SACDs

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by cembros

I just got my hands on the Pink Floyd 5.1 SACD and man is it amazing. I'm hooked and need more. Is there a list of 5.1 SACD's I can find anywhere?

Here are the top-1000 sellers on the multichannel hybrid SACD list, at Acoustic Sounds:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/inde...ltsPerPage=100

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by cembros

Are these all multi ch?

yes...all of them
Many of them OOP

[Strilo]

Is the Stranger still ungodly expensive on Multi-Channel SACD?

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Strilo

Is the Stranger still ungodly expensive on Multi-Channel SACD?

Yes, it's the only way to still get the 5.1 mix of the album. Mobile Fidelity did release a new, stereo-only SACD that betters the stereo mastering of the expensive SACD.

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/8011

[McCrutchy]

The Queen Greatest Hits and Greatest Hits II SHM-SACD releases that were announced for December 2012 (and then cancelled) are now back on with a March 6th release date:

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=UIGY-9532

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=UIGY-9533

[Jbug]

Just got into hi rez audio recently. I'd like to know how the Black Sabbath SACD "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" sounds and if it's worth buying.

[HiDefBear]

Crap. Delayed again to March 5, 2013.

[Strilo]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Yes, it's the only way to still get the 5.1 mix of the album. Mobile Fidelity did release a new, stereo-only SACD that betters the stereo mastering of the expensive SACD.

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/8011

Too bad. I would love that one. Not worth $150 tho.

[dib2]

OK I have to ask you guys something I asked myself sometime ago. Why are you buying SACDs for many times more than what you could get the flac version for from places like HDTracks and Linn records. I know some of the SACDs are in multi-channel but still when you master an album from a 30-40 year old original master there is not much you can do to make it sound better. I bought the Who on SACD a couple of years ago and it is a good mastering, better than some others I own but it is still not taking advantage of current sound systems capabilities. The detail you get from an SACD player or even a FLAC at 192K is not going to improve if you don't get a good recording to begin with.

Are all of you primarily interested in multi-channel ? I know I stopped collecting SACDs and I ripped all of my SACDs and CDs to flac and now I only listen to FLAC files and the occasional mp3. I use a bryston BDP-2 and BDA-2. No one can tell me which file is a 192K flac and which is an MP3. Most people will hear a good quality flac @192K of something like the doors or the Who and then hear an mp3 or 44.1K flac of a recent recording of a classical composer and people think that the better quality recording.

[JWgrayhawk]

Originally Posted by dib2

OK I have to ask you guys something I asked myself sometime ago. Why are you buying SACDs for many times more than what you could get the flac version for from places like HDTracks and Linn records. I know some of the SACDs are in multi-channel but still when you master an album from a 30-40 year old original master there is not much you can do to make it sound better. I bought the Who on SACD a couple of years ago and it is a good mastering, better than some others I own but it is still not taking advantage of current sound systems capabilities. The detail you get from an SACD player or even a FLAC at 192K is not going to improve if you don't get a good recording to begin with.

Are all of you primarily interested in multi-channel ? I know I stopped collecting SACDs and I ripped all of my SACDs and CDs to flac and now I only listen to FLAC files and the occasional mp3. I use a bryston BDP-2 and BDA-2. No one can tell me which file is a 192K flac and which is an MP3. Most people will hear a good quality flac @192K of something like the doors or the Who and then hear an mp3 or 44.1K flac of a recent recording of a classical composer and people think that the mp3 is the who or doors.

You're right on- the mix is so much more important than the recording format. sampling rate and resolution. I have to laugh when people get so hung up on the numbers, e.g. I've seen people complaining that the Zep O2 BR is only 48 and not 96k. I think a well-mastered recording at CD resolution is likely indistinguishable from any higher resolution, even 24/192.

I love sacd and dvd-a because of the mch capabilities. To me, a well-mixed mch recording is much more enjoyable than the stereo version. I am so sad that mch never caught on; the irony is that now so many people have the capability to enjoy mch music, given the home theater setups that are fairly commonplace. But most people, it would seem, just don't sit down and enjoy music anymore- most listening is done on the go, either in cars or on portable players. But to me, there's nothing better than sitting down to be immersed in some classic music that is even more compelling in mch. Add your fave beverage, some candle light, perhaps even some "herbal enhancement," and it's Nirvana (the mythical place, not the band).

Thank God for people like SW that are keeping the mch music scene alive, if barely. Now, if he could just get to do one of his pet projects and release Close to the Edge in 5.1, that really would be Nirvana! But as much as I love that album- probably my all-time fave- I didn't even consider the new sacd- no mch, no sale.

[Strilo]

Yup for me it's the multichannel. Keep in mind, I won't pay more than like $50 for a disc...

[JWgrayhawk]

Originally Posted by Strilo

Yup for me it's the multichannel. Keep in mind, I won't pay more than like $50 for a disc...

MCH rules; I listen to my dvd-a and sacd's more than my CD's, even though the CD's outnumber them by probably 10-1. But I won't pay anywhere near $50. I don't like to pay more than $20. I held off for quite a while on WYWH sacd, even though it ranks right up there near CTTE in my book, until I finally found it for $33. I can't believe the price they charge for some sacd's, esp. those SHM's, that aren't even mch.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by Strilo

Yup for me it's the multichannel. Keep in mind, I won't pay more than like $50 for a disc...

+1 for both statements (as should be clear from my sig)

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by JWgrayhawk

MCH rules; I listen to my dvd-a and sacd's more than my CD's, even though the CD's outnumber them by probably 10-1. But I won't pay anywhere near $50. I don't like to pay more than $20. I held off for quite a while on WYWH sacd, even though it ranks right up there near CTTE in my book, until I finally found it for $33. I can't believe the price they charge for some sacd's, esp. those SHM's, that aren't even mch.

It's cheap compared to how much they cost when they go out of print. Get 'em while you can.

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by JWgrayhawk

MCH rules; I listen to my dvd-a and sacd's more than my CD's, even though the CD's outnumber them by probably 10-1. But I won't pay anywhere near $50. I don't like to pay more than $20. I held off for quite a while on WYWH sacd, even though it ranks right up there near CTTE in my book, until I finally found it for $33. I can't believe the price they charge for some sacd's, esp. those SHM's, that aren't even mch.

MCH doesn't rule very well in my 2ch system. And those SHM SACD's are usually worth them money. At least to my ears they are.

[JWgrayhawk]

Originally Posted by BluRayFred

MCH doesn't rule very well in my 2ch system. And those SHM SACD's are usually worth them money. At least to my ears they are.

Do you think the sq improvement is due to remastering, to the superiority of sacd over cd or to the superiority of shm over regular sacd's? Personally, I doubt if I could hear any difference between a cd and an sacd of the same mix, but then I am not really an audiophile, just a music lover with a good system that is decidedly sub-par compared to most audiophiles' systems.

[Jbug]

Originally Posted by Jbug

Just got into hi rez audio recently. I'd like to know how the Black Sabbath SACD "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" sounds and if it's worth buying.

Speaking of spending 50.00 or more for a disc, I'm still wondering if the above SACD is worth the money. Thanks.

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by JWgrayhawk

Do you think the sq improvement is due to remastering, to the superiority of sacd over cd or to the superiority of shm over regular sacd's? Personally, I doubt if I could hear any difference between a cd and an sacd of the same mix, but then I am not really an audiophile, just a music lover with a good system that is decidedly sub-par compared to most audiophiles' systems.

I think it's a bit of all three. The remaster has to be top notch and the bit rate of SACD is vastly superior to redbook. The special green ink that coats the back of the disc is reported to be very helpful and then the fact that the disc is single layer helps. These SACD's are very popular and sell very well. I notice an astonishing difference between the SHM SACD's and redbook CD's of the same music. The Universal SHM SACD of Steely Dan's Aja is a great example. I have that album on original release vinyl, remastered vinyl and redbook CD. The SHM SACD is superior to all of them. The best I've ever heard that album sound. Reference quality music my friend.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Jbug

Speaking of spending 50.00 or more for a disc, I'm still wondering if the above SACD is worth the money. Thanks.

$50.00 is steep to pay for a music CD, especially when you can buy the regular CD for $10.00. It may not be SACD quality, but you can utilize the DTS, or Dolby Digital multi-channel soundfields on your A/V receiver, to enhance the sound to simulated 5.1.

[JWgrayhawk]

Originally Posted by BluRayFred

I think it's a bit of all three. The remaster has to be top notch and the bit rate of SACD is vastly superior to redbook. The special green ink that coats the back of the disc is reported to be very helpful and then the fact that the disc is single layer helps. These SACD's are very popular and sell very well. I notice an astonishing difference between the SHM SACD's and redbook CD's of the same music. The Universal SHM SACD of Steely Dan's Aja is a great example. I have that album on original release vinyl, remastered vinyl and redbook CD. The SHM SACD is superior to all of them. The best I've ever heard that album sound. Reference quality music my friend.

I would tend to think that the remastering is still the most significant difference, but then as I said I'm no audiophile. But I would love to see a double-blind comparison of the same mix done on both CD and shm sacd. I doubt if most people could tell the difference, but the trained ears of an audiophile are a different story.

Checked out your gallery to see your equipment- very impressive, though to be honest I'm familiar with little of it. What are the advantages of cable elevators? Also surprised to see a Toshiba dvd player; w/ your high end tastes, I'd have thought there would be an Oppo- I assume that is your sacd player???

Given your moniker, I would assume you have a separate system for video, which is mch. Do you also listen to mch music? I guess this is not the place for a discussion of mch vs. stereo, but I would like to hear your reasons for preferring 2 channel. Wouldn't mind a listening session either- are those wall panels acoustical treatments? Very thorough...