Days of Future Passed: Which sounds best?

[Jodi]

Which disc of The Moody Blues' "Days of Future Passed" sounds best to you?

the Mobile Fidelity UltraDisc II (24K gold CD)
the multichannel hybrid SACD version (but prefer to listen to 2-channel stereo only)

Jodi

[zicmubleu]

Not many of us are going to have both CDs available to compare. I have only recently listened to the SACD but through Sennheiser headphones and I know I have heard the album on a regular CD not your gold version no doubt, and many years ago on vinyl. This is a classic album and therefore brings back memories of the distant past, personally I sort of miss the hiss and pops of my old Garrard turntable since it was part of the original experience. Don't let John72953 read this thread 'cause I am never going back to the TT experience - way too much work. Which sounds better to you?

I personally am glad to see that Hayward rereleased several Moody Blues albums in the SACD format. Now if I could get my hands on some Doors, BS&T and ELP in that format that would be great.

[naturephoto1]

I have the 2 disk Deluxe SACD version of Days of Future Passed. I do not have the Mobile Fidelity CD available for comparison. I like the SACD very much, but can not recall if I have listened to it in 2 channel and have not tried at this point to compare it to my early original British vinyl pressing LPs that I have.

Rich

[Clark Kent]

A lot of purists were unhappy with the mastering on the Moody Blues' SACD's and prefer older cds. I still have all seven though.

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

A lot of purists were unhappy with the mastering on the Moody Blues' SACD's and prefer older cds. I still have all seven though.

I have all 7 of the SACDs.

Rich

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

Not many of us are going to have both CDs available to compare. I have only recently listened to the SACD but through Sennheiser headphones and I know I have heard the album on a regular CD not your gold version no doubt, and many years ago on vinyl. This is a classic album and therefore brings back memories of the distant past, personally I sort of miss the hiss and pops of my old Garrard turntable since it was part of the original experience. Don't let John72953 read this thread 'cause I am never going back to the TT experience - way too much work. Which sounds better to you?

I personally am glad to see that Hayward rereleased several Moody Blues albums in the SACD format. Now if I could get my hands on some Doors, BS&T and ELP in that format that would be great.

Hey Steve,

That's funny! And I will always first and formost be a vinyl fan, however and after having listened to a few SACD's recently, I must admit that the sound is very, very nice. I will most definately be purchasing more discs as the days and weeks and years pass.

John

PS~ My new OPPO DV-980H is set to arrive on Tuesday. Will be nice to hear SACD sampled @ 2.8

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by John72953

Hey Steve,

That's funny! And I will always first and formost be a vinyl fan, however and after having listened to a few SACD's recently, I must admit that the sound is very, very nice. I will most definately be purchasing more discs as the days and weeks and years pass.

John

PS~ My new OPPO DV-980H is set to arrive on Tuesday. Will be nice to hear SACD sampled @ 2.8

Hi John,

When its time and you can afford it, you may wish to consider upgrading parts of the player if Dave Schulte thinks that he can improve the performance for CD playback as well. As I have been indicating, many of the best recorded CDs that I have, at least with my system approach or are close to the quality of many of my SACDs.

Rich

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

Hi John,

When its time and you can afford it, you may wish to consider upgrading parts of the player if Dave Schulte thinks that he can improve the performance for CD playback as well. As I have been indicating, many of the best recorded CDs that I have, at least with my system approach or are close to the quality of many of my SACDs.

Rich

Hey Rich,

How much would an upgrade cost? I know it's dependent on the componant and stuff. It sounds like he does wonderful work, but I get this sense that the cost is rather astronomical..I could be wrong though. Come to think of it, this might be good thread topic for you to start as you've been heavily involved in componant modifications, and I'm sure as people get educated they might be inclided to consider this road for themselves.

John

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by John72953

Hey Rich,

How much would an upgrade cost? I know it's dependent on the componant and stuff. It sounds like he does wonderful work, but I get this sense that the cost is rather astronomical..I could be wrong though. Come to think of it, this might be good thread topic for you to start as you've been heavily involved in componant modifications, and I'm sure as people get educated they might be inclided to consider this road for themselves.

John

John,

It is not cheap. Upgrades normally run close to $1,000, some below, some above. I would expect that it would be no more that $1,000 for what you have/or will have. By the way for anyone that thinks that I get paid for recommending upgrades or pay less than anyone else, I do not. If you have any questions about it, contact Dave directly. But, if you can improve the sound of a couple of hundred dollar machine to perform as good as something in the $10,000 or so range and you do not have to spend that kind of money, it might be something to consider.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

But, if you can improve the sound of a couple of hundred dollar machine to perform as good as something in the $10,000 or so range and you do not have to spend that kind of money, it might be something to consider.

That's a very valid point! Maybe one day! Lemme work on getting a new TT first though!

John

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by John72953

That's a very valid point! Maybe one day! Lemme work on getting a new TT first though!

John

John,

I know that your TT takes precedence. I am just making the comment since a lot of CDs can really sound quite good and most here on the forum have absolutely no concept. The same kind of improvement can be true of the rest of the electronic components (amps, preamps, receivers) in the system.

Rich

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

John,

I know that your TT takes precedence. I am just making the comment since a lot of CDs can really sound quite good and most here on the forum have absolutely no concept. The same kind of improvement can be true of the rest of the electronic components (amps, preamps, receivers) in the system.

Rich

Rich,

Back in the day I had several hundred CD's, but because vinyl was my primary interest I never paid much attention to the quality and usually only played them in my car or for background music and when having dinner parties and the like.

Things have changed considerably and now that I'm in a position to having to listen "only" to digital, I have become more attentive. There is no doubt that , just like vinyl releases, there is a great deal of difference between CD's. Of course the same can be said for SACD, although I only have 4 at the moment and can't really comment.

In terms of electronic components, various cabling, quality equipment racking, acoustical treatments , etc, I agree 100%. It's the slightest change that sometimes makes the biggest difference. One's mind just has to be open to accept that possibility.

Good post Rich.

John

[dobyblue]

I agree with Bob Stuart from Meridian Audio about CD - it is just not able to be truly transparent to the analog source. The sampling rate and the bit depth don't allow for it, simple mathematics.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

CONCLUSIONS
This article has reviewed the issues surrounding the transmission of high-resolution digital audio. It is suggested that a channel that attains audible transparency will be equivalent to a PCM channel that uses:

* 58kHz sampling rate, and
* 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping, or
* 20-bit representation in a flat noise floor, i.e. a ‘rectangular’ channel

This conclusion has the following obvious implications:

* The CD channel with 44.1kHz 16-bit coding (even with noise shaping to extend the resolution) is inadequate
* Even 48kHz sampling is not quite high enough
* Sampling at 88.2kHz or 96kHz is too high, and therefore wasteful of data
* The use of sampling rates above 96kHz to convey a wider audio bandwidth cannot currently be justified

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I agree with Bob Stuart from Meridian Audio about CD - it is just not able to be truly transparent to the analog source. The sampling rate and the bit depth don't allow for it, simple mathematics.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

CONCLUSIONS
This article has reviewed the issues surrounding the transmission of high-resolution digital audio. It is suggested that a channel that attains audible transparency will be equivalent to a PCM channel that uses:

* 58kHz sampling rate, and
* 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping, or
* 20-bit representation in a flat noise floor, i.e. a ‘rectangular’ channel

This conclusion has the following obvious implications:

* The CD channel with 44.1kHz 16-bit coding (even with noise shaping to extend the resolution) is inadequate
* Even 48kHz sampling is not quite high enough
* Sampling at 88.2kHz or 96kHz is too high, and therefore wasteful of data
* The use of sampling rates above 96kHz to convey a wider audio bandwidth cannot currently be justified

Steve,

I do not care about what Meridian has suggested and the conclusions about the information that you are providing. The proof is in the hearing of the sound and resolution of well recorded CDs with the proper stock or upgraded players along with the appurtenant equipment. I wish that you or someone had been able to hear the players and equipment when I was trying to make the comparison of the stock versus upgraded equipment. It is really remarkable what is recorded and recoverable on a lot of redbook CDs with the proper equipment.

Rich

[dobyblue]

What is recoverable is still limited by the source.

I'm not saying there aren't some fantastic sounding CD's out there...but in the rock genre there have only been a small handful in the last 15 years and nothing will make up for over-use of drc and massive amounts of digital clipping. Of course that's the fault of the mastering and not the medium itself, but CD is still limited by its specs. No doubt a CD on a reference Marantz will sound better than an SACD on an entry-level player, but that's like racing a Diablo on ice against a Yugo on asphalt...a totally ridiculous comparison. You have to spend far more money on CD to get sound that SACD provides at 1/10th of the cost and given that there isn't much on CD that isn't available on vinyl it's hard to want to spend any amount of money on this format anymore.

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

What is recoverable is still limited by the source.

I'm not saying there aren't some fantastic sounding CD's out there...but in the rock genre there have only been a small handful in the last 15 years and nothing will make up for over-use of drc and massive amounts of digital clipping. Of course that's the fault of the mastering and not the medium itself, but CD is still limited by its specs. No doubt a CD on a reference Marantz will sound better than an SACD on an entry-level player, but that's like racing a Diablo on ice against a Yugo on asphalt...a totally ridiculous comparison. You have to spend far more money on CD to get sound that SACD provides at 1/10th of the cost and given that there isn't much on CD that isn't available on vinyl it's hard to want to spend any amount of money on this format anymore.

I am not understanding this, did you mean it the other way around? Surely there are many more CD albums available than vinyl at this time. Are you referencing just the SACD format in comparison to vinyl?

Back to the OP question, in case it wasn't clear on my original post, I was a bit disappointed by the SACD but still pleased and glad that I bought it. I don't have the discriminating ear to hear the full range of difference between the formats and will agree 100% with Dobyblue that the key is in the production quality of the recording to the media more than any other aspect.

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

I am not understanding this, did you mean it the other way around? Surely there are many more CD albums available than vinyl at this time. Are you referencing just the SACD format in comparison to vinyl?

Back to the OP question, in case it wasn't clear on my original post, I was a bit disappointed by the SACD but still pleased and glad that I bought it. I don't have the discriminating ear to hear the full range of difference between the formats and will agree 100% with Dobyblue that the key is in the production quality of the recording to the media more than any other aspect.

I think that what Steve is suggesting is to spend money on vinyl and SACD. He does not feel that there is much reason to purchase or spend money on CDs. And actually, there are many more albums available on vinyl than have ever been released on CD or any other format.

Rich

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

I am not understanding this, did you mean it the other way around? Surely there are many more CD albums available than vinyl at this time.

I didn't mean new titles, sorry, I was referencing how much vinyl there is on the markets that you can really pick and choose pressings by country, condition, etc., etc.

From Discogs, GEMM, eBay, Music Stack, and all the individual sites that run their own lists the amount of vinyl to choose from is more than enough to destroy any man's budget.

There are over 3 million vinyl items for sale on Discogs alone.

[tlake6659]

I think that the MFSL Gold CD is much better than the SACD. Also, the old first pressing aluminum CD is also wonderful.