|
|
|
I just bought the Denon DVD758, their current SACD/DVD-A deck, and I have a question about some of the reviews posted on this site.
1. When you guys review the stereo mix on a hybrid disk, are you talking about the high-rez stereo or the Redbook stereo? I much prefer stereo, so I am the most interested in the sonic quality of the high-rez stereo (but I will listen to the surround mix just for fun). Do you often see differences in the actual mix on the different layers, not just the difference between high-rez and Redbook?
I look forward to sharing with a community of real music fans! How many are local to Southern California?
P.S. Just FYI, I just picked up the DVD758, list 350, at a Southern California Costco for $69!
|
|
|
Post by emaidel May 11, 2009 (2 of 22)
|
|
I can only speak for myself, but my system isn't a multi-channel, but a 2-channel system. Whenever I compare the sound quality between the redbook CD layer and the SACD layer, the SACD layer ALWAYS outperforms the CD layer. There is a good deal more air around the various instruments in the orchestra; the strings sound sweeter; the brass "throatier"; and everything takes on a quality that seems to make the music seem more alive.
That's my opinion, and I'm sure others will join in with similar ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
emaidel said:
I can only speak for myself, but my system isn't a multi-channel, but a 2-channel system. Whenever I compare the sound quality between the redbook CD layer and the SACD layer, the SACD layer ALWAYS outperforms the CD layer. There is a good deal more air around the various instruments in the orchestra; the strings sound sweeter; the brass "throatier"; and everything takes on a quality that seems to make the music seem more alive.
That's my opinion, and I'm sure others will join in with similar ones.
I noticed this sort of difference between CD and vinyl. I have switched between a recording on CD and vinyl playing simulatiously and noticed the same differences. I hear a lot of talk about space or transparency, ext., but for me it boils down to music that sounds more human, like it was performed by actual people in a real place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Englitrob said:
Welcome to SACD. Thankyou for listen Stereo Englitrob.
By what I see here nobody review the regular CD layer, cause we don't accept anymore low rez formats. When I review a disc I inform that is the SACD Stereo layer, I refuse to listen MC.
DSD mastering for a SACD disc is so sensitive and transparent ( due a broadband of 100 khz and a hi sampling rate of 2.8mhz) that it show all details of the multi track master tape,
as in/out of channels, equalization, compressors, reverb etc...
Iam a audiophile and layman in classical music, but you will love this site as the guys here are about 80/90% musiclovers.
Regards,
|
|
|
Post by tream May 11, 2009 (5 of 22)
|
|
Englitrob said:
I just bought the Denon DVD758, their current SACD/DVD-A deck, and I have a question about some of the reviews posted on this site.
1. When you guys review the stereo mix on a hybrid disk, are you talking about the high-rez stereo or the Redbook stereo? I much prefer stereo, so I am the most interested in the sonic quality of the high-rez stereo (but I will listen to the surround mix just for fun). Do you often see differences in the actual mix on the different layers, not just the difference between high-rez and Redbook?
I look forward to sharing with a community of real music fans! How many are local to Southern California?
P.S. Just FYI, I just picked up the DVD758, list 350, at a Southern California Costco for $69!
I listen to both LP's and SACD - you will find the biggest difference between vinyl and SACD if you adopt multichannel, which provides a hall presence that LP can't match (OK, these are opinions, but ones based on a whole lot of listening to live and recorded music) - otherwise it is a tossup between vinyl and SACD, with vinyl having the advantage of a much larger catalog as well as a lot more activity recently, especially in jazz and rock (OTOH, there is no doubt that cleaning an LP is a real pain).
Both formats roast RBCD.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 May 12, 2009 (6 of 22)
|
|
Welcome
The type of music you listen to is just as important as whether you are into surround or stereo. you don't say which type of music you are a fan of. If you are a fan of Classical you may think that the surround option is not for you, however on a well recorded classical disc the rears add to the ambience and often you are not aware of its existence until you switch to stereo mode. On the other hand many pop records are made for multichannel and sound so much better as such. However good the multichannel replay is there are compromises because most Multichannel equipment is built around a universal player . High end multichannel set ups just do not exist. Really high end players are invariably stereo and these are claimed to offer the best in reproduction. However unless the makers come up with a comparable very high end multichannel only player the argument is unresolved about which is better. Far more important is the fact that you have the flexibility to enjoy the music the way you want to. Occasionally but not very often there are diffrences between the multichannel layer and the stereo layer of the SACD this applies mostly to the pop and rock genres, Very few on here review the RBCD layer or equivalent RBCD unless it is as an illustration of a particular point. (eg read the reviews of Michael Jackson's Thriller which were less than complimentary to the SACD myself included) Most people on this site are passionate in equal measure about SACD the disc and the the equipment used. Have a look at some of the longer theads to get a flavour of what this site is about and enjoy yourself
|
|
|
|
|
|
With 50 years of experience with vinyl starting with mono LP’s then moving to stereo all I can say is I am glad that we now have SACD, stereo or MC.
I have a huge classical LP collection, mostly imported pressings.
As others have already mentioned a lot depends on type of music that you listen to, my main interest is classical and for classical vinyl has several problems.
In very quiet passages the surface noise simply overwhelms, it can potentially be louder than the music, and the better the equipment the more junk will come through.
Compression is another problem with vinyl, uncompressed orchestral LP’s do not exist, no cartridge can possibly track such a signal.
Print through is another annoying feature of vinyl, you always hear a faint signal followed by the real bang later on.
Vahe
|
|
|
Post by tream May 12, 2009 (8 of 22)
|
|
wolf359 said:
Welcome
However good the multichannel replay is there are compromises because most Multichannel equipment is built around a universal player . High end multichannel set ups just do not exist. Really high end players are invariably stereo and these are claimed to offer the best in reproduction. However unless the makers come up with a comparable very high end multichannel only player the argument is unresolved about which is better.
I would love to hear Kal's take on your assertion. BTW, it is not necessary to purchase a universal player to obtain multichannel SACD sound (yes, you say most, I just want to clarify). I have long had a Sony XA9000ES (which received an "A" rating in Stereophile) which is SACD/RBCD only, and I just ordered the XA5400ES which Kal's initial review indicates may be even better than the 9000.
If you move up to dcs or Meitner then what you say may be true - although Meitner used to offer multichannel capability. I have not been able to hear either, so I don't know if they offer true superiority over my Sony's, but having heard a demo of 2 channel vs. multichannel sound a few years back with high end speakers (Wilson Watt/Puppies) there was absolutely no doubt that multichannel offered a far more involving sound over the stereo, so you give up a major element if you have stereo only, IMHO.
The ironic thing is that I am currently without a multichannel system.....but working on getting one up again. It can be a challenge......
|
|
|
|
|
|
tream said:
I would love to hear Kal's take on your assertion.
An assertion without more than anecdotal evidence can be dismissed as personal opinion. Take a dose of Toole's book, Sound Reproduction, and call me in the morning.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
FullRangeMan said:
Welcome to SACD. Thankyou for listen Stereo Englitrob.
By what I see here nobody review the regular CD layer, cause we don't accept anymore low rez formats. When I review a disc I inform that is the SACD Stereo layer, I refuse to listen MC.
DSD mastering for a SACD disc is so sensitive and transparent ( due a broadband of 100 khz and a hi sampling rate of 2.8mhz) that it show all details of the multi track master tape,
as in/out of channels, equalization, compressors, reverb etc...
Iam a audiophile and layman in classical music, but you will love this site as the guys here are about 80/90% musiclovers.
Regards,
IF one considers the history of "stereo" as performed by Olson and Bell Labs, multichannel was the mode of reproduction, NOT two channels, but in the earlier configuration six channels were used. Indeed, the term "stereo" was not to describe two-channel reproduction, but the sound field produced, i.e., a three-dimensional sound field, and it was determined that AT LEAST three channels were needed at a minimum, therefore the three-channel recordings from Mercury and later, RCA. It was the invention of the two-channel Westrex cutting head for vinyl that two-channel reproduction became the norm, two-channel vinyl records are much cheaper than three channel tapes. Two-channel stereo is not "true" stereo, but is accepted as such by its huge presence in the marketplace...
That being said, I too listen in two-channel insofar as I don't have at present the funds or space for five channel, although I hope to remedy that in the future. Three-channel is doable, and I hope to get there this year, I just wished that there were more Mercury and Living Stereo recordings in their original, three-channel format...
|
|
