|
|
|
Claude said:
My experience was with $400 players only, I haven't tried cheaper ones.
You really should as it blows away anything at the $400 price point. Sony in an effort to get SACDs off life support introduced the bargin basement CE595. It is a fine example of trickle down technology and has the same chip as their more expensive models. The reviews of the 595 are extremely favorable. A modded version by TRL may be the best SACD player at any price. I'm currently using the 595 as a two channel source with a Bada tube/ss hybrid integrated amp driving two Aerial Model 5s with a Sunfire sub. I couldn't be happier with the 595's performance with SACDs but will probably get a Bada or Shengya CDP for standard CDs. Even when switching my Aerials out with some inexpensive Athena speakers there is still a huge difference between SACDs and regular CDs. With the Sony SCD-CE595 you don't need expensive equipment to hear how superior SACDs really are.
It's amazing that you can buy this SACD player at BestBuy but you can't buy an SACD at BestBuy!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROOT GELUID said:
It is interesting to read the reactions on this forum of SA-CD enthusiasts. There are lots of acoustical and psycho acoustical explainations to why SA-CD and higher resolution pcm sounds better than CD quality (pcm 16bit, 44.1kHz sampling). And having been part of the devolopment of the SA-CD format, I have witnessed many listening tests where my colleagues and myself were able to identify the difference between the different formats. It is still obvious when we make dsd recordings or pcm at 24 bit, 88.2kHz, that when we make the sample rate conversion to 16 bit, 44.1kHz, that the sound quality suffers. This is not in the imagination.
With the subjective perceived sound quality of recordings it is (a bit) more difficult to define what is better. (stereo 2 channel, or 5.0 surround) But also here are many positive experiences with different types of listeners giving many positive reactions to the surround experience. With respect to microphone technique and reproducing the recorded sounds it is explainable why surround can perform better. First loss of definition is caused by masking. We are asking 2 loudspeakers to reproduce a wealth of information, recreating musical sounds and timbres with a spatial component. So many sounds have to emanate from the 2 sources. This means a lot of the sound is channeled through the 'pipes' and a lot of them will 'stick together' and will be perceived as one new sound (changed from the original). This has a degrading effect on musical instrumental timbres, specially when they play together like for instances cellos, bassoons, and trombones in an orchestral recording. It is a fight for a recording engineer to get the best results in stereo with respect to localisation, musical timbres, balance between instruments and the spatial impression; a fight that is made easier when recording in surround. The other reason than masking that surround sounds more natural is that the propagation of the direct sound of the instrument(s) and the reflective sounds from the acoustic happen in a way more similar to how it happens in the real acoustic. And this is exactly what determines the sound character (and quality) of an acoustic. In the many different control rooms we have to work on location, I have never had a better stereo reproductive sound than surround, also (and specifically) in bad too small rooms. The 5 loudspeakers in Eurosound mobile, gave a fantastic reproduction, where the stereo was small sterile and difficult to judge. Same is true for our new, rather small control room in the Amsterdam Concert Gebouw.
The biggest advantage of SA-CD is the surround option. And in my opinion if we would consider setting up audio, where the intention is to get the most faithful sound reproduction, one would have to choose surround over stereo.
I totally agree with your statements. I also believe that for this format to gather even more support it needs multichannel. Many people that have entry level systems simply cannot extract enough added resolution to hear a huge benefit from stereo listening. Multichannel can be like a night and day difference for those listeners. But even with a mid level system the benefit can be easily heard in stereo.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp April 13, 2008 (63 of 71)
|
|
hookedondsd wrote:
I also believe that for this format to gather even more support it needs multichannel.
Since the general marketplace (as distinguished from the "audiophile" niche) doesn't seem to be demanding either higher resolution or multichannel reproduction, it is hard to imagine how mch would result in "even more support".
|
|
|
Post by tailspn April 14, 2008 (64 of 71)
|
|
GROOT GELUID said:
In the many different control rooms we have to work on location, I have never had a better stereo reproductive sound than surround, also (and specifically) in bad too small rooms. The 5 loudspeakers in Eurosound mobile, gave a fantastic reproduction, where the stereo was small sterile and difficult to judge. Same is true for our new, rather small control room in the Amsterdam Concert Gebouw.
The biggest advantage of SA-CD is the surround option. And in my opinion if we would consider setting up audio, where the intention is to get the most faithful sound reproduction, one would have to choose surround over stereo.
Hello Erdo
It's been ten years, and I'm still with the BSO, although the machine room that you knew as my "office" is now Soundmirror's storage closet.
I would just like to underline your remarks about surround sound and small rooms/control rooms. Most of the BSO concert series are archived in both 2.0 and 5.0. Even in a sideways orientation of the DGG room, the roughly 12 foot by 30 foot well damped space, the 5.0 mix is substantiually more realistic. I have the great fortune of being able to stand in the hall durring a rehersal, then walk downstairs and listen to the same rehersal being monitored in either 2.0 or 5.0 channels. with the real experience still fresh in my mind, there is no comparison between 2.0 and 5.0. The surround mix so much more replicates the feeling that you're in the hall, rather than standing in a doorway listening to the orchestra and hall. I believe multichannel it is the primary advancement in the art of electronic recording of acoustic music since stereo in the 50's.
It's great to see your comments here.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
tailspn said:
Hello Erdo
It's been ten years, and I'm still with the BSO, although the machine room that you knew as my "office" is now Soundmirror's storage closet.
I would just like to underline your remarks about surround sound and small rooms/control rooms. Most of the BSO concert series are archived in both 2.0 and 5.0. Even in a sideways orientation of the DGG room, the roughly 12 foot by 30 foot well damped space, the 5.0 mix is substantiually more realistic. I have the great fortune of being able to stand in the hall durring a rehersal, then walk downstairs and listen to the same rehersal being monitored in either 2.0 or 5.0 channels. with the real experience still fresh in my mind, there is no comparison between 2.0 and 5.0. The surround mix so much more replicates the feeling that you're in the hall, rather than standing in a doorway listening to the orchestra and hall. I believe multichannel it is the primary advancement in the art of electronic recording of acoustic music since stereo in the 50's.
It's great to see your comments here.
Tom
Hello Tom,
Very nice to read your reaction here. I always feel that we are in a unique position between the musicians, who take great care in their performances and in doing so, the sounds they produce, but who also are often used to such immense differences with what they hear themselves while performing and what they hear back during many recording playbacks, that they are not interested in the sound anymore, and the listeners to (our) recordings of these musicians. I am convinced that the love for the music and the way the musicians perform this in the acoustic they perform in, is what motivates recording engineers in our work. Such a wonderful venue as the Boston hall is, just makes you want to capture and reproduce that thrilling sound you can here there in real live.
Having had the pleasure of working in many different venues with great artists, who are very often extremely demanding in what they want to hear back in their recordings, it was such an improvement in the way these musicians generally reacted when they listened back in surround.
We were in Scotland with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra and Alfred Brendel, recording for Philips Classics (Mozart: Piano Concertos K414 & K453), and the reactions to the multi channel playback were very revealing. First the tuner, who spend more than 2 days getting Alfred's Steinway optimally prepared (talking about sound quality...), and who is acutely aware of the smallest tuning and sound shadings (and who gave me a very good tip, never to have the grand piano exactly parallel to the rear wall of the hall, even if it is as large as the hall in Dundee), was totally shocked by the positive difference of the surround. Brendel is always very strongly reacting to what he hears back. And with all the technical improvements over the years he had very interesting reactions, making us more aware what he was actually listening for. But he very often found he heard 'too much'. And when we discussed in the recording team that we would record also in surround and have a surround playback we were quite apprehensive to how Alfred would react. His first reaction was to the wonderful responsive acoustic of the hall. He came back after the first takes with a great smile, relating that he revelled in the acoustics and how he heard the piano sing. On the second day only we dared to have the playback in surround. Alfred already knew we were going to do this, but was obviously not really aware of what we were doing. But when we started the surround playback, we never went back as Alfred enjoyed what he heard even more than before. The tuner, however, just went berserk with enthusiasm. He never heard his work in the piano and a piano sound like that in a recording before. That was 5 or 6 years ago and right up till now he tells the great pianists he works for in concerts and recordings about how their recordings could sound and many times when the artists are in Amsterdam, he will persuade them to come to Polyhymnia to hear it for themselves. We have had many very interesting and stimulating listening sessions with several great artists who were persuaded by him to come to us.
These type of reactions, like Alfred and the tuner had, we have had many times over the last 10 years while we were introducing surround monitoring during our recordings. Artists hear what they are doing and that the sound character is actually reheard during the playbacks and they become more motivated in the recordings. The general awareness (with the record buying and audio public) that this is so is slower than we had hoped, but reactions like yours (and luckily many others) strengthen my enthusiasm to do as many recordings, not only in stereo, but also in surround. I am writing this from St Petersburg where we just recorded for the Philharmonic Orchestra and like Boston it is one of the great acoustics in classical music for symphonic music. Sadly this was a stereo only project, but in the future there will be a fantastic recording studio there with 5 B&W 800 D speakers and the possibility to hang the main microphone set up, allowing for all kind of 5.0 surround miking.
Tom I hope you are involved in many great future recording projects in Boston and hopefully also in surround, and that many music/sound lovers will be able to enjoy these recordings at home. I know I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A very interesting thread. As a music lover and hifi enthusiast as a means to an end only, it all depends on the skill of the recording engineer in the first instance, and all domestic hi fi is a compromise. It's a question of where you are prepared to compromise with room design, layout, cost of equipment and other numerous domestic considerations. I have just chucked out my surround sound after 12 years because I found it distracting, and never used it for serious listeninhg but this was NOT with SACD. In perfect studio situations I am sure MCH SACD would be wonderful. At home,I can well believe a well set up SACD surround sound system would be superior to an equivalent in quality redbook 2 channel set up. However, it is hard to get a properly set up (according to SACD recommendations)speaker placement in most living rooms. Really good CD based on first class source material is amazing; equivalently sourced 2CH SACD more so. For the remainder, I'd rather use my imagination than clutter my (large) living room, and spend the money on going to more concerts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Dudley said:
You really should as it blows away anything at the $400 price point. Sony in an effort to get SACDs off life support introduced the bargin basement CE595. It is a fine example of trickle down technology and has the same chip as their more expensive models. The reviews of the 595 are extremely favorable. A modded version by TRL may be the best SACD player at any price. I'm currently using the 595 as a two channel source with a Bada tube/ss hybrid integrated amp driving two Aerial Model 5s with a Sunfire sub. I couldn't be happier with the 595's performance with SACDs but will probably get a Bada or Shengya CDP for standard CDs. Even when switching my Aerials out with some inexpensive Athena speakers there is still a huge difference between SACDs and regular CDs. With the Sony SCD-CE595 you don't need expensive equipment to hear how superior SACDs really are.
It's amazing that you can buy this SACD player at BestBuy but you can't buy an SACD at BestBuy!!!!!
With all due respect, I believe the stock, out of the box Sony 595 is a great bargain and will compete with players that cost much more.I own one. Further, after much research, I know that the TRL (Tube Research Labs) modded 595 is going to give sound quality that it is far beyond what most people would expect to come from a unit that costs in the realm of $750 plus the original unit ($130-150). Where I disagree is that this is most likely not the best unit availble at any price. There are some Modded units out there that cost a wheelbarrell full of money more and the sound reflects that.
I, who have only the money of mere mortals, am waiting for my own TRL 595 Modded unit and I'm wild with anticipation, it is really supposed to be something special. Although I take the following comment with a grain of salt, some have said it will comptete with units costing $20k... maybe, maybe not, either way I'm sure its going to be very special. I should also say the gentleman who owns TRL, Paul Weitzel very personable, and has a great deal of experience in this industry, and has great respect, even from most of his competitors. If you google the Sony CE595 (and TRL Modded), I think you'll find all this information checks out. However, at this level, personal taste comes deeply into play and who knows? Maybe the Modded 595 is better for you than some of the other much more expensive units.
I'm basing my opinion on that of someone who has the money, time, and willingness to compare all these units and even he gives the Modded 595 its due. So this is mostly second and third hand information which must really wind the watch of the true audiophiles out there, and I don't blame wouldn't blame them one bit. But I have researched a lot of topics and this is my opinion.
One last piece of information from the enthusiasts point of view. Burn in. This means that your unit is going to sound better after up to five hundered hours of use. It just takes that long for the electronics to wear in and perform properly. So if you like, even your stock 595 out of the box, it will be much better after a few hundred hours.
Hope you all are enjoying your SACDs. I think they are the best overall format. At my age, getting up and changing LPs every few minutes is a dealbreaker. I love the sound of my SACDs as well.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 April 22, 2009 (68 of 71)
|
|
Like many others have commentated on this thread I found it an intresting read. It is a pity that it degenerated into a Stereo Vs multichannel debate. My living room in which I house my system is long and narrow more of an "I" shape than a rectangle with windows at either end. In such circumstances I am somewhat limited in my speakers placement. It would not suite the purists who inhabit this site I am sure. However lively the debate on this thread is, surely the point is the enjoyment of the music. This is the objective rather than an in depth anaylsis of the equipment used to play it on. What matters is that I enjoy my system. There are better systems , more expensive systems but what matters to me is how it sounds to me. Some Stereo recordings are far better than Multichannel but equally some recordings beg for multichannel. It is not so much that one is bad the other good rather they are just differing sides of the same coin. I tend to judge each recording on its merits and my personal preference. This thread started off by asking if there was any point to SACD and DVDA given the limitations of hearing etc. I am getting on (I am in my mid fifties) and presumably have the same scale of hearing loss as others in my age group and even I can hear the differences on my modest system. It is not the extended frequency response or the higher resolution or the equipment it is the sum total of all the parts and that depends on everthing from frame of mind to room furnishings. It is very subjective and also unique to that listner. You can prove anything with response curves,statistics imaging ability etc but if the music has no response within your heart why bother. I would rather hear a piece of music which caused a negative reaction within me than listen to a wonderfully presented and recorded work which left me cold and apathetic
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already have a few hundreds of SACDs, DVD-A's, 24/96 FLAC vinyl rips and to me there's no point... going back to CDs, I just can't listen to them any more.
|
|
|
Post by hookeve April 22, 2009 (70 of 71)
|
|
In my personal opinion:
Today is easy and cheap to configure a good multichannel system to enjoy the multichannel SACD, DVD-A/V, CD-DTS or BD musical discs.
Is not needed at all that all the speakers are equals. If you have not free space rear of your listening points you can put smallers without change the tonal balance.
The miracle is the EQ and room acoustics solutions provided by the new multichannel receivers. You can control not only the gain, balance, delays but also phase control, reverberation, standing waves, ecc. In stereo too!
Now I enjoy listening the music like ever. I have about 400 SACDS, 50 DVD-As, 100 musical DVD-V and 100 CD-DTS. When a purist audiophile friend listened my system first in multichannel and them in stereo "purist mode" I told me: "The multichannel is very superior. I didn't believe it".
I have a 40 m2 room but in "L" form. The frontal speakers are 3,2 ms. from the nice listening point but the rears only 0,9. The frontals are Sonus Faber Grand Piano Home 1st. edition; the central is the SF Solo Home and the rears are SB Concertino Home 1st. edition. The difference channel level between front and rears speakers in the principal listening point is only 1,5 dBs.
My own miracolous receiver is a very impressive Pioneer SC-LX81. And my universal player, a PIONEER 989 AVi.
Excuses for my bad English.
|
|
