Post by hawk December 5, 2007 (101 of 113)
|
|
Sorry but I just need to add this as well regarding the .1 issue: I really enjoy the low bass levels that the .1 in most SACDs give. They allow you to really appeciate performers like Ray Brown. I had a few Ray Brown recordings in my Jazz collection that I listened to in SACD without a subwoofer. My regular speakers, I thought, produced enough bass. But when I connected a subwoofer and listened to the same recordings, I developed a new found appreciation for bass players and bass playing. I really started to understand how bass can underpin the whole performance.
Also, I discovered that with the addition of a subwoofer to take fuller advantage of the .1 in the 5.1 recording, I no longer needed to always be sitting in the middle of my surround sound set up in order to enjoy the music or play the music as loud. Because lower frequencies travel in all directions, I was able to move around the room and still enjoy most of the music. I still prefer to be in the ideal listening position for surround, but it has become less of an issue for me.
Lastly, I just need to say to those out there who say they don't have the room for a MC; really? I know SACD MC setups are best if there are at least 5 full sized equal speakers, but technology is developing so rapidly that you can get a lot of performance out of smaller speakers that can be added to a system with the right amplifier. If it is a case of denying yourself the benefits of MC or comprimising and getting smaller surround speakers I would opt for the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except that one does not need the .1 to benefit from a subwoofer, I agree with everything you said above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to listen to a personal cassette player when at Uni, 1991-1994, and only got into CD's in 1995-ish. I'm 34.
Anyway, I agree that a low to mid-end MC channel SACD-dedicated system will give audiophile sound. Cos I have one and it does.
I also disagree that you can make a sweeping statement liek "you don't need a subwoofer". Well, if you like and want bass, then you do. There are very few, and I mean, VERY few, speakers that can come even close to what a subwoofer can do. What si more, movies especially, but even SACD is recorded with specific 0.1 information. Also, dedicating low-frequency sounds to your 0.1 channle frees up your amplifier and speakers to concentrate more on teh midrange, enhancign the overall quality of your sound.
|
|
|
Post by fabiete December 5, 2007 (104 of 113)
|
|
LSO Live said:
I'd be really interested to find out whether listeners ever use the stereo SACD mix or are most of you setup to listen to the multi-channel mix.
Is it worthwhile including stereo mixes? We are finding that the playing time of the SACD layer with both 5.1 and stereo mixes can be quite a bit less than the CD layer. Does anybody need the stereo mix? It could make the difference between fitting a work on one SACD that would otherwise take up two, even though a CD version would be one disc.
Any views would be appreciated.
Chaz
I use both. If there is a good MC recording I listen to it, otherwise I listen to stereo. And since I often enjoy my SACDs late in the evening through headphones the stereo layer is vital for me.
|
|
|
Post by Livy December 5, 2007 (105 of 113)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
I used to listen to a personal cassette player when at Uni, 1991-1994, and only got into CD's in 1995-ish. I'm 34.
Anyway, I agree that a low to mid-end MC channel SACD-dedicated system will give audiophile sound. Cos I have one and it does.
I also disagree that you can make a sweeping statement liek "you don't need a subwoofer". Well, if you like and want bass, then you do. There are very few, and I mean, VERY few, speakers that can come even close to what a subwoofer can do. What si more, movies especially, but even SACD is recorded with specific 0.1 information. Also, dedicating low-frequency sounds to your 0.1 channle frees up your amplifier and speakers to concentrate more on teh midrange, enhancign the overall quality of your sound.
It's always the unknown that gets you in conversations like these.
If you've never heard a speaker like B & O or something in that area, you might well think that a subwoofer is essential for "good" bass response. Likewise, if you haven't listened to much live classical music, you might have a narrow idea of what "good" bass actually is. There's a great difference between what people believe sounds "good" and an accurate sonic reproduction of a performance.
In the late 60's, Columbia Records used to put a mono bass track onto their stereo records - these were known at the time as "Dynagrove" recordings, I believe. People thought they sounded great - they provided a nice, "warm", bottom end to the recording even on the least expensive stereo turntable systems. But how many people knew that they were listening to a juiced up bassy sound? Not many. How many times, in the late 80's and early 90's, did we read reviews of CD reissues of these performances (The Bernstein Royal Edition comes to mind) where the reviewer would comment, "Ah, but I miss the warm sound of the LP". The truth is that that warm sound was never really there, it was a production "insert".
Likewise with subwoofers and music. Not much in classical music hits the subwoofer level if you're EQ'ing flat. Good speakers, like those mentioned above, can produce all that is needed. If they're not in budget (and ones in that quality range aren't for many people), perhaps a subwoofer is an option. But with a subwoofer it's quite easy to produce a bass heavy sound that, while enjoyable, isn't accurate in the sonic fidelity sense.
Movies and games are a different story entirely, as are other musical genre's.
I'm 38, but I got into cd's in 1984. I never liked cassettes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Chaz, the OP.
If playing time is a concern and you want to avoid doing a 2-disc release I would really recommend looking into the Dual-Layer SACD option. It means discarding the Red Book layer instead of the DSD stereo mix.
I realise that of course this will limit the market potential of the release, and that asking people here will give a very biased answer since all of us probably use SACD players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livy said:
It's always the unknown that gets you in conversations like these.
If you've never heard a speaker like B & O or something in that area, you might well think that a subwoofer is essential for "good" bass response. Likewise, if you haven't listened to much live classical music, you might have a narrow idea of what "good" bass actually is. There's a great difference between what people believe sounds "good" and an accurate sonic reproduction of a performance.
In the late 60's, Columbia Records used to put a mono bass track onto their stereo records - these were known at the time as "Dynagrove" recordings, I believe. People thought they sounded great - they provided a nice, "warm", bottom end to the recording even on the least expensive stereo turntable systems. But how many people knew that they were listening to a juiced up bassy sound? Not many. How many times, in the late 80's and early 90's, did we read reviews of CD reissues of these performances (The Bernstein Royal Edition comes to mind) where the reviewer would comment, "Ah, but I miss the warm sound of the LP". The truth is that that warm sound was never really there, it was a production "insert".
Likewise with subwoofers and music. Not much in classical music hits the subwoofer level if you're EQ'ing flat. Good speakers, like those mentioned above, can produce all that is needed. If they're not in budget (and ones in that quality range aren't for many people), perhaps a subwoofer is an option. But with a subwoofer it's quite easy to produce a bass heavy sound that, while enjoyable, isn't accurate in the sonic fidelity sense.
Movies and games are a different story entirely, as are other musical genre's.
I'm 38, but I got into cd's in 1984. I never liked cassettes.
I agree entirely. As I said, very few speakers negate the benefit of a subwoofer to accurately reproduce low frequencies and free up the speaker's power for mid-range reproduction.
I agree about your statement about people mistaking a warm sound for a good sound. Fore example, usign Audyssey, I got what I felt was an accurate soundign musical stage. However, as I listen to a lot of bass-heavy music, I felt that I wanted some more oomph. So I cranked up teh subwoofer volume level jsut a touch. THsi satisfied my desire for low-end grunt in the more over-produced music, and yet the classical SACD's that I have remained unchanged (more or less).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livy said:
In the late 60's, Columbia Records used to put a mono bass track onto their stereo records - these were known at the time as "Dynagrove" recordings, I believe. People thought they sounded great - they provided a nice, "warm", bottom end to the recording even on the least expensive stereo turntable systems.
Dynagroove was a trade mark of RCA Victor. It's awfully hard to envision how a mono track could be placed in addition to the stereo tracks, or how a standard phono cartridge could track it and where it would be delivered - so maybe both stereo tracks had this additional bass channel mixed in? But whatever, it surely wasn't Dynagroove if it was Columbia.... on the other hand maybe it was RCA Victor? Their Dynagroove recordings were velocity limited in the high and probably low frequencies to avoid mistracking with cheap cartridges, thus bringing to an end the fabulous Living Stereo series. Its interesting how business decisions that seemed right to the decision maker at the time can, on hindsight have turned around to bite the company in the butt!
|
|
|
Post by Livy December 5, 2007 (109 of 113)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Dynagroove was a trade mark of RCA Victor. It's awfully hard to envision how a mono track could be placed in addition to the stereo tracks, or how a standard phono cartridge could track it and where it would be delivered - so maybe both stereo tracks had this additional bass channel mixed in? But whatever, it surely wasn't Dynagroove if it was Columbia.... on the other hand maybe it was RCA Victor? Their Dynagroove recordings were velocity limited in the high and probably low frequencies to avoid mistracking with cheap cartridges, thus bringing to an end the fabulous Living Stereo series. Its interesting how business decisions that seemed right to the decision maker at the time can, on hindsight have turned around to bite the company in the butt!
I stand corrected; it may well have been RCA. I don't know for certain. I'm pretty sure that whatever they called it, Columbia did something similar. Dynagrove is not something I personally remember, other than seeing it on old records belonging to my father after I got into audio recordings, etc.
My understanding (which is also imprecise as I only remember reading this somewhere once) is that the mono track was actually on the bottom of the grove on the record (sorry to have to describe this, but I can't draw it). If the needle used both of its sides to pick up each stereo track, the mono (Dynagrove) track was placed deeper in the middle of the two, so it was picked up by both.
To this day, my mother (who presumably provided the genetic source code for my own ears) still listens to music only after turning the bass knob about 75% of the way to maximum and the treble to about the 45% mark, and concluding with an authoritative pronouncement along the lines of "I just don't like that 'tinny' sound for my music...", which could be anything from ol' blue eyes to something more recent from country/western. Terrible, just terrible.
Yes, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
|
|
|
Post by dbmay75 December 7, 2007 (110 of 113)
|
|
Personally, I have yet to be blown away by a stereo-only SACD. Perhaps I'm missing something because I'm on a budget and my equipment isn't made by NASA, or the fact that while I claim to be an audiophile I don't have the ears of a German shepherd, so therefore I settle for purchasing multichannel SACD's only so I can really get something out of it. Is that so wrong? After all, look at how many people bash the SACD of "Thriller" because it was mixed poorly and it only comes in stereo - who at Sony approved this idea?
I recently brought this up regarding the 2004 2-channel DVD-Audio of Alan Parsons "I Robot" which is long out of print and goes on eBay and Amazon for $100 or more. I was debating whether or not to buy the $10 2007 redbook with 5 bonus tracks or wait patiently until I can afford the DVD-A which only features the album ... everyone told me to seek out the DVD-A because the sound is THAT good.
Personally, I believe that quantity is sometimes better than quality if I can get a newly remastered 2-channel redbook CD with 5 extra tracks to deepen my appreciation of Parsons experience in the studio while recording the album, especially if I'm saving $90+ in the process! I can buy a lot of SACD's for $90!
Cheers,
Dan
|
|
