1 Pre-amp, and Rotel RB960BX Dual mono 60w/ch amp, currently using Paradigm Studio 60's V3(stereophile class B rated)(Have a Linn Genki CD player, being repaired, and Magnepan 2.7's as well, not currently hooked up.) While some would snub their nose at this system, it's still leaps and bounds better than anything you buy at BB or CC type stores. If I had $50k to spend on an audio system I would, but I'm married with children..enough said there... I read sterophile and other mags about audio, and I noticed that they test equipment with really old CD/LP that I've never heard of. I always have wondered, Why do audiophiles test equipment with recordings from 1945 and 1964 etc. Recording techniques couldn't possibly be as good as what is possible today. Why would you not want the Best recording possible when doing a critical listening test. Seems to me you would be able to tell a piece of equipments limit if you had a recording that would expose those limits. Since the Boston CD was originally recorded in 1976, is it the recording a factor in only hearing minute differences or is my system so crappy that I "should" have a hard time telling the difference between a normal CD and a SACD?
from my own experience, i don't necessarily believe that newer recordings are better than older recordings.
a very good, or excellent recording is in my opinion, not a good test of a stereo system. i prefer an "average" recording, to reveal the flaws in a stereo system.
a great recording will be evident when played on any stereo system.
i also believe your stereo system has sufficient resolution to reveal differences in recordings.
My player does specify it plays DVD-A. Are DVD-A's all 5.1 surround CD's? My system is strictly 2 channel, would I lose sound info playing it that way? I really don't know anything about DVD-A, SACD, HDCD etc. I have always just used normal redbook CD's. Any clarification would be appreciated. Mike
As you can read, not all SACDs (audiophools) are created equal. A good one/great one, is worth the expense for me. I only have a few DVD-As. Not a loser in the pack. Wonderful sound.
SACD has the technical potential to be better than CD, and, of course, it also offers multichannel which, when properly implemented with good speakers all around, is a leap forward. However, not all SACD discs are well mastered, and may sound inferior to well done CDs. IMHO, if you don't go multichannel SACD isn't worth the trouble and expense.
DVDA potential for quality sound is at least as good as SACD. I also note that my very best discs are DVDA. Is this just chance? In addition to quality multichannel sound DVDA often include a lot of video which is interesting to watch once or twice.
In summary, the audio quality improvement from SACD and from DVDA is real but small. The important payoff is multichannel, and between the two DVDA wins.
I heard that Boston SACD last week on a friend's really fine-sounding system. Pretty dreadful recording. That said, many SACDs -- rock or otherwise -- show little improvement over comparable CDs (and especialliy, LPs). But some are truly excellent by comparison, e.g., the Abko-remastered Rolling Stones discs, unfortunately now hard to find.
As others have noted, you're wrong about newer recordings being inherently better-sounding than older ones. Some are, but many aren't. Depends on the skill of the recording engineers as much as anything else.
gentlemen, ask kevin halvorsen of muse what he thinks about sacd. it may surprise you. you may want to rethink the assumption that sacd is preferable to cd.
If you listen to a good acoustic recording with no over-dubbing, the difference between SACD and RB-CD is dramatic. The soundstage is way more three-dimensional on a good SACD recording. If you like jazz, listen to the SACD and CD layers of "Way Out West" by Sonny Rollins on your system. Then come back and tell us what you think.
Talking strictly two channel....the recording and mastering have a much bigger impact on what you hear than the actual format, CD, DVD-A or SACD.
IMHO, the industry is struggling to find a compelling reason to drive people to another music format and away from CD's. This problem is exemplified by the iTunes success with lossy 128 Kbit AAC files; unfortunately the CD format was more than good enough for many people and now slightly inferior compressed files are widely accepted.
In theory, only the recording studios need the kind of resolution and Signal to Noise available with these newer formats....as they play with gains in a serious way and have long audio chains in the production process....just my two cents.
kevin halvorsen is a recording engineer and digital designer. i think his resume gives him credibility on this subject. oh yes, he is a major proponent of dvda.
I have the new version of Stupid Dream on DVDA. When played back in it's best quality DVDA format which is in surround there are parts missing in the music that can only be heard when playing the disc in a surround system which I do not have. To be specific, the slide guitar at the beginning of Evan Less is not there when played in stereo. This is true even though my player is set to mix down surround to stereo.
While it is true the disc has a stereo layer. There are two bonus tracks that will only play back in surround one of which is the full length version of Even Less.
I like Boston too, but unfortunately their recordings are bad on all formats. I have vinyl, CD, and SACD. The music is great, but the recordings are among the worst. So I don't think this is a good test for SACD. Get some more SACDs, granted, most of SACD is classical so hopefully you like classical.
With regard to recording date... logic would dictate that new technology = better recordings. Unfortunately, this is not the case. That is why turntables and vinyl are still the preferred audiophile choice.
Some of the best classical recordings (and performances) are from the 50s and 60s on mercury, rca, etc. Of course there are some good ones that are newer too, but the argument that newer = better recording does not hold true
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
