Red Book vs SACD

[Gordon Gray]

Hi all,

While at RMAF, I purchased the Kenny Burnell / Midnight Blue SACD recently released by Analogue Productions. I also have the red book version called the "Rudy Van Gelder Edition". The original was recorded at the RVG studio on 4/21/67 (produced by Alfred Lion) and RVG reissued this remaster in 1998.

Much to my surprise, the AP SACD seems to have sucked the life out of this wonderful recording. I have numerous SACD's (mostly classical) and this is the first time that the SACD reissue seems to be a big step backwards within the context of sound quality.

Way to smooth, lack of imaging, and punch especially in the mid bass area. Cut No. 2 is a prime example.

Have others had a similar experience?

Tis a bummer since I paid $30 for this SACD and it will probably go into the "won't listen to again for a long time" category.

GG

 

[twich54]

That will teach 'ya for buying that digital stuff and not analog..........just bustin' your stones a wee bit Gordon.......as I type this listening to BeeGie Adair, 'Escape to New York' (CD redbook) playing in the background !!!

Back to your Kenny Burnell purchase, yes it has happened to me as well, I've got a couple of Eric Kunzel Cinci Pops SACD's that have let me down. Now in a normal 'red book' scenario I would relegate them to the cd player in my vehicle.......Not with SACD !!

 

[amey01]

Much to my surprise, the AP SACD seems to have sucked the life out of this wonderful recording. I have numerous SACD's (mostly classical) and this is the first time that the SACD reissue seems to be a big step backwards within the context of sound quality.

I've only experienced one high-res recording that is worse than redbook, and it's a DVD-A actually. But I've also steered clear of quite a few that I've been warned about. Norah Jones' "Come away with me" is one example I remember.

Thanks for the warning on this one........

Tis a bummer since I paid $30 for this SACD and it will probably go into the "won't listen to again for a long time" category.

'Tis a bummer. $30, and it would have been better for you to roll up those three tenners and pop them down the nearest drain. Better, because then you wouldn't have this useless inanimate object you now have to store. Then they wonder why we prefer to "obtain" from BitTorrent.......mmmmmm.

 

[Hocky]

I've only experienced one high-res recording that is worse than redbook, and it's a DVD-A actually. But I've also steered clear of quite a few that I've been warned about. Norah Jones' "Come away with me" is one example I remember.

Thanks for the warning on this one........



'Tis a bummer. $30, and it would have been better for you to roll up those three tenners and pop them down the nearest drain. Better, because then you wouldn't have this useless inanimate object you now have to store. Then they wonder why we prefer to "obtain" from BitTorrent.......mmmmmm.

I have that Norah Jones on both formats, but I've never really compared both. I'll have to check it out.

 

[amey01]

I have that Norah Jones on both formats, but I've never really compared both. I'll have to check it out.

From the reports I've heard, you'll hear no difference. The SACD was sourced from redbook.

See http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/1104fifth

and others if you search.......

 

[slowGEEZR]

I've long believed that it is not the media, but the the whole production process that leads to good sound. I have a gold CD of "Wish You Were Here" and an SACD of it and much prefer the CD.

 

[tsv_1]

I've long believed that it is not the media, but the the whole production process that leads to good sound. I have a gold CD of "Wish You Were Here" and an SACD of it and much prefer the CD.

Funny you say that Steve... while there is a theoretical advantage to SACD (wrt freq response, dynamic range, snr, etc), it definitely takes excellent production to take advantage of that extra goodness DSD affords. I have a Nat King Cole gold redbook CD that sounds effing amazing! AT the same time I have SACDs that ought to be sold as insomnia medication.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Well said Todd and Steve.

What surprised me was that Analogue Productions would release (to my ears) such a compromised sonic product.

Gives me pause regarding their pending release of Pink Floyd's WYWH in SACD / 5.1.

GG

 

[timm]

I have that Norah Jones on both formats, but I've never really compared both. I'll have to check it out.

Hocky tell me what you think. I play this sacd ALL the time and think it sparkles on my system. I think it sounds better on my system in sacd. But that might have to do with sacd playback vs redbook on my player. And to that I say 'who cares'! I would highly recommend the NJ sacd. I thought the cd was a good recording as well.

 

[Gordon Gray]

timm,

If you like the NJ SACD on your system, that's great.

Regarding your "who cares" question, I think we all care about sound quality and spending money to get the best recording of "whatever" that is out there from a maximize value perspective.

I'm not happy that I spent $30 on a SACD that is clearly inferior, on my system, to other redbook (less expensive) versions.

I would also question, from my digital experience and an analogue perspective, what AP is doing with their vinyl remastered releases.

GG

 

[MiTT]

timm,

If you like the NJ SACD on your system, that's great.

Regarding your "who cares" question, I think we all care about sound quality and spending money to get the best recording of "whatever" that is out there from a maximize value perspective.

I'm not happy that I spent $30 on a SACD that is clearly inferior, on my system, to other redbook (less expensive) versions.

I would also question, from my digital experience and an analogue perspective, what AP is doing with their vinyl remastered releases.

GG

No need to worry about their vinyl releases Gordon. I was a subscriber to both sets of their Blue Note remastered 45RPM series an they were all spectacular with regard to sound quality and pressing. I couldn't be more pleased. I wouldn't have made such a significant investment (50 LP's @ $50.00 each), if I had any questions about what I was hearing. I did pick up one SACD out of the series (Kenny Burrell), and while I personally still prefer the LP, I don't hear anything untoward in the SACD. I agree with what tsv_1 said above though; overall production through the entire process is more likely to blame than the media itself.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Tim,

Good to hear the vinyl is excellent. I agree the process seems to have gone astray regarding Midnight Blue.

Gordon

 

[timm]

timm,

If you like the NJ SACD on your system, that's great.

Regarding your "who cares" question, I think we all care about sound quality and spending money to get the best recording of "whatever" that is out there from a maximize value perspective.

I'm not happy that I spent $30 on a SACD that is clearly inferior, on my system, to other redbook (less expensive) versions.

I would also question, from my digital experience and an analogue perspective, what AP is doing with their vinyl remastered releases.

GG

Gordon my point was that I believe this sacd DOES sound better than the cd. My point was that my sacd playback may simply be better than my redbook giving me a better sound experience. Or maybe the sacd does sound better. My other point was that I think this particular cd sounds fantastic in its redbook format and any slight improvement which I believe I am hearing via sacd was well worth the 20 bucks I spent for the NJ sacd. I listen to this sacd a lot and I would like to hear someone that has played it on logans find any issue with the sound of the sacd. I still stand by my statement of 'who cares'. It sounds better to me and the technicalities be damned. It's that old 'use your ears thing' and I would be surprised if you were upset with the sound of this sacd if you were to purchase it. BTW I heard the cd on Maggie 20.1s with all ARC gear and it sounded thin. The dealer was hesitant to play it stating that the recording didn't sound too good on the maggies. Everything else sounded sweet on that system though so I can't really explain it. So I guess the YMMV would be appropriate

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi timm,

Thanks for the clarification. I took your initial statement in a larger context.

Interesting insight into the MG 20.1's.

Best.

GG

 

[timm]

Hi timm,

Thanks for the clarification. I took your initial statement in a larger context.

Interesting insight into the MG 20.1's.

Best.

GG

Yes we care a lot!! . Since we are on the topic I also just purchased the new tea for the tillerman cat Stevens. Sacd. Again a fine recording on cd and the vinyl. I believe it also edges out the remastered redbook. And of course this music was practically made for ML. If anyone else has purchased please chime in.

 

[Rich]

Yes we care a lot!! . Since we are on the topic I also just purchased the new tea for the tillerman cat Stevens. Sacd. Again a fine recording on cd and the vinyl. I believe it also edges out the remastered redbook. And of course this music was practically made for ML. If anyone else has purchased please chime in.

This is a big part of the problem, as I see it. We expect to gain a much higher fidelity and overall much better sound from SACD for the extra money spent. When we don't, we feel we were taken advantage of. You say you "believe" the Tea for the Tillerman SACD "edges out" the remastered redbook. At three times the cost of the remastered redbook, I would say that small an improvement in sound is simply not worth the extra expense. At that price, it should blow away the redbook in sound quality. Why would I want to spend thirty bucks on an SACD that maybe barely edges out the quality of the redbook CD that I already own? Gordon, I understand your disappointment.

 

[tsv_1]

This is a big part of the problem, as I see it. We expect to gain a much higher fidelity and overall much better sound from SACD for the extra money spent. When we don't, we feel we were taken advantage of. You say you "believe" the Tea for the Tillerman SACD "edges out" the remastered redbook. At three times the cost of the remastered redbook, I would say that small an improvement in sound is simply not worth the extra expense. At that price, it should blow away the redbook in sound quality. Why would I want to spend thirty bucks on an SACD that maybe barely edges out the quality of the redbook CD that I already own? Gordon, I understand your disappointment.

easy... different people have different thresholds wrt the point of diminishing returns. If something is perceived to be an improvement over something else, and an individual is willing to pay extra for that perceived improvement - why would anyone begrudge him of that option just because they feel differently? At the same time, some people are completely satisfied with an item based on cost as the predominant factor, even though there may be better more expensive alternatives - would we begrudge them for that choice? I don't see why we would.

BTW... I've never expected "much better" from SACD... only "better"... and like so many other things in advertizing (and life), that promise is not always upheld. So be it - buyer beware.

 

[Rich]

easy... different people have different thresholds wrt the point of diminishing returns. If something is perceived to be an improvement over something else, and an individual is willing to pay extra for that perceived improvement - why would anyone begrudge him of that option just because they feel differently?

Re-read my post. I don't think I begrudged anyone the option of anything. I simply stated my personal opinion that for three times the cost, SACD should do much better than "edge out" the redbook CD in sound quality. Again, we are talking about three times the cost! If I bought a set of speakers that cost three times as much as my Summits, and there was only a slight improvement in sound quality, I would be a very unhappy customer. Now if the SACD were only a few dollars more than the redbook version, then I think I would have a different opinion. Bottom line: if they are going to charge a premium price, then they better provide a premium product.

 

[Audioseduction]

I've long believed that it is not the media, but the the whole production process that leads to good sound.

I would agree 100% with Steve!

 

[timm]

I would agree 100% with Steve!

+1 which goes to my point re: the cd/sacds I was talking about above. The cds sound good... the sacd sounds better. Is it worth it? It is worth it to me. Certain recordings I really like and I always want the best possible recording for my particular system. As Rich said - sure it is 3 times the cost... but what it really is to me ... is 20 bucks. and 20 bucks to me is worth getting a little more silent background...etc... So that is my opinion...and I don't view it as a 'problem' at least for me... Now is it a problem for the format? Sure...because if it doesn't sound a whole lot better - a night and day difference - then it just becomes a niche because people don't 'buy into it'. A niche which is forced to increase the price to make it worth the effort. I am willing to pay that additional for some recordings because - well, I'm part of the niche!!