|
|
|
Peter said:
Ramesh and Bruce; interesting observations. The Anthill recording is very good indeed, though I have only the RBCD version (Everest). The LP/SACD debate is interesting, though sometimes consists of one party merely trying to impose subjective sentiments onto the other party. I do wonder how many people will buy the Keilberth "Ring" on Testament LP at, I think, £450 or approx $900.
I'm one of those people who purchased the Keilberth on Lp, though I was lucky enough to find a review set at a markedly lower price. The first thing you'll notice about it is the labor of love in the packaging, though love can be quite expensive! Beautiful thick laminate box, gorgeous black and white pics throughout, heavy 180 gram absolutely dead-quiet pressings and fascinating booklet. (An aside--it was so strange, as an American, to read Mr. Andry's recollections about doing business in Germany back then, during what he casually describes as the American Occupation....)
As a recording, it's good, but just that. (I hasten to add that my negative ideas about what a stereo recording sounded like between '55 and '65--especially on Lp--were absolutely blown out of the water...when I actually heard one!) Wilkinson's work during the '55 live Keilberth performances don't deliver the magic that one can find a few years later in his work with the Suisse Romande sessions with Ansermet--to me, those sessions are the wonder of the world.
On the Keilberth, voices are caught perfectly, with bloom and warmth, not too close, not too far, and the high notes are perfectly full and anchored, no thinness whatsoever. The orchestral sound is a little dense, and no imagining or soundstaging to speak of. If you're a voice first, orchestra later kind of listener, this performance is for you. Varnay is quite spectacular.
With regard to Lp vs. SACD, I would still have to put Lp first in two ways--high frequencies with unmatched delicacy, (string harmonics in Debussy and Ravel make this clear to my ears at least), and a laser-like focus of the sound that just makes rhythms spring from the speakers with more traction. I still listen to SACD and think the SACD/Lp combo is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by RedFox April 19, 2007 (62 of 73)
|
|
With regard to Lp vs. SACD, I would still have to put Lp first in two ways--high frequencies with unmatched delicacy, (string harmonics in Debussy and Ravel make this clear to my ears at least), and a laser-like focus of the sound that just makes rhythms spring from the speakers with more traction. I still listen to SACD and think the SACD/Lp combo is the way to go.
i have a very simple system
(
Marantz SA15-S1 CD player
Audio Innovations 300 MK-ii (tube amplifier)
Audio Note AN-J/Spa speakers
Audio Note AN-S standard level silver interconnect
Audio Note AN-L copper speaker cable
Audio Note standard steel stands
)
which originally involved a nad turntable with a not too cheap (but not very expensive cartridge). i bought the two together for about 1850 usd. last summer i bought a new cd player (marantz sa15-s1) at a very good price (1800 usd), which was less than the typical 2000 usd for this sacd player. after two weeks of use i compared the two by playing those recordings i had on lp and sacd as well (for instance miles davis: kind of blue, dave brubeck: time out). it was my observation that sacd sounded better. there was no a significant difference but the middle range was really better and the sound stage wider from sacd. of course i know that one experiment is far for being sufficient to decide which is better.
however i would like to know if two systems with the same price have ever been compared under the following conditions:
(a) system 1. uses lp as the source of music
(b) system 2. uses sacd (dsd recordings) as the source of music.
in my opinion it is an important condition (that is my reason to emphasize this fact again) that the two systems should have approximately the same price.
otherwise the comparison is unjust since it is natural that we would like to have the best for the same price.
to tell the truth i am not an expert in this field (in the field of audiophile
equipments) and my approach to this issue might be mistaken. if this is the case i am sorry for disturbing anybody in the list.
|
|
|
Post by tream April 19, 2007 (63 of 73)
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
On the Keilberth, voices are caught perfectly, with bloom and warmth, not too close, not too far, and the high notes are perfectly full and anchored, no thinness whatsoever. The orchestral sound is a little dense, and no imagining or soundstaging to speak of. If you're a voice first, orchestra later kind of listener, this performance is for you. Varnay is quite spectacular.
With regard to Lp vs. SACD, I would still have to put Lp first in two ways--high frequencies with unmatched delicacy, (string harmonics in Debussy and Ravel make this clear to my ears at least), and a laser-like focus of the sound that just makes rhythms spring from the speakers with more traction. I still listen to SACD and think the SACD/Lp combo is the way to go.
I suspect that the orchestra issues you speak of are directly related to the fact that this was recorded live at Bayreuth, with the orchestra cowled.
I have to say that I find the inclusion of applause in the Keilberth disappointing (as I do on the Fisch on SACD). I prefer the theater of the mind, as Culshaw put it, for a recording. Why were they able to do a live recording at Bayreuth of Parsifal with Kna and no applause yet need to include applause these days?
I still have a few hundred LP's (well down from the 1000 or so I had in 1980). LP was a frustrating medium - the rank and file issue was poor from a quality standpoint, and degraded over time. While the modern 180-200 gram pressings are terrific, they are expensive, hard to find, and I'm terrified of getting the inevitable first tick or pop. Not to mention the lack of multichannel sound, the short playing times, the greater degree of set up and maintenance required, etc.
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 19, 2007 (64 of 73)
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
With regard to Lp vs. SACD, I would still have to put Lp first in two ways--high frequencies with unmatched delicacy ...
It looks like you need to work on your SA-CD playback chain (player, cables, isolation etc).
Looking at your system though, it's almost identical to mine. The Neutral Reference cables (I tried them) were a poor match though. Maybe in a better or less revealing system they may work great. I heard superb transparency with these cables but the number of recordings they worked with (a few older analogue recordings) didn't make them a viable proposition for me. I currently use a combination of Golden Reference (interconnects) and Golden Cross (bi-wire speaker).
|
|
|
Post by Claude April 20, 2007 (65 of 73)
|
|
I like vinyl in general, but as a high end format for classical music it has too many disadavantages compared to SACD, which explain why there isn't much of a vinyl comeback in the classical field (unlike jazz and pop), and SACD is succesful:
- short playing time: people are now used to getting classical discs with 70 minutes of music
- vinyl noise floor: acceptable for pop and jazz, but not for usually much more dynamic classical music
- stereo only
I think those are the reasons why there are only vinyl reissues of some old cult recordings (Living Stereo, Mercury, etc) but almost no new classical recordings coming out on LP.
|
|
|
Post by Daland April 20, 2007 (66 of 73)
|
|
tream said:
Why were they able to do a live recording at Bayreuth of Parsifal with Kna and no applause yet need to include applause these days?
Because it was customary at Bayreuth in those days not to applaud after any of the three acts of Parsifal. Applause was considered inappropriate because of the quasi-religious atmosphere prevailing in this "Bühnenweihfestspiel". In other opera houses the audience was expected to abstain from applause at least after the first act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only possible way multi-channel high resolution, or high resolution audio in general has ANY chance of surviving is if Blu-ray or HD-DVD (I'm hoping for Blu-ray) stick around long enough.
Universal Music Group and Sony Music labels have endorsed Blu-ray.
There are many audio options available on Blu-ray, as an example:
DTS-HD Master Audio Lossless (packed PCM)
Dolby TrueHD (if Dial. Norm is left off) Lossless (packed PCM)
Uncompressed Linear PCM
All three have available resolutions of up to 24 bits/192 kHz in 6 channel mode, and 24 bits/96 kHz at 8 channel mode.
With many SA-CD's being mastered from PCM anyway and most SA-CD players (and/or surround processors) converting DSD to PCM at some stage of the game, I guess you can't really fault Blu-ray or HD-DVD with not having a DSD sound option. However, 6 channel 24/192 should sound damn impressive with the right DAC's.
There is enough room (especially using either lossless audio option) to put 1080p HD music videos and live performance footage and high resolution audio (together and/or separate from the video streams) on the same disc. The inclusion of HD video of some sort may be needed to help drive sales. Hell, anything to let us have an alternative to MP3 crap that is pervading our homes.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 20, 2007 (68 of 73)
|
|
SurroundGod said:
Thoughts?
As SA-CD has shown, the market for higher resolution audio is limited. You're unlikely to get anything better sounding than what we've already got with SA-CD anyway. SA-CD is currently positioned as the HD audio complement to Blu-ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
It looks like you need to work on your SA-CD playback chain (player, cables, isolation etc).
Looking at your system though, it's almost identical to mine. The Neutral Reference cables (I tried them) were a poor match though. Maybe in a better or less revealing system they may work great. I heard superb transparency with these cables but the number of recordings they worked with (a few older analogue recordings) didn't make them a viable proposition for me. I currently use a combination of Golden Reference (interconnects) and Golden Cross (bi-wire speaker).
Hello stranger, it's been quite awhile. I must take a moment to tell you that I really enjoy browsing your website every morning over coffee.
Just a few comments: I don't use the Neutral Ref's anymore. I went to Audioquest Jaguar's with the little battery packs. I'm very happy with these. I use Audioquest interconnects as well. Regarding Lp and SACD--and I know this is subjective--I feel that Lp's and SACDs have their own unique signature sounds, and no amount of tweaking can make one sound like the other. It just depends upon what set of strengths are most important to the listener, and which music carrier delivers those strenghs, IMHO. For a turntable I use a VPI Scoutmaster and a Dynavector 20xL cart, about $3000, ironically the same price as the Marantz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SurroundGod said:
The only possible way multi-channel high resolution, or high resolution audio in general has ANY chance of surviving is if Blu-ray or HD-DVD (I'm hoping for Blu-ray) stick around long enough.
Universal Music Group and Sony Music labels have endorsed Blu-ray.
There are many audio options available on Blu-ray, as an example:
- DTS-HD Master Audio Lossless (packed PCM)
- Dolby TrueHD (if Dial. Norm is left off) Lossless (packed PCM)
- Uncompressed Linear PCM
All three have available resolutions of up to 24 bits/192 kHz in 6 channel mode, and 24 bits/96 kHz at 8 channel mode.
With many SA-CD's being mastered from PCM anyway and most SA-CD players (and/or surround processors) converting DSD to PCM at some stage of the game, I guess you can't really fault Blu-ray or HD-DVD with not having a DSD sound option. However, 6 channel 24/192 should sound damn impressive with the right DAC's.
There is enough room (especially using either lossless audio option) to put 1080p HD music videos and live performance footage and high resolution audio (together and/or separate from the video streams) on the same disc. The inclusion of HD video of some sort may be needed to help drive sales. Hell, anything to let us have an alternative to MP3 crap that is pervading our homes.
Thoughts?
BD and HD-DVD's great audio options are unlikely to break hi-res/multichannel audio to the masses. Of course the issue is not that SACD's or even DVD-Audio's sound isn't good enough -- contrary. It's better than what most people are asking for and more than good enough for audiophiles. Looking for the next media to save the day would be fleeing forward. The real issue is a major lack of awareness among consumers' side and total apathy on the side of most record companies.
Adding HD video would make it a worthy successor to music DVD-Video but watching video performances and listening to music will probably remain quite different experiences, regardless of the resolution.
If the industry can't make SACD work it's not going to work with HD-DVD or BD Audio either. In the meantime, I keep having faith in SACD. It may be going to be a long journey but Sony's addition of SACD to PS3's capabilities is about to usher in a whole new audience. If only the studios are going to issue appropriate content to let them enjoy it.
|
|
